waste assessment - hastings, new zealand...hdc and ncc waste assessment 4 d.10 litter act 1979...

Waste AssessmentHastings District Council and Napier City Council

HDC and NCC Waste Assessment

| 05 | Final

3 July 2017

HDC and NCC W aste Ass essm entHastings Dis trict C ouncil and N apie r City Co uncil


1

Waste Assessment

Project No: IZ038900Document Title: HDC and NCC Waste AssessmentDocument No.: 02Revision: 05 | FinalDate: 3 July 2017Client Name: Hastings District Council and Napier City CouncilClient No: Client ReferenceProject Manager: Gavin SoleAuthor: Gavin SoleFile Name: Y:\AENVW\Projects\AE04853 Waste Futures\Technical (controlled)\6 Waste

Assessment\Waste Assessment\Final\IZ038900-002-NG-RPT-HDC NCC WasteAssessment 2017-Final-05.docxY:\AENVW\Projects\AE04853 Waste Futures\Technical(controlled)\6 Waste Assessment\Waste Assessment\Final\IZ038900-002-NG-RPT-HDCNCC Waste Assessment 2017-Final-05.docx

Jacobs New Zealand Limited

Level 2, Wynn Williams Building47 Hereford StreetChristchurch CentralPO Box 1147, Christchurch 8140New ZealandT +64 3 940 4900F +64 3 940 4901www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2017 Jacobs New Zealand Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use orcopying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, theprovisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or relianceupon, this document by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

A 12 Dec 2016 Draft for Internal Review A Grose G Sole C Hughes

01 19 Dec 2016 Draft for Client Review A Grose G Sole C Hughes

02 7 Feb 2017 Additions from Client Review G Sole L Moody D Whitty

03 13 Mar 2017 Additions from Client Review G Sole L Moody D Whitty

04 20 March 2017 Final G Sole L Moody D Whitty

05 3 July 2017 Changes from Peer Review by Morrison Lowe G Sole L Moody D Whitty


2

ContentsExecutive Summary .........................................................................................................................................11. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 111.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 111.2 Requirements of a Waste Assessment ................................................................................................. 112. Waste Futures Project ....................................................................................................................... 123. Legislative Context ............................................................................................................................ 153.1 Waste Minimisation Act 2008 ............................................................................................................... 153.2 Climate Change Response Act 2002 .................................................................................................... 163.3 New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010 ...................................................................................................... 173.4 Health and Safety................................................................................................................................. 173.5 Other Legislation .................................................................................................................................. 184. Planning Context................................................................................................................................ 194.1 Planning Period .................................................................................................................................... 194.2 Annual and Long Term Plans ............................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 NCC Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025 ....................................................................................................... 19

4.2.2 HDC Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025 ....................................................................................................... 194.3 NCC/HDC Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan ................................................................. 204.4 Relevant Bylaws .................................................................................................................................. 20

4.4.1 NCC Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 .............................................................................................................. 20

4.4.2 HDC Refuse Bylaw 2008 ...................................................................................................................... 21

4.4.3 HDC Consolidated Bylaw ..................................................................................................................... 21

4.4.4 HDC Nuisances Bylaw 2008................................................................................................................. 214.5 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) ................................................................................................ 21

4.5.1 HBRC Environmental Issues ................................................................................................................ 21

4.5.2 Regional Resource Management ......................................................................................................... 21

4.5.3 Hazardous Waste Collection ................................................................................................................ 225. The Waste Situation ........................................................................................................................... 235.1 Waste services and infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 23

5.1.1 Household kerbside collection .............................................................................................................. 26

5.1.2 Drop-off facilities .................................................................................................................................. 26

5.1.3 Location of Main Transfer Stations ....................................................................................................... 27

5.1.4 Council Clean-ups and Litter Management ........................................................................................... 28

5.1.5 Recovery ............................................................................................................................................. 29

5.1.6 Organic Waste Recovery Services ....................................................................................................... 29

5.1.7 Disposal ............................................................................................................................................... 30

5.1.8 Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste ................................................................................................. 30

5.1.9 Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste ............................................................................................ 305.2 Education ............................................................................................................................................. 31

5.2.1 HDC Waste Education ......................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.2 NCC Waste Education ......................................................................................................................... 31


3

6. Waste and Diverted Material Information .......................................................................................... 326.1 Waste to Landfill .................................................................................................................................. 32

6.1.1 Waste per Capita ................................................................................................................................. 33

6.1.2 Landfill Charges ................................................................................................................................... 336.2 Diverted Material .................................................................................................................................. 346.3 Market share of kerbside refuse market ................................................................................................ 367. Waste Composition ............................................................................................................................ 387.1 Napier City Council .............................................................................................................................. 387.2 Hastings District Council....................................................................................................................... 427.3 Private MGB kerbside Collection .......................................................................................................... 467.4 Waste to Omarunui Landfill .................................................................................................................. 468. Forecasting Future Demands ............................................................................................................ 498.1 Forecast Growth .................................................................................................................................. 498.2 Community satisfaction for waste services ........................................................................................... 518.3 Forecast Total Waste Arisings .............................................................................................................. 529. Meeting Forecasted Demand ............................................................................................................. 559.1 Options for Kerbside Collections........................................................................................................... 56

9.1.1 Organics Collection .............................................................................................................................. 57

9.1.2 Refuse Collection ................................................................................................................................. 59

9.1.3 Recycling Collection ............................................................................................................................. 609.2 Solid Waste Bylaws .............................................................................................................................. 609.3 Health and Safety................................................................................................................................. 619.4 Inorganic collections ............................................................................................................................. 619.5 Resilience ............................................................................................................................................ 619.6 Education ............................................................................................................................................. 619.7 Statement of Intended Role .................................................................................................................. 6210. Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................................ 63

Appendix A. GlossaryAppendix B. Historical Waste to Landfill DataAppendix C. 2012 WMMP Policies and MethodsAppendix D. LegislationD.1 Resource Management ActD.2 National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES)D.3 The Local Government Act 2002D.4 Health Act 1956D.5 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992D.6 The Building Act 1991D.7 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act)D.8 Access Codes and Building Code – Solid Waste (Clause G15)D.9 Public Works Act


4

D.10 Litter Act 1979Appendix E. MfE ETS FactsheetAppendix F. Waste Futures - Indicative Business Case- Options EvaluationF.1 Evaluation frameworkF.2 Options Considered

F.2.1 Collections

F.2.2 Processing/Disposal

F.2.3 Combined OptionsF.3 Long-list evaluation

F.3.1 Scenario Modelling

F.3.2 Cost Uncertainty

F.3.3 Critical Success Factor Assessment

F.3.4 Next stepsF.4 Short-listed options

F.4.1 Details of shortlisted optionsF.5 Conclusions and next steps


1

Executive SummaryNapier City Council (NCC) and Hastings District Council (HDC) are reviewing their current joint WasteManagement and Minimisation Plan 2012 (it is a statuary requirement that this is reviewed by 1 July 2018). Theupdate of the Waste Assessment forms part of that review.

The purpose of this Waste Assessment is to assess the current situation, forecast future demands for wastemanagement and minimisation services in Napier City and Hasting District, and to provide a statement of eachCouncil’s role in meeting these demands. The Waste Assessment assists NCC and HDC with their statutoryresponsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within each district.

Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012

The Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WWMP) was prepared by HDC and NCC in 2012 with thefollowing outcomes:

· Vision - To maximise resource recovery from the waste stream and reduce reliance on landfill disposalthrough convenient, effective and efficient waste services.

· Goals and Guiding Principles - To provide effective and efficient waste management and minimisationservices to Hawke’s Bay residents while meeting the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008(WMA) and the principles of the New Zealand Waste Strategy; to reduce environmental harm and improveresource efficiency. Targets and objectives to achieve this goal will be developed through the WMMPprocess and adopted by each Council.

This document also had a list of objectives, policies and methods to meet the outcomes of the WMMP. Theobjectives were as follows:

· Objective 1: Ensure services are available for the effective and affordable collection, processing andmarketing or beneficial use of diverted material;

· Objective 2: Improve the opportunity for avoiding or reducing waste at source; and

· Objective 3: Improve the quality of diverted material where cost effective.

2015-2025 Long Term Plans

Both Councils have identified key waste targets in their 2015-2025 Long Term Plans (LTP). For NCC the maingoals are:

· To provide effective and efficient systems for the collection and disposal of solid waste; and

· To minimise the quantity and toxicity of waste being generated and disposed of in order to minimiseadverse environmental, cultural, social and economic effects of solid waste disposal through the provision ofaffordable services to all Napier residents.

As a priority area, the HDC LTP places an emphasis on future waste disposal options and shared services withother councils. The HDC LTP lists the waste management and minimisation plan as being one of the Council’skey matters, and outlines the options for dealing with waste in the region, being:

· In the “safe, healthy and liveable communities” work stream, HDC lists one of its targets as being “acommunity that wastes less”.

Key actions include introducing a joint kerbside refuse collection with NCC (now in place) and maximising gasextraction from the Omarunui Landfill (new system implemented). Extending the life of the Omarunui Landfill isalso highlighted as a key challenge for HDC, with capital expenditure set aside for landfill redevelopment overthe 10 year period.


2

Waste Futures Project

NCC and HDC have completed a solid waste strategy project called Waste Futures. This was a comprehensiveproject that looked at the current waste situation, completion of an Indicative Business Case and then a DetailedEconomic Business Case. 35 options were initially investigated which were evaluated and a short list producedof 4 options. These options were:

· Option A. Completion of a new Landfill Cell (Valley C) at the Omarunui Landfill with a new kerbsidecollection that includes refuse, recycling and organic material.

· Option B(i). Completion of a Commercial Landfill that is completed in 2020 that accepts commercial wasteonly.

· Option C(iii). Using a Mechanical and Biological Treatment to process the general waste. This technologysorts the waste material into more usable waste streams that can be processed into other uses

· Option D(ii). Using gasification technology to thermally treat the waste material to recover the energy fromit. This process can produce electricity or stream which can be beneficially used by other industrialprocesses.

The Detailed Business Case - Economic Case report looked at the short list options in more detail to evaluatetheir economic, social, cultural and environmental impact. The evaluation consisted of sensitivity testing, whichlooked at commercial and economic factors that could affect the short listed options. The critical elements forcost were the cost per household and the impact on the diversion of material from landfill.

Option A proved to the most economical and has the potential to increase diversion from landfill.

Waste Services

The current waste management configuration across the two centres is made up of a number of discrete andinterconnected components. The system includes the following council owned waste management services:

· Kerbside collection for household and commercial (CBD areas only) residual waste;

· Kerbside collection for household recyclables;

· Three primary refuse transfer stations for residual waste, recyclables, green waste and special waste drop-offs (Henderson Road and Blackbridge under HDC jurisdiction, and Redclyffe under NCC);

· Omarunui Landfill for all solid waste disposal across the Councils: and

· Five dedicated recycling centres across the Hastings District servicing the areas of Havelock North,Waimarama, Poukawa, Pukehamoamoa, and Tutira.

There are also a number of privately-owned services that are offered to the community. These include:

· Waste Management NZ Limited, which offers kerbside collections and drop-off facilities for households andbusiness recyclables;

· Oji Fibre

· Hawk Packaging - commercial cardboard recycling:

· Middle Road Cleanfill, which provides disposal services for Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste;

· BioRich composting green waste and other organic waste streams. BioRich have recently opened theirprocessing site to the public, with gate fees similar to HDC and NCC (this opened in January 2016);

· PanPac Forest Products utilising green waste as biofuel; and

· Other privately owned kerbside collection and drop-off services for waste and recyclables and green wastein both centres.

Waste and Diverted Material InformationThe tonnages of waste material historically disposed of at Omarunui Landfill are shown graphically in Figure 1below.


3

Figure 1 : Disposal at Omarunui Landfill

The data shown in Figure 1 above indicates that the annual tonnage disposed of at Omarunui Landfill hassteadily increased between 1989/90 and 2004/05 where it peaked and began declining before levelling off at2011/2012.

A breakdown of Hastings and Napier diverted material as a percentage of household arisings in each councilarea is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below. It is not possible to calculate the diverted material rates againstthe total arisings for each Council area as the total amounts of material recovered by the commercial andindustrial sectors are currently unknown.

There is currently no obligation under the existing solid waste bylaws for commercial operators to provide refuseor recycling information to Councils. It is recommended that both Solid Waste Bylaws be amended so that theoperators are licensed through an amended Solid Waste Bylaw and this information obtained for refuse,recycling and green waste material.

Figure 2 : HDC Percentage of Diverted Material


4

Figure 3 : NCC Percentage of Diverted Material

Diversion rates have continued to rise both in Hastings and Napier. For the 2015/16 financial year forhousehold waste, Hastings achieved a recycling diversion rate of 30.8% and a green waste diversion of 12.9%.For household waste for Napier, the recycling diversion is 18% and 10.7% for green waste for the same year.

These figures do not take into consideration material diverted through home composting or reuse facilities. Italso does not include commercial or private waste operators’ diversion, as this data is unobtainable withouthaving regulation in place through a Solid Waste Bylaw that enables Councils to capture this information.

Market Share

An important part of the ability for any council to influence what happens with regards to waste managementand minimisation is how much market share they have. Shown in Table 1 below is an estimate of the marketshare for both Councils based on transfer station data and the Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) data from2016.

Table 1 : Market share across both Councils for Kerbside Refuse Collection

Collection AgentHastings Napier

Tonnes/week % of total Tonnes/week % of totalCouncil kerbside refuse bagcollection 40 13% 139 51%

Private Kerbside Refuse WheelieBin 278 87% 134 49%

Total 318 100% 273 100%

The table above demonstrates that HDC has a far lower share of the kerbside refuse market than NCC. This isalso reflected in the private kerbside collection market share for the two Councils, where there is a significantprivate wheelie bin collection in Hastings compared to Napier.


5

Waste Composition

SWAP audits have been undertaken over the last 9 years. A comparison of the 2016 data is shown graphicallyin Figure 4 below for Hastings and Napier household kerbside collections. Audits for both Councils indicatedthat putrescibles (organic material) make up the largest portion of kerbside collected waste material going tolandfill.

Figure 4 : SWAP Data for Domestic Household Waste for 2016

The 2016 SWAP results for Henderson Road (HDC) and Redclyffe (NCC) Refuse Transfer Stations are shownin Figure 5. The figures show very similar trends for both transfer stations. The Henderson Road refuseTransfer Station has improved from 41% compostable materials in 2012, to 23% in 2016

Figure 5 : Redclyffe and Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station 2016 SWAP Results


6

Forecasting Future Demands

The populations of NCC and HDC are growing slowly (about 0.5%/year); this is shown in Table 2 below. Thisinformation has been based on trends produced as part of each Council’s LTP. There may be some driversfrom external regional factors that could promote population growth that need to be considered (such as peoplerelocating to the region for work or for retirement).

Table 2 : Population Projections for both Councils

Territorialauthority area

Population at 30 June Change2006–312006 2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

HDC Population 70,842 73,245 74,012 75,289 76,567 77,845 7,003

NCC Population 55,359 57,240 59,150 60,400 61,448 62,500 7,141

Totals 126,201 130,485 133,162 135,689 138,015 140,345 14,144

Forecast Total Waste Arisings

The forecasted Total Waste to Landfill and Council (both Hastings and Napier) collected green waste andrecycling from 2008-2029 is shown in Figure 6 below. The forecasted projections are based on current rates ofrefuse collection and disposal, diversion of materials and predicted population growth rates.

Figure 6 : Forecasted Total Waste Arisings

The projected volumes above do not take into account any change in collection method or service. If bothCouncils were able to increase diversion of green waste and recyclables this would have an impact in thelandfill space required, and therefore could lead to defer the capital expenditure required for a new cell at theOmarunui landfill.

If the Councils were able to increase diversion of material through enhanced services, there can be significantdecreases in waste sent to landfill. As an example, if the amount of landfill material diverted increased at 1%


7

per year from 2016/17 by 2029 there would be 10,000 tonnes less a year going to landfill compared to thestatus quo.

Meeting Forecasted Demand

To meet the forecast demand of population growth and increase in waste materials, any option consideredneeds to take into account:

· Providing the Level of Service as identified in LTPs;

· Meeting the needs and requirements of the ratepayers;

· Funding of any option is equitable and provides a service that is available to all sections of the community;

· Meeting statutory obligations for both Councils;

· Provides long term intergenerational benefits; and

· Is measureable.

Based on the current performance for diversion of materials from landfill there are opportunities to improveperformance of the collection system (kerbside and transfer station network). This could be achieved by acombination of the following:

· Improving performance of kerbside recycling (increased capture of materials from existing system users,new system users). This could be through common communications between Councils and commercialcollectors e.g. shared advertisements that have common themes about what can and cannot be collected.From the recent waste surveys certain locations could be targeted that have low set out rates for recyclingservices;

· Reviewing the effectiveness of current kerbside collection and considering alternative collectionmethodologies;

· Adopting a stronger regulatory approach which could involve the licensing of all waste operators;

· Targeting household organics via existing commercial collection providers;

· Community based projects around ways to reduce food waste, budgeting for food purchases, householdcomposting initiatives;

· Targeting the capture of recoverable materials (recycling, composting, bioenergy) in collected Commercialand Industrial (C&I) and Commercial and Demolition (C&D) waste; and

· Targeting increased diversion of materials at transfer stations (Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), C&I andC&D).

From the Waste Futures Project, Option A (Completion of a new Landfill Cell (Valley C) at the Omarunui Landfillwith a new kerbside collection that includes refuse, recycling and organic material proved to the mosteconomical and has the potential to increase diversion from landfill.

Based on the discussions with both Councils, the preferred option involves:

· Optimising the kerbside collection systems to maximise the diversion of materials from landfill; and

· Working towards development of additional landfill capacity at the Omarunui Landfill.

It is important to note that while landfill may not be considered to be as environmentally friendly as thermaltreatment, a well-run modern and fully contained landfill with effective leachate management and gascapture/utilisation is considered to be an appropriate technology for the Councils within the current legislativeand economic framework.

There are various options for increasing the diversion of material to meet future demands. By reviewing othercollection methods from other Councils (Timaru and Christchurch) that have been implemented and have aproven performance record with a high customer satisfaction rating the following could be investigated:


8

· Providing a kerbside collection service for refuse and organics;

· Changing the recycling kerbside collection for Napier to be the same as Hastings i.e. both are weeklycollections; and

· Approaching green waste service providers to determine potential partners for the collection and/orprocessing of organic material.

Key learnings from both Councils from this process are that:

· Extensive consultation is required to understand what the public want and also to educate them aboutalternatives to the current status and the reasons for change;

· Robust systems are needed e.g. composting in place with proven track records;

· Plenty of time is to be allowed for the implementation of any new process or Contract/s;

· Potential end markets and/or industries that could use processed material ned to be identified;

· Organic collections can become contaminated from chemicals such as arsenic (from burning treated timber)and spray residues;

· Ensuring the size of the wheelie bins is the correct size to deliver the correct service level and aligns withboth Councils’ goals for diversion; and

· Frequency of collection of material is also critical.

Solid Waste Bylaw

The Bylaw that NCC and HDC have are quite different and need to be reviewed and updated to be the samedocument. This will help both Councils understand more of the waste movements within their own district. Thisupdate would include licensing of some or all of waste operators and provide both Councils with greaterunderstanding of waste management and minimisation in tier respective districts.

Health and Safety

With legislative changes that have occurred in 2015, both Councils need to be aware of the risks associatedwith waste management and minimisation. A 2016 Statistics NZ media release on injury statistics for workrelated claims for 2015 indicated that elementary workers (this includes rubbish collectors) had the highest rateof injury in 2015 (238 claims per 1,000 full time equivalents). For rubbish collection, this relates to the manuallifting and injuries caused by rubbish bags e.g. needle stick injuries, cuts and lacerations from sharps, andstrains and sprains from the repetitive nature of lifting rubbish bags.

Considering both NCC and HDC have collection services that are reliant on manual handling of both waste andrecycling, the collection methodologies will need to be investigated to reduce the risk of injury. Both Councilsneed to review their Health and Safety plans and their Contractor’s Health and Safety Plans to makes sure thatthey are both aligned and up to date with current legislation.

Resilience

Recent and historical earthquakes events for New Zealand have highlighted the importance of waste serviceswhen natural disasters occur. As part of Civil Defence Emergency planning, it is recommended that a strategyis developed for provision of waste services for natural disasters. In particular development of a strategy forhow waste can be moved and stored at the Omarunui Landfill while current operations can be maintained.Space at the landfill should be identified for this activity, which also needs to take into consideration allocation ofspace for demolished buildings where lives may have perished.

Recommendations and Actions

The report has listed a number of recommendations and actions going forward for both HDC and NCC for theshort, medium and long term. The actions that are required in the short term are listed in Table 3 below.


9

Table 3 : Actions required in the Short Term for Solid Waste

Item Description Summary Action required

1 Solid WasteBylaws

· Bylaws are not consistent acrossboth Councils.

· Lack ability to license wasteoperators, this means informationregarding waste material is notfully available and understood inthe region.

· Both Councils have limited controlor the ability to influenceoperations of private wasteoperators with regards to wastemanagement and minimisation.

· Review and update both Bylawsand include ability to license wasteoperators.

· Review levels of control required forwaste operators.

· Investigate ability to influence wastemanagement and minimisationpractices of private operators.

2 Education andCommunication

· Education and communication withthe community is very importantaround waste management andminimisation activities.

· Key to achieving wastemanagement and minimisationtargets.

· Development of an education andcommunication strategy identifyinghow both Councils will engage withtheir respective communities aroundsolid waste education andminimisation targets.

· Strategy to include publicconsultation around possiblechanges in service levels orcollection methodology.

3 OrganicsKerbsideCollection

· Biggest percentage of materialgoing to landfill from kerbsidecollections.

· Biggest opportunity for wastereduction.

· Preliminary analysis of options forthe installation of an organickerbside collection. Use theoutcomes from the preliminaryoptions analysis to inform the SolidWaste consultation document.

4 Refuse KerbsideCollection

· Difference in cost structurebetween Councils needs to beaddressed. Need cost parity.

· Both Councils losing market shareto private collectors.

· Private collector’s MGBs have75% organic material, hence notcontributing to waste minimisationobjectives.

· Should both Councils keep usingbags for refuse collection or moveto MGBs. Comes from uniformityin collection and also H&Sconsiderations.

· Review cost structure for bothCouncils. Determine if bothCouncils can have the same coststructure for refuse kerbsidecollection.

· Review H&S implications fromcontinuing with kerbside bagscollections.

· Consider advantages anddisadvantages of moving tokerbside MBG collection.

5 Health andSafety

· Changes in H&S legislation in2016 have implication on Councilsfor waste collection in particularbag collections (sharps, cuts andabrasions, repetitive strain etc.).

· Review H&S implications fromcurrent operations (kerbside andtransfer station). Ties in with reviewof refuse and recycling collectionmethodologies.


10


11

1. Introduction1.1 Purpose

Napier City Council (NCC) and Hastings District Council (HDC) are required to review their current joint WasteManagement and Minimisation Plan 2012 by 1 July 2018. The update of the Waste Assessment forms part ofthat review. The work completed here also includes work both Councils have completed through the WasteFutures Project, which is a 25 year waste strategy. The Waste Futures Project was based on the New ZealandBetter Business Case framework with the outcome being a detailed business case comparing various solidwaste disposal, recovery and treatment options.

1.2 Requirements of a Waste Assessment

The WMA requires a waste assessment to include the following:

1. A waste assessment must contain –a. A description of the collection, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal services provided

within the territorial authority’s district (whether by the territorial authority or otherwise); andb. A forecast of future demands for collection, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal

services within the district; andc. A statement of options available to meet the forecast demands of the district with an

assessment of the suitability of each option; andd. A statement of the territorial authority’s intended role in meeting the forecast demands; ande. A statement of the territorial authority’s proposals for meeting the forecast demands, including

proposals for new or replacement infrastructure; andf. A statement about the extent to which the proposals will –

i. Ensure that public health is adequately protected:ii. Promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation.

2. An assessment is not required to contain any assessment in relation to individual properties.

3. Information is required for an assessment to the extent that the territorial authority considersappropriate, having regard to –

a. The significance of the information; andb. The costs of, and difficulty in, obtaining the information; andc. The extent of the territorial authority’s resources; andd. The possibility that the territorial authority may be directed under the Health Act 1956 to provide

the services referred to in that Act.

4. However, an assessment must indicate whether and, if so, to what extent, the matters referred to insubsection (3) (b) and (c) have impacted materially on the completeness of the assessment.

5. In making an assessment, the territorial authority must –a. Use its best endeavours to make a full and balanced assessment; andb. Consult the Medical Officer of Health.

Generally, these provisions were contained in the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 s127 and s128.

The waste assessment provisions go further by expanding the assessment to all waste and waste minimisationservices, whether provided by Council or otherwise.

There are various ways to interpret the requirements of the waste assessment section. Flexibility is allowed interms of the information gathered for the assessment. This flexibility acknowledges that it can be difficult togather the required information.


12

2. Waste Futures ProjectThe Hastings District and Napier City Council’s jointly own the Omarunui Landfill with the currently consentedarea projected to be full by 2025 at current rates of disposal. In order to expand the Omarunui Landfill operationinto the adjoining valleys, a significant investment will be required. Prior to committing to expand the landfill, theCouncils together reviewed the strategic options over a 25 year period available to manage solid waste. Theoverarching project is known as Waste Futures.

The Councils are sought an integrated, systems level approach to waste management and resource recoverythat:

· Ensures the efficient and economic recovery, re-use and recycling of resources;

· Extracts the maximum amount of potential value from residual waste streams;

· Minimises potential future liabilities from waste disposal;

· Is consistent with the overarching goal of maintaining Hawke’s Bay’s competitive position as a major foodproduction centre of New Zealand.

The business case was developed in the following stages:

· A summary of the current situation in terms of population, waste services and disposal, waste compositionand commercial waste. This was called the Baseline Report.

· A recommended shortlist for detailed consideration (The Indicative Business Case - Economic Case).This looked at options that would meet the requirements of the Councils over a long term, and consideredthe status quo, an improved kerbside collection service with an extension to the landfill, and also emergingtechnologies for waste reduction. A long list of options (35) was evaluated using a multi-criteria analysis todeliver a short list of options (this evaluation is in more detail in Appendix F). These short listed optionswere:

- Option A. Valley C. Completion of a new Landfill Cell (Valley C) with a new kerbside collection thatincludes refuse, recycling and organic material.

- Option B(i). Completion of a Commercial Landfill that is completed in 2020 that accepts commercialwaste only.

- Option C(iii). Using a Mechanical and Biological Treatment to process the general waste. Thistechnology sorts the waste material into more usable waste streams that can be processed into otheruses

- Option D(ii). Using gasification technology to burn the waste material to recover the energy from it.This process can produce electricity or stream which can be beneficially used by other industrialprocesses.

The Detailed Business Case - Economic Case looked at the short list options in more detail to evaluate theireconomic, social, cultural and environmental impact. The evaluation consisted of sensitivity testing, whichlooked at commercial and economic factors that could affect the short listed options. The critical elements forcost were the cost per household and the impact on the diversion of material from landfill.

The ability to divert material from landfill is critical, as this can significantly extend the life of the landfill andreduce future generational costs.

Figure 2.1 below illustrates the diversion performance of the four options for diversion against cost.


13

Figure 2.1: Waste Futures – Summary of Performance versus Cost

While Gasification performs very well for diversion the capital cost is very high compared to the other options.This is illustrated further when the total cost per household for each option is evaluated. This is shown in Figure2.2 below

.

Figure 2.2: Waste Futures – Cost per Household for Options


14

Based on the current performance of the collection system there are opportunities for improvements to be madeto the collection system (kerbside and transfer station network). This could be achieved by a combination of:

· Improving performance of kerbside recycling (increased capture of materials from existing system users,new system users). This could be through common communications between Councils and commercialcollectors e.g. shared advertisements that have common themes about what can and cannot be collected.From the recent waste surveys certain locations could be targeted that have low set out rates for recyclingservices;

· Targeting household organics via existing commercial collection providers;


· Targeting the capture of recoverable materials (recycling, composting, bioenergy) in collected C&I andC&D; and

· Targeting increased diversion of materials at transfer stations (MSW, C&I and C&D).

Based on the discussion above the preferred option involved:

· Optimising the collection system to maximise the diversion of materials from landfill; and



Future considerations for waste reduction should be included as the project progresses, as technology canchange rapidly and as can the viability. A relevant New Zealand project is the construction of a commercial andindustrial sorting facility being built by Marlborough District Council (construction starting in February 2016). It isrecommended that this project is followed closely in terms of actual build costs and diversion rates achieved. Ifsuccessful it should be considered and assessed for it application for Hastings and Napier Councils.

The Economic Case identified the next steps for this project to be:

· Completing a review the pricing structure across both Councils for kerbside collection services and transferstations;

· Agreement by both Councils on strategy for implementation (dates and actions) for the landfill and kerbsidecollection;

· Preparation of resource consent applications for the landfill;

· Preparation of a public consultation document. This will include information on both the consenting of thelandfill and changes to the kerbside collections for both Council. The consultation document will be basedon other New Zealand Council’s consultation experience for implementation of a new kerbside collectionservice and international experience e.g. DEFRA.; and

· Review of common documents and contracts for the two Councils. This include items such as:

o Bylaws;

o Current kerbside collection contracts;

o Solid Waste Bylaw e.g. KPIs for waste minimisation; and

o Waste Education.


15

3. Legislative ContextThe legal and strategic context waste in Hawkes Bay consists of a combination of legislative instruments,national and local waste strategies and management plans, and industry guidelines and standards, as outlinedin Figure 3.1. The following section provides a brief overview of the legal and strategic context for wastemanagement in Napier and Hastings.

Figure 3.1: Waste Management Framework in NZ1

3.1 Waste Minimisation Act 2008

The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) was passed in September 2008 and encourages a reduction in theamount of waste generated and disposed of in New Zealand in order to:

1) Protect the environment from harm; and

2) Provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits

The Act2:

· Puts a levy on all waste disposed of in landfills to generate funding to help local government, communitiesand businesses reduce the amount of waste;

· Puts an onus on producers, brand owners, importers, retailers, consumers and other parties to takeresponsibility for the environmental effects of their products through product stewardship schemes;

· Allows for mandatory reporting requirements on waste to be put in place to improve information on wasteminimisation;

· Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of territorial authorities with respect to waste minimisation; and

1 New Zealand Waste Strategy 20102 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/waste-minimisation.html


16

· Introduces a Waste Advisory Board to give independent advice to the Minister for the Environment onwaste minimisation issues.

The WMA also states that a Territorial Authority (TA) must promote effective and efficient waste managementand minimisation within its district. It states that each TA must:

· Have completed a review of its waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP) by 1 July 2018(s50(1));

· Make a waste assessment before conducting the review (s50(2);

· Have completed a review of its waste bylaw by 1 July 2012 (s58(2)); and

· Either prepare a new or modified WMMP or, if it is decided to continue with an existing WMMP notify theresults of the review using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP).

The WMA also requires that WMMPs have regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy, or any governmentpolicy on waste management and minimisation that replaces the Waste Strategy.

NCC and HDC currently have a joint WMMP that has been adopted under the Local Government Act (LGA).Under the WMA this plan is deemed to be a WMMP and is subject to review by 1 July 2018. The wasteassessment (WA) forms part of this review.

3.2 Climate Change Response Act 2002

The Climate Change Response Act 2002, Climate Change (Waste) Regulations 2010 and Amendments to theClimate Change (Unique Emissions Factors) Regulations will be implemented through the New ZealandEmission Trading Scheme (NZ ETS).

The NZ ETS is part of the Government's response to climate change and requires those emitting greenhousegases to pay for increases in emissions, whilst rewarding emission reductions. The waste sector is affected bythe ETS, as those who operate landfills are required to participate in the scheme and report emissions.

Emissions from operating a municipal landfill will face NZ ETS obligations from 1 January 2013 and the cost ofemission units is expected to be passed on to customers of landfills through increased prices for waste disposal(from 2013) and for transport and energy generation (from 2010). Emissions from closed landfills are notcaptured by the NZ ETS.

MfE released a two page fact sheet (Appendix E) in May 2016 regarding recent changes to the ETS that affectthe non-forestry participant’s i.e. liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy, industrial processes and waste sectors.Below in Table 3.1 :is information from a table in the fact sheet indicating changes to the obligations for non-forestry participants (this includes solid waste activities)

Table 3.1 : ETS Obligations for Non-Forestry Participants

2017 2018 2019

2/3 (67%) 1 unit for every1.5 whole tonnes ofCO2-e emissions

5/6 (83%) 1 unit for every1.2 whole tonnes of CO2-e emission

100% 1 unit for everywhole tonne of CO2-eemissions

Both financial departments at HDC and NCC are aware of the change in requirements and have factored this ingoing forward for Long Term Plans.


17

3.3 New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010

The New Zealand Waste Strategy sets the strategic direction for waste management and minimisation in NewZealand. The current Waste Strategy was launched by the Minister in October 2010 and provides a “high leveldirection to guide the use of the tool available to manage and minimise waste in New Zealand”3 .The WasteStrategy’s flexible approach also aims to ensure that waste management and minimisation activities areappropriate for different local situations.

To achieve these aims the Waste Strategy sets the following two goals:

· Goal 1: Reducing the harmful effects of waste ;and

· Goal 2: Improving the efficiency of resource use.

The aims of these two goals are to “provide direction to local government, businesses (including the wasteindustry), and communities on where to focus their efforts in order to deliver environmental, social and economicbenefits to all New Zealanders”3.

The Waste Strategy recognises the responsibility of regional councils to regulate the environmental effects ofwaste facilities through the implementation of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and also, theimportant role regional councils can play in facilitating a collaborative approach amongst TAs towards wasteplanning. Regional councils, such as the Hawkes Bay Regional Council, are responsible for regulating theenvironmental effects of waste disposal facilities by granting and monitoring resource consents for air and waterdischarges, and soil degradation, under the RMA. Territorial authorities, including NCC and HDC, areresponsible for promoting effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their district, inaccordance with the Waste Management and Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA).

The waste industry has a role under the Waste Strategy to increase the range of services available andimplement good practices and codes of practice. Businesses and communities also have a responsibility toimprove resources efficiency in the production and consumption of goods and services and by changingbehaviours at home and work through education programmes.

3.4 Health and Safety

The Health and Safety (H&S) Act was passed by Parliament in 2015 and became law in April 2016. Primarily,compared to the current framework, the new H&S Act will broaden the range of parties who are responsible forhealth and safety in the work place. The new H&S Act introduces the concept of a “person conducting abusiness or undertaking” (PCBU), which extends and clarifies responsibilities beyond employers to principalsand other upstream parties. It also introduces a new duty where more than one person can haveresponsibilities over the same matter, thus broadening the scope of people responsible to consult andcoordinate health and safety activities.

The H&S Act will also replace “all practicable steps” in the current legislation with the qualifier of “so far asreasonably practicable”. The duty of persons (including PCBU’s) under the H&S Act will also move from ahazard-based approach to a risk-based approach – a hazard being any source of potential damage, harm oradverse health effects, while a risk is the chance or probability a person will be harmed if exposed to a hazard.In particular, duty-holders will have a duty to eliminate risk, so far as reasonably practicable and, where notpracticable, minimise those risks. A risk-based approach means there is more of a balancing act aroundidentifying the chance or probability that a person will be harmed.

In practice, the H&S Act will place clearer responsibilities on principles and companies / territorial authoritieswho operate in the waste industry, either directly or through contractors, and require such parties to have amore hands on approach to health and safety. The main responsibilities of all PCBU’s (which will include HDCand NCC) will include:

· Ensuring, as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of employees, contractors and others;

3 Ministry for the Environment (2010) The New Zealand Waste Strategy


18

· Providing and maintaining a safe work environment, adequate facilities, information and training; and

· Monitoring the health and safety of workers and conditions of the work place.

3.5 Other Legislation

Other legislation relevant to waste management and minimisation is:

· National Environmental Standard for Air Quality;

· The Local Government Act 2002;

· Health Act 1956;

· The Building Act 1991;

· The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act);

· Access Codes and Building Code – Solid Waste (Clause G15);

· Public Works Act; and

· Litter Act 1979.

The legislation above needs to be taken into consideration around solid waste activities. Further informationabout each of the legislation above is included in Appendix D.


19

4. Planning Context4.1 Planning Period

The management of waste is a long term issue. In determining a planning period, factors to consider includechanging attitudes to waste and its avoidance, new and planned legislation, duration of service contracts,evolving waste targets, financial investments in waste infrastructure and cost of finance, and changes in socialbehaviour and community needs. The WMA requires that a WMMP be reviewed every six years.

4.2 Annual and Long Term Plans

Local authorities must at all times have a Long Term Plan (LTP) setting the services and activities that will beprovided over the next 10 years at least. The purpose of the LTP is to describe the activities of the localauthority, describe the community outcomes of the local authority's district or region, provide integrateddecision-making and co-ordination of the resources of the local authority and provide a long-term focus for thedecisions and activities of the local authority.

4.2.1 NCC Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025

NCC is required to provide ‘effective and efficient’ waste management services to the Napier Community. Thecontinued provision of waste management services is essential to the health of Napier’s community andmaintaining high environmental standards. The main goals for Solid Waste from the NCC LTP are:


· To minimise the quantity and toxicity of waste being generated and disposed of in order to minimiseadverse environmental, cultural, social and economic effects of solid waste disposal the provision ofaffordable services to all Napier residents.

The NCC LTP contains community outcomes of which waste management and minimisation activities primarilycontribute to the outcome of: “an environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for futuregenerations”. The NCC LTP identifies the following three solid waste issues to be considered as part of anyplanning decisions:

· How to reduce waste being sent to the landfill;

· How to recycle in an efficient and effective way; and

· How to manage the increasing cost of disposing of waste.

The NCC LTP provides a transfer station which is 100% funded by a user pays system. User pays ratesfunding for waste minimisation includes the provision of education programmes, the collection of hazardousmaterials, recycling facilities, and continued provision of a kerbside recycling collection.

NCC provides a kerbside refuse collection service weekly and a kerbside recycling collection service fortnightly.In addition this activity provides a user pays refuse disposal facility at the Transfer Station. NCC activelypromotes waste minimisation activities and responsible solid waste management decisions to divert waste fromthe landfill.

4.2.2 HDC Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025




20

Key actions include introducing a joint kerbside refuse collection with NCC (now in place) and maximising gasextraction from the Omarunui Landfill (new system implemented). Extending the life of the Omarunui Landfill isalso highlighted as a key challenge for the Council, with capital expenditure set aside for landfill redevelopmentover the 10 year period.

4.3 NCC/HDC Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

The Joint WWMP was prepared by HDC and NCC in 2012 with the following outcomes:

· Vision - To maximise resource recovery from the waste stream and reduce reliance on landfill disposalthrough convenient, effective and efficient waste services; and

· Goals and Guiding Principles - To provide effective and efficient waste management and minimisationservices to Hawke’s Bay residents while meeting the requirements of the WMA and the principles of theNZWS; to reduce environmental harm and improve resource efficiency. Targets and objectives to achievethis goal will be developed through the WMMP process and adopted by each Council.

This document also includes a list of objectives, polices and methods to meet the outcomes of the WMMP. Theobjectives were as follows:

· Objective 1: Ensure services are available for the effective and affordable collection, processing andmarketing or beneficial use of diverted material;

· Objective 2: Improve the opportunity for avoiding or reducing waste at source; and

· Objective 3: Improve the quality of diverted material where cost effective.

A list of the policies and methods from the 2012 WMMP are located in Appendix C.

4.4 Relevant Bylaws

The LGA permits the development of local government bylaws. The WMA also permits territorial authorities tomake bylaws regarding waste and waste management. Bylaws address a specific local issue that has not beencovered by national legislation. Bylaws are developed for a range of purposes including conserving publichealth, wellbeing, and safety.

They are used for issues specific to the local community where these aspects are not covered by governmentacts, which are aimed at country wide practices. Where a perceived need for a bylaw arises, Section 155 of theLGA requires every local authority, before making a bylaw, to determine whether a bylaw is the mostappropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

4.4.1 NCC Solid Waste Bylaw 2012

This bylaw regulates waste collection, transportation and disposal and supports waste minimisation in Napier.This is a 16 page description of rules and regulation around waste activities. It sets out details around detailsfor:

· Definition and interpretation;

· Household and recyclable waste;

· Green waste;

· Industrial Waste;

· Hazardous Waste;

· Transportation of Waste;

· Public Litter Bins and Recyclable Waste Collection Bins;

· Waste Management for Special Events;

· Waste Management Facilities;


21

· Offences, and

· Penalties.

The NCC Bylaw refers to Licensed Operators in the Definitions and Interpretations section of the Bylaw, butdoes not have a section in the Bylaw that relates to how an Operator can be licensed or terms and conditionsfor being a Licensed Operator.

A good example on how this can be monitored and enforced is by the Kapiti Coast District Council, which has alist of Licensed Operators that can collect refuse and recycling in the district. As part of being licensed, theOperators are required to supply data to Councils for refuse and recycling collections.

It is recommended that NCC revise their Bylaw to include rules around Licensed Operators.

4.4.2 HDC Refuse Bylaw 2008

The HDC Refuse Bylaw aims to ensure effective and efficient collection of household, hazardous andcommercial refuse in urban areas; protect the general public from refuse creating a nuisance or annoyance;protect refuse collectors by prohibiting hazardous materials in collections; and regulates materials deposited attransfer stations.

4.4.3 HDC Consolidated Bylaw

This has a description of rules and regulations (Section 10.3) related to refuse. It is a very short (2 pages)compared to NCC’s Solid Waste Bylaw. Given the location of the two councils and shared refuse and recyclingcollections, these Bylaws could be shared, which would allow consistency of the description of rules andregulations around waste and prevent confusion near Council boundaries. It is not known if a shared bylaw is inplace for neighbouring Councils within NZ, but some Council that use the same services for landfill andrecycling ensure that their Bylaws are aligned. This ensures that the information presented is consistent andunderstood going from one district to the other e.g. Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri use the samematerials recycling facility, so have the same messages and information about what can and cannot berecycled.

4.4.4 HDC Nuisances Bylaw 2008

This bylaw aims to protect the quality of the environment from nuisances caused by burning, deposit of rubbishand offensive manner, as well as other nuisances.

4.5 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC)

4.5.1 HBRC Environmental Issues

HBRC has historically played an important role in safeguarding the environment throughout the Hawke’s Bayregion. HBRC’s last State of the Environment Report 2009 - 2013 (a five yearly report) identifies a number ofchallenges facing the Region in managing the regions natural resources more efficiently in order to help reducethe impact of the regional and global footprint into the future.

4.5.2 Regional Resource Management

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) manages the environment in the Hawke’s Bay region, whichincludes Napier City and the Hastings District. HBRC’s Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP), whichbecame operative in 2006, sets out the policy framework for managing resource use in the region and includesthe Regional Policy Statement (RPS).


22

In relation to waste management the RRMP sets out a number of key objectives (outlined in Chapter 3) to:

· To avoid or mitigate the nuisance effects arising from conflicting land use activities, especially odour,smoke, dust, noise, vibrations, agrichemical spray drift and increased traffic4;

· To manage and use organic material derived from industry in a manner that does not result in any adverseeffects on humans or the environment5;

· To avoid degradation of groundwater quality6, and the values and uses of rivers, lakes and wetlands inHawke’s Bay7; and

· To sustainably manage physical infrastructure, including landfills and waste management facilities thatunderpins the economic, cultural and social wellbeing of the region’s people and communities, andprovides for their health and safety8.

The RRMP also places increasing emphasis on environmental education and co-ordination as a tool forachieving its functions under the RMA. Under the RRMP discharges from landfills and transfer stations areclassified as a “discretionary” activity and discharges from closed landfills classified as “controlled” activities.

The objectives and policies of the RRMP are reflected in the rules, whereby certain waste management andinfrastructure activities are restricted and require resource consent.

4.5.3 Hazardous Waste Collection

HBRC had funded a hazardous waste collection for rural properties. The collection is now under a Contract(currently with 3R) and a charge may apply for collection of hazardous material. Due to this change in collectionmethodology, HDC has noticed an increase of hazardous material collected through its annual Hazmobileactivity, where rural customers are bringing in hazardous material to HDC hazardous collection points.

Although it is beneficial to have hazardous waste collected and disposed of correctly, the cost to do so needs tobe allocated fairly. As part of the annual Hazmobile collection, HDC could collect information about wherepeople come from and the amount of material dropped off, to understand what portion is urban or rural and thecost to provide this service. This information could be presented to HBRC for discussion about cost sharing forproviding this service.

4 OBJ 16-18, POL 5-85 OBJ 20, POL 11-146 OBJ 21-22, POL 15-227 OBJ 25-27, POL 34-498 OBJ 32-33B, POL 56


23

5. The Waste Situation5.1 Waste services and infrastructure

The current waste management configuration across the two centres is made up of a number of discrete andinterconnected components. The system includes the following council-owned waste management services:

· Kerbside collection for household and commercial (CBD areas only) residual waste;

· Kerbside collection for household recyclables;

· Three primary refuse transfer stations for residual waste, recyclables, green waste and special waste drop-offs (Henderson Road and Blackbridge under HDC jurisdiction, and Redclyffe under NCC);

· Omarunui Landfill for all solid waste disposal across the Councils; and

· Five dedicated recycling centres across the Hastings District servicing the areas of Havelock North,Waimarama, Poukawa, Pukehamoamoa, and Tutira.

There are also a number of privately-owned services that are offered to the community. These include:

· Waste Management NZ Limited offers kerbside collections and drop-off facilities for households andbusiness recyclables;

· Middle Road Cleanfill, which provides disposal services for Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste;

· BioRich composting green waste and other organic waste streams;

· PanPac Forest Products utilising green waste as biofuel; and

· Other privately-owned kerbside collection and drop-off services for waste and recyclables and green wastein both centres.

A graphical description of the services used by both Councils are shown in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 on thefollowing pages.


24

Figure 5.1: HDC Waste Flow Diagram

Litter BinCollections

Public DropOff

Council KerbsideRefuse andRecycling

Collections

CommercialDrop off

Private Kerbside Refuseand Recycling

Collections

Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station

Omarunui Landfill

Recycling ServicesWaste Management

Pan PacOji FibreBioRich

Hawk GroupScrap Metal Recyclers

Others

Reuse Shop

Blackridge Refuse TransferStation

Public DropOff

Martin Place DepotRecycling Only

Public DropOff

WastewaterTreatment Plant -

Screenings

Hazardous Waste CollectionDay

Public Drop off

Hazardous Waste Disposal

Rural Recycling


25

Figure 5.2: NCC Waste Flow Diagram

Public DropOff

Litter BinCollections

CommercialDrop off

Private Kerbside Refuseand Recycling

Collections

Redclyffe Refuse Transfer Station

Recycling ServicesWaste Management

Pan PacOji FibreBioRich

Hawk GroupScrap Metal Recyclers

Others

Council KerbsideRefuse andRecycling

Collections

Omarunui Landfill

WastewaterTreatment Plant -

Screenings

Hazardous Waste CollectionDay

Public Drop off

Hazardous Waste Disposal


26

5.1.1 Household kerbside collection

Both Councils offer a two-stream kerbside collection service for municipal solid waste (MSW), with WasteManagement contracted to provide residual waste collection and Green Sky Waste Solutions Ltd. contracted forrecycling collection. The NCC residential kerbside refuse collection is funded through a targeted uniform annualcharge and householders are required to provide their own black rubbish bags.

HDC operates a user-pays system for residential kerbside refuse collection using an official Council orangerubbish bag. The current recommended retail prices are $2.40 per 60L orange bag and $1.60 per 40L orangebag.

A number of private companies also offer kerbside collections in Napier and Hastings. These collectionsystems use mobile garbage bins (MGB’s) on a user-pays basis. The total number of households serviced byprivate operators is unknown. However, the 2016 Solid Waste Survey (Table 7.6, page 43) outlined that HDCs’kerbside refuse market share by weight is 13%, while NCCs’ market share by weight is 51% (the rest of theshare is with private collectors).

In Napier, almost all kerbside waste (council and privately collected) is taken directly to Omarunui Landfill.Residential recycling is taken to the Green Sky processing centre at Whakatu, where it is processed and thensent on to the relevant markets.

In Hastings, all council collected kerbside waste goes to the Henderson Rd Transfer Station where, again, it isprocessed then sent to the landfill. Privately collected kerbside waste goes to Henderson Rd (e.g. commercialskips: around 40%) or directly to the landfill (i.e. household MGBs, around 60%). Council kerbside collectedrecyclables go to the Green Sky owned sorting facility in Whakatu. Under a separate contract, recyclablescollected through Council owned Green Bin recycling centres go to the Waste Management sorting facility inNapier.

5.1.2 Drop-off facilities

The Councils provide a number of drop-off facilities in the area for residual waste and recyclables. The maintransfer stations are Redclyffe (NCC), Henderson Rd (HDC) and Blackbridge (HDC). Table 5.1 provides anoverview of these transfer stations.

Table 5.1 : Council owned drop-off facilities in Napier and Hastings

Name Accepted materials Charge (incl. GST)

Redclyffe RTS· Residual waste

· Household recycling (temporarilyexcluding plastics)

· Green waste

· Wood waste

· Hazardous waste (paint, oil, gascylinders)

· Scrap metal

· Concrete

· Residual: $192/T

· Green waste & untreated wood:$101/T

Henderson Rd· Residual waste

· Household recycling

· Green waste

· Car batteries

· Residual: $155.25/T

· Green waste: $86.25/T


27

· Scrap metal

· E-waste

· Waste oil

· Clean fill

· Reusable items (for shop)

Blackbridge · Domestic waste only

· Residual waste

· Household recycling

· Green waste

· Waste oil

· Residual: $15-85 (depending onvehicle size)

· Green waste: $10-45 (depending onvehicle size)

Martin PlaceWaimaramaPoukawaPukehamoamoaTutira

· Household recycling · No charge

All green waste collected through both Council services is sent to private operators, either BioRich or Pan Pac,for processing into compost or used as a bio fuel. BioRich recently opened their facility to public drop-off inJanuary 2016.

Waste Management also provides a drop-off facility for recycling in Napier. The public can drop-off plastics,glass, paper, cardboard and cans. NCC contributes to the provision of this service.

Aside from the daily drop-off facilities, the Councils also offer an annual hazardous waste collection day for thecollection of hazardous wastes and chemicals. The Hazmobile is held for one day only in both Napier andHastings allowing householders to dispose of their hazardous wastes safely. Hazardous wastes are then sortedand sent to various processes in the region, nationally and internationally for safe disposal.

5.1.3 Location of Main Transfer Stations

It is important when providing waste services that locations of transfer stations or drop off points are locatednear urban centres so the distance to travel is not prohibitive. Shown in Figure 5.3 are the main transferstations for Hastings (Henderson Road RTS, Blackridge RTS and Martin Place) and for Napier (Redclyffe RTS)


28

Figure 5.3 : Napier and Hastings Refuse Transfer Stations Locations

Figure 5.3 above has concentric red circles radiating at 2 kilometre distances from the Henderson Road RTS.The concentric yellow circles are radiating at 2 kilometre distances from the Redclyffe RTS.

For Hastings, most of the population in the main urban centre is within a 6 kilometre radius of the HendersonRoad RTS. The largest section of population that would have the most distance to travel is Havelock North.There is a drop off recycling station at Havelock North (at Martin Place, shown on the figure above), which isunder current review for location. HDC lease this site, and are considering long term options for what type ofservices are required for Havelock North.

The Blackbridge RTS is also under review. At the moment 10% of total waste material for HDC refuse transferstations comes through this transfer station. This facility serves a small population and a review is required toconsider the long term viability, operational costs and options for this site.

The figure above shows that most of the Napier population lives within 10 kilometres of the Redclyffe RTS. Thisis a larger distance than the main population of Hastings has to travel. It is well placed, being in close proximityto the Omarunui Landfill, and next to the growing population of Taradale.

5.1.4 Council Clean-ups and Litter Management

HDC offer a litter bin collection service within CBD areas and at parks and other public areas with some litterbins accompanied by public place recycling bins. The litter bins are serviced in-house.


29

Both Councils are proactive in addressing illegal dumping and organise a number of community clean ups withvolunteer community groups. Illegal dumping is currently a popular discussion topic with both communities.

5.1.5 Recovery

There are a range of recovery services operating across the two centres for recyclables and green waste,including both Council- and privately- operated services. Recovery services for recyclables include –

· Scrap metal and building recyclers;

· 3R – Agrecovery/Paintwise/Seatsmart;

· Beard’s Environmental Ltd – waste oil disposal services;

· Hawke’s Bay Environment Centre – Ewaste Recycling and other environmental education initiatives;

· Hawk Group Limited – fibre recyclers;

· Oji - fibre recyclers;

· Charity shops; and

· Re-sell shops at RTSs.

Alongside the range of commercial recovery services, HDC and NCC are focusing on a number of recoveryinitiatives in order to actively target diversion rates. These are as follows:

· Street lamp recycling;

· The Love Food Hate Waste initiative;

· Seatsmart (conducted by 3R);

· Hazmobile;

· Napier Annual recycling Day;

· Enviroschools;

· Parekore. This is a programme which targets all marae, working towards zero waste by 2020;

· Paper for Trees;

· Rebound (conducted by 3R);

· E-waste recovery services; and

· Community education.

5.1.6 Organic Waste Recovery Services

The following are green waste recovery services that operate in the Hawkes Bay area:

· Pan Pac processes a portion of green waste that has been dropped off to Redclyffe RTS and largecommercial loads delivered to the site from industry;

· BioRich, which processes organic waste and waste plasterboard, including all green waste that has beendropped off to Henderson Rd RTS. BioRich have installed a public drop off facility on site allowing thecommunity to drop green waste directly to site on a user pays basis; and

· Other private green waste collection services, including Bay Environmental Bins Limited and Clean EarthLimited, Waste Management and JJ Richards. These companies will either use Pan Pac or BioRich toprocess their green waste.

In addition, many food processors in the region deal with their own waste, including Greenmount Foods whohave a bio-digester that is commercially available. At the time of writing the operational status of this facility isunknown.


30

BioRich Limited is an organic waste recycling company. It is located on Waitangi Road, Awatoto. Its mainactivity is processing organic material into compost. BioRich have achieved a BioGro organics certification ofsome of their compost. Their compost is used around the Hawkes Bay and the Bay of Plenty region (a quarterof their product goes to the kiwifruit region in the Bay of Plenty).

They opened their production site for public drop offs in January 2016. The cost for the public drop off is $10 fora car, ute or trailer (the trailer can be any size). For a ute plus trailer the cost is $20. This cost is comparable toother green waste charges around the country (the EcoDrops that operate the Christchurch RTSs charge aminimum $9.60 for green waste for cars and hatchbacks).

BioRich have indicated a willingness to process additional amounts of green waste.

5.1.7 Disposal

Most of the residual waste across the two centres is disposed of at the Omarunui Landfill, which is jointly ownedby NDC and HDC. Only commercial operators can access the landfill, so all waste either comes through thetransfer stations or is dropped off directly by commercial operators. The landfill accepts all MSW, as well ascommercial and industrial (C&I) waste, and special waste, including waste from the tannery, asbestos waste,contaminated soil, organic waste from food processing and bio-solids from the waste water treatment plant.The advertised charge for the Omarunui Landfill is $83/T (including waste levy and emissions trading schemecharges, but excluding GST), with higher charges for special wastes.

Private operators may also dispose waste at other landfills outside of the Hawke’s Bay region. However, thetotal amount of waste disposed of this way is likely to be minimal given the transport involved. Out of the districtwaste is only accepted at Omarunui upon application and in case of emergencies and is priced accordingly.

5.1.8 Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste

C&I waste producers have access to both Council and private operated kerbside collections. HDC and NCCprovide a bagged collection service for commercial waste in the CBD areas only. Private companies operateresidual and recycling kerbside collection services. C&I waste can also be dropped off at the various drop-offfacilities, or taken directly at the Omarunui landfill through private operators.

As well as collection and drop-off facilities, commercial and industrial waste producers (particularly farmers)dispose of their own waste on site often due to logistics and availability of on-site disposal space. Agriculturaloperations are able to utilise their own farm tip in accordance with HBRC rules and regulations.

However the actual amount of waste disposal in private disposal facilities is unknown as this activity is not ableto be monitored through the Solid Waste Bylaw by either Council.

5.1.9 Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste

C&D waste producers have access to privately-operated “one-off” collection or skip services. Middle Roadcleanfill in Hastings is an example of a privately operated waste disposal service for C&D waste, and acceptsprivate drop-offs and transfers from Henderson Road and Blackbridge RTS’s. There is also provision for theacceptance of C&D waste for disposal in a dedicated area at Omarunui Landfill. This is a dedicated cleanfill sitebut is not used at this stage.


31

5.2 Education

5.2.1 HDC Waste Education

HDC provide the following services for education for waste related activities:

· Landfill and Transfer Station Tours – this involves a tour of the Henderson Road Transfer Station and/ orthe Omarunui Landfill.

· School tours – school tours are frequently taken through the Omarunui Landfill, with feedback about thetour being excellent. A landfill tour checklist and risk management sheet is provided as part of the tour.

· Environment centre – this is operated Sustaining Hawkes Bay Trust. The Trust vision is to see a Hawke'sBay community where people are actively engaged with sustainability and environmental matters andwhere sustainable practices are a part of everyone's daily lives. The Trust is supported by the HDC andthe Ministry for the Environment.

· Waste Minimisation courses -these are currently run by Kate Meads (aka the Nappy Lady) who deliverswaste free parenting courses.

5.2.2 NCC Waste Education

NCC runs an environmental education programme called Waste Aware. This programme is aimed at primaryand intermediate aged school children, educating them about waste minimisation and sustainability. Theprogramme's vision is to educate school children and the wider community on how to minimise solid wasteentering the local landfill.

This is achieved by focusing on the following aims:

· Critically assess what we do with our rubbish and gain knowledge about what happens to rubbish in thewider community

· Understand what impacts our rubbish has on the environment (e.g. marine and atmosphere)

· Learn ways in which we can minimise our rubbish that we produce and to create and implement a strategyfor reducing rubbish within the student's environment (i.e. at school and at home).

The Waste Aware programmes encourage students to take up the challenge to minimise solid waste by formingtheir own Waste Aware ACTION at their school or local environment.


32

6. Waste and Diverted Material Information6.1 Waste to LandfillThe tonnages of waste material historically disposed of at Omarunui Landfill are shown graphically in Figure 6.1below. The detailed information for this graph is located in Appendix B.

Figure 6.1 : Waste Disposal at Omarunui Landfill

The data shown in Figure 6.1 indicates that the annual tonnage disposed of at Omarunui Landfill has steadilyincreased between 1989/90 and 2004/05 where it peaked and began declining before levelling off at 2011/2012.While some of this decline is as a result of new recycling, green waste and waste minimisation initiatives beingintroduced, the total amount of material collected through these initiatives does not equate to the total reductionin material landfilled.

The steep drop during 2008/09 was likely exacerbated by the Global Financial Crisis that occurred during thoseyears. Waste production is closely tied to economic activity. During 2008/09 many residential and commercialdevelopments around New Zealand were cancelled or put on hold with short notice, leading to an immediatereduction in waste produced.

The data available is from weighbridge data and the Survey of Solid Waste in the Hawke’s Bay, March 2012,and April 2016 prepared by Waste Not Consulting (SWAP 2012 and 2016). The weighbridge data provides totalweights of waste going through the landfill and Council operated RTS, and the SWAP 2016 data provides wastecomposition and source proportions.

The waste data provided in Figure 6.1 has the following additional notes and assumptions:

· Total private kerbside collections, special and C&I waste is based on SWAP proportion of total knownwaste to landfill;

· NCC and HDC private kerbside collections are assumed proportions of total private kerbside collectionsbased on population;


33

· While C&I waste producers have access to kerbside and drop-off facilities, it is not possible to determinewhat comes from C&I waste producers versus household waste;

· Only total figures have been provided for special, C&I and C&D waste as there is no information regardingthe proportion of this waste coming from NCC and HDC;

· Special waste has the same definition used in SWAP 2016 and includes all materials with potentially toxicor eco-toxic properties, and having properties requiring special disposal techniques, and other substantialwaste streams that affect residual waste composition, including waste from waste water treatment plants;

· General waste has the same definition used in SWAP 2012 and includes general C&D and C&I waste; and

· C&D waste to landfill is based on volumes provided by the Middle Road cleanfill operator to HDC, whichhave been converted to weights using the WRAP conversion rate for C&D waste of 0.87 T/m3.

6.1.1 Waste per Capita

An important metric to observe for waste is the amount produced per capita. This enables analysis of wastemanagement and minimisation efforts, and enables a comparison to be undertaken against national data. Theinformation for the last 8 years is shown in Table 6.1 below. Note that this information is based on the totalwaste sent to landfill, so includes all special waste, C&I waste etc.

Table 6.1: Waste per Capita for Hastings and Napier

Year Population for bothHastings and Napier

Districts

Total Waste to Landfill(tonnes)

Tonnes per capita

2008/09 131,280 110,346 0.804

2009/10 131,920 84,486 0.640

2010/11 132,560 78,067 0.589

2011/12 133,200 72,525 0.544

2012/13 133,660 71,460 0.535

2013/14 134,120 72,952 0.544

2014/15 134,580 72,127 0.536

2015/16 135,040 75,328 0.558

The 2015/16 value of 0.558 tonnes per capita per year is comparable to the other parts of New Zealand. The2016 SWAP report indicates that for Hamilton City that amount per capita for 2013 was 0.668 tonnes. ForKapiti Coast District for 2013 the value was 0.441 tonnes per capita. A comparison of this data needs to betaken at face value, as these values depend on unique district factors e.g. urban rural split, economic activities,industrial and commercial sector activities.

6.1.2 Landfill Charges

Landfill charges at Omarunui Landfill have increased steadily from July 2005 as shown in Table 6.2 below. Withthese increases in the Councils controlled gate fees, the addition of the landfill levy and the Emission TradingScheme (ETS) the overall gate fee has increased considerably since 1998. Landfill charges are increasing by$5/t for 2017/18 to reflect the increase in costs due to ETS commitments.


34

Table 6.2: Landfill Charges at Omarunui from July 2005 to July 2016Year Charge

Year Charge

1st July 1988 $22 per tonne


1st July 2002 $26.50 per tonne



1st July 2009 $64 per tonne (includes $10 waste levy)




1st January 2013 $79.00 per tonne (includes $10 per tonne Waste Levyand $4 per tonne ETS charge)

1st July 2013 toNovember 2016

$83.00 per tonne (includes $10 per tonne Waste Levyand $4 per tonne ETS charge)

6.2 Diverted Material

A breakdown of Hastings and Napier diverted material as a percentage of household arisings in each Councilarea is shown in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3. It is not possible to calculate the diverted material rates against thetotal arisings for each Council area as the total amounts of material recovered by the commercial and industrialsectors are currently unknown as there is no current legal requirement for waste operators to report their data toCouncil.

There is currently no obligation under the existing solid waste bylaws for commercial operators to provide refuseor recycling information to Councils. It is recommended that that these bylaws be amended so that theoperators are licensed and this information obtained for refuse, recycling and green waste. This will enableboth Councils to understand waste movements within both districts, what material is being diverted or recycledand opportunities to improve the reduction of waste generation and improvement in diversion of materials.


35

Figure 6.2: HDC Percentage of Diverted Material

Figure 6.3: NCC Percentage of Diverted Material

Diversion rates have continued to rise both in Hastings and Napier with Hastings currently achieving 43.7%diversion of household waste generated and Napier 28.7%.

For the 2015/16 financial year, Hastings achieved a recycling diversion rate of 30.8% and a green wastediversion of 12.9%. For Napier, the recycling diversion is 18% and 10.7% for green waste for the same year.


36

These figures do not take into consideration material diverted through home composting or reuse facilities orcommercial/private diversion. The data from the commercial or private sector could be obtained if both Councilshad provision in their Solid Waste Bylaw that enabled Councils to capture this information.

6.3 Market share of kerbside refuse market

An important part of the ability for any Council to influence what happens with regard to waste management andminimisation is how much market share they have. Shown in Table 6.3 below is an estimate of the marketshare by weight for both Councils for the kerbside refuse collections for 2016. This is based on transfer stationdata and the 2016 SWAP.

Table 6.3 Market share by weight across both Councils for Kerbside Refuse Collection for 2016

Collection AgentHastings Napier

Tonnes/week % of total Tonnes/week % of totalCouncil bag collection 40 13% 139 51%Private Kerbside MGB 278 87% 134 49%

Total 318 100% 273 100%

As it can be seen from the table above HDC has a far lower share of the kerbside refuse market than NCC.This is also reflected in the private MGB market share for the two Councils, where there is a significant privatewheelie bin collection in Hastings compared to Napier. The table above also shows that the Private Kerbsidecollection has significant market share for 2016.

This difference in market share may be due to the cost of the service for the bag kerbside collection, as thisdiffers markedly between the two councils. A cost comparison is shown below in Table 6.4 for refuse bagcollection. For this comparison it is assumed that 2 bags are used per week and are put out each week.

Table 6.4: Comparison of Cost for Kerbside Refuse Collection between HDC, NCC and Private MGB

Provider Costs Cost per volume

Hastings · Bag cost is $2.40 per bag (60litres)

· Two bags per week is $4.80 perweek

· Yearly cost for two bags perweek is $249.60 per year

· Volume is 6.2 m3 per year at two60 litres bags per week

· Cost per volume is $40.00/m3

Napier · $61 per year Uniform AnnualCharge (UAC), two 60 litre bagsper week allowed.

· Costs for black bags $0.56 each

· Volume is 6.2 m3 per year at two60 litres bags per week


Private MGB · Cost per year of $312 for aweekly collection 240 litre MGB

· Volume is 12.48 m3/ year basedon 240 litre collected weekly


Comparing the MGB to the HDC refuse bag shows the MGB gives twice as much volume per year, yet onlycosts 23% more. It is more user friendly as:

· It is more convenient as there is no need to go out and buy a bag;


37

· The container will take anything you can fit into it (within reason) and is stronger than a plastic bag (it willnot rip);

· Practicality – easy to store and manoeuvre;

· Health and Safety – lees likely to cause injury to waste operators; and

· Reduces nuisance issues - contains odours and is more resistant to vermin, cats and dogs.

From this initial analysis it is understandable why HDC is losing market share to private collectors.

The cost for the NCC kerbside refuse bag collection is significantly lower than HDC kerbside refuse collection.The cost for NCC covers the cost for refuse kerbside collection, and is likely to be sustainable if NCC retains themarket share it currently has.

For HDC to retain or increase market share it would need to change the method of collection or reduce thecosts of the bags. The other option would be to exit the kerbside refuse collection market completely. This hasbeen done in other councils such as Tauranga and Kapiti Coast. Although both Tauranga and Kapiti arecurrently reconsidering their options for and strategic position for control of kerbside collection going forward.

Tauranga City Council in their recently released WMMP 2016 have indicated that they do not think that havingprivate contractors collecting refuse and recycling is the best long term cost effective option for the community,and as part of their Action Plan are going to investigate and consider alternatives. Action CS1 from theTauranga City Council WMMP is as follows:

a) Investigate and consider solutions that will increase the diversion of waste from landfill (including, but notlimited to, the provision of a full kerbside collection service funded through rates, increased regulation viathe bylaw, etc. Council staff will engage with private collectors and the wider community as a part of thisaction;

b) Implement the preferred kerbside solution;

c) Investigate alternate collection provisions for households that are not suitable for the kerbside collectionsystem introduced such as multi-unit dwellings, retirement villages, etc.; and

d) Investigate provision of this to businesses, schools, pre-schools, etc.

Tauranga City Council is going out to public consultation in 2017 regarding options for their kerbside collection.

Kapiti Coast District Council has no council contracted kerbside collections services. All collection services areoffered by private companies, with four being licensed to operate in the Kapiti Coast area. This collectionmethod has been in place since 2013. The cost is comparable to the service that it replaced and the residents’survey indicates that they are highly satisfied with the services provided.

Kapiti Coast District Council presented their state of current kerbside collection at the Waste MINZ 2016conference. Discussions with the Kapiti Coast District Council Solid Waste Manager indicate the following:

· It is difficult to influence waste management and minimisation if Council is not active in collection contracts;

· The price for kerbside collection services is driven by the market, which can be good for the consumer;

· Contractors have free range to introduce new services with or without Council input;

· The service is still viewed as a Council service, even if provided by private contractors;

· Some streets have up to 6 truck movements per day; and

· Once in place, there may legal ramifications trying to reintroduce a Council operated kerbside collections.


38

7. Waste CompositionHDC and NCC have commissioned a number of Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) surveys of both districtswaste streams. For the purpose of this waste assessment the waste compositions have been obtained from thefollowing reports and are presented below:

· Waste Not Consulting, Survey of Solid Waste in Hawke’s Bay, September 2007;

· Waste Not Consulting, Survey of Solid Waste in Hawke’s Bay, November 2009;

· Waste Not Consulting, Survey of Solid Waste in Hawke’s Bay, March 2012; and

· Waste Not Consulting, Survey of Solid Waste in Hawke’s Bay, April 2016.

Each SWAP study was based on Procedure One of the Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE) SWAP 2002 andinvolved a mixture of visual assessments of all vehicles at the various waste disposal sites around HastingsDistrict and Napier City and the sorting and weighing of approximately 500 refuse bags of domestic kerbsideand commercial bagged refuse over a five-day period. The 2016 survey had a broader scope to include thesurveying of private 240 litre Mobile Garbage Bins (MGBs) in recognition of the growth of this disposalmethodology and the resulting impact on Councils kerbside market share.

7.1 Napier City CouncilShown in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 are the waste compositions for the NCC domestic kerbside bagged refusefrom the 2012 and 2016 SWAP surveys.


39

Figure 7.1: NCC Residual Waste Composition 2012 Figure 7.2: NCC Residual Waste Composition 2016


40

Observing both figures, the main component of the refuse is putrescibles, comprising nearly half of the wastecomposition. The recyclables of glass, paper and plastics form the next highest proportion for both audits.

There is little change in compositions between the two audits, which is probably a reflection of the services inplace not changing dramatically. There are some minor notable changes between the two SWAP audits. Glasscomposition reduced from 5.4% to 3.2% going from 2012 to 2016. This could indicate that education aroundglass material being cleaned and placed out for glass collection has had a positive effect.

Nappies and sanitary items increased from 7.6% to 9.5% over the period. It is hard to determine the reasoningfor this. Figure 7.3 summarises the potentially recyclable, compostable and residual waste of each wastestream going through the Redclyffe RTS for 2012 and 2016.


41

Figure 7.3: Redclyffe RTS General Waste Streams from the 2012 and 2016 SWAP Audits


42

The 2016 SWAP audit indicates approximately 43% of material could be diverted away from landfill, comparedto 42% for 2012. The recyclable, compostable and residual figures for both audits are very similar.

7.2 Hastings District CouncilShown in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5 below are the waste composition comparisons for the domestic kerbsidebagged refuse for HDC from the 2012 and 2016 SWAP survey.


43

Figure 7.4: HDC Domestic Residual Waste Composition 2012 Figure 7.5: HDC Residual Waste Composition 2016


44

The figures for HDC are very similar to NCC, in that the main component of household domestic waste isputrescibles, comprising over half of the waste composition for both the 2012 (51.3%) and 2016 (52.7%).

The main difference between the two Councils is sanitary items, with Hastings at 16% for the 2016 auditcompared to 9.5% for Napier for the same category. This may be a reflection of the population demographicsor socio-economic factors (e.g. perhaps there are more young families with babies in Hastings). Although fromthe 2013 Census data the population demographics for the two districts are very similar indicating that there isno recognisable difference to account for this.

Paper and plastics both show a percentage reduction between 2012 and 2016 (a drop of 4%), which may meanthe education around what can and cannot be recycled with regards to plastics and paper has been effective. Itcould also be an indication that paper use is dropping as more people use digital rather than papercommunication.

Figure 7.6 for the Henderson Road RTS summarises the potentially recyclable, compostable and residual wasteof each waste stream. Data was taken from the 2016 SWAP Survey and 2012 SWAP Survey for these figures.This includes all material that has gone through the RTS.

The general refuse at the Henderson Road RTS contains high proportions of putrescibles, timber and rubble.Recyclables such as paper and plastics also form significant proportions of the general refuse disposed of at theRTS.


45

Figure 7.6: Henderson Road RTS SWAP Audits 2012 and 2016


46

Figure 7.6 above for Henderson Road RTS is quite different to Figure 7.3 for the Redclyffe RTS. There is asignificant reduction in compostable materials, reducing from 41% to 23% going from 2012 to 2016. Therecyclable material content has also dropped from 32% to 28%.

The figures above indicate that the waste composition at the Henderson Road RTS is changing for the better.There is still room for improvement as the divertible material content is still 51% of the total for 2016, althoughthis has dropped from 59% to 51% from 2012 to 2016.

7.3 Private MGB kerbside Collection

As part of the 2016 SWAP Audit 55 MGBs (all 240 litres) were collected and the contents sorted. Most of thebins were from the HDC area (about 75%) as this is where most of the private MGBs are situated. The resultsfrom the 2016 SWAP Survey for private MGBs is shown in Figure 7.7 below.

Figure 7.7: Private MGB Waste Composition SWAP Survey 2016

The average weight for the private MGBs was 27.28 kg, with more than a quarter weighing over 40 kg. Thepotentially divertible material from the MGBs collected was an average of 84.8%, indicating that the MGBs arenot contributing to waste minimisation. The largest portion of the MGBs was putrescibles at 75.5%; this portionbeing mostly green waste (59.2%). The average recyclable material content in the MGBs collected was 10.2%(2.80 kgs).

7.4 Waste to Omarunui Landfill

Figure 7.8 and Figure 7.9 below show the overall composition of waste disposed at Omarunui Landfill for 2012and 2016 respectively. This includes waste from NCC, HDC and commercial operators who take their materialdirectly to the landfill. The figures used have been taken from the 2012 and 2016 SWAP survey. Thecomposition of waste disposed at the Omarunui landfill and at the RTSs has been estimated based on visualinspections rather than weighed samples. The proportion of weight represented by each material waste iscalculated using volume and typical waste density figures.

From the visual inspections putrescibles were estimated to make up the highest portion of material disposed ofat the landfill.


47

Figure 7.8: Omarunui Landfill Waste Composition - March 2012 Figure 7.9: Omarunui Landfill Waste Composition – February 2016


48

The figures convey interesting information. Putrescibles still have the largest share, and have increased by3.5% from 36.10% to 39.60% over the time period. There are noticeable decreases in some compositions -plastics have decreased by 6%, timber has decreased by 5.7% and glass has decreased by 2.4%. One area ofconcern is that potentially hazardous material has increased from 1.3% to 6.4%.


49

8. Forecasting Future Demands8.1 Forecast Growth

The populations of NCC and HDC are growing slowly. Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 below show the forecastedpopulation figures for each Council and the estimated number of households over the next 20 years. Thisinformation has been based on trends produced as part of each Council’s LTP 2015-2025 and NZ Census data.

There may be some drivers from external regional factors that could promote population growth. These includethe current Auckland house prices, where the average house price has gone above $1 million. The currentaverage house price for the Hastings district is $366,083, and for the Napier district is $396,000 (taken fromQuotable Value, qv.co.nz). If the house prices in Auckland continue to increase, this could lead to more peoplecashing in and moving to the provincial centres. This could include families and also retirees.

Passengers to Hawkes Bay Airport are increasing, with passengers for the financial year of 2015 at 476,489increasing to 566,431 for the 2016 financial year. This is a 19% increase, indicating that the Hawkes Bay areais becoming a more favourable destination. There was no further data that would indicate the purpose of thevisits to the Hawkes Bay area.

Table 8.1: Population projections 2006-2031


Population at 30 June Change2006–312006 2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

HDC Population 70,842 73,245 74,012 75,289 76,567 77,845 7,003

NCC Population 55,359 57,240 59,150 60,400 61,448 62,500 7,141

Totals 126,201 130,485 133,162 135,689 138,015 140,345 14,144

Table 8.2: Household projections 2006-2031


Households at 30 June Change2006–312006 2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

HDC Properties 27,247 28,171 28,466 28,957 29,449 29,940 2,693

NCC Properties 23,066 23,850 24,646 25,167 25,603 26,042 2,975

Totals 50,313 52,021 53,112 54,124 55,982 55,982 5,669


50

Information from Statistics New Zealand was obtained for the Hastings and Napier districts for the 2013 Census(the 2006 Census data is currently not available due to software access so in depth comparisons cannot bemade).

Information and demographics of both regions are shown in Table 8.3 below.

Table 8.3: Summary of 2013 Census Data for Hastings and Napier Districts

District Demographic information

Hastings · Population - 73,245 (increase of 2,006 since2006)

· Median age 39.5 years· 15.5% are over 65· 22.9% are aged under 15 years

Napier · Population - 57,240 (increase of 1,881 since2006)

· Median age 41.6 years· 18.6% are over 65· 20.2% are aged under 15 years

The census data indicates that the two districts are very similar in demographics. The population spread indetail for both districts is shown in more detail in Figure 8.1 below.

Figure 8.1: 2013 Census Data for Age and Sex for Hastings and Napier districts

An indication of how well an economy is doing is to look at building consents that are being processed orissued. This information can indicate how much building activity is coming up. An increase can lead to morehouses being built, increased population growth and a corresponding increase in generation of waste.

Shown in Table 8.4 below are the building consents issued for both Councils for the last 4 years.


51

Table 8.4: Building Consents Issued 2012 - 2016

Council Building Consents Issued

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Hastings 1,742 2,028 1,584 1,769

Napier 1,339 1,715 1,158 1,298

The number of consents issued have remained relatively constant over the last 4 years, indicating that theamount of building activity in both districts is neither increasing nor decreasing.

8.2 Community satisfaction for waste services

It is important to measure community satisfaction with Council provided services, to understand perceptions ofhow good the services are and where possible improvement could be made. The surveys can also be sued todetermine what future services a community may see as beneficial going forward.

NCC had a survey completed in 2015 for Council services. The results for refuse are shown in the figure below.

Figure 8.2 : NCC NRB 2015 Survey Results for Refuse

For 2015 62% of the respondents were very satisfied and 29% were fairly satisfied (a total of 91% satisfied).This indicates that the NCC refuse service has a high level of satisfaction.


52

8.3 Forecast Total Waste Arisings

There is a slight upward trend in waste to landfill, mainly from the commercial sector which is directly linked tothe buoyancy of the economy.

The change in business model of BioRich offering a public drop off for green waste could lead to a reduction ofgreen waste through both transfer stations and the domestic waste stream (this service would complementrather than compete for green waste). The cost for this service is comparable to Council fees at RTSs ($10 perload for a car and trailer). Although this increases options for organics materials reuse, it is unlikely that it willimpact on the amount of organic material presented in kerbside collection containers (bags or MGBS). It isrecommended that Council compare green waste collection at their transfer stations against the amount ofmaterial received by BioRich.

Global commodity prices for recyclable material have reduced since 2012 resulting in less revenue for wastediversion operations. For example the recycled plastics commodity price is directly linked to the price of crudeoil production, meaning a high crude oil price is better for recycling of plastics as it makes the price or recycledplastics more competitive. Conversely, a low crude oil price is worse for recycling of plastic.

This has forced recyclers to look for alternatives and also to ensure that the contamination rates are as low aspossible to provide a clean product. This is evident from the Green Fence that China has put in place since2012. This has strict regulations around the amount of contamination that is acceptable in material enteringChina.

The contamination or commodity pricing could affect local recyclers e.g. if the cardboard collected iscontaminated with too much glass it may not be worth recycling, it could also result in increased operation andmaintenance costs of machinery through increased wear.

Another avenue that could provide significant material to go to landfill is a natural disaster event. From theCanterbury earthquake approximately 500,000 tonnes of material has been taken the Burwood Landfill forprocessing. This was a closed landfill that was reopened to provide a site that was in close proximity to the citycentre. A strategy should be considered that provides space in or near a landfill for natural disaster resilience.This is an item that needs to be taken into consideration going forward for Civil Defence Emergency Planningfor both Councils.

Shown in Figure 8.3 below is the forecasted Total Waste to Landfill and Council (both Hastings and Napier)collected green waste and recycling from 2008-2029. The forecasted projections are based on current rates ofrefuse collection and disposal, diversion of materials and predicted population growth rates.


53

Figure 8.3: Projected Total Arisings, Total Waste to Landfill, Council Green Waste and Councils Recycling based on Current Collection Rates


54

The projected volumes in Figure 8.3 do not take into account any change in collection method or service. Ifboth Councils were able to increase diversion of green waste and recyclables this would have a positive impacton reducing the landfill space required, and therefore could lead to deferment of future capital expenditurerequired for a new cell at the Omarunui landfill.

If the Councils were able to increase diversion of material through enhanced services, there can be significantdecreases in waste sent to landfill. If the amount of landfill material diverted increased at 1% per year from2016/17 by 2029 there would be 10,000 tonnes less a year going to landfill compared to the status quo. Thiscomparison is shown in Figure 8.4 below.

Figure 8.4: Graph showing Total Waste for Current Projection and at 1% Reduction Per Year from 2016/17


55

9. Meeting Forecasted DemandTo meet the forecast demand of population growth and increase in waste materials, any option consideredneeds to take into account:

· Providing the Level of Service as identified in LTPs;

· Meeting the needs and requirements of the ratepayers;

· Funding of any option is equitable and provides a service that is available to all sections of the community;

· Meeting statutory obligations for both Councils;

· Providing long term inter-generational benefits; and

· Measurability.

As part of the Waste Futures Strategy Study, 35 options were initially investigated for a 25 year waste strategy.These were evaluated and a short list produced of 4 options (this evaluation is detailed in Appendix F). Theseoptions were:

· Option A. Valley C. Completion of a new Landfill Cell (Valley C) at the Omarunui Landfill with a newkerbside collection that includes refuse, recycling and organic material;

· Option B(i). Completion of a Commercial Landfill out of the district that is completed in 2020 that acceptsresidual waste;

· Option C(iii). Using a Mechanical and Biological Treatment to process the general waste. This technologysorts the waste material into more usable waste streams that can be processed into other uses; and

· Option D(ii). Using gasification technology to thermally treat the waste material to recover the energy fromit. This process can produce electricity or stream which can be beneficially used by other industrialprocesses.

The Detailed Business Case - Economic Case report looked at the short list options in more detail to evaluatetheir economic, social, cultural and environmental impact. The evaluation consisted of sensitivity testing, whichlooked at commercial and economic factors that could affect the short listed options. The critical elements forcost were the cost per household and the impact on the diversion of material from landfill.

The ability to divert material from landfill is critical, as this can significantly extend the life of the landfill andreduce future generational costs.

Based on the current performance there are opportunities to improve performance of the collection system(kerbside and transfer station network). This could be achieved by a combination of the following:

· Improving performance of kerbside recycling (increased capture of materials from existing system users,new system users). This could be through common communications between Councils and commercialcollectors e.g. shared advertisements that have common themes about what can and cannot be collected.From the recent waste surveys certain areas could be targeted that have low set out rates for kerbsiderecycling services;

· Both Councils currently have a reliance on plastics bags as the backbone of the kerbside collection service.This presents a risk if a plastic bag levy is introduced by Central Government. The size and type ofkerbside collection container should be uniform between both Councils;

· Targeting household organics via existing commercial collection providers or Council providing an organicskerbside collection service;


· Targeting the capture of recoverable materials (recycling, composting, bioenergy) in collected C&I andC&D; and


56

· Targeting increased diversion of materials at transfer stations (MSW, C&I and C&D).

Based on the discussions with both Councils, the preferred option involves:

· Optimising the collection system to maximise the diversion of materials from landfill; and



9.1 Options for Kerbside Collections

The current kerbside collection could be enhanced to change the method of collection. Timaru District Council(TDC) and Christchurch City Council (CCC) both have compulsory kerbside collection services for refuse,recycling and organic material. A description of both of these services is shown in Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1: Kerbside Collection Services for Timaru and Christchurch Councils

Council Current kerbside service and landfill Comments

Timaru · Introduced new service in 2006 afterextensive community consultation

· Compulsory three wheelie bincollection system (refuse, recycling andorganics)

· Has own composting facility using GoreCover system

· Has own material recycling facility· Has own landfill (Redruth)· Diversion rate for kerbside collection

service is currently 75%

· Looking to build commercial material recyclingfacility for drop off material

· Worked well in the community facilitatingeducation and waste minimisation initiatives

· Some competition with refuse material beingtaken out of district makes it difficult to predictwaste tonnages and therefore costs for annualplans, and to meet operational budgets.

· Key driver for change was high content oforganic material in landfill material (50%)

· Increased life of landfill significantly

Christchurch · Identified that 70% of kerbsidecollected material could be divertedfrom landfill

· Introduced 3 bin kerbside compulsorycollection system in 2008

· Also coincided with development ofregional landfill (Kate Valley)

· In vessel composting operation (assetsowned by CCC, operated by LivingEarth)

· Material Recycling Facility. CCCowned (Eco Sort). Also processeskerbside recycling material formSelwyn and Waimakariri

· Well established operations· Looking to install RFID tags in all bins· Contractors responsible for products sales for

compost (risk transfer)· Well received by the public


57

The current costs (2016/17) for the services offered by TDC and CCC are shown in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2: 2016/17 Kerbside Collection Costs for Timaru and Christchurch Councils.

Council Kerbside CollectionService

Frequency of collection Cost per year for 2016/17

Timaru DC · 140 Litre RefuseWheelie Bin

· 240 Litre RecyclingWheelie Bin

· 240 Litre OrganicsWheelie Bin

· Fortnightly

· Fortnightly

· Weekly

· $165

· $26

· $88

Christchurch CC · 140 Litre RefuseWheelie Bin

· 240 Litre RecyclingWheelie Bin

· 80 Litre OrganicsWheelie Bin

· Fortnightly

· Fortnightly

· Weekly

· $166

· $39

· $65

The costs for the services provided by both of the councils are very similar; with CCC having a larger ratingbase to work with, while TDC has its own landfill which is within the main urban centre.

These processes have been well developed and both achieve a high customer satisfaction rating (95% forKerbside Recycling and 92% for Residual Waste for CCC, 2015). TDC is diverting up to 75% of kerbsidecollected material from landfill. Key learnings from both Councils from this process are:

· Extensive consultation is required to understand what the public want and also to educate them aboutalternatives to the current status and the reasons for change;

· The need for robust systems e.g. composting in place with proven track records;

· Allow plenty of time for implementation of any new process or Contract/s;

· Identify potential end markets and/or industry that could use processed material;

· Organic collections can become contaminated from chemicals such as arsenic (from burning treated timber)and spray residues; and

· Ensuring the size of the wheelie bins for the standard size is correct for the type of waste and frequency ofcollection.

9.1.1 Organics Collection

As identified in the SWAP Audits, organic material represents a significant portion of the kerbside collectedhousehold waste going to landfill. From the previous SWAP audits, the percentages going to landfill fromkerbside collection are shown in Table 9.3 below. Note that organic material includes green waste and foodwaste.


58

Table 9.3: Percentage of Organics Material in Council Kerbside Collected Refuse

Council 2007 2009 2012 2016 Average

Hastings 51.7% 51.2% 51.3% 52.6% 51.7%

Napier 47.7% 44.9% 47.6% 49.3% 47.4%

The organic percentage of the kerbside collected landfill material has remained relatively constant over the last9 years. The Waste Futures project identified that as part of the enhancement of current level of service offeredfor kerbside collection, an organics kerbside collection option should be considered. The organic percentage ofmaterial in the 2016 SWAP audit for the private collected 240 litre wheelie bins was 75.6%, indicating thatpeople using this service are also using it as a method of disposing of green waste (the green waste percentagewas 59.2%).

Organic collection services are offered by Councils and private collection companies around the country. Thesecan differ in size and frequency and also type of organic material collected (some only collect green waste andnot food waste). It is considered that a suitable size of an organics kerbside collection wheelie bins is 140 litrescollected on a weekly basis. A smaller 80 litre bin will not provide enough volume for green waste, while a 240litre provides too much volume. Also a 240 litre wheelie full of grass can weigh about 105 kgs, which is toomuch to be lifted by a side arm collection vehicle.

If an organics kerbside collection was to be introduced for HDC and NCC the likely cost for this service would beapproximately $164 per year. This cost estimate is based on:

· A 140 litre MGB provided with weekly collection;

· A cost per lift of $1.50 per MGB;

· Weight of the MGB is 13 kilograms per collection;

· Processing cost is $80/tonne; and

· Administration and overhead cost adds 25%.

This cost estimate is similar to the weekly kerbside organics wheelie bin service currently offered by TDC andCCC, but would be dependent on local factors such as lift costs for a wheelie bin for this region, if the organicsMGB was compulsory or user pays, processing costs and frequency of collection.

It is recommended that as part of the consultation survey that will form part of the WMMP, questions are askedaround a kerbside organics collection service for both districts.

For organics collection and processing in Hastings and Napier there currently are the following:

· Pan Pac, which processes a portion of green waste that has been dropped off to Redclyffe RTS and largecommercial loads delivered to the site from industry;

· BioRich, which processes organic waste and waste plasterboard, including all green waste that has beendropped off to Henderson Rd RTS. BioRich have installed a public drop off facility on site allowing thecommunity to drop green waste directly to site on a user pays basis since January 2016; and

· Other private green waste collection services, including Bay Environmental Bins Limited and Clean EarthLimited, Waste Management and JJ Richards.

BioRich have indicated that they have capacity to take additional organic material.

There are other options and methods for diverting organics material from landfill other than a kerbside organicscollection, which are:

1) Providing composting bins, worm farms or bokashi bins for home composting operations; and


59

2) Subsidising green waste collection at the transfer stations and/or a green waste service provider using theWaste Minimisation Fund. This could either by directly subsidising the gate fee or having open days wheremembers of the public can drop of material for free e.g. at Easter or Labour weekends.

HDC already has instructions on their website regarding worm farms and bokashi bins, and while this may bepopular only those individuals who are active gardeners or really want to reduce organics material (likely to be asmall part of the population) would partake in this offer.

It would be expected that the use of home composting or bokashi bins would divert approximately 2-3 kgs offood waste per week and up to 5kgs of green waste per week for home composting bins (this would beseasonal dependent). These systems should be considered as part of an overall scheme aimed at reducingorganics in waste sent to landfill.

Option 2 refers to subsidising the green waste services at transfer stations and/or a green waste servicesprovider or having free drop off days during particular times of the year. The current cost at the Henderson RTSis a minimum charge of $8 with a per tonne cost of $86.25 per tonne. The minimum charge at the RedclyffeRTS is $14.00 for green waste (up to 100 kg) and then a cost per tonne of $101.00.

The subsidy (using the Waste Minimisation Fund) could be done in stages e.g. dropping the fee to $5 across allsites for a minimum charge. The amount of green waste collected after the subsidy has been implementedwould then be measured to assess the effect of how much green waste collected and comparison againstprevious years for the same period. This would indicate if the subsidy has been successful or not, and if it isworthy of continuing this service.

As part of any consultation, these options need to be considered for organics collection. The kerbside organicscollection would provide the most benefit for increasing diversion of material but would come at the greatestcost for the ratepayers and also increase Council staff time requires (contract maintenance, payments etc.)

9.1.2 Refuse Collection

Both HDC and NCC are losing market share for the refuse kerbside collection due to competition from privatecollectors. HDC has far less a share than NCC, mostly due to the fact that HDC has a user pay refuse bagservice (currently at $2.40 per 60 litre bag) while NCC has a UAC charge of $61 per year for up to two 60 litrebags collected per week.

Private collectors are charging approximately $300 per year for a weekly 240 litre refuse wheelie bin collection.This provides a service that is more flexible and provides a greater volume than the current kerbside bagcollection offered by both Councils. But as seen from the 2016 SWAP survey, the MGBs provide an easyoption for disposal of organic waste (average content of organic waste was 75.5%), so this service is notcontributing to waste minimisation objectives.

The 2016 SWAP survey showed that organics makes up 47% of Council the bag collection, but 76% for the 240litre wheelie bin collection. It is quite normal behaviour for people to use any remaining space in an MGB andfill the bin as much as possible. In this case they are using the remaining space for organics disposal.

Both HDC and NCC need to review their position on kerbside refuse collection. With more competition in theprivate sector, both Councils will continue to lose market share and it could soon be unequitable to supply thisservice i.e. if market share continues to fall, the number of bags being sold will reduce, requiring the cost ofbags to rise to cover the cost of the service, which will lead to less bags being sold.

The cost disparity and difference in service between the two councils needs to be rectified for refuse collection.This should be reviewed as part of the consultation for the WMMP. The following options to consider for refusekerbside collection are as follows:

· Councils both exit the kerbside refuse collection; and


60

· Councils agree to stay with kerbside refuse collection. This will entail a review of the services offered andconsultation on what could be viable options. The costs and services offered would need to be the same byboth Councils. The refuse kerbside collection service could be:

o A weekly 140 litre refuse wheelie bin; or

o A fortnightly 140 litre refuse wheelie bin; or

o A fortnightly 240 litre refuse wheelie bin.

Cost to ratepayers for a kerbside refuse wheelie bin service would be approximately $110 per year based onthe fortnightly 140 litre refuse wheelie bin collection.

9.1.3 Recycling Collection

Both Councils currently provide a collection service through Green Sky Waste Solutions. The collection serviceis weekly in Hastings and fortnightly in Napier.

There is still 10% recyclable material in HDC kerbside collected refuse bags, and 18.4% of recyclable materialin NCC kerbside collected refuse bags. Although this is considerable it is far smaller than the organicpercentage. The private refuse MGBs analysed as part of the 2016 SWAP Survey had an average of 10.2%recyclable material, which was a lot smaller than the organics portion (75.5%).

To meet future demand the recycling collection should be the same for both Councils in terms of frequency andcollection container. It is recommended that the fortnightly recycling collection in NCC should be changed toweekly to match that of HDC. This would provide consistency in collection across both districts and shouldresult in an improvement of collection for diverted materials in NCC.

Potentially this would see the amount of recyclable material in the NCC kerbside refuse bags drop to that of theHDC kerbside refuse bags i.e. a reduction of 0.87 kgs per bag collected.

Currently both HDC and NCC allow plastic bags or suitable collection containers for recycling containers. NCChas a limit of 10 kgs per container, while HDC do not allow large containers to be used e.g. MGBs. The size ofthe container should be reviewed along with the collection methodology.

The size and type of container/s required for a kerbside recycling collection depends on how the material isprocessed for recycling. All kerbside cardboard collected by HDC and NCC is processed by Hawk Packaging.The product that they are able to generate from the kerbside collected cardboard is of very high quality (foodgrade quality) and commands a premium price. Other recycling facilities that process co-mingled recycling(everything is in one bin) can produce paper and cardboard that is suitable for recycling, but it is normallycontaminated by glass to some extent, which negatively affects the revenue obtainable.

Careful consideration needs to be given to recycling collection and impacts on downstream processes, as thecurrent circular process that Hawk Packaging operates (cardboard is turned into fruit packaging which is locallyused) could be negatively affected by a change in collection methodology. Consideration should be given toapplying this process path for each recyclable material to determine potential positive or negative impacts.

9.2 Solid Waste Bylaws

The Solid Waste Bylaws that NCC and HDC have are quite different and need to be reviewed and updated tobe the same document. A strategy for review and completing a draft shared Bylaw needs to be undertaken.This could take some time as it will involve public consultation but as both Councils use the same landfill, thesame recycling contractor and green waste also goes to similar places it should not be too onerous.

NCC’s Bylaw is good but needs to be updated to include licensing of Contractors that cart waste and divertedmaterials. This will help both Councils understand waste movements within their own district. The updatesneed to include the ability to license waste operators.


61

9.3 Health and Safety

With the recent legislative changes that have occurred in 2016, both Councils need to be very aware of the risksassociated with waste management and minimisation. Particularly hazardous is bag collections for both refuseand recyclables. These bags can contain sharps (needles, broken glass or ceramics) that can cause severeinjuries. Bag collection can also result in repetitive strain injuries.

In October 2016, Auckland Council was fined ($33,000) over the over the death of rubbish truck runner. Theparties involved were also ordered to pay $120,000 in reparations. WorkSafe are aware of the dangers withregards to waste collection, and in particular bag collections.

Both Councils need to review their Health and Safety plans and their Contractor’s Health and Safety Plans tomakes sure that they are both aligned and include regular reporting on the Contractor Health and Safety Plans.These plans should be reviewed by an independent specialist in Health and Safety, as an independent can offerdiffering views and external experience.

If an incident occurs, WorkSafe will investigate and prosecute parties responsible (a person conducting abusiness or undertaking (PCBU)).

9.4 Inorganic collections

Some parts of the community have indicated that they would like an inorganics collection that is offered by otherCouncils. This service is popular in the areas that it is offered, but can come at a considerable expense andeffort to Councils.

Auckland Council has a successful and well run inorganics collection service. The service consists of a bookedon site collection service and a community based recycling system for management of reusable materials. Thecollection service is a contract that was awarded to Waste Management, while the contract for the managementof recyclables is with the Community Recycling Network (CRN).

It is recommended that staff at Auckland Council are approached to fully understand this model of collection,and what has been learnt since this service has been implemented i.e. actual versus contractual costs, contractterms and conditions, customer feedback, political influence etc.

9.5 Resilience

Recent and historical earthquakes events for New Zealand have highlighted the importance of waste serviceswhen natural disasters occur. As part of Civil Defence Emergency planning, it is recommended that a strategyis developed for provision of waste services for natural disasters. In particular development of a strategy forhow waste can be moved and stored at the Omarunui Landfill while current operations can be maintained.Space at the landfill should be identified for this activity, which also needs to take into consideration allocation ofspace for demolished buildings where lives may have perished for forensic purposes.

9.6 Education

Both Councils have education programmes around waste management and minimisation. The programmesoffered by both Councils are well run and use a combination of Council staff activities and external providers.An example of this was the TV collection programme run by HDC on a trial basis. This worked very wellthrough a combination of a well thought out methodology and strategy.

Both Councils understand the importance of community engagement important around waste management andminimisation activities, and that this is key to achieving waste management and minimisation targets.

Going forward, both Councils should work towards development of an education and communication strategyidentifying how both Councils will engage with their respective communities around solid waste education andminimisation targets. This should also include recording of metrics around the education programmes e.g.


62

number of people attending, number of schools involved, projects completed and community feedback onprogrammes.

9.7 Statement of Intended RoleBoth Councils have identified key waste targets in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plans (LTP). For NCC the maingoals are:


· To minimise the quantity and toxicity of waste being generated and disposed of in order to minimiseadverse environmental, cultural, social and economic effects of solid waste disposal the provision ofaffordable services to all Napier residents.

The NCC LTP contains community outcomes of which waste management and minimisation activities primarilycontribute to the outcome of: “an environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for futuregenerations”. The NCC LTP identifies the following three solid waste issues to be considered as part of anyplanning decisions:

· How to reduce waste being sent to the landfill;

· How to recycle in an efficient and effective way; and

· How to manage the increasing cost of disposing of waste.



Key actions include introducing a joint kerbside refuse collection with NCC (now in place) and optimising gasextraction from the Omarunui Landfill (new system implemented). Extending the life of the Omarunui Landfill isalso highlighted as a key challenge for the Council, with capital expenditure set aside for landfill redevelopmentover the 10 year period.


63

10. Recommendations and ActionsThe report has listed a number of recommendations and actions going forward for both HDC and NCC. Theseare listed in Table 10.1 below with an indicative priority.

The indicative priority is based on the following:

· Red coloured – action required in the short term

· Yellow coloured – action required in the medium term

· Green coloured – action required in the long term


64

Table 10.1: Actions with Indicative Priorities

Itemnumber

Description Summary Action required Priority

1 Solid Waste Bylaws · Bylaws are not consistent across bothCouncils.

· Lack ability to license waste operators,this means information regarding wastematerial is not fully available andunderstood in the region.

· Both Councils have limited control orthe ability to influence operations ofprivate waste operators with regards towaste management and minimisation.

· Review and update both Bylaws and include ability to licensewaste operators.

· Review levels of control required for private waste operators· Investigate ability to influence waste management and

minimisation practices of private operators

2 Education andCommunication

· Education and communication with thecommunity is very important aroundwaste management and minimisationactivities.

· Key to achieving waste managementand minimisation targets.

· Development of an education and communication strategyidentifying how both Councils will engage with their respectivecommunities around solid waste education and minimisationtargets.

3 Organics KerbsideCollection

· Biggest percentage of material going tolandfill from kerbside collections.

· Biggest opportunity for waste reduction.

· Preliminary analysis of options for the installation of an organickerbside collection. Use the outcomes from the preliminaryoptions analysis to inform the Solid Waste consultationdocument.

4 Refuse KerbsideCollection

· Difference in cost structure betweenCouncils needs to be addressed. Needcost parity.

· Both Councils losing market share toprivate collectors.

· Private collector’s MGBs have 75%organic material, hence not contributingto waste minimisation objectives.

· Review cost structure for both Councils. Determine if bothCouncils can have the same cost structure for refuse kerbsidecollection.

· Review H&S implications from continuing with kerbside bagscollections.

· Consider advantages and disadvantages of moving to kerbsideMBG collection.


65

Itemnumber


· Should both Councils keep using bagsfor refuse collection or move to MGBs.Comes from uniformity in collection andalso H&S considerations.

5 Health and Safety · Changes in H&S legislation in 2016have implication on Councils for wastecollection in particular bag collections(sharps, cuts and abrasions, repetitivestrain etc.).

· Review H&S implications from current operations (kerbside andtransfer station). Ties in with review of refuse and recyclingcollection methodologies.

6 Subsidise green wastecollection or processing

· Green waste is the largest portion ofmaterial going to landfill.

· Ties in with Organics KerbsideCollection.

· Determine if subsidising cost of green waste at transfer stationsor green waste processors would encourage more green wastediversion.

· Discuss funding options for this initiative with Councils.· Approach green waste processors to discuss possibilities.

7 Recycling kerbsidecollections

· Current system works well but couldincrease capture of recyclables.

· Could have a standardised containerfor recycling e.g. an MGB.

· Would need to consider if co-mingled orif glass needs to be collectedseparately.

· Consider alternatives for collection methodology and size ofcontainer.

· Need to consider downstream impacts on recycling processingservices.

· Include separate glass collection as part of this review.

8 Transfer Stations · Havelock North identified as an areawhere changes to level of service atTransfer Station required.

· Can increase diversion of recyclablematerial and waste from constructionand demolition projects.

· Consider location and facility requirements for Havelock North.· Investigate options to increase diversion of material from the

commercial sector. Maintain contact with Marlborough DistrictCouncil, who has recently installed a commercial sorting facilityfor industrial and commercial waste. Understand cost benefitsand operational issues for this project.

9 Inorganic Waste · Some parts of the community haveasked for an inorganic waste collection.

· Consider options and costs for an inorganics waste collection.· Analyse example from Auckland Council on systems, policies


66

Itemnumber


implemented and costs versus benefits.

10 Recycling · Need to determine if it is morebeneficial to have kerbside recycling ordrop off centres or a combination ofboth.

· Determine what are the cost benefits of kerbside recyclingversus drop off centres.

11 Community basedinitiatives

· Both Councils engage with a largesector of the community through wastereduction and minimisation projects.

· Explore other avenues to increasecommunity engagement, particularlycommunity led initiatives.

· Maintain current initiatives.· Use examples from Love Food Hate Waste initiatives and

apply locally.· Review other community lead projects e.g. Parekore.· Gather information about community initiatives to understand

costs versus benefits of projects e.g. amount of materialdiverted, reduced, reused etc. from the waste going to landfill.


67

Appendix A. GlossaryWhere available, definitions have been taken from the Waste Minimisation Act 20089 (^) of the EU LandfillDirective10.

Agricultural Waste: Waste generated on rural land by activities such as farming, forestry etc. that ismanaged other than through a municipal waste management system.

Cleanfill Material: Material that when buried will have no adverse effect on people or theenvironment. Cleanfill material includes virgin natural materials such as clay, soiland 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; and· Liquid waste.

Commercial Waste: Means waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of trade orbusiness, recreation or entertainment, excluding, mines, quarries and agriculturalwaste. May also include some household waste collected by commercial operators.

Disposal: Means:(a) The final (or more than short-term) deposit of waste into or onto land set apartfor that purpose; or(b) The incineration of waste.

Disposal facility : Means:(a) A facility, including a landfill,

(i) At which waste is disposed of; and(ii) At which the waste disposed of includes household waste; and(iii) That operates, at least in part, as a business to dispose of waste; and

(b) Any other facility or class of facility at which waste is disposed of that isprescribed as a disposal facility.

Diverted Material: Means anything that is no longer required for its original purpose and, but forcommercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of ordiscarded.

Household Waste: Means waste from a household that is not entirely from construction, renovation, ordemolition of the house.

Industrial Waste: Means waste from industrial sites, produced or arising from manufacturing orindustrial activities or processes.

Long Term Plan (LTP) Replaces the term Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) by the provisionsin the 2010 amendments to the Local Government Act 2002.

Municipal Solid Waste: Means waste from households, as well as other waste which, because of its natureor composition, is similar to waste from households.

9 2008 Parliament of New Zealand, Waste Minimisation Act 2008 No. 8910 1999 European Union, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 29 April 1999 on the landfill of waste


68

Recovery: Means:(a) Extraction of materials or energy from waste or diverted material for further useor processing; and(b) Includes making waste or diverted material into compost.

Recycling: Means the reprocessing of waste or diverted material to produce new materials.

Reduction: Means:(a) Lessening waste generation, including by using products more efficiently or byredesigning products; and(b) In relation to a product, lessening waste generation in relation to the product.

Residual Waste: Applied in a domestic sense, refers to household rubbish not able to be recycled,re-used or composted.

Reuse: Means the further use of waste or diverted material in its existing form for theoriginal purpose of the materials or products that constitute the waste or divertedmaterial, or for a similar purpose.

Treatment: Means:(a) Subjecting waste to any physical, biological, or chemical process to change itsvolume or character so that it may be disposed of with no or reduced adverseeffect on the environment; but(b) Does not include dilution of waste.

Waste: Means:(a) Anything disposed of or discarded; and(b) Includes a type of waste that is defined by its composition or source (forexample, organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste);and(c) To avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if thecomponent or element is disposed of or discarded.

Waste Minimisation: Means:(a) The reduction of waste; and(b) The reuse, recycling and recovery of waste and diverted material.


69

Appendix B. Historical Waste to Landfill DataYear NCC

(tonnes)HDC

(tonnes)Commercialoperators(tonnes)

Liquidwaste

(tonnes)

TotalWaste

1989/1990 21,608 35,218 12,723 4,264 73,813

1990/1991 30,503 33,606 13,460 4,250 81,820

1991/1992 30,762 31,183 15,933 3,597 81,474

1992/1993 30,186 30,071 17,810 4,623 82,690

1993/1994 31,366 30,372 21,788 5,110 88,636

1994/1995 33,608 32,601 25,724 6,184 98,115

1995/1996 33,728 32,121 22,374 6,090 94,314

1996/1997 32,005 31,485 20,073 5,800 89,364

1997/1998 31,052 29,418 24,043 5,466 89,978

1998 / 1999 28,222 28,454 32,635 3,623 92,933

1999 / 2000 29,094 28,467 35,934 3,617 97,112

2000 / 2001 29,353 30,198 40,273 3,276 103,100

2001 / 2002 30,285 31,154 46,128 3,914 111,481

2002 / 2003 28,844 32,011 49,892 5,192 115,939

2003 / 2004 30,279 33,817 56,992 5,823 126,911

2004 / 2005 33,646 35,604 64,369 6,694 140,313

2005 / 2006 30,678 34,746 61,491 5,188 132,103

2006 / 2007 29,021 32,321 58,787 468 120,597

2007 / 2008 28,755 31,772 51,949 0 112,476

2008 / 2009 23,954 23,739 62,653 0 110,346

2009 / 2010 20,634 20,309 43,543 0 84,486

2010 / 2011 18,434 17,853 41,780 0 78,067

2011 / 2012 15,708 16,418 40,399 0 72,525

2012 / 2013 16,029 14,811 40,620 0 71,460

2013 / 2014 16,470 11,087 45,395 0 72,952

2014 / 2015 15,806 10,157 46,164 0 72,127

2015 / 2016 16,070 11,858 47,400 0 75,328


70

Appendix C. 2012 WMMP Policies and MethodsPolicies

Policies to achieve these objectives are as follows.

Policy 1: The Councils will continue to provide waste minimisation services.

Policy 2: The Councils will ensure sufficient capacity exists at all recycling facilities to allow for continued growthand efficiency.

Policy 3: The Councils will gather information about waste and diverted material streams in the district toimprove waste management and minimisation planning.

Policy 4: The Councils will recognise the benefits of collaborating with other parties in the provision of wasteminimisation services and meeting future demands.

Policy 5: The Councils will encourage waste minimisation, especially the reduction of waste, source separationand the importance of reducing the contamination of diverted material.

Policy 6: The Councils will maintain a user pays charge system for waste disposal and collection that providescost recovery as well as incentives and disincentives to promote the objectives of the Councils’ WMMP.

Methods for Improving the Efficiency of Resource Use

Policy 1: The Councils will continue to provide waste minimisation services.

Explanation: The Councils have established effective and efficient services that are rated highly by thecommunity. The Council provided service enables the Councils to control their waste streams, respond tolegislative or market changes, provide economies of scale, competitive tendering, security of contractorpayment, and efficiency of customer billing.

Method 1: The Councils will consider waste management and minimisation services together as an integralsystem that has regard to both the management and minimisation components, including recycling and greenwaste.

Method 2: HDC will monitor the need to extend refuse and recycling services to the outlying settlement areas.The level of service provided would vary depending on geographical location and proximity to Hastings City.

Method 3: The Councils will provide, maintain and operate waste diversion facilities at the three existing RTSs,and procure services for the operation of the facilities. The Councils will improve service delivery methods andscope of activities as warranted.

Method 4: The HDC will monitor the effectiveness of the installed public place recycling bins and based on theinstallation of further bins at key locations, funded through the levy.

Method 5: The Councils will fund waste minimisation activities as described in “Funding the Plan”.

Policy 2: The Councils will improve storage and handling of diverted material.

Explanation: Adequate storage and handling of diverted material is important to maintain and increase its qualityand value.

Method 6: The Councils will ensure that there is sufficient capacity to manage the increasing quantities oforganic waste, through the RTSs, contracts and contractors.


71

Method 7: The HDC will continue to provide the facility of a re-use shop at the Henderson Road RTS, andinvestigate options for growth and efficiency in this area.

Method 8: The Councils will continue to work with businesses to encourage separating reusable/recyclablematerial from the waste stream.

Method 9: The Councils will submit, as appropriate, in the next District Plan Review on waste-related issues,especially for allowance in road and subdivisional design for kerbside diverted material collections andallowance for on property diverted material storage in medium or high density developments.

Policy 3: The Councils will gather information about waste and diverted material streams in the Districts toimprove waste management and minimisation planning.

Explanation: The NZWS 2010 notes that the lack of waste data hampers waste minimisation planning.Gathering information can contribute to improved waste minimisation contracts, monitoring of diverted materialquality and market demand, and understanding of district needs.

Method 10: The Councils will monitor quantities and composition of the Districts’ waste and diverted materialstreams together with origin and destination, and number of service subscribers/customers as appropriate,using Council information, and data gathered from private waste operators under bylaw provisions or by othermeans, as required under the WMA.

Policy 4: The Councils will recognise the benefits of collaborating with other parties in the provision of wasteminimisation services and meeting future demands.

Explanation: The Councils have participated with other Hawke’s Bay councils in the development and operationof solid waste minimisation services, which has resulted in mutual benefits.

Method 11: The Councils will advocate that the government investigate and introduce legislation, levies, andregulations, especially in relation to problematic products, in order to encourage product stewardship schemesand further waste minimisation opportunities. The Councils will also investigate local product stewardshipinitiatives for problematic products specific to the region.

Method 12: Councils will foster close working relationships with all neighbouring TAs in the Hawke’s Bay regionand Hawke's Bay Regional Council to support a regional approach to waste management and minimisation.The Councils will also participate as appropriate in other waste forums.

Policy 5: The Councils will encourage waste minimisation, especially the reduction of waste, source separationand the importance of reducing the contamination of diverted material.

Explanation: Reduction, the preferred waste minimisation method, depends upon a change in consumerattitudes. Efficient resource recovery is also dependent upon personal commitment to source separate divertedmaterial and avoid contamination.

Method 13: The Councils will promote waste minimisation by continuing to support educational and promotionalprogrammes, including a targeted education campaign using programmes such as Kids for Drama,EnviroSchools, Waste Awareness and Paper for Trees.

Method 14: The Councils will promote all aspects of waste minimisation in order to ensure the region remainsinformed of waste minimisation opportunities; this may also include promoting kerbside organic collections andhome composting.

Policy 6: The Councils will maintain a user pays charge system for waste disposal and collection that providescost recovery as well as incentives and disincentives to promote the objectives of the Councils’ WMMP.

Explanation: Users of waste management services, such as kerbside collection or drop-off at the RTS, can beclearly identified and charged the full cost of the service to incentivise waste minimisation.


72

Method 15: The Councils will maintain a user pays basis for waste services to ensure that, as far as practicable,disposal fees are fair and that waste generators meet the costs of the waste that they produce.


73

Appendix D. LegislationD.1 Resource Management Act

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is New Zealand’s main legislation that sets out how theenvironment should be managed. Local government, central government, organisations and individuals haveroles and responsibilities under the RMA, including –

· The RMA provides central government with the ability to prepare national policy statements (NPS) andnational environmental standards (NES). A NPS sets out requirements for councils when dealing withparticular resource management issues and a NES prescribes technical standards, methods or otherrequirements for environmental matters. The NES for Air Quality is particularly relevant for wasteinfrastructure.

· City and district councils are required to develop city or district plants to manage the effects of land use,the effects of activities on the surface of rivers and lakes, noise and subdivision.

· Regional councils are required to develop regional plans to manage the discharge of contaminants toland, air or water, water quality and quantity, the coastal marine area, soil conservation, natural hazardsand contaminated land, and to prepare regional policy statements. NCC and HDC have City and DistrictPlans, and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has the combined Regional Resource ManagementPlan (RRMP), which includes the regional policy statement.

The RMA is particularly relevant in the context of waste when considering local and regional objectives andpolicies for waste under district and regional plans, and the restrictions around the development of wasteinfrastructure, such as landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, incinerators and digesters.

D.2 National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES)

The NES for Air Quality, which were introduced in 2004, are relevant for waste when considering wasteinfrastructure that involves the discharge of particulates and gas to air. The NES aims to set a guaranteedminimum level of health protection across the country. The NES is made up of 14 standards, including:

· Standards that ban certain activities that discharge significant quantities of dioxins and other toxics into theair;

· Standards that set ambient (outdoor) air quality for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphurdioxide (SO2), ozone (O3) and particulate matter less than 10 micrometres in diameter (PM10);

· Requirements for landfills for over 1 million tonnes of refuse to collect greenhouse gas emissions.

Prohibited activities under the NES include –

· Lighting fires and burning waste at a landfill (unless it is to control greenhouse gas emissions) 11

· Burning tyres and coated wire (unless burnt from a trade or industrial premise with a resource consent andemissions control equipment)12

· Burning oil13

· High temperature hazardous waste incinerators (defined as incinerators that are designed and operatedprincipally for burning hazardous waste at a temperature greater than 850°C)14

The prohibitions on burning waste at landfills and high temperature hazardous waste incinerators areparticularly relevant when considering AWT options for Napier and Hastings. The prohibition on burning wasteis unlikely to apply to MSW incineration given the general intention of this provision is to address air pollutantsfrom open burning, as opposed to incineration. The prohibition of high temperature hazardous waste

11 Clause 6 of the NES for Air Quality12 Clauses 7 and 9 of the NES for Air Quality13 Clause 10 for the NES for Air Quality14 Clauses 3 and 12 of the NES for Air Quality


74

incinerators may extend to MSW waste to energy plants; however there is currently no precedent for this andthere are arguments for a range interpretations.

The guidance document for the NES states that the prohibition does not apply to incinerators converting MSWto energy or the vitrification of sewage sludge15. The guidance document, however, is not a legal document andwhere it contradicts the legislation, the legislation will prevail. In this sense, the issue is: Is the incineratordesigned principally for burning hazardous waste?

“Principally” implies that the burning of waste will be the sole purpose of the incinerator. For a waste to energyplant, an incinerator will be used equally for burning waste and producing energy, so may not meet thisthreshold.

“Hazardous waste” is defined as waste listed in Annex I of the Basel Convention with the characteristics listed inAnnex III of that Convention. Many of the waste categories listed in Appendix I will likely form a part of MSW,and MSW may have one of more of the listed characteristics (e.g. flammability and infectious, or capable ofyielding leachate).

The NES for Air Quality provides ambient air quality standards for certain contaminants that must not beexceeded (unless the exceedance is permissible under the NES). The ambient air quality standards apply toboth the Napier and Hastings air sheds. The standards also apply to any place that is in the open air, andwhere people are likely to be exposed to the contaminant (unless a discharge is allowed by resource consent) 16.

D.3 The Local Government Act 2002

Local and regional authorities have roles and responsibilities with regards to waste management through theLocal Government Act 2002 (LGA). Amongst other things, the LGA outlines the roles of local authorities, andthe core services to be considered in performing this role; requires councils to prepare Long-Term Plans (LTPs);and permits bylaws for a range of purposes including conserving public health, well-being and safety.

D.4 Health Act 1956

This Act empowers and directs local authorities to improve, promote and protect public health within its district.This includes the collection and disposal of refuse and other offensive matter as defined in the Third Schedule.

D.5 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992

The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSEA) and the associated Regulations provide the legislativebasis to ensure work activities are made safe and health. The HSEA requires employees, employers, andcontractors to approach health and safety issues in a systematic but flexible way, with the ability to draw ongeneral information provided in associated Regulations, Codes of Practice and Best Practice Guidelines.

The HSEA is set to be replaced by the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 later this year. The new Act, ifpassed into legislation, will widen the scope of people who can be responsible for ensuring the health andsafety of employees and contractors; require greater worker participation in health and safety; and establishstronger penalties, enforcement tools, graduated offences and court powers.

D.6 The Building Act 1991

The Building Act 2004 (BA) prescribes certain standards for buildings. The BA applies to the construction ofnew buildings as well as the alteration and demolition of existing buildings. The BA includes provisions forsustainable development and the reduction of waste. Relevant standards include Building Regulations 1992and Fire Regulations 1992.

D.7 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act)15 See the 2011 Users’ Guide to the revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality, updated 2014, page 17.16 Reg 14 of the Air Quality NES


75

The purpose of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1959 (HSNO), and associated regulations,is to protect the environment, and health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing theadverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms. The Hazardous Substances (Disposal)Regulations 2001 outline the process by which hazardous substances can be disposed of. In particular, theRegulations outline what substances can be disposed on in a landfill or incinerator, and provide informationrequirements.

D.8 Access Codes and Building Code – Solid Waste (Clause G15)

This code requires buildings to be provided with space and facilities for the collection, and safe hygienic holdingprior to disposal of solid waste arising from the intended use of the buildings.

D.9 Public Works Act

The Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) enables local authorities to acquire any land required for a local work forwhich it has financial responsibility (e.g. waste). The PWA provides the protocol that must be followed by localauthorities in acquiring land, including consultation with landowners and the compulsory acquisition process.

D.10 Litter Act 1979

The Litter Act 1979 outlines responsibilities, offences and penalties with regards to littering in New Zealand.The Act also provides the legal basis for Litter Control Officers appointed by local authorities.


76

Appendix E. MfE ETS Factsheet


77


78

Appendix F. Waste Futures - Indicative Business Case- OptionsEvaluation


79

F.1 Evaluation framework

A list of critical success factors have been developed for the project with reference to the Investment Logic Map(Baseline Report) and considering the project context.

The Critical Success Factors identified are:

· Diversion from Landfill - to be modelled in naus.

· Total System Cost - to be modelled in naus.

· Technical Risk - assessed with reference to application at commercial scale globally, Australasia orNZ.

· Resilience/Adaptability - assessment of resilience to changes in material quantity or composition.

· Market Risk/Opportunity - assessment of security of market for end product.

· Community Acceptance - assessment of whether community is likely to be opposed, ambivalent orsupportive.

· Environmental Impact - assessment of whether the net environmental impact is negative, similar orpositive compared to the current situation.

· System Compatibility - assessment of the level of change required to implement the solution.

· Broader Economic Impact - assessment of whether net economic impact is negative, similar orpositive compared to the current situation.

Diversion from landfill and total system cost can be modelled based on existing data and assumptionsdeveloped based on high level system design and understanding of markets for waste technology and products.The remainder of the factors are scored through a workshop based assessment of comparative performance.To provide a repeatable process scoring guidance for each Critical Success Factor has been developed.Further detail is provided in Figure 10.1 including guidance on scoring options using these factors.

Consideration was also given to the relative importance of the Critical Success Factors. For the purposes of theoption evaluation the key factors are Resilience/Adaptability and Total System Cost with CommunityAcceptance and Market Risk/Opportunity also important. These factors are weighted as follows (as shown inFigure 10.1).

· Total System Cost - weighted at 3 times the default.

· Resilience/Adaptability - weighted at 3 times the default.

· Market Risk/Opportunity - weighted at 2 times the default.

· Community Acceptance - weighted at 2 times the default.

· The remaining criteria are weighted at a default of 1 x the score out of 5.


80

Figure 10.1 : Critical Success Factors - Scoring Guidance

F.2 Options Considered

As noted above, the Waste Futures project is intended to be an integrated assessment looking at all aspects ofthe waste management system that are relevant to Omarunui Landfill. This means any solution will contain arange of elements including:

· Collection - either kerbside collection (council or commercial) or drop-off at transfer stations. Options forimprovement focus on transferring materials from the residual waste collection to materials collected forrecycling or recovery.

· Processing - processing of residual waste or source separated recycling or organic waste). Examplesinclude composting, bioenergy (wood waste fire boiler), Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), Energyfrom Waste (Gasification) and Anaerobic Digestion. There is also potential to upgrade the current simplesort-line process for the kerbside recycling collection to a modern Material Recovery Facility (MRF).

· Market/Disposal - the final destination of materials, either disposal or beneficial use/sale. Examplesinclude existing landfill with extension, transport to a remote landfill (commercial or local authoritycontrolled) or markets for products including compost, mulch and recycling commodities.

The options considered are outlined in more detail below.

Evaluation Criteria Weighting Score

Diversion from landfill 1 Modelled

Cost Total System Cost 3 Modelled

1 1 Tech score 1

2 Tech score 2

3 It has been done before globally (succeeded)

4 It has been done before in Australasia

5 It has been done before in NZ

3 1 Highly sensitive to material composition and quantity

2 Requires committed tonnage and composition

3 Technically able to scale up/down

4 Res Score 4

5 Minimal financial or tech impact when scale up and down easily, not impact by change in composition

2 1 Market score 1

2 Markets identified but not proven (incl value)

3 Markets available but not secure (incl value)

4 Market score 4

5 Markets for products secure

2 1 Widespread opposition likely

2 Stakeholder 2

3 Community nuetral

4 Stakeholders likely to be broadly supportive of change - community benefit

5 Stakeholders likely to be highly enthusiastic about change

1 1 Environmental impact

2 No change from env perspective

3 Local environmental benefit

4 Env score 3

5 Regional environmental benefit

1 1 Incompatable/complete change

2 Significant change to system

3 Add or remove components but some components used in the same way

4 Existing system but changes in the way it is used

5 No change to system

1 1 Adverse impact e.g. less employment/$ through region

2 Broader economic Impact 2

3 No change in economic impact

4 Broader economic Impact 4

5 New Industry, new jobs, …

Implementation

Other

Performance

Market Risk/Opportunity

Resilience/Adaptability

Tech Risk

Broader economic impact

Compatability with system

Env Impact

Community acceptance


81

F.2.1 Collections

Performance of collection systems - potential to improve (kerbside and RTS)

There is potential to improve the capture of targeted materials at kerbside and refuse transfer station througheducation, enforcement and/or system changes. Examples include:

· Promotion of the kerbside recycling service to users of commercial residual waste collection services;

· Education to improve the effectiveness (increase capture and reduce contamination rate) of the kerbsiderecycling service;

· Enforcement to address the effectiveness (reduce contamination rate) of the kerbside recycling service;

· Provision of containers for materials streams in accepted in the kerbside recycling service i.e. maintainkerbside sort but provide containers;

· Convert kerbside recycling service to co-mingled service, either fully co-mingled or glass +paper/plastics/tins adopted in several areas in New Zealand.

· Education and/or enforcement to improve effectiveness (capture and contamination) of recycling drop offfacilities; and

· Upgrade of current recycling drop-off facilities at transfer stations to promote and incentivise materialsdiversion. For example changing layout to route all users past recycle containers prior to residual wastedrop off, ensuring adequate capacity for recycling and recovery components of the transfer station layout.

Add new materials (kerbside FOGO)

There is potential put in place kerbside collections targeting garden organics, food organics or a combination ofthe two. Practical considerations include the interaction between existing garden organics collection servicesand any new council provided/funded service, likely capture of target materials and participation of users ofcommercial collection services for household waste.

Options considered include:

· Garden organics (GO) collectionGarden organics can be processed through existing infrastructure and represent a significant portion of thewaste stream. There is some evidence that garden organics collections capture material that wouldotherwise be managed on-site (composting/mulching) or dropped off at transfer station. A council providedgarden organics collection would compete with existing, private sector collections in Hastings and Napier.

· Food organics (FO) collectionFood organics can be processed in relatively small quantities through existing infrastructure or anaerobicdigestion and represent a significant portion of the waste stream (but not as much as garden organics).Key issues to consider from a food organics collection is collection frequency (to avoid decomposition andresulting odour), container size and collection methodology (significantly smaller containers).

· Food and garden organics (FOGO) CollectionCombined food and garden organics can be processed through existinginfrastructure and represent a significant portion of the waste stream.International experience suggests that the capture of food organics is lower incombined food and garden organics collection services when compared withfood organics only services. A council provided food and garden organicscollection would compete with existing, private sector garden organicscollections in Hastings and Napier17.

17 Some providers are currently allowing householders to add food organics to the garden organics bins.


82

F.2.2 Processing/Disposal

Existing

The existing processing arrangements could continue in their current form linking to a range of residualtreatment, disposal and market scenarios. Existing processing includes composting (windrow and aeratedwindrow), simple sort-line processing recyclables and use of wood waste and wood garden organics as biofuelin an industrial boiler. There is also some sorting of materials at transfer stations with inert materials disposedof to commercial cleanfills and recyclable material to various recyclers.

The products form these processes go to market (compost, recyclables) and landfill (ash from wood boiler).

Anaerobic Digestion

There is potential to process source separated food organics or combined food and garden organics (lessviable) using anaerobic digestion. Products include:

· Biogas - usable in a gas engine for power generation or to provide heat;

· Digester effluent - typically subject to further treatment with other high strength liquid wastes e.g. sewage;

· Digestate - the solid fraction typically dewatered and either subjected to further processing (e.g.composting), landfilled or applied directly to land under site and product specific consents.

It is likely that anaerobic digestion will be limited to putrescible materials (food waste and potentially foodprocessing wastes from industrial/commercial activities). This technology is proven in New Zealand forwastewater treatment solids and applied in Europe for other waste streams. There is technical and marketbased risk associated with applying anaerobic digestion to collected food waste. These issues are addressed inthe Critical Risk Factors assessment.

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

There is potential to process residual waste (household collections, commercial collections, drop-off materials)through a Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) facility. There is a range of configurations availablecombining mechanical separation of recyclable materials (plastics, metals) with biological treatment of thedegradable fraction (paper, card, organic materials) to produce stabilised organics18.

The resulting products include:

· Recyclable materials - to appropriate markets;

· Stabilised organic fraction - potentially usable as a soil amendment, refuse derived fuel (for conventionalmass burn energy from waste, appropriately configured industrial boilers or into a gasification or pyrolysisprocess) or disposed of at landfill.

The stabilised organics are reduced in volume as a result of biological transformation and water loss. They arealso less susceptible to further degradation should they be disposed of to landfill i.e. potential for landfill gasgeneration is reduced The end use of the stabilised organics will in part define the treatment used. Forexample biodrying can be used where the end product is to be used as a fuel while active biological stabilisationof the organic fraction is required where the product is applied to land or landfilled. .

Energy from Waste

There is potential to process residual waste through an energy from waste (EfW) facility - either a conventionalmass burn process or advanced thermal conversion technology such as gasification. In all cases, residualwaste (as collected or dropped off) will require some level of pre-treatment prior to entering the energy recoveryprocess. This pre-treatment may include:

18 Organics may be stabilised by reducing water content and/or or biological transformation (composting, anaerobic digestion)


83

· Recovery of recyclable materials e.g. metals, plastics, aggregate/inertmaterials

· Improving the consistency in the composition of the residual material - thiscould include shredding, mixing and adjusting moisture content

Following pre-treatment, the energy recovery process will produce energy (processheat and/or power generation) and residuals including air emissions and ash (flyash from air emissions treatment and bottom ash from mass burn or char fromgasification). The amount of energy recovered depends on the bulk calorific valueof the incoming material and the efficiency of the process configuration.

The nature and quantity of ash is highly feedstock and process specific. Fly ash is reactive and will requirespecific treatment and disposal arrangements recognising hazardous characteristics of the fly ash andchemicals used in the flue gas treatment. Bottom ash or char is less reactive and is typically disposed of atlandfill. Bottom ash has in some cases been reused as an aggregate product.

For the purposes of the modelling assessment we have considered a gasification process receiving residualwaste with pre-processing producing a sorted recyclables stream and a dried high calorific value fraction andoutputs including char and rejects from the pre-process component of the overall process. This replicates anMBT producing high calorific stabilised/dried organics feeding into a gasification process.

New Valley at Omarunui

On completion of landfilling in the currently active valley at Omarunui Landfill there is potential to extend the lifeof the facility by developing a new valley. The Councils are currently completing further work on costs and likelydevelopment considerations for this extension. The extended landfill could receive:

· Residual waste as per the current arrangements;

· Stabilised organics from a MBT facility;

· Ash (fly ash subject to appropriate design and pre-treatment and bottomash/char);

· Digestate from an anaerobic digestion process.

Transport to Commercial Landfill

On completion of landfilling in the currently active valley at Omarunui Landfill there is potential to transportresidual waste to a remote, commercial landfill. Waste transported could include:



· Ash (fly ash subject to appropriate approvals and bottom ash/char);


Transport to Local Authority Landfill

On completion of landfilling in the currently active valley at Omarunui Landfill there is potential to transportresidual waste to a remote, local authority controlled landfill. Waste transported could include:



· Ash (fly ash subject to appropriate approvals and pre-treatment and bottom ash/char);



84

F.2.3 Combined Options

There are a large number of combinations of collection, process and market/disposal options that aretheoretically possible. In some cases options are not considered feasible and have not been considered in ourassessment. The approach adopted is summarised below and in the figures on the following page.

Collections:

· Improved capture of targeted materials19 has been assumed for all options considered;

· Three household organic waste collection options have been considered (garden, food andcombined food and garden).

Processing/Market/Disposal

· Anaerobic digestion has been considered with food organics and combined food and gardenorganics feedstock;

· MBT has been considered with residual waste and a dedicated biological module processing, garden,food and combined food and garden feedstocks;

· Omarunui’s New Valley has been considered with residual waste (as per current with projectedgrowth), stabilised organics from an MBT facility and char from an EfW facility;

· Transport to a Commercial Landfill has been considered with residual waste (as per current withprojected growth), stabilised organics from an MBT facility and ash from an EfW facility;

· Transport to a Local Authority Landfill has been considered with residual waste (as per current withprojected growth), stabilised organics from an MBT facility and ash from an EfW facility;

· EfW (Gasification with pre-treatment as noted above) has been considered for residual waste withchar to landfill;

· In all combined options recyclables are linked to a recycling commodities market and compost to acompost market; and

· Provision of stabilised organics and digestate to a compost market is also considered.

The options that have been adopted are summarised in Table 10.2 and 10.3. The 36 feasible combined optionsare summarised in Figure 10.2.

19 Due to a combination of increased participation in the kerbside recycling scheme and increased recognition of materials from participatinghouseholds.


85

Table 10.2 : Option Components - Explanation

Table 10.3 : Option Combinations

F.3 Long-list evaluation

F.3.1 Scenario Modelling

The scenarios considered have been modelled to determine system costs over time and develop estimates ofrecycling and landfill diversion performance. The results of the modelling are summarised in the Table 10.2below and Figure 10.2 :. In summary:

· Diversion increases with the introduction of mechanical biological treatment then energy from waste(gasification);

CommentImpr Recognition Improve collection recognitionGO Introduce garden organics collectionFO Introduce food organics collectionFOGO Introduce food and garden organics collection

Composting/BioEnergy Garden (and food) organic processed via Composting and BioenergyAD Food or food and garden organic processed via Anaerobic DigestionMBT - Residual Residual waste processed in a Mechnical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilityMBT - Org Collected organics processed in a Mechnical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilityEfW Residual waste processed in a Energy from Waste (EfW) facilityNew Valley - Residual Residual waste disposad of to the Omarunui Landfill (New Valley from 2025)New Valley - CLO Stablised organics disposed of to the Omarunui Landfill (New Valley from 2025)New Valley - Ash Ash from the EfW facility disposed of to the Omarunui Landfill (New Valley from 2025)Comm Landfill - Residual Residual waste disposad of to a remote Commercial Landfill (from 2025)Comm Landfill - CLO Stablised organics disposed of to a remote Commercial Landfill (from 2025)Comm Landfill - Ash Ash from the EfW facility disposed of to a remote Commercial Landfill (from 2025)LA Landfill - Residual Residual waste disposad of to the a remote Local Authority Landfill (from 2025)LA Landfill - CLO Stablised organics disposed of to a remote Local Authority Landfill (from 2025)LA Landfill - Ash Ash from the EfW facility disposed of to a remote Local Authority Landfill (from 2025)Recycle Market Recyclables sold on commodities marketCompost Market Compost sold to compost marketCompost Market - CLO Stablised organics sold to compost market

Collection/Process/Market

Colle

ctio

nPr

oces

s/M

arke

t

Option Number - Long List 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36Impr Recognition x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xGO x x x x x xFO x x x x x x x x x x xFOGO x x x x x x x x x x

Composting/BioEnergy x x x x x x x x x x x x xAD x x x x x x xMBT - Residual x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xMBT - Org x x x x x xEfW x x x x x x x xNew Valley - Residual x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xNew Valley - CLO x x x x x x x xNew Valley - Ash x x x x x xComm Landfill - Residual x xComm Landfill - CLO xComm Landfill - Ash xLA Landfill - Residual x xLA Landfill - CLO xLA Landfill - Ash xRecycle Market x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xCompost Market x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xCompost Market - CLO x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Colle

ctio

nPr

oces

s/M

arke

t


86

· The introduction of organic waste collection services do not have a significant impact on diversion. This isrelated to collection system performance being linked to councils relatively small share of the domesticwaste collection market i.e. the system is only available to a small proportion of the total number ofhouseholds;

· Based on the cost assumptions used, MBT and EfW (Gasification) are significantly more expensive (by afactor of close to 50%) - the modelling suggests increases in diversion are achievable but at significantcost.

Table 10.4 : Scenario performance and system cost ($M) in 2030

Scenario Total Cost($M in 2030)

LandfillDiversion (%)

Recycle (%)

1. New Valley 14.6 16.4% 14.9%

2. GO + New Valley 14.5 17.4% 16.0%

3. GO + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.7% 17.2%

4. GO - MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.6 60.9% 59.5%

5. FO + New Valley 14.4 18.0% 16.7%

6. FO + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.9% 17.1%

7. FO + MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.6 61.1% 59.7%

8. FO + AD + New Valley 12.1 18.0% 16.6%

9. FOGO + New Valley 12.4 19.0% 17.7%

10. FOGO + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 45.2% 16.8%

11. FOGO + MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.7 61.3% 60.0%

12. FOGO + AD + New Valley 12.2 18.9% 17.6%

13. MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 22.9 44.4% 17.5%

14. MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.6 60.6% 59.2%

15. MBT (Comm Landfill) 25.3 48.6% 17.6%

16. MBT (LA Landfill) 27.1 48.6% 17.6%

17. EfW + New Valley 23.3 72.8% 22.3%

20. Comm Landfill 14.3 16.4% 14.9%

21. LA Landfill 17.5 16.4% 14.9%

22. GO + Residual to MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 22.7 45.1% 18.5%

23. GO + Residual to MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.4 60.9% 59.6%

24. FO + Residual to MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.3 61.2% 59.8%

25. FO + Residual to MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 22.6 45.4% 19.1%

26. FO (AD) + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.4% 18.1%

27. FO (AD) + MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.5 61.1% 59.8%

28. FOGO + Residual to MBT (Landfill) 22.4 46.0% 20.1%

29. FOGO + Residual to MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.1 61.5% 60.2%

30. FOGO (AD) + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.4% 18.5%

31. FOGO (AD) + MBT (CLO) + New Valley 21.4 61.5% 60.2%

32. GO + Residual to EfW + New Valley 23.0 73.0% 23.2%

33. FO + Residual to EfW + New Valley 22.9 73.1% 23.8%

34. FO (AD) + EfW + New Valley 22.9 73.1% 23.8%


87

Scenario Total Cost($M in 2030)


Recycle (%)

35. FOGO + Residual to EfW + New Valley 22.7 73.3% 24.6%

36. FOGO (AD) + EfW + New Valley) 22.7 73.3% 24.6%

Figure 10.2 : Total System Cost vs Landfill Diversion

F.3.2 Cost Uncertainty

A key issue in this type of high level assessment of collection, processing and disposal/market scenarios isdetermining suitable costs to assign to various components of the waste management system. This isparticularly difficult when technologies not currently employed in New Zealand are considered. The mechanismfor addressing this at the indicative business case is to derive ranges for costs associated with variouscomponents of the waste management system. This is illustrated by Figure 10.3 : showing cumulative wastemanagement costs for a system utilising EfW (gasification) and a system using landfill exclusively.

In this case, EfW has been modelled at $250/T (as presented in Table 10.4 and Figure 10.2 :) with potentialcost ranging from $80/T20 to $300/T21. Similarly for landfill an upgraded landfill at Omarunui has been modelledat $75/T22 with potential costs ranging up to $200/T23. The data presented in Figure 10.3 : illustrates that if realcosts for EfW are in the lower end of the range identified and costs for landfill in the mid to high end of the rangepresented they will be largely comparable from a cost perspective.

20 Based on some earlier cost modelling completed for council21 Based on the upper end of rates for a facility of suitable scale22 based on historic cost estimates for further development at Omarunui23 based on NZ examples


88

Figure 10.3 : Ranges for cumulative waste management costs for EfW and Landfill

F.3.3 Critical Success Factor Assessment

Each of the scenarios has been assessed against the critical success factors identified for the project, includingscoring of diversion and total system cost. The full assessment is presented in Appendix D and is summarisedbelow. Figure 10.4 :shows critical success factors vs cost group by process and disposal/market. Figure 10.5:presents a similar assessment grouped by collection.

In additional to the critical success factors assessment it was noted that it is unlikely that markets will beidentified for stabilised organics from a MBT facility. This means the only feasible scenarios for MBT in HawkesBay are to landfill the stabilised organics (either at Omarunui or a remote landfill) or to configure the process toproduce a refuse derived fuel (RDF). The EfW (gasification) scenario assumes pre-processing of material i.e.includes the production and use of a high calorific fraction from an MBT process. Given the likely destination forthe stabilised fraction it is likely to be more cost effective to configure the MBT process to dry rather thancompletely stabilise the material i.e. MBT will produce recycle and ‘bio-dried’ fractions.


89

Figure 10.4 : Critical Success Factors vs. Cost (grouped by process/disposal)

Figure 10.5 : Critical Success Factors vs. Cost (grouped by collection)

Cost Low

Cost Low


90

Table 10.5 : summarises the outcome of the critical success factors assessment with scenarios employing MBT(CLO) removed and higher scores in each column shaded green. Clearly no scenario adequately addresses allof the Critical Success Factors. It is important to note that both cost and diversion have been modelled usingsimplifying assumptions and may improve or degrade with more detailed assessment.

Table 10.5 : Critical Success Factors - Results summary

Leading options based on the overall assessment are:

· The highest weighted score (60 for Option 9 FOGO and New Valley) combines an ‘optimised’ collectionsystem (food and garden organics) with an extension at Omarunui Landfill. This scenario offers lowcost combined with a modest increase in diversion from landfill.

· Several other collection arrangements combined with an extension at Omarunui Landfill also scoredwell. These scenarios offer similar combinations of relatively low cost with a modest increase in diversionform landfill;

· Disposal of residual waste to a commercial landfill (Option 20 Comm Landfill) scored 59 reflectingrelatively low risk and comparable but higher cost than extension at Omarunui. This scenario involves amodest increase in annual cost, no significant improvement in diversion but avoids the need to fund ormanage major new infrastructure;

· MBT with stabilised organics to an extended Omarunui Landfill (Options 3, 6, 10. This involvessignificant investment in new infrastructure (MBT and new landfill airspace at Omarunui) with resultingincrease in diversion from landfill; and

· EfW (gasification) with char disposed of to an extended Omarunui Landfill. This involves significantinvestment in new infrastructure (EfW and new landfill airspace at Omarunui) with resulting increase indiversion from landfill

Total Cost($M in 2030)


Recycle (%) Unweighted Weighted

1. New Valley 10.7 16.4% 14.9% 33 582. GO + New Valley 10.7 17.4% 16.0% 32 583. GO + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.7% 17.2% 33 555. FO + New Valley 10.6 18.0% 16.7% 31 576. FO + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.9% 17.1% 33 558. FO + AD + New Valley 12.1 18.0% 16.6% 28 489. FOGO + New Valley 12.4 19.0% 17.7% 34 6010. FOGO + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 45.2% 16.8% 33 5512. FOGO + AD + New Valley 12.2 18.9% 17.6% 28 4813. MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 22.9 44.4% 17.5% 33 5315. MBT (Comm Landfill) 25.3 48.6% 17.6% 31 4916. MBT (LA Landfill) 27.1 48.6% 17.6% 31 4917. EfW + New Valley 23.7 72.8% 22.3% 35 5520. Comm Landifll 14.3 16.4% 14.9% 32 5921. LA Landfill 17.5 16.4% 14.9% 32 5722. GO + Residual to MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 22.7 45.1% 18.5% 32 5125. FO + Residual to MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 22.6 45.4% 19.1% 32 5126. FO (AD) + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.4% 18.1% 32 5128. FOGO + Residual to MBT (Landfill) 22.4 46.0% 20.1% 32 5130. FOGO (AD) + MBT (Landfill) + New Valley 23.0 44.4% 18.5% 32 5132. GO + Residual to EfW + New Valley 23.5 73.0% 23.2% 31 4933. FO + Residual to EfW + New Valley 23.4 73.1% 23.8% 31 4934. FO (AD) + EfW + New Valley 22.9 73.1% 23.8% 31 4935. FOGO + Residual to EfW + New Valley 23.1 73.3% 24.6% 31 4936. FOGO (AD) + EfW + New Valley) 22.7 73.3% 24.6% 31 49


91

F.3.4 Next steps

This assessment suggests that there are several process/disposal options that warrant further examination.These are:· Extension of Omarunui Landfill,

· Transport of residual waste to a commercial landfill,

· Developing an MBT facility focussed on materials recovery and production of stabilised residual waste fordisposal in an extended Omarunui Landfill24,

· Developing an Energy from Waste Facility with up front material recovery, and disposal of residuals at anextended Omarunui Landfill.

The assessment also highlights a number of areas requiring further examination and refinement before arrivingat a preferred option. For all of the processing and disposal options the upstream collection system (kerbsideand transfer station) will need to be optimised to maximise the capture of materials prior to becoming part of theresidual waste stream. This has the benefit of reducing the quantity of residual waste requiring processing/disposal and maximising the value of recovered materials25. This also reflects the situation in other jurisdictionswhere advanced treatment solutions are only considered once collection systems are configured to maximisecapture.

As noted in Section F.3.2 there is uncertainty in the costs associated with all of the infrastructure optionsconsidered. Work is underway on developing more detailed costs estimates for extending Omarunui Landfillincluding the impact of a range of annual quantities on upfront and annual costs. Where possible cost rangeswill be narrowed but the need to present cost information as a range rather than single figures will remain.Sensitivity testing also required focussed:· The cost of Commercial landfill (including transport costs);

· The cost and performance of MBT including varying levels of stabilisation of the degradable fraction;

· The cost and performance of EfW (gasification);

· Project increase in capture from collection and transfer station improvements.

The modelling to date has assumed new infrastructure will be in place by the time the current valley atOmarunui is completed in 2025. The next stage of the analysis will consider the benefits of introducing newinfrastructure earlier - extending the ‘life’ of the current valley through reducing material disposed of atOmarunui. This could be achieved by:· Putting in place MBT (more than 30% reduction in material to landfill);

· EfW (more than 60% reduction in material to landfill); or

· Transporting waste elsewhere (up to 100% diversion from Omarunui).

The modelling and assessment to date has assumed 100% of the waste stream will be managed in a singleway. There is potential to consider smaller scale implementation of MBT, EfW or transport elsewhere. With theremaining residual waste disposed of directly to landfill. This would reduce cost and diversion but provides away to reduce risk associated with implementing new technology.

Section F.4.1 sets out the approach to assessing the shortlisted options. Section F.4.1.1 summarises the initialview on an optimised collection system and Section F.4.1.2 sets out the 4 processing/disposal options to beconsidered.

24 The assessment to data has suggested cost (transport and disposal) are lower utilising Omarunui rather than a remote, commercial landfill. Iffurther design/costing suggests commercial landfill is more attractive financially disposal of residual materials from MBT or EfW (gasification) tocommercial landfill will be considered.25 Materials separated at kerbside or prior to drop-off at transfer station are likely to be less contaminated.


92

F.4 Short-listed options

The shortlisted options are set out in Table 10.6 :. The short-list has been established based on the analysisand discussion summarised In Section F.3.

Table 10.6 : Recommended Short-List

Option Title Sub-Option Processing Disposal

A. Residual Waste toOmarunui Landfill

i. From 2025 Food/Garden to existing - 2025 Omarunui Landfill

2025 - New Valley at OmarunuiLandfill

B. Residual waste toCommercial Landfill

i. From 2025 Food/Garden to existing - 2025 Omarunui Landfill

2025 - Commercial Landfill

ii. From 2020 split with Omarunui Food/Garden to existing - 2020 Omarunui Landfill

2020 - 3026 50% Commercial Landfill,50% Omarunui Landfill

2030 - Commercial Landfill

C. Residual waste toMBT

i. From 2025 residual to New Valleywith per tonne rate reflecting lowertonnage.

Food/Garden to existing

Residual to MBT from 2025

Stabilised organics (ex MBT)to landfill

- 2025 Omarunui Landfill


ii. From 2020 extending life ofOmarunui to around 2030-35 atlower cost than New Valley, thenas for Sub-option i.


Residual to MBT from 2020



2030- New Valley at OmarunuiLandfill

iii. From 2025 taking 50% of residualwith per tonne rate reflecting lowertonnage


Residual to MBT or landfillfrom 2025




iv. From 2020 taking 50% of residualextending life of Omarunui toapprox. 2030 then new valley


Residual to MBT or landfillfrom 2020




D. Residual Waste toEfW

i. From 2025 ash/char to New Valleywith smaller scale unit rate forlandfilling


Residual to EfW from 2025

Ash/char (ex EfW) to landfill



ii. From 2020 extending life ofOmarunui to around 2035-40 atlower cost than New Valley


Residual to EfW from 2020




iii. From 2025 taking 50% of residual Food/Garden to existing

Residual to EfW or landfillform 2025




26 Additional years capacity to be assessed in next stage27 Additional years capacity to be assessed in next stage28 Additional years capacity to be assessed in next stage29 Additional years capacity to be assessed in next stage


93

Option Title Sub-Option Processing Disposal

iv. From 2020 taking 50% of residualextending life of Omarunui toapprox. 2035 then new valley


Residual to EfW or landfillform 2020




F.4.1 Details of shortlisted options

F.4.1.1 Collection System

For the short-list evaluation we will assume that the collection system will be optimised i.e. maximising captureof materials at kerbside and refuse transfer stations. From a modelling/assessment perspective ourassumptions will include:

· Food and garden organics collection with 20% capture across full domestic waste stream;

· Optimised (20% increase in capture - paper, card, plastics) kerbside recycling collection;

· Optimised (20% increase in capture - paper, card, plastics, glass, metals, organics) at refuse transferstations.

While outside the scope of the detailed assessment that contributes to the detailed economic case,implementation options will be considered and explored as part of the other components of the DetailedBusiness Case. Components of implementation may include:

· Working with existing collection providers (contracted to council and private providers) to promote existingrecycling collection services to increase participation, capture and improve materials quality;

· Working with existing organics collection providers to increase participation and capture of materialsincluding exploring the potential for incentives for use/provision of organics collection services;

· Considering new/enhanced collection methodology for recyclables (for example multiple containers vs co-mingled), education;

· High level consideration of modifying transfer station layout and communications.

F.4.1.2 Processing Options

For the short list evaluation some arrangements are assumed to continue as currently configured. Examplesinclude arrangements for collected recyclables (kerbside sort and sort-line) and garden organics (compostingand bioenergy).

A range of food and garden organics are currently processed via existing composting operations and areassumed to continue to be processed in this way.

Four processing/disposal options will be considered as part of the short-list. They are discussed below with keyassumptions and sub-options noted.

A Residual waste to Omarunui Landfill New Valley

Option A reflects a continuation of the current situation with an optimised collection system and an extension tothe Omarunui Landfill constructed around 2025. Collection, process and treatment costs and flows are similarto current. The modelled landfill costs assume $100/T (with a range $75 - $200) incorporating capital andoperating costs.

Sub-option:

i. From 2025

30 Additional years capacity to be assessed in next stage


94

B Residual waste to Commercial Landfill

Option B replaces an extension to Omarunui Landfill with transport of residual waste to a commercial landfill,commencing either in 2020 (to extend the life of the current landfill area) or 2025 once the current area iscompleted.

The modelling will assume a transport distance of 210 km each way, $0.30 $/T.km and $50/T residual waste atthe gate.

Sub-options:

i. From 2025

ii. From 2020 with 50:50 split with Omarunui until completed and then 100% to commercial landfill.

C Residual waste to MBT (stabilised organics to Omarunui Landfill)

Option C involves processing of residual waste through a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility toremove additional recoverable materials, stabilise residual organic material and reduce the volume of residualwaste requiring disposal. Sub-options will consider sizing the MBT facility for 100% or 50% of the projectedresidual waste stream and early implementation (from 2020, to extend the life of the current landfill area).

The modelling will assume a MBT cost of $200/T with range $150 - 250/T incorporating capital, operating costsand revenue from recovered materials. The reduction in residual waste requiring disposal is assumed to be inthe order of 35%.

Sub-options:

i. From 2025 residual to New Valley with per tonne rate reflecting lower tonnage;

ii. From 2020 extending life of Omarunui to around 2030-35 at lower cost than New Valley, then as for Sub-option i;

iii. From 2025 taking 50% of residual with per tonne rate reflecting lower tonnage;

iv. From 2020 taking 50% of residual extending life of Omarunui to approx. 2030 then new valley.

D Residual waste to EfW (char to Omarunui Landfill)

Option D involves processing of residual waste through an Energy from Waste (EfW, assuming gasification)facility to remove additional recoverable materials, recover energy and produce a char product. For thepurposes of modelling the char is assumed to be landfilled. Sub-options will consider sizing the EfW facility for100% or 50% of the projected residual waste stream and early implementation (from 2020, to extend the life ofthe current landfill area).

The modelling will assume an EfW cost of $200/T with range $150 - 300/T incorporating capital, operating costsand revenue from recovered materials. The reduction in residual waste requiring disposal is assumed to be inthe order of 65%.

Sub-options:

i. From 2025 ash/char to New Valley with smaller scale unit rate for landfilling;

ii. From 2020 extending life of Omarunui to around 2035-40 at lower cost than New Valley;

iii. From 2025 taking 50% of residual;

iv. From 2020 taking 50% of residual extending life of Omarunui to approx. 2035 then new valley.

F.5 Conclusions and next steps


95

This report presents the outcome of analysis of a long list of waste management system options for HastingsDistrict and Napier City Councils. The assessment has considered diversion from landfill, total system cost anda range of other factors including risk, community acceptance and broader economic benefits.

The wide ranging assessment has concluded that a four broad options warrant further consideration. These are

· Extension of Omarunui Landfill;

· Transport of residual waste to a commercial landfill;

· Developing an MBT facility focussed on materials recovery and production of stabilised residual waste fordisposal in an extended Omarunui Landfill31;

· Developing an Energy from Waste Facility with up front material recovery, and disposal of residuals at anextended Omarunui Landfill.

These options will be tested in detail to select a preferred option for the development of a detailed businesscase. This test will include a number of sub-options and sensitivity tests including costs associated with keyinfrastructure components (MBT, EfW, and Landfill), system performance and timing of system changes.

The next steps for the project are to:

· Confirm the short-list to be considered in further detail;

· Complete further detailed assessment of the agreed short-list;

· Identify the preferred options to be considered in the preparation of the Financial, Management andCommercial Business Case components of the Detailed Business Case.

31 The assessment to date has suggested cost (transport and disposal) are lower utilising Omarunui rather than a remote, commercial landfill. Iffurther design/costing suggests commercial landfill is more attractive financially disposal of residual materials from MBT or EfW (gasification) tocommercial landfill will be considered.

Morrison Low 1

Hastings DC and Napier CC Districts-specific issues for Waste Management and Minimisation

Having reviewed progress against the previous WMMP Action Plan and considering waste quantities and emerging events since the last WMMP, the Councils have identified the following issues that need to be addressed in the next WWMP. They are:

1. Diversion of waste from landfill is not optimised

The amount of waste being disposed to landfill is increasing (by 12% in 16/17 year), both council-controlled waste and privately-controlled waste (such as commercial, industrial, and C&D). The diversion of kerbside refuse is not optimised.

Omarunui Landfill gate fees are low compared with other council-owned landfills providing little incentive for commercial operators to divert waste from landfill.

The Councils’ transfer station fees and charges are not aligned providing less incentive to divert where the fees and charges are lower.

In the 2016 SWAP paper, plastics, and timber were all present in similar proportions in the overall waste to landfill, ranging from 9-12% of the total, by weight. These waste streams provide an opportunity for future diversion initiatives.

2. Organic waste forms a large proportion of the Councils’ waste to landfill

Organic material was the largest single component of the overall waste stream being disposed of at Omarunui Landfill, comprising 40% of the total. Kerbside organic waste services are not currently provided by the Councils. Of the overall waste stream (from both kerbside and transfer stations) 22% of Hastings and 20% of Napier’s waste stream comprises organic waste from kitchen and greenwaste.

Commercial 240L bins have a proportion of organic waste, higher than refuse bags.

3. Potentially divertible materials in the Councils’ kerbside refuse collections are high

The Councils are “not walking the talk” as potentially divertible materials collected through council kerbside refuse collection services are being landfilled.

Of the kerbside refuse disposed to landfill 58% of Hastings and 65% of Napier’s was potentially divertible with 47% of each council’s refuse able to be composted and 10% and 18% respectively recycled through the kerbside recycling collection.

4. The Councils have limited potential to control diversion due to their market share

The Councils market share of the kerbside services is eroding and becoming economically unviable. Of all kerbside collection services in Hastings District the Council share is 13% and in Napier 51%. A high proportion of the kerbside refuse (70%) from Hastings District is collected in commercial 240-litre MGBs. A smaller proportion of the kerbside refuse (44%) from Napier City is collected in commercial 240-litre MGBs.

In 2016 of the total amount of waste disposed to Omarunui Landfill commercial kerbside collections amounted to 27%, and the Councils’ kerbside collection services to 3% for Hastings and 8.9% for Napier.

Kerbside refuse collection services provided by the Councils use inconsistent methodology and charges. Efficiencies may be possible through alignment of methodology.

Morrison Low 2

The Councils’ manual collection services have greater health and safety issues than services with automated collection methodology.

A comparison of user costs and convenience of refuse bags compared with bins indicates that users’ preference is for a bin collection service which is indicated by the Council kerbside refuse market share compared with commercial bin collection operators.

5. Maintaining minimum standards that support and incentivise waste diversion

Regulatory support is needed to incentivise waste diversion. A bylaw would assist control of acceptable material at landfill, acceptable contamination rates, times/days collection, data reporting, waste operator licencing, bin size.

The current council bylaws are only applicable to waste collection services with controls placed on residents. The bylaws are not applicable to waste facilities or operators of commercial collection services and facilities.

6. Data is not available for all waste streams in the districts

Commercial operators are not required to provide waste data to the Councils. There is no bylaw licensing system that requires data provision as a requirement of a licence. Under a licensing system the Councils may require data provision however legislation relieves commercial operators from having to provide data for diverted materials collected from private property.

Commercial operators in the region own and operate resource recovery facilities for recyclables, organic waste, and cardboard.

7. The Councils’ transfer station network is not fully optimised

There is an opportunity to optimise the location and services offered at the transfer stations provided by the Councils’. For example, the Blackbridge transfer station does not adequately service the Havelock North area.

8. Omarunui Landfill is running out of waste disposal space

Additional landfill capacity will be required during the term of the next WMMP. The Waste Futures Project identified the need to develop additional landfill capacity at the Omarunui Landfill.

9. Some residents and industries are unaware of their waste options

There needs to be ongoing education programmes to reach those groups that have the biggest ability to contribute towards achieving the Councils’ vision for reduction and diversion of waste from landfill. Work needs to be undertaken with urban and rural communities, businesses and the viticulture and horticultural industries to continually educate and provide a consistent message on how to reduce, re-use and recycle.

10. Meeting the waste collection needs of rural communities

Hastings District has a large rural area, meaning there are a number of communities surrounding the urban area as well as that of Napier City. The majority of these communities receive no refuse collection service and few receive recycling services. The feasibility of offering services to these communities needs investigation.

11. Litter and illegal dumping continues to occur

A joint approach with other organisations will assist drive initiatives to reduce the occurrence of litter and illegal dumping which is a national issue.

Morrison Low 3

12. Appropriate disposal of hazardous waste from agricultural activities

Although attitudes are changing, inappropriate disposal practices continue including the disposal of hazardous waste from agricultural activities.

13. Appropriate regulation of cleanfill

The Councils need to ensure that consented cleanfills (not owned by the Councils) operate and are managed in accordance with their consents.

There is a need to ensure that only cleanfill is disposed to cleanfill and not divertible materials such as greenwaste.

14. National product stewardship schemes are limited and not effective

There are a limited number of product stewardship schemes therefore ownership for the management of “problem” wastes falls back on ratepayers.

Morrison Low 4

A further description of these issues and a high level assessment of options for dealing with them are in the table below.

Issue Description Approach Options Aligns with vision, goals and objectives

Cost Ease of Implementation

Commentary

1. Diversion of waste from landfill is not optimised

• The amount of kerbside refuse being disposed to landfill is increasing.

• Omarunui Landfill gate fees are low compared with other council-owned landfills providing little incentive for commercial operators to divert waste from landfill.

• The Councils’ transfer station fees and charges are not aligned providing less public and small commercial incentive to divert.

Educate and support

a) Provide information to customers on how to responsibly dispose of divertible materials

Medium Low Relatively simple Education and information sharing is an on-going approach that the Councils use, particularly in conjunction with any new initiatives or changes to the way a service is to be provided. Provision of educational material at appropriate locations and times is a low-cost option to inform and educate the community on positive waste minimisation behaviours.

Educate and support

b) Review and extend existing waste education programmes for the general public, visitors, businesses and in schools including utilising behaviour change techniques to make waste more emotive e.g.say landfill instead of rubbish, and include images to encourage diversion

Medium Low Relatively simple Refer commentary above under Item 1a.

Educate and support

c) Establish a grants scheme to support community initiatives focused on waste minimisation

Medium Low Relatively simple Grants schemes can provide seed funding for waste minimisation initiatives that support the Councils’ WMMP targets and objectives. Some councils in New Zealand utilise waste minimisation levy funds received to provide grants for developing business and community-based resource recovery centres and programmes. Note, cost depends on amount of grants available

Educate and support

d) Review council waste funding policy to encourage diversion

Medium Low Relatively simple Funding mechanisms available to Council to pay for waste services include: general rate, targeted rate, user pays charge, waste minimisation fund levy, local landfill levy. The Councils use a combination of these to pay for the services that they deliver. Choice of funding mechanism is related to who benefits from the service and is also related to incentivising residents’ and businesses’ behaviour to reduce waste disposal. Consistency of funding policies between the councils could be considered to promote consistent behaviour.

Educate and support

e) Investigate and implement (where feasible) Cleaner Production (CP) initiatives with

Medium Low Relatively complex Councils can provide advice, grants and incentives to businesses to minimise waste generation. These programmes lead to positive engagement with businesses.

Morrison Low 5



Commentary

businesses that reduce, reuse, recycle and recover waste

Some CP initiatives are challenging to design and can be more difficult to measure in terms of their effectiveness in changing behaviour or measuring waste minimisation outcomes. Change in behaviour can also be brought about by advocacy and supporting relevant research and development into new markets for recovered materials.

Educate and support

f) Support and enable, where practicable, commercial operators in relation to resource recovery facilities e.g. organic waste processing, cardboard and paper recycling, other recyclables processing

High Medium Complex There are a number of commercially owned and operated resource recovery facilities in the region that recover and or process diverted materials and organic waste e.g. Bio Rich Composting for organic waste, Hawke Packaging for cardboard and paper recycling. Support by the Councils for commercial operators could:

• ensure facilities are available and continue to be available for diversion of waste in the region

• reduce the need for the Councils to provide these facilities that would require significant capital works and ongoing operational expenditure.

Regulate g) Investigate and introduce waste operator licensing through a Solid Waste Bylaw to ensure minimum standards are maintained and to monitor waste

Medium High Complex The licensing of collectors and facilities often includes a requirement to provide data so councils can monitor their progress against waste minimisation targets. However commercial operators are not required under legislation to provide data about diverted materials collected from private property. The Hawke’s Bay Councils own and operate the transfer station network and landfill in the region so have access to data through the records of those facilities.

Regulate h) Through a solid waste bylaw restrict specific types of waste in kerbside refuse bags/wheelie bins

Medium High Complex For example, maximum permissible amounts (or prohibition) of recyclable material or food and greenwaste allowed in kerbside refuse receptacles. While simple in theory, this option requires the development of a bylaw and requires compliance costs that may end up unnecessarily consuming time and resource. This is because the source of the non-compliance will be difficult to determine with the certainty required to enable infringement notices/fines to be issued. Bans have been introduced by some councils to encourage residents to separate their recycling from refuse. Formalising this and ensuring compliance for both private collectors and Council would be complex. There will be high costs associated with the drafting of the appropriate policy/bylaw, consultation, hearings and socialisation of such a ban. In addition the Councils would need alternatives in place for the acceptance of any banned materials e.g. transfer stations, processing facilities.

Regulate i) Through landfill waste acceptance criteria, restrict specific types of waste at Omarunui Landfill

Medium High Complex While appearing simple, the impact of landfill acceptance may impact customer convenience and drive customers to use other landfills, reducing revenue at Omarunui and not increasing diversion.

Morrison Low 6



Commentary

Additional resources required to enforce waste acceptance controls. Alternatives to landfill disposal would need to be available.

Regulate j) Set bylaw controls on receptacle size and weight for both council and commercial services operating in public places

Medium High Complex Restricting the collection receptacle size and permissible weight encourages waste reduction and diversion. Only impacts kerbside-collected material, with material collected within private property, such as skip bins and commercial waste bins, not impacted.

Regulate k) Review and set fees and charges at the landfill and transfer stations that incentivise waste diversion from landfill

High Low Relatively simple Review funding policies for waste facilities. This could include application of a local landfill levy or alignment of transfer station and landfill fees.

Service l) Investigate and implement processing facilities for the diversion of materials from the overall waste accepted at Omarunui Landfill

High High Complex To implement this option would require: • Operation and maintenance of sorting and processing

equipment at facilities. • Management of markets for larger quantity of diverted

materials • Allocation of higher operation and maintenance costs • Increased management of health and safety risks due to

increased manual handling of waste. Alternatives to landfill were investigated through the Joint Waste Futures Project and discounted through the business case assessment of these options. Implementation at the landfill would capture all waste disposed, whereas implementation at the transfer stations would capture waste streams most suited to this type of measure. Construction and demolition waste would be a key target of this initiative.

2. Organic waste forms a large proportion of the Councils’ waste to landfill

• Organic material was the largest single component of the overall waste stream being disposed of at Omarunui Landfill, comprising 40% of the total. Kerbside organic waste services are not currently provided by the Councils.

• Commercial 240L bins have a high proportion of organic waste, higher than refuse bags.

Educate and support

a) Provide information to customers on how to divert organic waste

Medium Low Relatively simple With organic waste continuing to represent a high proportion of waste to landfill, councils are continuing to prioritise diversion of organics from landfill. A three tier approach to organic waste diversion used by some councils includes:

• organic waste reduction through behaviour change e.g. supporting Love Food Hate Waste

• supporting composting of organic waste e.g. composting workshops and vouchers for compost bin

• providing organic collection services (supported by bylaws) or encouraging residents to use commercial greenwaste services

Despite this, the implementation of organic waste collection and processing services in New Zealand remain relatively static due to: • the high cost of these services; • the lack of necessary scale to make them feasible; • the risk associated with the operation of processing

Morrison Low 7



Commentary

facilities; and the need to identify an end use for the compost (or other products) produced

Educate and support

b) Support and enable, where practicable, commercial operators in relation to organic recovery facilities

High Medium Relatively complex Refer commentary above under Item 1.

Incentivise c) Set fees and charges that incentivise diversion of organic waste from landfill

High Low Simple Refer commentary above under Item 1 A review of fees and charges for green waste may incentivise greater separation of organics waste from other waste streams.

Regulate d) Require private operators to provide an organic waste collection service if providing a refuse service

Medium High Complex Refer commentary above under Item 1. This would apply to both council and private collections.

Service e) Encourage green waste or kitchen waste away from landfill through both council and commercial kerbside refuse collections. Regulation may follow depending on success (In conjunction with d) and f))

Medium High Complex Refer commentary above under Item 1.

Service f) Provide separate kerbside organic waste bin collection service for urban households through a staged introduction

High High Relatively complex The Councils’ Waste Futures Economic Case Report (April 2017) identified the following options for the diversion of organic waste:

• Target household organics via commercial collection providers

• Community based projects around ways to reduce food waste, budgeting for food purchases, household composting initiatives.

While organics are a significant component of the divertible material going to landfill, the cost of implementing an organic waste bin service would be significantly high, and while it would contribute to the goals and objectives of the Councils as they relate to waste, the cost of such a service may be higher than the ratepayers are willing to accept. The significant diversion of organic waste will result in less material going through the Transfer Station network and Landfill. There are facilities in the region that are consented to process food waste. The lack of a consented facility has been a barrier to implementing organics collections in other regions.

3. Potentially recyclable materials in the Councils’ kerbside refuse collections are high

• In addition to the potentially compostable material, there remains an additional 10% of Hastings and 18% of Napier’s kerbside collected refuse that

Educate and support

a) Provide information to customers on how to recycle right

Medium Low Relatively simple Refer commentary above under Item 1.

Morrison Low 8



Commentary

could still be recycled using kerbside recycling services.

Regulate b) Restrict recyclable material in kerbside collection bags

Medium High Complex Refer commentary above under Item 1.

Service c) Change the recycling collection methodology

Medium Medium Relatively complex This would involve Investigating and implementing options to increase the quality, quantity and yield of the Councils’ recycling services. Systems that increase customer convenience, such as larger recycling receptacles, has been shown to increase diversion. Quantity, quality and the yield of recyclables have increased in New Zealand with the introduction of two stream kerbside recycling services i.e. mixed recyclables and glass are presented in separate bins. This collection methodology is currently considered best industry practice. Typically there is a 20% increase in the quantity of recyclables collected with increased quality of product due to the removal of glass fines. The cleaner recyclables are the more they are worth. The cost to the Councils of collecting the recyclables also depends on whether the Councils or the Contractor receive the money from their sale. An initial kerbside options assessment could be implemented. [Note: This exercise may be completed either prior to the WMMP and options consulted on though the draft WMMP or after the WMMP adoption.]

4. The Councils have limited potential to control diversion due to their market share of kerbside refuse collections

• The Councils’ market share of the kerbside services is eroding. Kerbside collections are becoming economically unviable and councils have less waste stream control to drive diversion.

Service a) Investigate and implement changes to the methodology for council-provided refuse collection service through a staged introduction

Medium Medium Relatively complex Changes to the collection methodology e.g. from bags to bins or offering customers a choice of bins or bags may encourage more use of the council service. In the review of current service provision consideration needs to be given by the Councils to:

• Health and safety legislative change particularly with regard to manual handling of waste

• Convenience of services attracts customers e.g. bins vs refuse bags are considered more convenient by increasing numbers of users and consequently is part of the reason the Councils’ market share has eroded.

The Councils’ manual collection services have greater health and safety issues than services with automated collection methodology.

Service b) Investigate and implement changes to the funding method for council-provided refuse collection service

Medium Medium Relatively complex A comparison of user costs and convenience of refuse bags compared with bins indicates that users’ preference is for a bin collection service which is indicated by the Council kerbside refuse market share compared with that of commercial bin collection operators Considerations could include:

Morrison Low 9



Commentary

• Alignment of Napier and Hastings’ funding approaches. • Council exiting the refuse collection market and focusing

on diversion services. • Pay-per-lift refuse bin collection services using RFID

technology Council contractors conducting concurrent private collection services and reimbursing the Councils for that share.

5. Maintaining minimum standards that support and incentivise waste diversion

• Regulatory support is needed to incentivise waste diversion. A bylaw would assist control of acceptable material at landfill, acceptable contamination rates in recycling services, times/days collection, data reporting, waste operator licencing, bin size.

• The current council bylaws are only applicable to waste collection services with controls placed on residents. The bylaws are not applicable to waste facilities or operators of commercial collection services and facilities.

Educate and support

a) Provide information to customers on how to use the Councils’ collection services and responsibly disposal of waste

High Low Simple Refer to commentary under Item 1.

Regulate b) Review the Councils’ current solid waste bylaws and align with the policy objectives of the reviewed Joint WMMP

Medium High Complex Recent bylaws prepared in New Zealand often focus on: • regulating collection services through licensing systems

including a requirement to provide data to the council • including requirements to separate waste materials for

collection • increased consideration of the health and safety of waste

collectors (in particular for manual collection services), waste operators and the public

• the use of controls that are separate from the bylaw itself , meaning controls may be amended by resolution of the council and publicly notified

• the inclusion of multi-unit developments and event waste management.

The Councils’ current bylaws are only applicable to waste collection services with controls placed on residents. The bylaws are not applicable to waste facilities or operators of commercial collection services and facilities. Councils in Waikato and Bay of Plenty have developed standard bylaw clauses supported by WasteMINZ funding. These clauses will be available nationally for other councils to use.

Morrison Low 10



Commentary

6. Data is not available for all waste streams in the districts

• Commercial operators are not required to provide waste data to the Councils making it difficult to track progress against diversion targets.

Regulate a) Review the Councils’ current solid waste bylaws and align with the policy objectives of the reviewed Joint WMMP

Medium High Complex Current bylaws focus on regulating customers in terms of how they present bins for collection. There is limited regulation of collectors. There is no bylaw licensing system that requires data provision as a requirement of a licence. Under a licensing system the Councils may require data provision however legislation relieves commercial operators from having to provide data for diverted materials collected from private property. Commercial operators in the region own and operate resource recovery facilities for recyclables, organic waste and cardboard. The Councils currently own and operate the transfer station network and the only landfill in the Districts. Due to this, currently available data of both council and commercial collected waste is available and is meeting the data needs of the Councils. However some waste collectors take waste out of the district to other landfills. Some data about commercial collection and processing services is not available to the Councils.

7. The Councils’ transfer station network is not fully optimised

• The location of transfer station facilities does not optimally meet service requirements for some communities, and the services are inconsistent.

Service b) Initiate and implement a review of the Transfer Station network

High High Relatively complex This would include an assessment of the facilities’ locations and if the level of service provided is appropriate for the different areas. A particular focus for this review could be the use of the Blackbridge transfer station site. A guiding principle for this review would be that a facility must be within fifteen minute drive or 20km of the majority of residents. As part of the review consideration could be given to contractual arrangements that optimise separation of diverted materials and the cost of providing the service. Opportunities to align levels of service and charging mechanisms could be considered across the network.

8. Omarunui Landfill is running out of waste disposal space

• Additional landfill capacity will be required during the term of the next WMMP.

Regulate a) Review and set fees and charges that incentivise waste diversion

High Low Simple The Councils could Increase the landfill gate rate and introduce differential charging. Competition from other landfills is unlikely due to the fact that the closest landfill is sufficient distance to deter waste flight if the gate rate is increased taking into consideration competitors’ gate rates and transportation from Hawke’s Bay to another landfill.

Service b) Develop additional landfill capacity at Omarunui Landfill in support of the recommendation of the Waste Futures Report

Medium High Complex The Waste Futures Project identified the need to develop additional landfill capacity at the Omarunui Landfill. The Councils completed the Waste Futures Economic Case Report (April 2017) which researched landfill and alternatives to landfill including:

• Completion of a new landfill cell (Valley C) at Omarunui Landfill

• Implementing a staged approach to transporting waste to a commercial landfill.

• Using mechanical and biological treatment to process

Morrison Low 11



Commentary

general waste – processes more usable waste streams into other uses

• Using gasification to burn waste to recover energy. This can produce electricity or steam which can be used for industrial processes.

The preferred option arising from the Waste Futures Economic Case Report (April 2017) is to work towards development of additional landfill capacity at Omarunui Landfill.

9. Some residents and industries are unaware of their waste options and responsibilities

• Work needs to be undertaken with urban and rural communities, businesses and the viticulture and horticultural industries to continually educate and provide joint, consistent and area specific messages about how to reduce, re-use and recycle.

Educate and support

a) Prepare documents for visitors, seasonal workers, businesses that inform and explain waste minimisation opportunities

Medium Low Relatively simple Continue to circulate educational information to promote Council waste services and how to responsibly dispose of organic and recyclable materials, including using private waste collection services. Continue to update the council waste website. Continue with existing waste education and promotional programmes for the general public, visitors, businesses, and in schools e.g. Environment in Schools, Keep Hastings Beautiful, Enviroschools, "Love Food Hate Waste". Use additional languages to English to aid communication and education.

Educate and support

b) Advocate a proactive and collaborative approach to working with residents and industries to change behaviours through education, promote waste separation, recycling of materials and beneficial reuse

High Low Simple Continued support of the Waste Minimisation staff’s involvement in national advocacy for waste minimisation is required. Support of attendance and participation of the officers at waste industry conferences and workshops and membership of the Territorial Authorities’ Waste Forum needs to continue. Advocate to MfE and industry organisations for national campaigns that support waste minimisation and Council’s role and responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act. e.g. or advocate for voluntary extended producer responsibility schemes e.g. plastic bags, Container Deposit Scheme.

10. Meeting the waste collection needs of rural communities

Service a) Investigate the feasibility of providing a refuse collection service e.g. kerbside or drop-off facility to rural communities and extend coverage where practical and cost effective

Medium Medium Relatively simple A full assessment of the cost and potential uptake of refuse collection services by rural communities needs to be completed before extending the coverage of the refuse collection service. Through a customer survey, rural residents could be given the opportunity to indicate whether kerbside services would align with their waste management needs. Council could develop and publish policy on how to extend the service into these areas.

Service b) Expand the Hastings Rural Recycling (Green Bins) service into other rural communities

Medium Medium Relatively simple The Hastings rural recycling service is completed under contract to Council. This contract is due to expire in November 2017. This contract is currently being retendered. It is likely to be a 3.5 year contract to June 2021 with 2 x 1 year extensions.

11. Litter and illegal dumping continues to occur with limited capacity to regulate

• A joint approach with other organisations will assist drive initiatives to reduce the occurrence of litter and illegal

Educate and support

a) Alongside other organisations, advocate to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and industry organisations to improve product stewardship

High Low Simple Advocate to MfE and industry organisations for national campaigns that support waste minimisation and Council’s role and responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act.

Morrison Low 12



Commentary

dumping which is a national issue

Regulate b) Enforce the Litter Act provisions and prosecute offenders identified littering and illegally dumping

Medium Medium Complex Illegal dumping legislation is already provided for through the Litter Act. Enforcement and prosecution is complex.

Regulate c) Investigate the necessity for bylaw regulation of littering and illegal dumping

Medium High Complex Some national bylaw regulation addresses district specific litter issues e.g. junk mail and supermarket trolleys, illegal dumping around second clothing bins. If bylaw regulation is being drafted by the Councils to address other solid waste problems then this would reduce the cost of a bylaw specific to litter and illegal dumping

Service d) Continue to provide litter bins and complement with provision of public recycling bins where affordable and practical

Medium Medium Relatively simple The provision of litter bins needs to be considered along with the implementation of behaviour change programmes. Public recycling bins provide a consistent message to recycle when away from home however in reality contain high contamination making the contents low value.

12. Appropriate disposal of hazardous waste from agricultural activities

• Although attitudes are changing, inappropriate disposal practices continue including the disposal of hazardous waste from agricultural activities.

Educate and support

a) Continue to investigate and provide (if appropriate) promotional support for commercial waste minimisation e.g. Agrecovery, Plasback, 3R recovery programmes

Medium Low Simple The environmental benefits of being able to properly manage and dispose of agricultural hazardous waste are significant (particularly where current farm practices result in waste being buried or burnt).

Regulate b) Introduce fines for disposal outside of approved facilities/drop off points

Low High Complex Illegal dumping regulation is already provided for through the Litter Act. Enforcement and prosecution is complex.

Service c) Provide drop-off facilities at the Council transfer stations for agrichemicals to an extent that they are affordable and complement national schemes or services

Medium High Complex The provision of drop off facilities for farm waste which can include agrichemicals and other toxic or hazardous waste requires a careful assessment of health and safety matters to ensure this can be achieved without risk to the environment or the community. New or amended contracts would need to be put in place. Council may be best to support and promote the provision of such drop-off facilities and services by rural service providers rather than provide these services.

13. Appropriate regulation of cleanfill • The Councils need to ensure

that consented cleanfills (not owned by the Councils) operate and are managed in accordance with their consents.

• There is a need to ensure that only cleanfill is disposed to cleanfill and not divertible

Regulate a) Develop and enact cleanfill bylaw regulation including cleanfill operator licensing

Medium High Complex Omarunui Landfill has a dedicated cleanfill cell that is not currently utilised. The amount of the non-compliance needs to be quantified in order to determine whether the level of effect/benefit is commensurate with the high cost to develop regulation, undertake consultation, hearings and socialisation of the final regulations if adopted. This option would have compliance and monitoring costs that would also need to be funded.

Morrison Low 13



Commentary

materials such as greenwaste.

14. National product stewardship schemes are limited and not effective

• There are a limited number of product stewardship schemes therefore ownership for the management of “problem” wastes falls back on ratepayers

Advocacy a) Alongside other organisations, advocate to central government to improve product stewardship e.g. increase waste disposal levy/ identify priority products/waste streams/implement product stewardship schemes

High Low Simple Continue to support the Waste Minimisation Team to be involved in national advocacy for waste minimisation and product stewardship. Support the attendance and participation of the team members at waste industry conferences and workshops and membership o f the Terrritorial Authorities’ Waste Forum. Advocate for national campaigns that support waste minimisation and product stewardship and the Councils’ role and responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act.

Supplementary Waste Assessment Paper

By: Rhett van Veldhuizen For: Napier City & Hastings District Council

Date: October 2017

0

50000

100000

150000

Tonnes to landfill

? WMMP 2018 - 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY WASTE ASSESSMENT PAPER 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hastings District and Napier City Councils are in the process of reviewing the joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). This supplementary paper to the Waste Assessment and associated research aims to help the process by bringing relevant information in focus. It has been written using multiple historical reports and surveys, online research, meetings with waste processing business staff and the engagement of an economic consultant.

1.1 THE CURRENT WMMP AND THE WASTE FUTURES PROJECT The goals of the current WMMP are to reduce the harmful effects of waste and improve the efficiency of resource use. These goals and the need to start planning for the development of a new cell at the Omarunui landfill resulted in the start of a project called Waste Futures in 2014. Rather than just considering landfilling, the Councils developed a business case to determine the best option for future disposal of solid waste. Four options made it onto the shortlist to be assessed further in an economic case:

A. Extension of the Omarunui landfill.

B. Transport of residual waste to a commercial landfill outside of the region.

C. Development of a Biological Mechanical Treatment (MBT) facility in combination with a landfill extension.

D. Development of an Energy from waste facility (gasification) in combination with a landfill extension.

The option that scored the highest in the multi-criteria assessment after all factors were taken into account was to progress with development of the next cell at Omarunui Landfill, combined with an optimised collection system. It is important to note that while landfilling may not be considered as environmentally friendly as thermal treatment, a well-managed and developed, fully contained landfill with effective leachate management and gas capture and utilisation is considered an appropriate technology for the Councils within the current legislative and economic framework. The work completed as part of this project already covered a lot of ground for the WMMP review. It also provided the following preliminary targets for the capture of recyclables and organic waste:

Food and garden organics collection with 30% capture across full domestic waste stream.

Optimised (20% increase in capture - paper, card, plastics) kerbside recycling collection.

Optimised (20% increase in capture - paper, card, plastics, glass, metals, organics) at refuse transfer stations.

1.2 THE WASTE SITUATION After the Global Financial Crisis, the tonnage to landfill dropped steeply and plateaued between 2012 and 2015. The 2016-2017 financial year saw an increase of over 10% to 84,045 tonnes. This growth is well beyond the growth for population, households and even local GDP and led to the research into relationship between local economic and social indicators and waste production.


1.3 THE WASTE MARKET AND FUTURE DEMAND Demand for services and landfill capacity is driven by numerous factors. Rather than relying on the traditional growth model using population or household growth projections this report uses a model based on growth trends and regional economic indicators. The region is growing and this is the main driver behind the increase of more than 10% to 84,045 tonnes to landfill in the last financial year.

The demographic and economic indicators that have correlated closely with the trends since 2000 in waste disposal volumes are as follows:

1. Total waste disposal volumes- real GDP and total new and altered consented buildings.

2. Residential waste disposal volumes- real GDP per capita, consented new and altered dwellings and retail spend.

3. Commercial sector waste disposal volumes- commercial sector employment and real GDP.

4. Industrial sector waste disposal volumes- real GDP and industrial sector employment.

The following new waste tonnage projection has been developed:

Residual waste and kitchen organics are comparable between wheelie bins and bags but the total bin contents at an average of 27.28 Kg per collection is 3 times the equivalent collection of bags. By weight, 60%, of the wheelie bin content is green waste according to the latest SWAP survey data for Napier and Hastings. Commercial wheelie bin collections result in 56% of all organics landfilled and 19% the total landfilled tonnage per year.

Looking at the landfill composition and sources, it becomes clear that organics are a high percentage of the waste landfilled every year. The largest amount of Kitchen type waste is disposed of directly to landfill by industry. Commercial 240 litre wheelie bins are the source for most green waste in the landfill.

Both the landfill and Redclyffe transfer station follow the local and national economic trends for disposal tonnage. The Henderson Road transfer station has seen a steady decline in

84,000

95,289103,647

108,645 108,294102,513

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Omarunui Waste Tonnage Projection 2018-2028


waste tonnage, which is partly due to diversion initiatives, but mainly driven by the shrinking kerbside market share. The collected bags for this service are transferred through this facility.

The composition for the two transfer stations is similar with timber and organics representing a large proportion of the waste material. Henderson Road receives a lot of plastic, which may be because of its’s location in an industrial zone. Henderson Road receives around double Redclyffe’s tonnage of textiles. A large proportion are bulk reject clothes from charity shops who may find the Henderson Road transfer station the cheapest option.

1.4 COLLECTION SERVICES AND MARKET SHARE The uptake of commercial wheelie bin services has greatly affected the Council market share for Hastings. Even in Napier, where there is no direct saving on bags, there is a steady increase of wheelie bin usage. Market share in itself is not a reason to consider this a negative trend. The lack of rules and/or enforcement around the waste collection services that are provided commercially however, resulted in a possibly unintended but negative outcome for the landfill. The amount of organic material landfilled has steadily grown alongside private operators’ market share. The provision of a 240 litre wheelie bin means that there is enough capacity to dispose of green waste using this service. This can possibly prevent trips to the transfer stations or BioRich and so presents a user saving. Effectively the wheelie bin customers are using a refuse collection as green waste disposal service for at least half the capacity of the bin. The issue here is that the green waste then goes to Omarunui Landfill as general waste.

1.5 DIVERSION

1.5.1 Recycling There are still a lot of recyclable materials that end up in the landfill. The kerbside recycling schemes for both Napier and Hastings capture around 64% of the available material offered at the kerbside. There are multiple drop-off facilities that can be used by both business and residential customers/users. The materials that are still landfilled can be the types that are harder to separate, clean, or come from sources where recycling options are less accessible. Where services are accessible it is important to educate the users of the service to maximize the yield and minimise contamination.

Councils do not have access to all diversion data, which means that as a region we could already perform considerably better than the available data suggests.

The result of increased recycling capture at the kerbside by 20% as suggested in Waste Futures recommendation means a diversion of under 3% from landfill, while reducing the quality of the recyclables. For our kerbside collection the contamination level 1% - 2% according to the current contractor. For the co-mingled or twin bin collection, a level of to 6.5% was used but this can range between 5% and 12%. Helping commercial and industrial business recycle presents a big opportunity as over 6,000 T/year originates from this source.

1.5.2 Organics The amount of organic waste to landfill is substantial. Therefore, yield and diversion outcome of a collection service or other initiative targeting organics will be significant.

The Waste Futures target of 30% capture at the kerbside can only be achieved by including a green waste collection service. Implementing a Council-provided refuse wheelie bin scheme with smaller bins can provide one alternative to an expensive organics service. This, in combination with stricter rules around disposal of green waste to Omarunui Landfill is likely to make an impact on the green waste knowingly received from 240L wheelie bins, without introducing a new collection stream and service delivery cost.


Projected tonnages associated with an organics service are able to be processed by under-capacity local commercial composters from both a consent and processing point.

To deliver on the Waste Futures promise with a kitchen waste only collection, all available kitchen waste at the kerbside (100%) will have to be collected.

1.6 WASTE PROCESSORS IN THE REGION BioRich, Hawk Packaging and PanPac are currently contributing a lot to the regions waste minimisation goals and all have the capacity to process more material than at present. Maintaining the relationships and a real focus on quality of diverted material can help a growing local waste, recycling and processing economy.

1.7 GOVERNMENT The NZ ETS has greatly evolved since its inception. In the coming two years, this evolution will continue with all discounts to stage the implementation ceasing and the default factor multiplied by the market price per NZU being paid per tonne of CO2 emission.

This change implies a cost increase from $ 2.00 to $ 25.00 per tonne and means that the ETS units associated with the projected disposal to Omarunui Landfill of 95,289 tonnes in 2020 are worth over 3 million dollars.

Forward purchasing Carbon Units does benefit the stability of the gate rate but creates lag in the polluter pays principle. The level of funding required for this in the future may require a different approach.

The Government developments regarding waste present both opportunities and threats. The Government is in the process of identifying how the waste levy can be made more effective, which is likely to increase the cost per tonne. The change can also limit, or wrap conditions around the funding available to Local Authorities and business.

A requirement for a much higher level detail for waste data is being worked on. This is for both the disposal and levy spend reporting. The lack of data around waste disposal was also raised in an OECD report on New Zealand’s environmental performance. With regard to waste data and the waste levy, there is no mandatory one-size-fits-all framework yet. It is suggested we wait for this before introducing a new bylaw focused on data collection. This will not only affect the bylaw but likely the way we categorize waste at the landfill and RTS sites also. We are at an advantage as we still own major disposal facilities that handle waste. Therefore the data available to Napier and Hastings is more than a lot of local authorities have.

1.8 CHINA Most countries are largely dependent on China’s massive reprocessing industry to boost their own recycling programmes and targets. New Zealand is no exception. China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) import waste from around the world, including more than 70% of the world’s waste plastics and 37% of the world’s waste paper in (2015).

1.8.1 Developments China is increasing the standard of living for its population and this this comes with an increased production of waste domestically. Domestic consumption driven waste generation and the issues with industrial pollution have forced China to review the quality requirements for recycling imports. Three initiatives have been launched by the Chinese Government:

1. Operation Green Fence


Operation Green Fence, which started in 2012, targeted contaminated recyclable waste through inspections of waste shipments. This operation resulted in quality improvements in recycling processes and facilities in most countries that export recycling commodities to China.

2. Operation National Sword

Earlier this year, under operation National Sword, all containers of waste entering Chinese ports are inspected manually or using x-ray technology. Material was still being accepted if it met quality criteria but the operation resulted in backlogs and delays at ports.

3. Restriction and ban notification to the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

In a formal notification to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Chinese government said that it had found “large amounts of dirty waste or even hazardous wastes” mixed in with imports, and that it would forbid the import of certain types of waste by the end of the year. The list of restricted wastes includes some types of scrap plastics, mixed paper, waste wool, ash, cotton and yarn. The announcement has sent a shockwave through the recycling industry globally.

What this means for New Zealand/Hawkes Bay based on the latest information:

Plastics Post-consumer resins, including PE, PET, PS, PVC, and “other” recovered plastics, will likely be subject to an outright ban, while post-industrial recycled plastics, though on a restricted list, might be allowed.

Paper Prohibited fibres include: recovered wallpaper, wax-coated paper and waxed paper, carbon paper and carbonless copy paper, thermal paper, moisture sticker paper, paper used in liquid packaging, all mixed paper.

Material restrictions are not the only signal. Import licenses have been in short supply and are pending the inspection results from earlier this year

1.8.2 Impact on the exporting countries (like New Zealand) The formal notification and ban will have an impact on both the plastics and fibre market. Most affected will be the plastic numbers 3-7. PET and HDPE grades can often be processed domestically.

Three years after the implementation of Operation Green Fence, the recycling industry in general is producing a higher quality material. This comes at an additional cost, which is passed onto Local Authorities and the consumers. The formal notification and ban will be another opportunity or threat forcing the Local Authorities to evaluate policies and practices and adjust to changing markets.

1.8.3 What next for plastics recycling Finding new markets and pushing quality will be the initial focus. As Chinese regulations continue to feed through, companies will look for other markets. The risk exists that these markets flood and or it has negative health and environmental impacts in those countries.

Prioritising domestic processing options is required. The chances of succeeding domestically are the highest for the high quality and value plastics (i.e. grades 1 and 2). Under our current recycling contract the plastics are shipped as mixed bales. It will require additional resources to separate the different grades. This presents challenges for the existing collection and sorting models and justifies reviewing them. All of the above is likely to increase the cost of recycling.


1.9 CONCLUSION Through a complex business case, the Waste Futures project has established that for the foreseeable future landfilling will remain an integral part of waste management in the region until other methods become economically feasible. Well-managed landfills provide for safe disposal of residual waste and gas capture. With the changes in the recycling market and the rising cost of landfilling it is important to keep following the development of alternative waste treatment technology and other types of landfills.

After a relative stable annual tonnage at the Omarunui landfill, an increase driven by a growing local economy started in 2015. This increase picked up the pace considerably in the 2016-2017 financial year at over 10% growth on the previous year.

Only around 35% of the waste to landfill relates to Council activity. The kerbside collection only represents around a third of the total tonnage landfilled and is split between Council and commercial services. The Industrial/Commercial/Institutional and commercial kerbside collections are the largest sources of waste, each responsible for more than 400 tonnes per week. Waste throughput has been in line with the economy but the Henderson Road transfer station has seen a steep decline in tonnages. One of the reasons for this is the reduced amount of Council collected bags that come through as a result of the commercial wheelie bin uptake in the Hastings District. This recent growth in wheelie bin uptake has been aggressive and though this, the greater disposal capacity at kerbside is a likely cause of increasing tonnages.

Organic material is high on the list of priorities from both the Government and Territorial Authorities and represents the largest amount landfilled at almost 30,000 tonnes per year. Commercial wheelie bins are the source or most organics in the form of green waste. Kitchen type organic material is disposed of in similar quantities for both bag and bins services but a large amount of kitchen type waste is disposed of by (food) industry directly.

The composition of waste from the Redcyffe and Henderson Road transfer stations is very similar. Timber and organics are the top two tonnages. Organics are mainly from landscaping businesses and in the form of green waste. Timber is mostly from the construction and demolition industry. For the kerbside collection a distinct difference has been identified between bag and wheelie bin collection services. Wheelie bins contain slightly more recycling than bags but similar amounts of kitchen and residual waste. The percentage of green waste in the composition of wheelie bins is however concerning and around 60% by weight. The average weight of a wheelie bin per household is 27.28Kg in comparison to 8.66Kg for bags per collection. This and the increased market share for this type of service means that wheelie bins are the biggest source of green waste and subsequently organics to Omarunui Landfill. The excess volume the bins offer is effectively used as a green waste collection service.

Commercial disposal of recyclable material directly to the landfill is the highest at 56% of the total recycling tonnage landfilled. This is often packaging material representing a diversion opportunity. Only a small proportion of the recyclable material that is landfilled originates from the kerbside as this is covered by a Council service. 64% of the recyclable material that is available at the kerbside is captured through this service. Around 2000 tonnes per year comes through the transfer stations as part of the waste stream, regardless of the recycling centres open at the transfer stations. This represents an opportunity but contamination may be an issue.

Given the high capture rate at the kerbside it will be hard to achieve the Waste Futures target of an additional 20% capture. If increased contamination is taken into account the capture rate exceeds the often accepted practical capture rate of 85%. The total increase in diversion from landfill in doing so will be less than 3%.


Organics capture occurs both commercially and at the refuse transfer stations. A target of 30% diversion can be achieved by introducing an organics collection service, but whether this equally reduces the total organics landfilled is uncertain. The adverse effects of the refuse wheelie bins that are used for green waste should be the focus. The introduction of a Council provided refuse wheelie bin service, utilising smaller bins is another option. This however carries risk as the average household puts out approximately 1.5 bags (90L). A 140L wheelie bin would give all those households 50L excess capacity per week.

The kerbside services can be split into commercial and residential. There is a good uptake of Council provided recycling services and there are Council and commercial drop-off options available for businesses. For refuse collections, the landscape has changed dramatically. Wheelie bin uptake has risen to an estimated number between 15,000 - 20,000 households. The majority of these are in Hastings as there is a direct saving on the “pay as you throw” orange bags. The 2016 SWAP survey suggests a 70% market-share for wheelie bins in Hastings and 44% in Napier.

Hawk Packaging, BioRich and Pan Pac Forest Products fulfil important roles in processing diverted material locally at present. For all three it is important to keep contamination to a minimum. They all have spare processing capacity, and are interested in a continued relationship and dialog regarding potential future opportunities.

There is economic growth in the Napier and Hastings region across all indicators, some of which correlate closely with waste production levels. These levels have far exceeded the population, household and even GDP growth and a new waste projection curve has been developed. Based on this it is estimated that total waste per annum to Omarunui Landfill will exceed 100,000 tonnes in 2022.

The Government will be exploring ways to increase the impact of the Waste Levy on diversion rates and ways to make this measurable. This may increase the levy cost and introduce different rates for particular materials. To measure the effect additional data will be required, which is another focus of the review. The levy of $10 has been in place for years and is considered very low by international standards. To increase the availability of funding and promote diversion it is anticipated that it will be raised and applied more broadly. The levy cost has been overtaken by the cost of the NZU carbon emmissions unit under the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). These units trade for around $20 at present. All measures to ease New Zealand into the ETS will end in 2019 and the factor of 1.31 tonnes of CO2 emissions per tonne of waste means that the annual cost for ETS will be 3 times the levy cost.

The schemes are focused on particular material. The levy has a priority waste list and the ETS weighs material according to the potential emissions as a result of disposal to landfill and applies a factor.

There are no commercial Class 1 landfills that compete directly with the Omarunui landfill in the Napier and Hastings region but cleanfill sites are allowed to receive some of the same materials. They can therefore be seen as competition and have no ETS or Waste Levy obligations. Their price levels and control are low and often the sites are un-manned. Increased ETS and Levy obligations and the resulting gate fee rise may attract more waste to these sites as they become more competitive.

China is the world’s largest importer of recycling commodities. High contamination levels and a growing waste production within China have resulted in two initiatives from the Chinese Government to increase regulation on the quality of imported materials. The latest action is a notification to the World Trade Organization that a large amount of post-consumer recyclables, including plastics will be banned from import. This is anticipated to be effective at the end of 2017 and has huge implications for New Zealand and the Napier and Hastings recycling scheme. China is the end destination for most plastics from New Zealand. The


collection and processing into mixed bales will have to be reviewed in line with the further development of this situation. It may result in not having an end market for some plastics such as grades 3-7.

Points and recommendations to consider for the WMMP

• Identify and target the high tonnages from identifiable sources such as green waste from kerbside wheelie bins, and timber, rubble and inorganic material from transfer stations. This should relate to both service delivery and regulation.

• Focus on material that is identified and weighed by the Waste Levy priority waste list and the ETS.

• The fact landfill gas is captured does not mean 100% is collected and utilized or flared. This and the production of CO2 in the landfill or after combustion is the reason why the ETS is applied to landfills. Methane is between 25 and 28 times more harmful in its contribution as a greenhouse gas than CO2, in itself a reason to reduce the organics that produce it in the landfill.

• Adjust the growth projections in all planning documents to anticipate the current economic growth and adjust this every half year once the actual tonnages to landfill are known.

• Engage with the commercial sector, both waste producers and collectors to find solutions that divert a greater quantity or address issues such as the increased green waste tonnage to landfill.

• Try to support and find new local or New Zealand markets for recyclables.

• Focus on the best possible quality of diverted material.

• Where services are accessible to users it is important to educate them, which will maximize the yield and minimize contamination.

• Fill data gaps such as waste composition and tonnages from the central business districts and litter bins, and illegal dumping data.

• The reduction of the amount of green waste to landfill and the possible requirement from the Government to provide more data in order to secure funding, are the two main drivers to review the bylaws. Complete a bylaw review once central Government has implemented the waste data framework and the preferred kerbside options have been consulted upon and selected. This will add to the suite of tools to achieve diversion.

• Consider applying for a unique ETS factor. Further analysis and a business case will be needed for this in combination with initiatives to reduce organic material entering the landfill.

• It is difficult to provide the long-term contracts needed for investment in technology in a market as changeable as waste. If possible, try to isolate the stable from the unstable for both source materials and markets to still be able to build up long term relationships.


• Maintain a focus on the recycling market change. This is not just concerning the situation in China. Challenges have been met with glass recycling in the past and scrap metal is worth very little at present. This means that when the contracts are renewed maximum flexibility needs to be incorporated in the conditions and cost increases anticipated.

• Forward purchasing Carbon Units does benefit the stability of the gate rate but creates lag in the polluter pays principle. The level of funding required for this in the future may require a different approach.


2 Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 THE CURRENT WMMP AND THE WASTE FUTURES PROJECT .................................................................................... 1 1.2 THE WASTE SITUATION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 THE WASTE MARKET AND FUTURE DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 2 1.4 COLLECTION SERVICES AND MARKET SHARE ......................................................................................................... 3 1.5 DIVERSION....................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5.1 Recycling ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5.2 Organics........................................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 WASTE PROCESSORS IN THE REGION ................................................................................................................... 4 1.7 GOVERNMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.8 CHINA ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.8.1 Developments ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.8.2 Impact on the exporting countries (like New Zealand) .............................................................. 5 1.8.3 What next for plastics recycling .................................................................................................... 5

1.9 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 6

3 TABLE OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 13

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 15

5 INTRODUCTION AND REPORT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................. 16

6 CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN 2012-2018 ................................................. 17

6.1 GOVERNMENTAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................ 17 6.1.1 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 ................................................................................................ 17 6.1.2 New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010 ............................................................................................. 17

6.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE 2012-2018 WMMP ......................................................................... 18 6.2.1 Goal 1: Reducing the harmful effects from waste .................................................................... 18 6.2.2 Goal 2: Improving the efficiency of resource use ..................................................................... 18 6.2.3 Policies to achieve the objectives across goals ........................................................................ 18

7 THE WASTE FUTURES PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 19

7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 19 7.2 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................... 19 7.3 COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE WASTE FUTURES PROJECT ................................................................. 20

8 WASTE GENERATION AND FLOWS .............................................................................................................. 21

8.1 CURRENT WASTE QUANTITIES ............................................................................................................................ 22

9 SOURCES AND COMPOSITION OF WASTE ................................................................................................. 23

9.1 OMARUNUI LANDFILL ...................................................................................................................................... 23 9.2 HENDERSON ROAD TRANSFER STATION .............................................................................................................. 26

9.2.1 Trends and totals by source (2007-2016) .................................................................................... 26 9.3 REDCLYFFE TRANSFER STATION .......................................................................................................................... 28

9.3.1 Trends and totals by source (2007-2016) ................................................................................ 28 9.4 KERBSIDE COLLECTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 30

9.4.1 Trends and totals by source (2007-2016) .................................................................................... 30 9.5 SERVICE TYPE AND THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD ................................................................................................... 32

Infographic: differences between bag and wheelie bin service per household ............................... 32

10 COUNCIL COLLECTION SERVICES AND MARKET SHARE ........................................................................... 33

10.1 RECYCLING COLLECTION MARKET SHARE........................................................................................................... 33 10.2 REFUSE COLLECTION MARKET SHARE ................................................................................................................. 33

11 DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL ........................................................................................................................ 34


11.1 LANDFILL DISPOSAL TRENDS FOR DIVERTIBLE MATERIAL ......................................................................................... 34 11.1.1 Recycling and organics to landfill by source ........................................................................ 36 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36

11.2 RECYCLING IN DETAIL ...................................................................................................................................... 37 11.2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 37 11.2.2 Sources and capture levels ..................................................................................................... 37 11.2.3 Diversion opportunities: recycling ........................................................................................... 39

11.3 ORGANICS IN DETAIL ...................................................................................................................................... 40 11.3.1 Sources and composition: organics ....................................................................................... 40 11.3.2 Current levels of capture ......................................................................................................... 42 11.3.3 Diversion opportunities ............................................................................................................. 42

11.4 OTHER MATERIALS........................................................................................................................................... 42 11.4.1 Sources and composition: other materials ............................................................................ 42 11.4.2 Current capture ........................................................................................................................ 43 11.4.3 Diversion opportunities ............................................................................................................. 44

12 WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES ................................................................................................... 46

12.1 RECYCLING ................................................................................................................................................... 46 12.1.1 Hawk Packaging ...................................................................................................................... 46

12.2 RECOVERY .................................................................................................................................................... 50 12.2.1 BioRich Composting ................................................................................................................. 50 12.2.2 Pan Pac Forest Products Limited ............................................................................................. 52

13 FUTURE DEMAND ......................................................................................................................................... 54

13.1 DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................. 54 13.1.1 The current economic climate in the region ......................................................................... 54

13.2 THE HUNT FOR WASTE PRODUCTION INDICATORS................................................................................................. 54 13.2.1 The objective ............................................................................................................................ 54 13.2.2 The analysis ................................................................................................................................ 55 13.2.3 Economic Indicators ................................................................................................................ 55

13.3 THE FUTURE .................................................................................................................................................... 61

14 GOVERNMENT SCHEMES ............................................................................................................................ 62

14.1 THE NEW ZEALAND WASTE LEVY ...................................................................................................................... 62 14.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 62 14.1.2 The Waste Levy review ............................................................................................................. 62 14.1.3 Focus 1: Strategy - signalling intent through vision, strategy and outcomes ..................... 62 14.1.4 Focus 2: Data - prioritising opportunities and measuring effectiveness .............................. 63 14.1.5 Focus 3: Approach – maximising the effectiveness of the levy ........................................... 63

14.2 CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE ACT .................................................................................................................. 65 14.2.1 ETS and the Omarunui landfill .................................................................................................. 65 14.2.2 Pressure on the gate rate ........................................................................................................ 65 14.2.3 Factor Trends Options .............................................................................................................. 66

15 COMPETING DISPOSAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................................. 68

16 RECYCLING COMMODITIES AND CHINA .................................................................................................. 69

16.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 69 16.2 A CHANGING MARKET .................................................................................................................................... 69

16.2.1 Developments........................................................................................................................... 69 16.2.2 China’s battle against contamination ................................................................................... 70 16.2.3 Impact on the exporting countries (like New Zealand) ........................................................ 71 16.2.4 What next for plastics recycling .............................................................................................. 71

17 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................ 72

18 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 74

19 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 78

APPENDIX A: THE WASTE HIERARCHY ......................................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX B: WASTE FUTURES RECOVERY, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS ................................................................ 79


APPENDIX C: THE GOVERNMENT PRIORITY WASTE STREAMS ........................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX D: SECTION 3.7 OF THE REGIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................. 81

20 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 84


3 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: 2016 SWAP Waste Flow ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 2: Historic tonnages & price Omarunui ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3: Napier + Hastings waste per capita and household .......................................................................... 22 Figure 4: Waste trends to Omarunui by source .................................................................................................... 23 Figure 5: Waste to Omarunui by source (stacked) .............................................................................................. 24 Figure 6: Waste to Omarunui by source as percentage of 100%) .................................................................... 24 Figure 7: Waste to Omarunui by source (unstacked) ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 8: Waste trends to Henderson Road RTS by source ................................................................................. 26 Figure 9: Waste to Henderson Road RTS by source (stacked) ........................................................................... 26 Figure 10: Waste to Henderson Road RTS by source (unstacked) .................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Waste to Henderson Road RTS by vehicle type (unstacked) .......................................................... 27 Figure 12: Waste trends to Redclyffe RTS by source ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 13: Waste to Redclyffe RTS by source and composition (stacked) ...................................................... 28 Figure 14: Waste to Redclyffe RTS by source and composition (unstacked) ................................................. 29 Figure 15: Waste to Redclyffe RTS by source and vehicle type (unstacked) ................................................. 29 Figure 16: Waste trends kerbside collections by source ..................................................................................... 30 Figure 17: Waste from kerbside collections by source (stacked) ...................................................................... 30 Figure 18: Waste from kerbside collections by source (unstacked) ................................................................. 31 Figure 19: Waste from kerbside collections by bin or bag service (stacked) ................................................. 31 Figure 20: average household bin collections ..................................................................................................... 32 Figure 21: Average household bag collections ................................................................................................... 32 Figure 22: 60L bag compactor truckload.............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 23: 240L wheelie bin compactor truckload .............................................................................................. 32 Figure 24: Average household 60L bags vs. 240L wheelie bin comparison .................................................... 32 Figure 25: Estimated wheelie bin uptake since 1994 ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 26: Landfill recyclables disposal trends T/year.......................................................................................... 34 Figure 27: Landfill recyclables disposal trends % .................................................................................................. 34 Figure 28: Landfill compostable disposal trends %............................................................................................... 35 Figure 29: Landfill combustible disposal trends .................................................................................................... 35 Figure 30: Landfill compostable disposal trends T/year ...................................................................................... 35 Figure 31: Landfill combustible disposal trends .................................................................................................... 35 Figure 32: Recycling and organics to landfill by source (stacked) ................................................................... 36 Figure 33: Green waste at the landfill .................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 34: Cardboard and paper at the landfill .................................................................................................. 36 Figure 35: Food waste at the landfill ....................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 36: Recycling and organics to landfill Council and commercial service ............................................ 36 Figure 37: Recycling capture Omarunui catchment .......................................................................................... 37 Figure 38: Recycling capture kerbide and RTS facilities ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 39: Recycling capture RTS facilities only .................................................................................................... 38 Figure 40: Recycling capture kerbside only .......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 41: Organics to landfill kitchen and green waste (stacked).................................................................. 40 Figure 42: Organics to landfill Council and commercial activity (stacked) ................................................... 41 Figure 43: Organics to landfill kerbside and other sources (stacked) .............................................................. 41 Figure 44: Other materials by source (stacked) ................................................................................................... 43 Figure 45: Other materials by source (unstacked) ............................................................................................... 43 Figure 46: Hawk production Facility and office in Whakatu .............................................................................. 46 Figure 47: The manufacturing process ................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 48: Hawk product and end-use .................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 49: Paper recycling sorting and baling ...................................................................................................... 49 Figure 50: Paper quality (Co-mingled + glass crate left, household/Kerb sorted right) ................................ 49 Figure 51: Screening of compost ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 52: Shredding of green waste...................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 53: Land application of compost ............................................................................................................... 51 Figure 54: Forced aeration setup ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 55: Boiler and fuel supply system ................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 56: PanPac production facility in Whirinaki ............................................................................................... 53 Figure 57: Waste tonnage to landfill trends 2000-2017 ........................................................................................ 56


Figure 58: Total waste tonnage and real GDP ..................................................................................................... 57 Figure 59: Total waste tonnage number of building consents .......................................................................... 57 Figure 60: Residential waste and number of building consents ........................................................................ 58 Figure 614: Commercial waste tonnage and real GDP $M ............................................................................... 59 Figure 623: Commercial waste tonnage and Employment ............................................................................... 59 Figure 63: Industrial waste tonnage and employment ....................................................................................... 60 Figure 64: Industrial waste tonnage an real GDP $M .......................................................................................... 60 Figure 65: Omarunui waste tonnage projection 2018-2028 ............................................................................... 61 Figure 66: Unique emission factor trends per material ........................................................................................ 66 Figure 67: Unique emission factor total and defaults (1.10 and 1.31) .............................................................. 67


4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank all those whose assistance, in many ways has proven to be essential to compile this paper. The list below includes Councilors, colleagues in Hawkes Bay, consultants and local business owners or representatives. They provided research, information, or a soundboard in meetings. Quite a few have had to deal with my continued (spamming) stream of emails full of ideas also.

The Napier City Council Infrastructure Department:

Jon Kingsford

The Hastings District Council Solid Waste Team:

Martin Jarvis

Angela Atkins

Phillip Doolan

Hannah Ludlow

Morrison Low Consultancy:

Alice Grace

Sue Hamilton

Economic Solutions Limited (ESL):

Sean Bevin

Hawk Packaging:

Marie Torr

Tim Combs

BioRich:

Nigel Halpin

Pan Pac Forest Products:

Phil Hardie

The Waste Futures / WMMP Council Committee:

Hastings District and Napier City Councilors:

Tania Kerr, Rod Heaps, George Lyons, Annette Brosnan, Api Tapine and Larry Dallimore


5 INTRODUCTION AND REPORT STRUCTURE The Hastings District and Napier City Councils are in the process of reviewing the joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). This supplementary paper to the Waste Assessment and associated research aims to help the process by bringing relevant information in focus. It has been written using multiple historical reports and surveys, online research, meetings with waste processing business staff and the engagement of an economic consultant.

The end result is a report that does not repeat the work done by the Jacobs team but complements it and brings focus to specific areas. It does not follow the structure for a Waste Assessment as outlined by the Government guidelines as the basics were covered by the Jacobs report. It also does not set out to compare the Council’s unless the waste composition or tonnage shows a distinct difference in the way a facility or service is managed.

The management of solid waste is complex. There are many factors that affect the amount of waste that is generated, how it is generated, and how it can be collected and ultimately processed or disposed of. This “Waste Economy” is also very changeable which means that some of the data in the Jacobs report has already aged. The tonnage to landfill in the 2016-2017 financial year for example grew over 10% above the previous year, well beyond population growth.

Every bit of time and resource spent on defining the waste situation, including the original Waste Futures project that started in 2014 has contributed to this report and ultimately the result of the WMMP review.

Some of this preliminary work will be described and is followed by an in depth analysis of the waste sources, flow and composition. Collection services and market share are discussed and the various ways diversion is managed at present. The companies that are able to process recovered materials play an important role in the local waste economy and are put in the spotlight.

A lot of time has been spent on finding local indicators for economic growth that align with waste production and disposal tonnages. Historic data for both resulted in finding some strong relationships and a new, more aggressive, growth projection from now through to 2026 was produced.

Government regulation and schemes like the Waste Levy or Emissions Trading Scheme affect the gate price at the landfill and changes in the recycling commodities markets the diversion-focused services. Both are discussed as a lot of change is anticipated.

This complete paper aims to be an important building block to inform and become part of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 -2024.


6 CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN 2012-2018

This chapter briefly discusses the current WMMP. This is at a high level and focusses on the New Zealand Waste Strategy, which forged the objectives and policies. The Waste Hierarchy is an important tool to rank initiatives environmentally and can be found in appendix A.

The Vision is to: maximise resource recovery from the waste stream and reduce reliance on landfill disposal through convenient, effective and efficient waste services.

Goals and Guiding Principles are to: provide effective and efficient waste management and minimisation services to Hawke’s Bay residents while meeting the requirements of the WMA 2008 and the principles of the NZWS; to reduce environmental harm and improve resource efficiency.

6.1 GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORK

6.1.1 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 The purpose of the Act is:

To encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal to:

(a) protect the environment from harm (b) provide environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits.

To achieve its purpose, the Act can:

impose a levy on all waste disposed in levied municipal waste disposal facilities to generate funding to help local government, communities and businesses minimise waste.

establish a process for government accreditation of product stewardship schemes that recognise businesses and organisations that take responsibility for managing the environmental impacts of their products.

require product stewardship schemes to be developed for certain ‘priority products’ where there is a high risk of environmental harm from the waste or benefits from recovering the product.

allow for regulations to be made to control the disposal of products, materials or waste and require take-back services, deposit fees or labelling of products.

allow for regulations to be made that make it mandatory for certain groups (eg., waste disposal facility operators) to report on waste to improve information on waste minimization.

clarify the roles and responsibilities of territorial authorities with respect to waste minimisation.

establish a Waste Advisory Board to give independent advice to the Minister for the Environment on waste minimisation issues.

6.1.2 New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010 The first NZWS was launched in 2002 and reviewed in 2006, prior to the introduction of the WMA in 2008. The current Waste Strategy was launched by the Minister in October 2010 and provides a “high level direction to guide the use of the tool available to manage and minimise waste in New Zealand”. The NZWS’s flexible approach also aims to ensure that waste management and minimisation activities are appropriate for different local situations.

To achieve these the Waste Strategy sets the following two goals:


Goal 1: Reducing the harmful effects of waste, and

Goal 2: Improving the efficiency of resource use

Goal 1 and 2 are to “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 joint Hastings District and Napier City Council 2012-2018 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan adopted the goals above.

6.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE JOINT 2012-2018 WMMP

6.2.1 Goal 1: Reducing the harmful effects from waste The objectives for achieving effective waste management and minimisation are to:

Objective 1: Ensure that cost effective services are available for the safe, secure and affordable collection, treatment and disposal or diversion of waste; and

Objective 2: Avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects for the storage and handling of solid waste and diverted material.

6.2.2 Goal 2: Improving the efficiency of resource use The objectives for improving the efficiency of resource use are to:

Objective 1: Ensure services are available for the effective and affordable collection, processing and marketing or beneficial use of diverted material;

Objective 2: Improve the opportunity for avoiding or reducing waste at source; and Objective 3: Improve the quality of diverted material where cost effective.

6.2.3 Policies to achieve the objectives across goals The Policies to help achieve the objectives across the goals are:

Policy 1: The Councils will continue to provide waste minimisation services. Policy 2: The Councils will ensure sufficient capacity exists at all recycling facilities to

allow for continued growth and efficiency. Policy 3: The Councils will gather information about waste and diverted material

streams in the district to improve waste management and minimisation planning. Policy 4: The Councils will recognise the benefits of collaborating with other parties in

the provision of waste minimisation services and meeting future demands. Policy 5: The Councils will encourage waste minimisation, especially the reduction of

waste, source separation and the importance of reducing the contamination of diverted material.

Policy 6: The Councils will maintain a user pays charge system for waste disposal and collection that provides cost recovery as well as incentives and disincentives to promote the objectives of the Councils’ WMMP.


7 THE WASTE FUTURES PROJECT

7.1 INTRODUCTION The life expectancy of Valley D at the Omarunui Landfill and the planning cycle associated with the development of a new valley created the opportunity to investigate alternative ways to deal with waste in the region.

Solid waste, that is not reused or recycled, is currently disposed of at the Omarunui Landfill, which is jointly owned by Hastings and Napier City. The current area (Valley D) being used was anticipated to be operable for another 10 years in 2014 at rates of disposal at the time. Tonnages and volumes depend on a lot of regional factors and change this period of operation.

7.2 APPROACH Napier City and Hastings District Councils worked together to develop a business case to determine the best option for future of solid waste management in the area. The business case is followed the New Zealand Government’s Better Business Case guidelines.

The Councils engaged solid waste consultants, Jacobs NZ Ltd, to help provide technical support for the project.

As part of the projects development, a long list of possible options for solid waste management was developed and evaluated against critical success factors. This process determined a short list of options, which warranted further analysis. This shortlisting process concentrated on identifying options which:

Ensured efficient and economic recovery, reuse and recycling of resources. Extracted the maximum amount of potential value from residual waste streams. Minimised potential future liabilities from waste disposal. Were consistent with maintaining Hawkes Bay’s competitive position as the food

production centre of New Zealand.

The Joint Council Waste Futures Committee approved that the project undertook further detailed analysis of the following shortlisted options:

Option A: Extend Omarunui landfill. Option B: Transport residual waste to a commercial landfill outside of the region.

o Note: Option B was not described correctly in the Waste Futures Economic Case Executive Summary and Waste Assessment by Jacobs NZ Ltd.

Option C: Develop a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility focussed on materials recovery and production of stabilised residual waste for disposal in an extended Omarunui Landfill.

Option D: Develop an Energy from Waste facility (gasification) with up front material recovery, and disposal of residuals at an extended Omarunui landfill.

The option that scored the highest in the multi-criteria assessment after all factors were taken into account was to progress with development of the next cell at Omarunui Landfill, combined with an optimised kerbside collection system.

It is important to note that while landfilling may not be considered as environmentally friendly as thermal treatment, a well-managed and developed, fully contained landfill with effective leachate management and gas capture/utilisation is considered an appropriate technology for the Councils within the current legislative and economic framework.


7.3 COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE WASTE FUTURES PROJECT For all the short-list options, it was assumed that current systems would be optimised, maximising capture of materials at kerbside and refuse transfer stations, thus reducing reduction of the quantity of residual waste requiring processing and/or disposal, while improving the value of recovered materials.

From a modelling and assessment perspective, the assumptions included the following targets:

Food and garden organics collection with 30% capture across full domestic waste stream.

Optimised (20% increase in capture - paper, card, plastics) kerbside recycling collection.

Optimised (20% increase in capture - paper, card, plastics, glass, metals, and organics) refuse transfer stations.

Based on the current performance of the local waste systems, opportunities for improvement were identified. This might be achieved by a combination of:

Improving performance of kerbside recycling. Targeting household organics. Community-based projects around ways to reduce food waste. Increased capture of recoverable materials from commercial, industrial, construction

and demolition sources. Increased diversion of materials at transfer stations.


Figure 1: 2016 SWAP Waste Flow

8 WASTE GENERATION AND FLOWS Understanding where and how much waste is generated as well as how it finds its way to the landfill is important. Optimising regional waste management and minimisation is only possible when reliable data are available on quantities of waste, and how it is managed.

Important to understand are:

The source of the waste e.g. residential, industrial/commercial etc. The quantities of waste e.g. tonnes/week or year. How it is collected e.g. kerb-side collection or refuse transfer station.

To provide baseline data for waste assessments and WMMPs, identify waste minimisation initiatives, and monitor changes in the waste stream, the Councils have commissioned waste composition audits based on the Ministry for the Environment’s Solid Waste Analysis Protocols 2002 (SWAP) in 2007, 2009, 2012 and 2016. The result of the 2016 survey is visualised below.


8.1 CURRENT WASTE QUANTITIES

Figure 2: Historic tonnages & price Omarunui

Figure 3: Napier + Hastings waste per capita and household

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00

$90.00

$100.00

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000A

rea

A: 1

990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Are

a D

: 200

720

0820

09Le

vy: 2

010

2011

2012

2013

ETS:

201

420

1520

1620

1720

18

Ga

te F

ee $

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Historic Tonnes to Omarunui landfill & price (general waste) per tonne

Napier Hastings Commercial

Liquid waste Total Waste Charge Rate

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Wa

ste

Kg/y

ear

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Napier + Hastings waste per capita and household

Total waste Napier-Hastings Total population Napier- Hastings

Total households Napier- Hastings Waste in Kg/capita

Waste in Kg/household


9 SOURCES AND COMPOSITION OF WASTE The following graphs show materials collected or brought into the transfers stations and landfill and link them to the source and type of vehicle used for transport. Some graphs are stacked and show the total tonnage per material to help identify highs and lows. Others are unstacked to help find individual highs and lows by adding an extra layer of detail.

The graphs can help identify materials that can be diverted. The source can be established and the way the material comes into the facility. This shows whether it is handled manually (unloaded from trailers or cars) or tipped and not handled by the customer.

The information can help to find opportunities logistically and to divert and store material. Manual handling by a customer is an opportunity to divert without consuming facility resources. This can be achieved by placing bays or bins in suitable locations or separating traffic for different types of vehicles for example.

9.1 OMARUNUI LANDFILL

Between 2007 and 2012, the weekly tonnage of C&D (Construction and Demolition) and ICI (Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional) waste decreased but then increased again in 2016. The global financial crisis is likely to have driven these reduced tonnages. The ICI waste tonnage was the highest in 2016 since 2007. The local and New Zealand economy are picking up and there is a lot of building and industrial activity.

The reduction in landscaping waste over the nine-year period is likely to be associated with improved green waste recovery efforts at the transfer stations and the availability of alternatives like BioRich and PanPac, which are more sustainable and cheaper. However, this does not mean there is less green waste going to landfill..

2007 2009 2012 2016

Special 8424 9360 14144 7176

Residential 9308 6344 5356 4472

Landscape 4888 5512 1300 1716

Kerb 26832 29796 28392 30732

I/C/I 42016 26312 25792 29380

C&D 10816 8528 3432 5200

Total 102284 85852 78416 78676

020000400006000080000

100000120000

Tonn

es la

ndfil

led

per y

ear Waste to Omarunui by source

Figure 4: Waste trends to Omarunui by source


2007 2009 2012 2016 Avg

Special 8% 11% 18% 9% 12%

Residential 9% 7% 7% 6% 7%

Landscaping 5% 6% 2% 2% 4%

Kerb 26% 35% 36% 39% 34%

I/C/I 41% 31% 33% 37% 35%

C&D 11% 10% 4% 7% 8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al p

er y

ear

Waste to Omarunui source

Figure 5: Waste to Omarunui by source (stacked)

05000

1000015000200002500030000

Omarunui landfill material & tonnage by source

Wheelie Bins NCC Bags HDC Bags

Redclyffe RTS Henderson Rd RTS Commercial Direct

Figure 6: Waste to Omarunui by source as percentage of 100%)


Figure 7: Waste to Omarunui by source (unstacked)

05000

100001500020000

Omarunui landfill material & tonnage by source (unstacked)


Redclyffe RTS Henderson Rd RTS Commercial Direct


9.2 HENDERSON ROAD TRANSFER STATION

9.2.1 Trends and totals by source (2007-2016)

Figure 8: Waste trends to Henderson Road RTS by source

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) waste comprised 31% of the total waste, by weight, with Construction and Demolition waste at 21%, and landscaping and earthworks at 5%. Residential loads represented 23% of the total weight and kerbside collections 20%.

Since 2007, the weekly tonnage disposed to landfill from Henderson Road RTS has decreased by 55%. The kerbside collections have reduced, partly because of the commercial wheelie bin uptake, in favor or the orange (pay as you throw) bag. The wheelie bin operators use the landfill directly. This downward trend is likely to flatten off, as increased economic activity in the region is expected to drive an increase in waste production between the 2016 and 2019 SWAP survey.

Figure 9: Waste to Henderson Road RTS by source (stacked)

2007 2009 2012 2016Residential 5096 2704 1924 2340Landscaping 1924 1508 468 468Kerb 9256 9412 8788 2028I/C/I 5252 2080 3536 3224C&D 3016 2704 832 2132Total 24544 18408 15548 10192

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Tonn

es th

roug

hput

per

yea

r

Waste to Henderson Road by source (stacked)

0.00500.00

1000.001500.002000.002500.003000.00

Henderson Rd. RTS material & tonnage by source (stacked)

C&D ICI Landscaping Residential


Figure 10: Waste to Henderson Road RTS by source (unstacked)

Figure 11: Waste to Henderson Road RTS by vehicle type (unstacked)

In the general waste stream, Henderson Road RTS receives 22% of material that offers opportunities to divert from landfill disposal. The largest single divertible component is compostable green waste, which comprised 8% of the general waste stream.

Other materials, such as clothing, resalable items, plasterboard, and untreated timber present options to recover. Timber is the largest component overall and can potentially be used as boiler fuel.

0500

100015002000

Henderson Rd. RTS material & tonnage by source (unstacked)


0500

100015002000

Henderson Rd. RTS material & tonnage by vehicle type (unstacked)

Cars Gantry Trucks Other Trucks Trailers


9.3 REDCLYFFE TRANSFER STATION 9.3.1 Trends and totals by source (2007-2016)

Figure 12: Waste trends to Redclyffe RTS by source

For 2016 Industrial/commercial/institutional loads comprised 35% of the total weight of waste.

C&D and residential waste represented similar proportions of the refuse, comprising 26% and 23% of the total, respectively.

Landscaping represented 14% of the total weight of waste during the survey.

Between 2007 and 2016, the tonnage of waste disposed of to Omarunui Landfill from Redclyffe RTS decreased 44%. In-line with landfill tonnages, this downward trend has stopped and increased economic activity in the region is expected drive an increase in tonnage between the 2016 and 2019 SWAP survey.

Figure 13: Waste to Redclyffe RTS by source and composition (stacked)

2007 2009 2012 2016Residential 2808 3276 2288 2028Landscaping 2184 3796 780 1196Kerb 0 832 156 156I/C/I 4264 2600 1404 2964C&D 5824 3484 2496 2236Total 15080 13988 7124 8580

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

Tonn

es th

roug

hput

per

yea

rWaste to Redclyffe by source

0500

10001500200025003000

Redclyffe RTS material & tonnage by source



Figure 15: Waste to Redclyffe RTS by source and vehicle type (unstacked)

Over a third of the overall waste disposed of from Redclyffe RTS could have been diverted from Omarunui Landfill. The largest single divertible component was green waste at 14%. Recyclable paper, primarily cardboard packaging was the second largest divertible material at 7%.

Similar to Henderson Road, other materials such as clothing, resalable items, cleanfill, and untreated timber present opportunity to divert. Timber, again the highest scoring component by weight.

0500

100015002000

Redclyffe RTS material & tonnage by vehicle type (unstacked)

Cars Front-loaders Gantry Trucks Other Trucks Trailers

C&DLandscaping

0

500

1000

1500

Redclyffe RTS material & tonnage by source (unstacked)


Figure 14: Waste to Redclyffe RTS by source and composition (unstacked)


9.4 KERBSIDE COLLECTIONS

9.4.1 Trends and totals by source (2007-2016)

Figure 16: Waste trends kerbside collections by source

Between 2007 and 2009, the tonnage of waste disposed of to landfill from kerbside collections increased, but in line with other services dropped, trailing the GFC. Increased economic activity in the region is expected drive an increase in tonnage between the 2016 and 2019 SWAP survey across services.

Figure 17: Waste from kerbside collections by source (stacked)

2007 2009 2012 2016Commercial Kerb 8476 12584 12428 21268Via Napier RTS 0 832 156 156Napier Kerb 9100 6968 6812 7020Via Hastings RTS 9256 9412 8788 2028Hastings Kerb 0 0 208 208Total 26832 29796 28392 30680

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Tonn

es p

er y

ear

Waste from the kerb by source (stacked)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Kerb-side Materials and tonnage by source (stacked)


Via Henderson Road Via Redclyffe RTS


Figure 18: Waste from kerbside collections by source (unstacked)

Figure 19: Waste from kerbside collections by bin or bag service (stacked)

Bags Napier

Approximately 18% of the materials in the Napier domestic kerbside bagged refuse can be recycled. Paper comprised 47% of the recyclable materials. A further 47% of the bagged refuse can be composted. This means that in theory 65%, of the Napier domestic kerbside bagged refuse can be diverted from landfill.

Bags Hastings

Around 10% of the materials in the Hastings domestic kerbside bagged refuse can be recycled - paper again nearly half of this. A further 47% could have been composted. In total, 58% of the Hastings domestic bagged refuse can be diverted from landfill. Recyclables are found more in the Napier bags, possibly due to the fact that volume in the orange “pay as you throw” bags is considered valuable and orange bag users try to recycle as much as possible.

Wheelie bins

05000

100001500020000

Kerb-side materials and tonnage by source (unstacked)

Wheelie Bins NCC Bags HDC Bags Via Henderson Road Via Redclyffe RTS

05000

10000150002000025000

Wheelie bins vs. all bagged waste combined (stacked)

Wheelie Bins Combined Bags


Total/week Recyclable Organics Divertible Residual

60L Bags (Kg) 8.66 1.59 4.08 5.67 3.00

240L W-Bin (Kg) 27.28 2.78 20.35 23.13 4.15

% more in W-bin 315% 175% 499% 408% 138%

0.00%100.00%200.00%300.00%400.00%500.00%600.00%

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

Kg /

Perc

enta

ge

60L bag vs. 240L wheelie bin (weight and composition)

Figure 24: Average household 60L bags vs. 240L wheelie bin comparison

Approximately 10% of the materials in the 240-litre MGB domestic kerbside refuse can be recycled. 75% can be composted. In total a theoretical 85%, of the 240-litre MGB domestic kerbside refuse can be diverted from landfill.

9.5 SERVICE TYPE AND THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD

Infographic: differences between bag and wheelie bin service per household

Figure 21: Average household bag collections Figure 20: average household bin collections

Figure 22: 60L bag compactor truckload Figure 23: 240L wheelie bin compactor truckload


10 COUNCIL COLLECTION SERVICES AND MARKET SHARE

10.1 RECYCLING COLLECTION MARKET SHARE

Table 1: Kerbside recycling collection survey (2015) results

Kerbside recycling collection Hastings Napier Total Average Weekly set-out rate 36% 37% 36% Participation rate (participated at least once over the trial) 60% 62% 61%

10.2 REFUSE COLLECTION MARKET SHARE Table 2: Kerbside refuse collection survey (2015) results

Kerbside refuse bag collection Hastings Napier Total Average Weekly set-out rate 20% 56% 39% Participation rate 37% 83% 60%

Table 3: Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) Survey (2016)

Service Type Share of weight Hastings Share of weight Napier Kerbside refuse bag collection / Council

13% 51%

240L wheelie bin collection / Commercial

70% 44%

The weekly tonnages per source from the 2016 SWAP survey and average weight per wheelie bin enables an estimation of the number of wheelie bins in service. This results in 14,993 wheelie bins at 409 T/Week and an average bin weight of 27.28 Kg. This assumes a weekly collection. The actual number of wheelie bins is likely to be higher as a proportion of the customers will have a fortnightly collection. Old WAP surveys (before the SWAP protocol) claim that bin popularity started in the 90’s and they included estimates for the number of wheelie bins in the region. The growth in service uptake for wheelie bins is illustrated in the graph below. The WAP survey estimates have been used for the period from 1994 until 2001. From 2009 until 2016, the weekly tonnage was divided by an average weight of 27.28Kg per wheelie bin, taken from the 2016 SWAP survey.

Figure 25: Estimated wheelie bin uptake since 1994

1994 1997 2001 2004 2007 2009 2012 20160

5000

10000

15000

20000

WAP & SWAP based estimate of wheelie bins in Omarunui catchment


11 DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL

11.1 LANDFILL DISPOSAL TRENDS FOR DIVERTIBLE MATERIAL The graphs below highlight that recyclables either have seen a downward trend in tonnage or have been a stable component in the composition since 2007.

Compostable materials have seen a downward trend for kitchen type organics and steep increase for green waste.

Timber and textiles, are worth looking at from a tonnage point of view and the fact that they can potentially be utilised as fuel. Timber tonnages to landfill have reduced almost 4000 tonnes per year but still amount to 8000 tonnes. The current economic activity, mainly building and construction is likely to drive these tonnages up between the 2016 and 2019 SWAP survey.

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%

2007 2009 2012 2016

Recyclables in composition %

Paper

Plastic

Ferrous metals

Non ferrous metals

Glass

Linear (Paper)

Power (Plastic)

Linear (Ferrous metals)

Linear (Non ferrous metals)

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,000

2007 2009 2012 2016

Recyclables in tonnes

Paper

Plastic

Ferrous metals

Non ferrous metals

Glass

Linear (Paper)

Power (Plastic)

Linear (Ferrous metals)

Linear (Non ferrous metals)

Figure 27: Landfill recyclables disposal trends % Figure 26: Landfill recyclables disposal trends T/year


0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

2007 2009 2012 2016

Compostable in compostion %

Kitchen waste

Green waste

Linear (Kitchen waste)

Linear (Green waste)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2007 2009 2012 2016

Compostable in tonnes

Kitchen waste

Green waste

Linear (Kitchen waste)

Linear (Green waste)

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

2007 2009 2012 2016

Combustable in composition %

Timber

Textiles (potentially)

Linear (Timber)

Linear (Textiles (potentially))

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2007 2009 2012 2016

Combustable in tonnes

Timber

Textiles (potentially)

Linear (Timber)

Linear (Textiles (potentially))

Figure 28: Landfill compostable disposal trends % Figure 30: Landfill compostable disposal trends T/year

Figure 29: Landfill combustible disposal trends Figure 31: Landfill combustible disposal trends


11.1.1 Recycling and organics to landfill by source

02000400060008000

100001200014000160001800020000

8992863 3268

64171955

542

12598

33

2171 1314

2169

7154

Recycling and Organics in tonnes by source 2016

Kitchen Green Recycling

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

3762 2497 6259 34859744

9685 12631

22316

9323

31639

Recycling and Organics in tonnes Council vs Commercial 2016

Council Activity Commercial Activity

Figure 32: Recycling and organics to landfill by source (stacked)

Figure 36: Recycling and organics to landfill Council and commercial service

Figure 35: Food waste at the landfill

Figure 34: Cardboard and paper at the landfill

Figure 33: Green waste at the landfill


11.2 RECYCLING IN DETAIL

11.2.1 General Performance data from existing recycling systems is useful to estimate the potential diversion of recyclable/compostable materials from proposed collection systems or determine how these schemes could be improved. The key performance data includes:

Tonnages collected

capture rates

Contamination rates

11.2.2 Sources and capture levels In order to assess the impact of any collection methodology change, it is important to look at tonnages and sources as percentage of total waste landfilled but also as percentage of the targeted material, we wish to divert. This way of presenting the data visualizes where an impact can be made. The following graphs illustrate this.

Figure 37: Recycling capture Omarunui catchment

This graph combines the SWAP composition data per source with tonnages and the achieved diversion statistics for from the kerbside, drop-off centres and direct disposal at the landfill.

The total to landfill for recyclable materials is 229 T/week. This equals 11,908 T/year and represents 55% of all available recyclables. The combined Council sources recycling to landfill amounts to 3,485 T/year and the [private] commercial wheelie bin collection 2,169 T/year. The remainder of 6,254 T/year is commercial direct to landfill. This is 56% of all recyclables landfilled.

45 % or 9749 T/year of recycling is captured at the kerbside and various drop-off centres together.

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

In waste Captured Available in total

Recyclables: Omarunui catchment

Refuse Kerb Hastings Refuse Kerb Napier Refuse Kerb commercial

Recycling Kerb Hastings Recycing Kerb Napier RTS Henderson Rd

RTS Redclyffe RTS Henderson Rd RTS Redclyffe

Martin Place Other HDC drop-off Commercial drop-off

Commercial Direct to landfill Available Total

100%

45%55%


Figure 38: Recycling capture kerbide and RTS facilities

This graph combines the SWAP composition data per source with tonnages and the achieved diversion statistics from the kerbside and transfer stations only.

The total-to-landfill for recyclable materials is 109 T/week. This equals 5654 T/year and represents 42% of the available recyclables at the kerbside and transfer stations.

58% or 7959 T/year of recycling is captured at the kerbside and the transfer stations.

Figure 39: Recycling capture RTS facilities only

This graph combines the SWAP composition data per source with tonnages and the achieved diversion statistics for from the transfer stations only.

The total-to-landfill for recyclable materials from transfer stations is 42 T/week. This equals 2171 T/year and represents 56% of all available recyclables at transfer station facilities.

44% or 1698 T/year of recycling is captured at the transfer stations.

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

14000.0

16000.0


Recyclables: Kerb and Transfer Stations

Refuse Kerb Hastings (in waste) Refuse Kerb Napier (in waste)

Refuse Kerb commercial (in waste) Recycling Kerb Hastings (collected)

Recycing Kerb Napier (collected) RTS Henderson Rd (in waste)

RTS Redclyffe (in waste) RTS Henderson Rd (dropp-off on-site)

RTS Redclyffe (dropp-off on-site) Available Total

100%

58%42%

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0


Recyclables RTS facilities

RTS Henderson Rd (in waste) RTS Redclyffe (in waste)

RTS Henderson Rd (drop-off on-site) RTS Redclyffe (drop-off on-site)

Available Total

100%

44%56%


Figure 40: Recycling capture kerbside only

This graph combines the SWAP composition data per source with tonnages and the achieved diversion statistics for from the kerbside only. The total to landfill for recyclable materials is 67 T/week. This equals 3483 T/year and represents 36% of all available recyclables from the kerbside. 64% or 6261 T/year of recycling is captured at the kerbside.

11.2.3 Diversion opportunities: recycling More material than we know of will be diverted for recycling through commercial collection in the region. Cardboard from retail business is a good example of this. This does however not affect the discussion around improving diversion. The focus should be on material that ends up in the landfill, not on material that already finds a more sustainable destination. We do not have access to all diversion data, which means that as a region we may be performing better than the available data suggests.

Exploring the Waste Futures target shows that 20% increase in capture at the kerbside can result in the following:

• 20% increase in capture at the kerbside results in 1924 T/year of extra yield. • For a part-co-mingled or twin bin collection (wheelie bin and crate for glass) there will

be an increase in contamination on the current level which is between 1% and 2%. This means that for a Net capture increase of 20%, a Gross capture increase of at least 25% needs to be achieved. This will push our total target (after the increase) to 89% for all available recycling at the kerbside. This is beyond the commonly used practical yield of 85%.

• The result of this increased recycling capture as a percentage of all recycling available is 8.9%. The overall diversion from landfill realized (all waste) doing this will only be 2.3%.

The above means that the increased cost for kerbside related services will achieve a diversion of under 3% from landfill, while potentially reducing the quality of the recyclables.

For the current kerbside collection the contamination level is between 1% and 2% according to the current contractor. For the co-mingled or twin bin collection, a level of to 6.5% was used but this can range between 5% and 12%. Helping commercial and industrial business recycle presents a big opportunity as over 6,000 T/year originates from this source.

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0


Recyclables: Kerb-side only

Refuse Kerb Hastings (in waste) Refuse Kerb Napier (in waste)

Refuse Kerb commercial (in waste) Recycling Kerb Hastings (collected)

Recycing Kerb Napier (collected) Available Total at kerb

100%

64%

36%


11.3 ORGANICS IN DETAIL

11.3.1 Sources and composition: organics For organics, the theoretical supply is infinite. A lot of green waste however, is diverted from landfill already. There are many alternative ways to use or dispose of organic material. Home or commercial composting are just two examples. The growing problem is the amount of organics that make their way into the landfill. This is a problem due to the fact that organic material produces methane gas under anaerobic conditions. This greenhouse gas is between 25 and 28 times more harmful than CO2. Not all gas can be captured over the life of a landfill which means it can do a lot of harm, even a 10% “escape” rate and 90% capture (The EPA uses 78% capture over the life of a landfill but there is a lot of debate around this). The SWAP survey has broken down the organic material into kitchen waste and green waste. This is very valuable as kerbside collection systems for organics can be delivered in various ways and can target kitchen waste, green waste or both.

In this chapter both kitchen and green waste are analysed in relation to total waste to landfill, organic waste to landfill and organic type (kitchen and green) waste to landfill by source.

Figure 41: Organics to landfill kitchen and green waste (stacked)

Figure 41 illustrates that bags and wheelie bins collected from the kerbside contain similar amounts of kitchen waste. On average, the amount of kitchen waste will not differ much between households and this is visible in the waste composition.

For green waste however, the situation is very different. Bags are difficult to put green waste in and when this occurs, and is very visible the bags are stickered and left behind in Napier. This shows as only 3.6% of the green waste to the landfill is from bags. Wheelie bins are mostly 240 litres and contain large amounts of green waste due to their excess capacity. The Napier Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 contains 10 rules regarding green waste, which have only partly been enforced since its introduction. Wheelie bin loads result in 83.3% of all green waste going to landfill and represent 19% of the total waste stream going to landfill.

Despite the efforts to divert green waste at the transfer stations, 1955 T/year or 12.9% ends up in the refuse pits and, after haulage, the landfill. 6.7% of the landfilled kitchen waste originates from transfer stations.

The food production related industry in Hawkes Bay is a likely contributor to the amount of “kitchen-type” waste going directly to landfill. This is an important fact as this source

Council RTS facilities Council KerbCollection

Commercial KerbCollection Commercial Direct

Green 1955 542 12598 33

Kitchen 899 2863 3268 6417

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

Tonn

es to

land

fill

Organics to landfill: Green vs. Kitchen


represents 47% of the total kitchen-type waste landfilled. Packaged food waste can be prohibitively expensive or difficult to re-use or process, which is why it is landfilled.

None or very little (1%) green waste is disposed of at the landfill by commercial/industrial businesses directly. This is due to the availability and price of alternatives like BioRich and PanPac. Section 3.7 of the Regional Resource Management Plan applies to organic material from primary processing industries and contributes diversion from these businesses. A copy can be found in Appendix D.

In the graphs below the data is broken down into commercial and Council provided activity and kerbside vs. other services.

Figure 42: Organics to landfill: Council and commercial activity (stacked)

Kitchen waste Green waste Total Organics

Commercial Activity 9685 12631 22316

Council Activity 3762 2497 6259

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Tonn

es to

land

dfill

Organics to landfill: Council vs. commercial

Kitchen Green Total OrganicsKerb 6131 13140 19271Non-kerb 7316 1988 9304

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Tonn

es to

land

fill

Organics to landfill: Kerb vs. non-kerb

Figure 43: Organics to landfill: kerbside and other sources (stacked)


11.3.2 Current levels of capture The Councils capture green waste only at the transfer stations and divert between 4,000 and 6,000 tonnes combined. There are kerbside services available for organics and a lot of landscaping businesses supply green waste to both BioRich and PanPac. Kitchen waste collection services are less common. There are also a lot of households and schools that compost on-site. Every effort, commercial or private, to prevent green waste from going to landfill is applauded. All of the above does however mean we have very little data about the total quantity of kitchen and green waste available. The focus therefore is on the organics that make their way in to the Omarunui landfill and initiatives to reduce this.

11.3.3 Diversion opportunities The amount of organics to landfill is substantial. This means that yields and diversion results of a collection service or other initiative targeting organics can be significant.

Exploring the Waste Futures target again shows that 30% capture at the kerbside can result in the following:

30% of kitchen only: 1800 tonnes with a similar volume in m3 30% of green only: 3942 tonnes with up to three times the volume 30% of all organics: 5781 tonnes (Waste Futures target)

These tonnages are able to be processed by BioRich from both a consent and processing capacity point.

To deliver on the Waste Futures promise with a “kitchen waste only” collection, all available kitchen waste at the kerbside (100%) will have to be collected.

It is important to focus on ways to make sure the green waste is not presented at the kerbside, unless a “co-mingled” organics collection of kitchen and green is introduced.

This is a challenge as this service will “harvest” a lot of green waste from properties that is currently processed elsewhere and makes the statistic of diversion a “false economy” as the total amount of waste, covered by services will increase. On the up side, it is likely to discourage householders utilizing excess space in their current 240 litre wheelie bins for garden waste disposal.

11.4 OTHER MATERIALS

11.4.1 Sources and composition: other materials Timber, textiles and rubble are the materials that are disposed of most at the transfer stations and directly to the landfill.

The materials, other than organics and recyclables, shown in the graphs below are dropped off at the transfer stations and landfill in amounts larger than 10 tonnes per week.

Timber is the category that represents the highest tonnage. Rubble comes second and is often part of mixed loads. Full loads of rubble are rare as it is charged at the general waste rate.

Textiles can be clothes, but also items like a tarpaulin or weed mat. A large proportion of textiles are the reject clothes from charity shops. The total for this material is almost 3000 tonnes per year, with most being disposed of at the Henderson Road transfer station.

Sanitary Paper amounts to a total of almost 2000 tonnes per year. Industrial and Industrial Commercial (ICI) customers in the Hastings area are disposing of most of this material. The Henderson Road transfer station is likely to receive a lot as it is very close to the type of industrial activity generating it (e.g. hospital and food production industry).


Figure 44: Other materials by source (stacked)

Figure 45: Other materials by source (unstacked)

11.4.2 Current capture At the transfer stations there are separate areas for rubble. The Redclyffe hardfill area builds up to between 50 and 100 tonnes per year. This can be classified as diversion as it excludes the rubble in the pit that is destined for the landfill. It does however get transported to a cleanfill site where it will be crushed into aggregate, if suitable.

The cost of alternative disposal at cleanfills means that the transfer stations and the landfill, which has a consented cleanfill area, do not receive much of this material. This is especially

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

Omarunuidirect

HendersonRd. RTS

RedclyffeRTS

Total

Sanitary paper 1144 536 151 1830Rubble 2704 624 900 4228Textiles 1040 1134 822 2995Timber 1404 2668 2917 6989

Tonn

es p

er y

ear

Other materials

Omarunui directHenderson Rd. RTS

Redclyffe RTSTotal

01000200030004000500060007000

Timber Textiles Rubble Sanitarypaper

Other materials

Omarunui direct Henderson Rd. RTS Redclyffe RTS Total


true if the density of over 1000 Kg per cubic metre is taken into account. The fact that the capture rate is low and hard to quantify does not present a real issue. The bigger and well known cleanfill sites are consented and deal with the material appropriately.

The situation concerning timber is similar. There is a very cost effective option for commercial operators to dispose of this material at PanPac. The only costs are the transport and handling. Once delivered to the Whirinaki site it is utilised as boiler fuel after shredding.

Timber is however often part of a mixed and smaller load from building sites and PanPac only accept sorted and untreated timber. This takes time and resource to achieve and is likely to be the reason why transfer stations receive a lot of timber from builders. There are no sorting and logistic systems in place to divert timber at the transfer stations currently.

Textiles and sanitary paper are also not diverted at the Council transfer station facilities.

11.4.3 Diversion opportunities The landfill operation and design does not allow for diversion. It would cost a lot of resource and would introduce unacceptable health and safety risks. This is why the focus in the next paragraphs is on the transfer stations.

Textiles Diversion of textiles and sanitary paper is challenging as there is a lack of processing options and end-markets.

Textiles are manufactured from natural fibres, polymers or a combination. They take time to separate and are often contaminated once disposed of. Like paper the fibres shorten in the recycling process, which affects the quality. Levi’s can use 20% recycled cotton before the quality of the new garment drops under the requirements.

Textiles are a component in the refuse derived fuel that is utilised in Energy from Waste (EfW) installations overseas. Textiles in the current local recycling market circumstances are best to be re-used and charity shops play a big part in this lifecycle.

Sanitary paper Sanitary paper is usually contaminated. This is tied to the purpose of the product (to absorb contamination). This means that recycling it into new paper is not a viable option. It can however to some degree be composted. BioRich receives tissues from the meat industry in bales, which are composted.

Nappy composting schemes have been trialed but this is logistically challenging. The nappies originate from households and are therefore dispersed around the country. Again, they are also made up of various natural and synthetic materials.

Sanitary paper can be processed into refuse derived fuel but no market exists for the fuel locally.

Rubble Separating rubble from waste is achieved by asking the customers to dispose of the material in a specific location. It is not easy to separate, once disposed of in the pit. It is often mixed, very fine or heavy. They weight and dust are of concern regarding health and safety. It is best to try to incentivize separation before the material enters the pit via the design of the unloading zone or gate fee incentives. There are local alternatives for rubble therefore presenting a diversion opportunity.

Timber Timber presents the biggest opportunity to divert. Untreated timber free of heavy steel components can be transported to PanPac for use as boiler fuel. Treated timber containing heavy metals cannot be processed but timbers with nail plates and hinges are acceptable.


Prior to or even post-disposal, it is possible to divert timber at transfer stations. It can be kept clean relatively easily and stored it on-site for bulk load shipping. Separation can be done ideally by the customer (before the pit to avoid double handling) or by transfer station staff. Separation by the customer also reduces health and safety risks for transfer station staff it avoids unloading material.

For both the customer and staff this separation require manual handling and will involve health and safety risks. The setup at transfer stations need to be investigated to assess how unloading, storage and cartage can be optimised, while minimizing the risk of injury.

A separation discount for timber and a designated building waste bay may be a starting point.

Timber, textiles and sanitary paper all have a unique indicator under the ETS as they contribute to greenhouse gas production when landfilled. Timber is weighted heavily which means it will can hamper efforts to reduce the factor that is applied to the Omarunui landfill.


Figure 46: Hawk production Facility and office in Whakatu

12 WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES To complement this paper contact has been made with three relevant local processors for resources that can be extracted from waste. Through email, phone conversations and visits enough information has been collected to appreciate their current and potential future role in the local waste economy.

12.1 RECYCLING

12.1.1 Hawk Packaging Hawk Packaging is located in Whakatu, central between Hastings and Napier. The company produces environmentally friendly packaging solutions. To do this Hawk uses fibre from recycled paper and cardboard.

The process Moulded fibre is fibre derived from recovered paper that is pulped and then processed into the end-product, a fruit tray for apples, avocados and other produce. Paper recycling is received in a hall and sorted by a small team utilising a clean MRF system (materials recycling facility). The sorted material is baled and stored for use in the rest of the process.

The fibres are separated in a pulping process using heat, dyed water and mechanical force. During the pulping process further contamination is removed from the batch. The shape of the product is formed on a mould after which the water is extracted. Then it is baked/dried in an oven. When the product has cooled down, it is robotically stacked and palletised, then wrapped and stored for shipping. It is a highly automated production process that ensures quality and efficiency. Hawk processes approximately 250 tonnes of paper and cardboard per month, equalling 14 tonne per day. One pizza box enables Hawk to produce one and a half tray trays. A ream of paper can be recycled into 31 trays. Up to one million trays are manufactured by Hawk every week.


Sustainability & Product Quality Hawk has secured a consistent, quality fibre supply. For the Napier and Hastings region, this has resulted in a very circular approach. The recycled paper is supplied by the contractor that collects kerbside recycling for the local Councils and the end product is used by local growers to supply the domestic and international markets.

No harmful chemicals are used in the manufacturing processes and the products are compliant with international industry regulations and standards. Moulded fibre is considered a sustainable packaging material, since it is produced from recycled materials, and can be recycled again after its useful life as a Hawk product.

Figure 47: The manufacturing process


Figure 48: Hawk product and end-use

Feedstock quality and collection Methodology The paper and cardboard collected at the Napier and Hastings kerb comprises around 45% of the current stock requirements for Hawk. The remaining fibre is sourced from other regions, including Wellington.

In general, the quality of the paper/cardboard mix and contamination level are very important factors affecting suitability and price level. Glass contaminated stock is not accepted by many processors. Most paper recycling contaminated with glass is shipped abroad where it is used in low grade laminated cardboard as the corrugated (invisible) layer. Hawk cannot use feedstock contaminated with glass due to the process and food related end-use of the product. Kerbside collection and processing methodologies affect fibre feedstock quality.

Three common kerbside collection methodologies are described below.

Fully co-mingled bin collection Fully co-mingled recycling collection in bins, where all recyclables are mixed together, results in glass contamination which cannot be completely removed and lowers the fibre grade, preventing high-grade fibre purchasers like Hawk to recycle it for food-grade use.

Co-mingled + glass crate Collection using a co-mingled bin in combination with a separate receptacle for glass will avoid the glass contamination and provide a reasonable product. It still presents a challenge, as some plastic contamination remains (meat trays, foils, potato bags, milk & juice cartons, polystyrene, strapping, shrink-wrap, plastic bags). The contamination can be removed in the process but this requires resource, produces waste and increases costs.

Household + Kerb sorted The best quality fibre supply is from a dedicated collection or kerb-sorted system where both the residents and collection crew sort the material. This system is in place in the Napier and Hastings catchment at present.


Figure 49: Paper recycling sorting and baling

Figure 50: Paper quality (Co-mingled + glass crate left, household/Kerb sorted right)


12.2 RECOVERY

12.2.1 BioRich Composting BioRich Ltd was founded in 2004. The original BioRich composting facility was established to meet the compost needs of its owner’s farm. From this emerged a commercial composting operation. Now BioRich has evolved into a company that offers a range of organic waste solutions for companies and Councils including composting, vermiculture, stock food and bio-digestion. BioRich operates two consented sites. One is situated 15 minutes southwest of Hastings, and another at Awatoto Napier.

The consented volumes are 52,000 cubic metre (1000 cubic metre per week) for the Awatoto site and 18,200 cubic metre (350 cubic metre per week) for the Hastings site.

Currently 30,500 to 40,000 tonnes of organic waste is processed annually, of which 60% according to the Standards of BioGro New Zealand. The Awatoto composting facility offers solutions to deal with wastes that are usually difficult to process.

The Process The compost is made from a mixture of animal manures, fish waste, paunch grass from abattoirs, waste from food and pet food manufacturers, fruit waste from pack houses, grape waste from wineries, avocado waste, olive waste and fruit juice waste. The less commonly composted materials include tissues (large quantities), post-commercial plaster board, tannery waste, grape marc, boiler ash, compostable food packaging and wool dust.

Suppliers include large operators such as Silver Fern Farms, Nobilos Wine Group, Watties, McCains, HB Seafoods, Progressive Meats and local Councils.

Bulking material such as bark, sawdust, and shredded municipal green waste are added to create the optimum carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and improve the aeration. These materials are sourced from the on-site drop-off centre for green waste, transfer station green waste collections and the port. All input material for the composting process incurs a charge per trailer (residential) or tonne and has to be delivered to the Awatoto site.

The combined mix is put into aeration bins and maintained at the correct temperature. After 10 to 14 days in the bins the compost is placed in wind rows and turned as required for the next 6 to 8 months.

The last step is screening after which the product is stored. It can be mixed with supplementary material to meet particular soil conditioning needs of clients.

Compost End-Markets The BioRich compost end-markets:

10% of the compost is transported out of the region (Bay of Plenty). 25% finds its way to the home consumer market (trailers, bulk and smaller bags) 65% is used locally in the horticulture, viticulture or vegetable growing industry.

Risks A common issue for composters around the world is contamination of the source material. BioRich is no exception and this was identified as the biggest risk across the business. It can damage machinery, incurs disposal cost, degrades the quality or can even render end product into waste. Fire and biohazard risks are managed well. Health and Safety is a very important aspect of the business and a lot of heavy machinery is operating on the sites. Legionnaires disease is a more composting industry specific health risk.

Opportunities BioRich is well established in the commercial organic waste market. As the processing cost and therefor the gate-fees are lower than landfill cost commercial waste generators already


Figure 52: Shredding of green waste

Figure 54: Forced aeration setup

Figure 51: Screening of compost

Figure 53: Land application of compost

value and use BioRich. This is why trials are done and so many types of organic material are composted on-site.

There is some commercial activity in the collection of food/kitchen organics, primarily from commercial kitchens and café’s. These collected organics are a very good nitrogenous addition to the composting input but the tonnages are less than 0.5% of the current total input. For this reason kitchen organics from commercial premises and households are seen as the biggest opportunity by BioRich.

When considering new collection and/or processing schemes it is important to estimate what available capacity for additional material in the current setup is. Composting throughput is seasonal and volumes change. The highest volumes are processed in autumn and can reach a peak of 870 cubic metres per week. They drop down to 275 cubic metres per week in the spring. This means there there is spare capacity in Awatoto, considerable capacity in Hastings. An average of around 30% spare capacity is available across the Awatoto and Hastings sites when Awatoto operates at peak and Hastings at 100 cubic metres per week.


12.2.2 Pan Pac Forest Products Limited Pan Pac Forest Products Limited (Pan Pac) is a Forest- and Forest Products-based company located near Napier. The company contains three operating divisions:

Forestry Division, managing 43,000 ha of land in Hawkes Bay, 35,000 of which is stocked with forest.

Lumber Division, producing 430,000 m3 per annum of green sawn output from pruned and sawlogs. Utility quality corewood is sold green and the higher quality outerwood is kiln dried before grading, packaging and despatching.

Pulp Division, producing thermo-mechanical wood pulp and wood chips for international markets, principally Japan. Current capacity for manufacture of wood pulp is 250,000 ADT/year, and in addition the company exports approximately 155,000 tonnes of wood chips.

Pan Pac’s pulp manufacturing process is an energy intensive operation. The integrated nature of the site means there is a lot of opportunity to optimize management of waste streams on site, and, in particular, utilisation of combustible waste for provision of heat energy to the product drying processes, as well as the use of surplus heat energy to generate electricity.

Thermal energy is generated from two biofuel boilers. Most of the thermal energy consumed is generated from burning waste in boilers to produce steam. The boilers contribute to nearly 40% of Pan Pac’s total energy usage. The utilisation of the waste products as fuel minimises the need to landfill. The energy from the boilers is neutral in CO2 Kyoto emissions. The biofuel boilers can also generate the energy to cover up to 12% of the facilities electricity needs.

Boiler Fuel Inputs: Collection of combustible waste from logyard, lumber and chipping operations as

fuel for the site boilers. Shavings from the planer mill are also utilised as fuel. Off-site combustible wood waste to supplement site waste (un-treated). Pulpmill waste from the effluent treatment plant is also added to the fuels entering the

boilers.

Boiler Energy Outputs: Steam from the boilers is principally utilised for drying of product at the lumber kilns,

and pulpmill flash dryers. Surplus steam energy is used to generate electricity at the mill’s turbine – this provides

approximately 12% of the site’s electricity requirements.

Diverson Opportunities PanPac receive a substantial amount of pallets and woody material from local industries. The material needs to be delivered free of charge and there may be an unloading charge if a forklift is needed. Most timbers are accepted provided they are not CCA treated or contain large steel components that can damage the shredder plant (nails and nail plates are OK). Moisture level and soil contamination are also required to be kept to a minimum.

Capacity to process diverted material The fuel usage rate does depend on moisture content and some other factors but can be summarised as follows:

Boiler No. 1 can consume up to 10 t/hour; 90,000 t/year Boiler No. 2 can consume up to 18 t/hour; 160,000 t/year

The Shredding Plant has spare capacity and additional capacity can be contracted. This means that the total capacity of the boilers is 250,000t/year. To illustrate the scale it is worth


Figure 56: PanPac production facility in Whirinaki Figure 55: Boiler and fuel supply system

noting that the current annual supply of all green waste from the Redclyffe transfer station, when shredded, is burnt in less than 2 days.


13 FUTURE DEMAND

13.1 DESCRIPTION Understanding that the socio economic characteristics of a region change over time is important in designing appropriate collection, processing and disposal systems. Key socio-economic data includes:

Total population and projected changes in population Number of households Housing types and densities Economic growth projections

These plus other factors affect the types and quantities of waste produced. In general population, household growth and GDP are used to trend waste forecasts. The gross domestic product (GDP) is a primary indicator in gauging the health of a regional or national economy. It represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific period.

The Waste Assessment document, prepared by Jacobs NZ Ltd. applied the population growth only to the current waste tonnage and trended this for the next decade. This represents a very conservative growth, which was surpassed at the end of the 2016-2017 financial year. The value of historic tonnage data is that it can be combined with economic trends spanning the same period. Over two decades the tonnages to landfill have, on average declined, while population has been steadily rising. This means that population is at best a contribution factor.

Recognising the value of combining historic data for both the local economy and waste production led to the engagement of Economic Solutions Limited (ESL).

13.1.1 The current economic climate in the region The economic activity increased significantly in Hawkes Bay during the year to March 2017. This trend started in 2015 and continues into 2017-2018.

Positive economic indicators for last year include the following: Almost 1% population gain, significantly increased value of consented building activity, increased house sales, increased retail spending, new motor vehicle registrations and commercial visitor arrivals. A significant gain in the total volume and value of international trade passing through the Port of Napier and an employment gain of 4.2%. Unemployment fell 3.8%.

From April 2017 onwards, the total value of all consented new building activity continued to grow. Total commercial visitor arrivals and visitor-nights are still up and employment followed the same trend. Advertised job vacancy numbers gained by approximately 28% on an annualised basis in Hawkes Bay. The strongest job vacancy growth occurred in the construction/utilities/manufacturing/transport, business services and tourism/hospitality industries, a clear sign of business confidence.

13.2 THE HUNT FOR WASTE PRODUCTION INDICATORS The work undertaken is presented below and following a discussion with ESL. The subsequent economic analysis work took place over a three-week period and included multiple meetings.

13.2.1 The objective The objective was to develop a robust forecasts for future growth in total waste disposal volumes across the Napier-Hastings area, based partly on prevailing and anticipated trends


in waste disposal, and on future growth in key economic indicators that have a close correlation/influence with waste disposal volumes.

13.2.2 The analysis The first step in the analysis process was to obtain data on historical annual waste disposal volumes for the Napier-Hastings area, for the period 2000-2017. This included both total volume figures and total volumes for the individual sectors of residential, commercial and industrial, supplemented by the ‘other’ category of waste disposal.

The next step was to review the degree of correlation between waste tonnage trends over the historical period and a number of potentially relevant demographic and economic influences/indicators for the Napier-Hastings area. In terms of the residential sector, the indicators included:

• population and households; • household occupancy rates; • sole-person and family based households; • real GDP per person; • population age groups; • retail spend; and • dwelling consents,

The indicators for the commercial sector included:

• business numbers and employment; • real GDP/economic growth; and • consented commercial buildings (new and altered).

The industrial sector economic indicators reviewed were:

• real GDP; • business numbers; • employment; and • consented building numbers.

For the total waste disposal volumes factor, the potential explanatory indicators assessed were:

• population; • real GDP; • employment; and • total consented new buildings and building alterations.

13.2.3 Economic Indicators Trends over the 2000-2017 period in all the above indicators were graphed and then reviewed against the sector trends in waste disposal tonnages, in order to assess the degree of correlation between the indicator trends and the waste volumes trends.

The correlation process needed to bear in mind the impact of non-demographic and non-economic influences on waste disposal levels in the Napier-Hastings area over the historical period, such as increasing kerbside recycling collection and composting capacity in the region. During the 2006-2013 period, the Global Financial and Economic Crisis resulted in a significant downturn in waste volumes in the area.

The graph below illustrates the waste disposal tonnages for the different sectors, for the period 2000-2017.


Figure 57: Waste tonnage to landfill trends 2000-2017

The demographic and economic indicators that have correlated closely with the trends since 2000 in waste disposal volumes are as follows:

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000

Tonn

esNapier-Hastings Waste Disposal Tonnages 2000-2017Total Residential Commercial Industrial Other


1. Total waste disposal volumes- real GDP and total new and altered consented buildings.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Rea

l GD

P $M

Wa

ste

Tonn

age

s

Waste Tonnages and Real GDP

Total Waste Tonnages Real GDP $M

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

# C

onse

nted

bui

ldin

gs

Tonn

es

Waste Tonnages and Building Consents

Total Waste Tonnages

New & Altered Bldg Activity (# Consented Buildings)

Figure 59: Total waste tonnage number of building consents

Figure 58: Total waste tonnage and real GDP


2. Residential waste disposal volumes- real GDP per capita, consented new and altered dwellings and retail spend.

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,000

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,000

Year

200

0Ye

ar 2

001

Year

200

2Ye

ar 2

003

Year

200

4Ye

ar 2

005

Year

200

6Ye

ar 2

007

Year

200

8Ye

ar 2

009

Year

201

0Ye

ar 2

011

Year

201

2Ye

ar 2

013

Year

201

4Ye

ar 2

015

Year

201

6Ye

ar 2

017 Re

al G

DP/

per

son

$

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Residential Waste & Real GDP/Capita

Residential Sector Waste (Tonnes) Real GDP Per Person $

01000200030004000

01000020000300004000050000

# C

onse

nted

bui

ldin

gs

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Residential Waste & Building Consents

Sector Waste (Tonnes)New & Altered Bldg Activity (# Consented Buildings)

0500100015002000250030003500

01000020000300004000050000

Reta

il Sp

end

$M

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Waste Tonnage & Retail Spend

Waste Volumes Tonnes) Retail Spend $M

Figure 601: Residential waste tonnage and number of consented buildings

Figure 612: Residential waste and number of building consents

Figure 60: Residential waste and real GDP per capita


3. Commercial sector waste disposal volumes- commercial sector employment and real GDP.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Emp

loym

ent

Commercial Sector Waste and Employment

Commercial Sector Waste Tonnes Commercial Sector Employment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

GD

P $M

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Commercial Sector Waste and Real GDP

Commercial Sector Waste Tonnes Nap-Hasts Real GDP $M

Figure 633: Commercial waste tonnage and Employment

Figure 624: Commercial waste tonnage and real GDP $M


5. Industrial sector waste disposal volumes- real GDP and industrial sector employment.

Figure 645: Industrial waste tonnage and employment

Figure 66: Industrial waste tonnage an real GDP $M

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Emp

loym

ent

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Industrial Sector Waste and EmploymentIndustrial Sector Waste Tonnes Industrial Sector Employment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000Re

al G

DP

$M

Wa

ste

T/ye

ar

Industrial Sector Waste and Real GDPIndustrial Sector Waste Tonnes Nap-Hasts Real GDP $M


13.3 THE FUTURE The process for preparing waste disposal volume forecasts for the Napier-Hastings area for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) period comprised the following steps:

1. Preparation of a set of base-line forecasts for growth over the period in total waste volumes, based on either the long-term historical growth trend and/or the more recent five-year growth trend. These forecasts simply provide a comparison basis for the forecast growth in waste volumes based on the forecast growth in the relevant demographic and economic indicators.

2. Establish the underlying growth trends over the historical long-term 2000-2017 and more recent 2013-2017 period for the total waste volume indicator.

3. Analyse the impact of the forecast growth in the key demographic and economic indicators for each of the main waste disposal sectors, on total waste volumes for each sector. The total all-sector forecast results arising from this analysis were then compared with the results emerging from step 2 above.

4. Apply the underlying annual average growth rate for total waste volumes for the period 2018-2022 (that is, for the first five years of the forecast period) and then progressively reduce the level of annual growth back to 40% of the full amount of growth by year 2028, that is, the final year of the LTP period. The table below shows the final recommended set of waste tonnage growth in the Napier-Hastings area, for the next LTP period.

84,000

95,289

103,647108,645 108,294

102,513

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Omarunui Waste Tonnage Projection 2018-2028

Figure 657: Omarunui waste tonnage projection 2018-2028


14 GOVERNMENT SCHEMES

14.1 THE NEW ZEALAND WASTE LEVY

14.1.1 Introduction The waste levy is $10 per tonne (excluding GST) on all waste sent to landfill. The levy was introduced under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

The main purpose of the levy is increasing the cost of disposal to encourage New Zealanders to start taking responsibility for the waste they produce and to find more effective and efficient ways to reduce, reuse, recycle or reprocess waste.

Half of the levy money is returned to territorial authorities (city and district councils) to spend on promoting or achieving the waste minimisation activities set out in their waste management and minimisation plans (WMMPs). The remaining levy money (minus administration costs) is put into a nationally contestable Waste Minimisation Fund for innovative waste minimisation activities in New Zealand.

The Omarunui Landfill facility must pay the levy based on the total weight of material disposed of. This cost is ultimately passed on to the customers / waste producers such as households and businesses through the gate fee. It is also accommodated for in the transfer station fees and charges but as of yet, the transfer stations o not enforce a local levy of their own.

The Waste Levy is very important factor to consider in management of the Omarunui landfill. Because the facility is owned and operated by the Councils half of the paid levies comes back to the Councils, based on the percentage of ownership.

This, in turn means that the Levy affects both the gate rate and the level of funding which enables the Councils to introduce and/or maintain the provision of waste minimisation initiatives.

14.1.2 The Waste Levy review The Waste Minimisation Act requires the Minister to review the effectiveness of the waste levy at least once every three years. The last review was published in July 2017 and is summarised in this chapter. The reviews are an opportunity for the Minister to consider whether the levy is an effective mechanism for:

• raising revenue for waste minimisation; • reducing the amount of waste that is disposed; and • increasing the amount of waste that is reused, recycled or recovered.

The 2017 review has resulted in a three-way focus that is explained in the following paragraphs.

Focus 1: Strategy - signaling intent through vision, strategy and outcomes At present, levy funds are distributed to territorial authorities and the nationwide Waste Minimisation Fund is applicant driven and in the absence of a well-considered investment strategy to guide planning and coordination of waste minimisation initiatives.

Development of a vision and strategy for the levy and the Waste Minimisation Fund would provide a more structured and coordinated approach to identifying desired waste minimisation initiatives with a clear line of sight to long term outcomes that are measurable and produce maximum return on investment.


Focus 2: Data - prioritising opportunities and measuring effectiveness Access to relevant and reliable data and information is essential to understanding how to progress in an uncertain environment. Accurate, complete and robust information clarifies what is required, highlights opportunities for action, and provides feedback about the success of those endeavours.

Central to the data issues is the absence of a legislative mandate to compel those with waste data to provide it. In addition, there is a lack of dedicated resources to manage, analyse and store waste sector data. A national and coordinated approach would ensure waste related data and information is maintained and disseminated appropriately to provide necessary evidence and information to direct policy shifts and support decision-makers with investment decisions. Further attention should be directed towards improving the availability of data from territorial authorities and Waste Minimisation Fund projects, including provision of waste minimisation data and contributions to wider outcomes.

Focus 3: Approach – maximising the effectiveness of the levy International experience shows that waste minimisation levies can be highly effective tools in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. The waste disposal levy has remained unchanged since its inception. As public attention increasingly shifts towards the harm caused by waste in the environment, a review of the operation of the levy is timely and should:

• assess the rate at which the levy is set and whether this rate is sending the right messages to promote and achieve waste minimisation.

• analyse whether a differential rate might provide more effective, targeted incentives for minimisation of specific waste streams.

• extend the levy to include a larger proportion of waste disposal facilities that are not currently subject to any incentives to reduce waste.

A review of these areas would help to ensure that the levy was set-up to best minimise waste across New Zealand. Addressing the cost of disposal at non-levied waste disposal facilities At present, the levy is applied to only 11% of New Zealand’s 426 known waste disposal facilities. The review has identified that having unmonitored non-levied waste disposal facilities has the potential to create perverse incentives. Applying the levy consistently across waste disposal facilities that receive harmful, active or recyclable materials would lead to a fairer and more transparent system. Increasing the levy The levy rate should reflect a fine balance that manages incentives for the public, businesses and communities to adopt systems, processes and behaviours that reduce waste while preventing real and avoidable impacts to the economy. The rate of the levy was originally set in accordance with Section 27 of the Waste Minimisation Act, which prescribes that, where no rate is set, the rate shall be $10 per tonne. As no rate has ever been set for the levy it has remained at the $10 default rate since it was introduced. A balanced levy rate would ensure:


• waste producers were provided with sufficient incentives to reduce waste; • sufficient funds gathered through the levy were available to support development of

waste minimisation infrastructure and services; • businesses delivering alternatives to disposal were able to compete with the much

cheaper but more environmentally damaging option of sending waste to landfill; • employment and economic activity in the resource recovery sector were supported

appropriately to replace activity in the waste disposal sector; • the value of resources was recognised appropriately and incentives for their retrieval

from the waste stream operated effectively; • sufficient incentives were built into the system to encourage businesses to redesign

products to eliminate waste. The key indicator that the levy rate is well-balanced is the absence of retrievable resources in the waste stream. Given the 20.1% increase in net waste to landfill recorded during the review period, more work is required to find this balance in the rate of the levy. Gradually increasing the levy will drive the message that waste disposal is unviable and will provide the necessary signals to industry to prepare for this change well in advance.

Exploring a differential levy rating system At present, the levy is applied indiscriminately across all types of waste regardless of the harm caused by each waste stream. A differential rate that recognises these factors provides an opportunity to adjust the levy to target specific waste streams more sensibly and more effectively. The introduction of a differential levy rate for specific waste streams should consider:

• the harm caused by the waste stream going to landfill; • the value embedded in resources, including the cost of embedded energy and harm

caused by extraction and processing of raw materials; • availability of infrastructure and services to support diversion; • the cost of funding required to develop infrastructure and support ongoing diversion; • the price-point at which waste producers will be sufficiently incentivised to divert

rather than dispose of waste from a particular stream. Targeting specific waste streams with a differentiated levy rate can affect costs and returns for specific waste streams and enable businesses to respond with more certainty.


14.2 CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE ACT The Climate Change Response Act 2002 places requirements on operators of disposal facilities (as defined in the Waste Minimisation Act) to:

collect and report this information from 1 January 2012 surrender New Zealand Units (NZUs) to match their emissions.

The Climate Change (Waste) Regulations 2010 and Climate Change (Unique Emissions Factors) Amendment Regulations 2010 prescribe methods of determining the quantity of emission units for the purpose of determining the number of NZUs to surrender.

The Amendment Regulations prescribe classes of waste and a unique emission factor for each class.

Waste Class Unique Emissions Factors 1.26 garden waste 1.512 nappy and sanitary waste 0.945 all putrescible waste other than garden waste 2.52 paper waste 0.315 sewage sludge 2.709 timber waste 1.512 textile waste

14.2.1 ETS and the Omarunui landfill The joint Hastings and Napier Omarunui Landfill has an ETS obligation. The goal of the scheme has not changed since its inception but the way it is calculated and how units can be traded has changed a lot.

The ETS is another very important reason to gain a good understanding tonnage and particularly the composition of waste entering the facility.

Changes since inception: The price has increased from $4 for an international Unit to a current spot price of

$17.55 (August 2017) for one NZU; The option to purchase and surrender (cheap) international units was discontinued; The default factor (tonnes of CO2 emmisions / tonnes of waste) has increased from

1.10 to 1.31; At the start of the scheme one unit could be surrendered for 2 tonnes of emissions.

This surrender policy is being phased out as follows: 2017 1 unit for 1.5 tonnes of CO2

2018 1 unit for 1.2 tonnes of CO2

2019 1 unit for 1 tonne of CO2

The Government aims to allow the NZ ETS to more effectively support New Zealand to meet our climate change targets, incentivise emission reductions, and help transition New Zealand to a low emissions economy.

14.2.2 Pressure on the gate rate For the Omarunui, and other class 1 landfills in the country, all of this means that the ETS will put pressure on the gate rate. This is illustrated as follows and is based on real, but rounded tonnages. Since the ETS was introduced and along the way, units were forward-purchased to smoothen out the effect of price fluctuations.

At the disposal rate of 72,000 tonnes of waste the 1.10 factor resulted in 79,200 tonnes of emissions. A surrender rate of one unit per 2 tonnes and $4.00 per unit equates to $158,400.00.


0.00000

0.05000

0.10000

0.15000

0.20000

0.25000

0.30000

0.35000

2007 2009 2012 2016

Uni

que

Fact

or ti

mes

com

posit

ion

perc

enta

ge

Year

Unique emission factors trends per material

Garden

Nappy & Sanitary

Putrescibles other than Garden

Paper

Sewage Sludge

Timber

Textile

Other

Figure 68: Unique emission factor trends per material

Our current disposal rate of 84,000 tonnes with the changes ahead means the following. 110,040 tonnes of emissions using the new default factor of 1.31. At $10 per unit and a surrender-rate of one unit per 1.5 tonnes, this equates to $733,600.00.

In 2020 with the projected growth in tonnage to 95,289 result in 124,829 tonnes of emissions. At $25 per unit ($25 is the cap in the current version of the scheme) and a surrender rate of one unit per tonne, it is not unreasonable to assume that the annual ETS cost will rise by 2020 to $3,120,725.00.

14.2.3 Factor Trends Options Through the ETS, central Government has signaled it wishes to incentivize and facilitate change.

The graph below illustrates the unique factor score for each class of waste material for Omarunui from 2012 to 2016.

Applying for a unique factor and reducing/diverting material that produces a lot of CO2 may be the best way to respond to rising gate fees. The market and Government policy changes can be anticipated but not influenced strongly.

Many initiatives can affect the composition of the waste landfilled. The composition links to the unique factors which are scored for potential emissions. Diversion of the material that has a high factor score (such as any organically-based material) can make the application for a unique factor viable.

Paper, Wood and Garden waste score high and as previously discussed, diversion of these may be relatively straightforward. Taking the factor weighting into account for garden waste, the related ETS would cost around $350,000. For wood waste, this will be around $400,000 per year.


The following graph is the total unique factor for the years of SWAP Survey undertaking and the 1.10 versus the 1.31 default factor.

Figure 669: Unique emission factor total and defaults (1.10 and 1.31)

1.000

1.050

1.100

1.150

1.200

1.250

1.300

1.350

2007 2009 2012 2016

Tota

l uni

que

fact

or

Year

Unique emission factors total and defaults

Total Composition Factor

Old Default Factor

New Default Factor


15 COMPETING DISPOSAL FACILITIES As discussed previously, there are a number of disposal sites in the region. Cleanfill facilities can aid in diversion from Omarunui Landfill but, if not managed responsibly, can present environmental and/or economic risks.

Levied Class 1 landfills which accept all municipal solid waste (MSW) such as Omarunui Landfill are subject to both the levy and Climate Change Regulations. Non-levied Class 1 landfills and Class 2 landfills are not subject to either. Waste types for Class 2 landfills include paper waste, timber waste and textile waste. The emission factors for these types of waste are respectively the three highest factors. This indicates that Class 2 landfills could be high generators of emission as defined in the regulations. Class 2 landfills are an opportunity to avoid the ETS and waste levy charges and represent touch competition for some materials. Traditionally the disposal costs are lower than a Class 1 landfill so this competition is not new.

The Hawkes Bay Regional Council resource consent records contain the following consented solid waste related sites and activities in the Napier and Hastings region:

• 16 Closed landfill sites • 6 Composting facilities • 4 Cleanfill disposal sites • 3 Landfill sites • 2 Transfer stations • 1 Quarry Site


16 RECYCLING COMMODITIES AND CHINA

16.1 INTRODUCTION Most countries are largely dependent on China’s massive reprocessing industry to boost their own recycling programmes and targets. New Zealand is no exception.

China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) import waste from around the world, including more than 70% of the world’s waste plastics and 37% of the world’s waste paper in (2015).

Some key facts:

• Waste plastics traded internationally are a small fraction (<5%) of annual new plastic production.

• Pre-consumer (industrial) plastic scrap, is recycled as feedstock to a very high extent.

• Post-consumer plastics present the challenge, especially from mixed collection, sent for mechanical recycling.

• Plastic waste present in residual waste (ideally limited to the non-sustainably recyclable part of waste) can potentially be directed to energy recovery if the technology is available.

• Waste plastics are traded in a global supply chain and market, involving many industrial sectors.

• Decreases in the prices of primary plastics (driven by the oil price) directly affect the prices and trade volume of secondary plastics.

• China including the Hong Kong SAR is the leader in the global market for plastic.

• Europe, the biggest exporter worldwide of waste plastic, followed by Japan and the USA.

• The Hong Kong SAR serves almost exclusively as an alternative entry point for the Chinese market.

• Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia export to China, possibly re-exporting reprocessed imports and exporting domestically collected plastic scrap.

• There is insufficient understanding of the fate of the plastic scrap after entering China and consequently implications for local and global health and environment.

• The current model of operation (predominantly export dependence on China) has become vital for the successful operation of other countries’ recycling systems. There are doubts about the system’s resilience and overall sustainability.

• The market can be easily disrupted because it depends on many industrial sectors, the heavily regulated waste sector and the oligopoly of China’s market.

16.2 A CHANGING MARKET

16.2.1 Developments Last year China produced around 28% of the world’s plastic for which they use both virgin and recycled plastics. Without a domestic supply of waste for reprocessing, the country relied on recyclable waste from other countries to supply its industry. This is why China was


not too concerned about the quality of imported waste in the past. Shipping made economic sense as the containers with Chinese products could be utilised on their way back to China.

China has started to increase the standard of living for its population and this this comes with an increased production of waste domestically. High consumption drives waste generation and contributes to industrial pollution and China has been forced to review the requirements for recycling import quality. China itself has become the world’s biggest producer of rubbish with 254 million tonnes in 2015, expected to double by 2030 if no changes are made.

16.2.2 China’s battle against contamination The drivers to improve the quality of the recycling imports were strong enough to launch 3 responses.

1. Operation Green Fence Operation Green Fence, which started in 2012, targeted contaminated recyclable waste through inspections of waste shipments. This operation resulted in quality improvements in recycling processes and facilities in most countries that export recycling commodities to China.

2. Operation National Sword Earlier this year, under operation National Sword, all containers of waste entering Chinese ports are inspected manually or using x-ray technology. Material was still being accepted if it met quality criteria but the operation resulted in backlogs and delays at ports.

3. Restriction and ban notification to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) In a formal notification to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Chinese government said that it had found “large amounts of dirty waste or even hazardous wastes” mixed in with imports, and that it would forbid the import of certain types of waste by the end of the year. The list of restricted wastes includes some types of scrap plastics, mixed paper, waste wool, ash, cotton and yarn. The announcement has sent a shockwave through the recycling industry globally.

What this means for the world, New Zealand and Hawkes Bay:

Plastics • Post-consumer resins, including PE, PET, PS, PVC, and “other” recovered plastics, will

likely be subject to an outright ban. • Post-industrial recycled plastics, though on a restricted list, might be allowed.

Paper Prohibited fibres include:

• recovered wallpaper • wax-coated paper and waxed paper • carbon paper and carbonless copy paper • thermal paper • moisture sticker paper • paper used in liquid packaging – this likely refers to food and beverage packaging • all mixed paper

Paper and most of the above fibres can be recycled and processed locally in New Zealand.

Material restrictions are not the only signal. Import licenses have been in short supply and are pending the inspection results from earlier this year


16.2.3 Impact on the exporting countries (like New Zealand) The formal notification and ban will have an impact on both the plastics and fibre market. Most affected will be lower-grade plastic (numbers 3-7). PET and HDPE grades can often be processed domestically.

Keeping “hard-to-recover” recyclables (such as plastics 3-7) out of recycling entirely helps maintain higher quality standards for recyclables. Plastic bags and glass are two materials that can and should be recycled but are hard to process in a materials recovery facility (MRF). Glass is abrasive and can contaminate other materials yet it is eternally recyclable and the most cost-stable commodity. Any change in collection methodology should focus on the value and need for continued glass recycling but careful thought needs to be given to the potential effects of co-mingling it with other common recyclables. The relatively low tonnage of plastic bags received in Napier and Hastings is non-feasible for recycling given China’s announcements. They can also wrap around equipment in a MRF.

Three years after the implementation of Operation Green Fence, the recycling industry in general is producing a higher quality material. This comes at an additional cost which is passed onto Local Authorities and the consumers. China’s more recent formal notification and ban of plastics will be another opportunity or threat forcing the Local Authorities to evaluate policies and practices and adjust to changing markets.

It is becoming evident that anyone who wants to recycle is going to be paying more for the service in the future.

16.2.4 What next for plastics recycling In 1950 the world produced 2 million tonnes of plastic. Now, over 8 billion tonnes is produced and only 9% is recycled, 12% is incinerated, and 79% (or 6.3 billion tonnes) is disposed of in landfills per annum.

Exploring new markets and pushing quality should now be the focus. As Chinese regulations continue to feed through, companies will search for other markets. The risk exists that these markets flood and/or result in negative health and environmental impacts in those areas.

Developing or searching for domestic processing options is now a priority. The chances of succeeding domestically are the highest for the high quality and value plastics grades (1 and 2).

The table below is an example for the Napier and Hasting kerb-side recycling collection yield.

Table 4: Napier and Hastings kerbside recycling plastics yield

PET (1) HDPE (2) Other (3-7) T/Year 130 130 390

Percentage of Plastics 20% 20% 60%

Percentage of total recyclables 2.17% 2.17% 6.50%

PET and HDPE are valuable plastics and represent 40% of the local total. The other plastics (grades 3-7) combined comprise 60%. To highlight the size of the 3-7 plastics yield and potential issue it can be translated in an amount of plastic bottles. The 390 tonnes Hastings and Napier receives per year represent close to 8 million plastic bottles.

Under Hastings and Napier’s current recycling contract, plastics are shipped as mixed bales. It will require additional manpower to separate the different grades. This presents challenges for the existing collection and sorting models and justifies reviewing them.


17 DISCUSSION The solid waste market, from the production of waste to the disposal at the landfill and after-care of those facilities is complex. It can be hard to explain certain changes that have occurred, let alone forecasting the future.

The economic climate, governmental and local regulations and the public mindset around waste disposal and the environment all play an important role. Everyone involved would like to do the right thing but this is not always an option. Sometimes the reason for this is cost; sometimes certain solutions are just not available in New Zealand.

Three years ago a project called Waste Futures looked at technologies that are less common, such as Energy from Waste (EfW). In a complex business case they were measured against landfilling (status quo). The effect on the environment, cost, the availability of suitable waste for the alternative technologies and more waste taken into account.

The extension of the Omarunui landfill was identified as the best option given all the parameters for the region. It was to be combined with improved capture of divertible material at both the transfer stations and the kerbside.

In the study, a gate rate of $83 was used for landfilling. This is likely to rise to over $100 per tonne in the next few years. Drivers for this are the NZ ETS and Waste Levy. This does not immediately change the competitive landscape for the alternative waste processing technologies but shows it is important to follow them closely.

When developing methods to improve the capture rates for material that can be diverted, it is important to focus on the reach of the system. The graph below illustrates that only 35% of the waste going to landfill is influenced directly using a service by the Councils at present.

Special, Chemical,

Asbestos, Offal5%

Commercial & Industrial

29%

Food Waste4%

Milliscreen Waste NCC/HDC C&I

1%Road Sweepings

1%

Landfill Construction &

Demolition1%

Transfer Stations25%

Wheelie Bins & Bags NCC /HDC

9%

Wheelie Bins & Bags

commercial25%

Direct influence by Council

35%

Weightrax percentages of total per category 2016

Special, Chemical, Asbestos, OffalCommercial & IndustrialFood WasteMilliscreen Waste NCC/HDC C&IRoad SweepingsLandfill Construction & DemolitionTransfer StationsWheelie Bins & Bags NCC /HDCWheelie Bins & Bags commercial

Figure 70: Waste to landfill under Council influence at present


It has become clear that many diversion opportunities are out of direct reach. 47% of the kitchen waste and 56% of the recyclables going to landfill comes directly from industry. 83% of all green waste going to landfill is from commercial wheelie bin collection companies.

This is common across New Zealand and is the reason why many Councils are reviewing their bylaws, introducing licensing systems, regulating collections and implementing controls to promote diversion.

The fact that Hastings District and Napier City Council‘s own and operate the main transfer stations and the Omarunui Landfill means that there is a reasonable amount of control and oversight of the market. The data capture at the gate of these facilities helps to identify trends and opportunities to improve. This was also highlighted in the recent Section 17A review. This is a review of the service delivery model for Council activities under the Local Government Act 2002 & Amendment Act 2014.

It will be beneficial to align the Napier City and Hastings District bylaws following adoption of the WMMP and focus on areas that are hard to improve with service provision and education. This will also allow time for the Governmental data framework for solid waste to be implemented. This, in turn, can feed the data requirement changes into the new bylaws and transactional systems at the transfer stations and landfill.

The ultimate tool to drive change is the landfill gate rate. This is widely recognised and often driven by Government policy. Councils have the opportunity to impose a local levy under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, but care must be taken with this due to competing landfills. Government driven price changes apply to all consented and registered class 1 landfills.

The bagged-collection methodology for both refuse and recycling in Napier and Hastings is not as common as it used to be. Bins are the growing receptacle of choice for collection despite their cost per volume. An important reason for this is the fact that they require less manual handling which reduces health and safety risk.

Bins do not come with advantages only. The result of the commercial wheelie bin uptake for refuse resulted in large amounts of green waste being landfilled. It is also recognised that the available volume of 240L in the wheelie bin allows customers to utilise them for green waste. Smaller 80L or 120L bins will reduce this considerably. Wheelie bins usage for recycling is likely to affect the quality of the collected material negatively. This is because the current system keeps most material (not just glass) separate from the kerbside onwards.

The market for post-consumer recyclables has always been challenging but the real possibility of China stopping imports can turn plastic recycling into waste overnight. When considering kerbside and other services the market needs to be the deciding factor as collecting material that has no market can only be stockpiled or disposed of in a landfill.

It is hard to influence the Chinese policy makers but possible to build upon and support a local and national recycling and recovery market. The quality of the collected materials is very important for this. The lack of quality is part of the reason China is introducing a ban.

In Hawkes Bay businesses are available that can (pre-) process metals, paper and cardboard, organic waste (both kitchen and green waste), timber and rubble. Nationally there is more, including glass and some high-grade plastics.

Using processing options or markets that are local creates a circular economy within New Zealand and can help with future contracts. The current risk involving China or any other newfound market for post-consumer recyclables makes for very expensive or very changeable contracts. It may be worth considering separating the high-risk material into a standalone contract and increase market visibility this way.


All of the above can help reduce the amount of recoverable material being landfilled. To reduce the total amount, the efforts are in a race with the growing local economy, which has a head start.

18 CONCLUSION This chapter will follow the structure of the paper for consistency purposes and provides the main conclusions per topic. This is followed by a number of generic recommendations for future solid waste planning in Hawkes Bay.

The Waste Futures project

Through a complex business case the Waste Futures project has established that landfilling will remain an integral part of waste management in the region for the foreseeable future. Well-managed landfills provide safe disposal of residual waste as well as gas capture. With the changes in the recycling market and the rising cost of landfilling it is important to continue to follow the development of alternative waste treatment technology and other similar size or bigger landfills.

Waste generation and flow

After a relatively stable annual tonnage at the Omarunui landfill, an increase began in 2015 driven by a growing local economy. This increase picked up the pace considerably in the 2016-2017 financial year at over 10% growth on the previous year.

Only around 35% of the waste to landfill relates to Council activity. The kerbside collection only represents around a third of the total tonnage landfilled and is split between Council and commercial services. The Industrial/Commercial/Institutional and commercial kerbside collections are the largest sources of waste, each disposing of more than 400 tonnes per week. Waste throughput has been in line with the economy but the Henderson Road transfer station has seen a steep decline in tonnages. One of the reasons for this is the reduced amount of Council collected bags that come through as a result of the commercial wheelie bin uptake in the Hastings District. The recent growth has been aggressive and is likely to push all general waste tonnages up, in including those of the Henderson Road transfer station.

Sources and composition

Organic waste material is high on the list of priorities from central Government and Regional Councils and represents the highest quantity of material landfilled at Omarunui with close to 30,000 tonnes per year. Commercial wheelie bins contribute the highest percentage of organics in the form of green waste. Kitchen-type organic material is disposed of in similar quantities for both bag and bins services. Very little green waste is disposed by direct commercial disposal, however commercial disposal is the primary source of kitchen waste. This is likely attributed to Hawkes Bay’s dominant primary production and food processing industry.

Waste composition from Redclyffe and Henderson Road transfer stations is very similar. Timber and organics are the dominant “throughput” waste materials. The Henderson Road transfer station receives a greater quantity of plastics and textiles with the close proximity to processing industry and gate price potential contributing factors for this. Organics originate primarily from landscaping businesses in the form of green waste. Timber is primarily from the construction and demolition industry and to a lesser degree from residential sources. For the kerbside collection a distinct difference has been identified between bag and wheelie bin collection services. For the bag collection the two different systems result in less divertible material in the “pay as you throw” orange bag Hastings utilise.


This difference in financial incentive to divert means that the black 60L bags in Napier contain over twice the recyclables by weight of the Hastings bags (18% vs. 8%).

With even less incentive to divert, wheelie bins contain a greater quantity of recycling still but similar amounts of kitchen and residual waste. The percentage of green waste in the composition of wheelie bins however is of concern at approximately 60% by weight.

The average weight of a wheelie bin per household is 27.28Kg in comparison to 8.66Kg for two bags. This and the increased market share for a wheelie bin service has resulted in this service being the biggest source of green waste and overall organics to the landfill. The excess volume the bins offer is effectively used as a green waste collection service which unfortunately goes direct to landfill.

Current capture of resources and further diversion opportunities

Commercial disposal is responsible for the highest of disposal of recyclable material directly to the landfill at 56% of the total recycling tonnage landfilled. This is largely packaging material which indicates a diversion opportunity. Investigation into this is recommended as there are no current Council services or incentives available.

Only a minor proportion of the recyclable material that is landfilled originates from the kerbside as this is covered by Council kerbside services. 64% of the recyclable material that is available at the kerbside is captured through this service. Unfortunately around 2000 tonnes of common recyclables per annum come through the transfer stations direct to Omarunui Landfill, despite recycling options on the transfer station sites. This represents another diversion opportunity but contamination may be an issue.

Given the high capture rate at the kerbside it may be hard to achieve the Waste Futures target of an additional 20% capture. If increased contamination is considered, the capture rate exceeds the accepted practical capture rate of 85%. The total increase in landfill diversion from increasing capture rate will likely only be 2.3%.

For the transfer stations an additional capture of 20% across divertible material is suggest as a target. The tonnages for timber and organics and the available processing options locally mean that this is well worth considering.

For organics capture, a target of 30% diversion can be achieved by introducing a kerbside organics collection service or focusing on alternative methods to redirect material. However, whether this equally reduces the total organics landfilled is uncertain. The adverse effects of current private refuse wheelie bins utilized for excess green waste disposal should be a focus.

The introduction of a Council-provided refuse wheelie bin service utilising smaller bins is another option. This carries risk as the average household puts out approximately 1.5 bags (90L). The commonly used 140L wheelie bin may then provide households 50L extra capacity per week, hence various size options should be considered.

Kerbside market share

Kerbside can be split into commercial and residential. There is a good uptake of Council-provided recycling services. The Councils do not provide recycling collections for commercial premises. The central business district in Napier receives a cardboard collection in addition to the refuse service to divert this valuable material. There are commercial recycling services available from business and there are multiple drop-off centres across Napier and Hastings.

For refuse collections the landscape has changed dramatically. Wheelie bin uptake has risen to 15,000 - 20,000, the majority of which is in Hastings due to a perception of householder


saving on the “pay as you Throw” orange bags. The 2016 SWAP survey suggest a 70% market-share for wheelie bins in Hastings and 44% in Napier.

Local processing

Hawk Packaging, BioRich and Pan Pac Forest Products fulfil important roles in processing diverted material locally at present. For all three it is important to keep contamination to a minimum. They all have spare capacity, are interested in a continued relationship, and dialog regarding opportunities.

Future demand

There is economic growth in the Napier and Hastings region across all indicators, some of which correlate closely with waste production levels. These levels have far exceeded population, household and GDP growth. Based on this it is estimated that the annual waste tonnage to Omarunui Landfill will exceed 100,000 tonnes in 2022.

Waste Levy and NZ Emissions Trading Scheme

Central Government will be exploring ways to increase the impact of an increasing Waste Levy on diversion rates. This may mean the introduction of different rates for particular materials. To measure the effect additional data will be required, which is another focus of the review. The current $10 levy has been in place for years and is considered very low by international standards. To increase the availability of funding and promote diversion it is anticipated that it will be raised and applied more broadly.

The levy cost has been overtaken by the cost of the NZU carbon emissions unit under the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). These units trade for around $20 at present. All measures to ease New Zealand into the ETS will end in 2019 and the factor of 1.31 tonnes of CO2 emissions per tonne of waste means that the annual cost for ETS is likely to be 3 times the levy cost.

The two schemes will be further developed to focus on particular material. The levy has a priority waste list and the ETS weighs material according to the potential emissions as a result of disposal to landfill and applies a factor.

Other disposal sites

There are no commercial Class 1 landfills that compete directly with the Omarunui landfill in the Napier and Hastings region but cleanfill sites are allowed to receive some of the same materials. The fact that these facilities have no ETS or Waste Levy obligations keeps their price levels very low. They can therefore be seen as competition albeit minor. Loads are generally not weighed and sites are often un-manned.

Recycling commodities and China

China is the world’s largest importer of recycling commodities. High contamination levels and a growing waste production within China have resulted in two initiatives of the Chinese Government to increase the quality of the materials coming in. The latest action is a notification to the World Trade Organisation that a large amount of post-consumer recyclables, including plastics will be banned from import. This is anticipated to be effective at the end of 2017 and has huge implications for New Zealand and the Napier and Hastings recycling scheme. China is currently the end destination for most New Zealand plastics. The collection methodology and mixed-bale processing will demand review in light of this import ban. It may result in not having an end market for some lower-grade plastics (such as grades 3-7).


Points and recommendations to consider for the WMMP

• Identify and target high tonnages from identifiable sources such as green waste from the kerbside and timber, rubble and inorganic material from transfer stations. This should relate to both service delivery and regulation.

• Focus on material that is identified and weighted by the Waste Levy priority waste list and the ETS.

• Capture of gas at Omarunui does not mean it is 100% is collected and managed. This and the production of CO2 in Omarunui Landfill is why the ETS is applied. Methane is between 25 and 28 times more harmful in its contribution as a greenhouse gas than CO2, in itself a reason to reduce the organic waste that produces it in the landfill.

• Adjust the growth projections in all planning documents to anticipate the current economic growth and adjust this every half year once tonnages to landfill are known.

• Engage with the commercial sector; both waste producers and collectors to find solutions that divert or solve more issues such as increasing green waste tonnage to landfill.

• Try to support and find new local or New Zealand markets for recyclables.

• Focus on the best possible quality of diverted material.

• Any change in services requires a focused and scaled educational campaign in order to maximize yield or divertibles and minimize contamination.

• Strive to fill data gaps such as waste composition and tonnages from the central business districts and litter bins.

• Undertake a bylaw review when central Government has implemented the waste data framework and the preferred kerbside options have been consulted upon and selected. Legislation will complement the suite of tools to achieve diversion. The reduction of the amount of green waste to landfill and the possible requirement from central Government to provide more data to secure funding, are the two primary drivers to review bylaws.

• Consider applying for a unique ETS factor. Further analysis and a business case will be required for this in combination with initiatives to reduce organic material entering the landfill.

• It is difficult to provide the long-term contracts required for investment in technology in a market as changeable as waste. It is suggested to isolate the stable from the unstable for source materials as well as markets to build up long term relationships.

• Prepare for recycling market changes. Besides the pending China plastics import ban, challenges have been met with glass recycling in the past and scrap metal value has dropped to very little. When kerbside contracts are renewed maximum flexibility should be incorporated in the conditions and cost increases anticipated.

• Forward purchasing Carbon Units does benefit the stability of the gate rate but creates lag in the polluter pays principle. The level of funding required for this in the future may require a different approach.


19 APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: THE WASTE HIERARCHY The Waste Hierarchy indicates an order of preference for managing waste, presented diagrammatically in the form of a pyramid.

The aim of the waste hierarchy is to educate in order to extract the maximum practical benefits from products and to generate the minimum amount of waste. When designing a waste management system, proper application of the waste hierarchy can have several benefits. Prioritizing reduction and diversion can help prevent emissions, reduces pollutants, save energy, conserve resources, create jobs and stimulate the development of green technologies.


APPENDIX B: WASTE FUTURES: RECOVERY, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS

For the short list evaluation some arrangements are assumed to continue as currently configured. Examples include arrangements for collected recyclables (kerbside sort and sort-line) and garden organics (composting and bioenergy). A range of food and garden organics are currently processed via existing commercial composting operations for which processing is assumed to continue in this way.

It is important to note that the Waste Futures project (which commenced in 2014) and subsequent costings were based on a projected tonnage in which Omarunui Landfill has unforeseeably exceeded.

Four processing/disposal options were considered:

A. Residual waste to Omarunui Landfill New Valley

Option A discusses an optimised collection system and an extension to the Omarunui Landfill - constructed around 2025. Collection, processing and treatment costs are similar to current. The modelled landfill costs assumes a [now surpassed] gate fee of $83 until 2026 where $90/T for valley C is then used incorporating capital and operating costs including levy and ETS charges.

B. Residual waste to Commercial Landfill

Option B replaces a future extension to Omarunui Landfill with transport of residual waste to a commercial landfill, commencing either in 2020 (to extend the life of the current landfill area) or 2025 once the current area is completed. The modelling assumes a transport distance of 210 km each way, $0.30 $/T.km and $50/T residual waste at the gate. Giving a total fee of $176 /T

C. Residual waste to MBT (stabilised organics to Omarunui Landfill)

Option C involves processing of residual waste through a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility to remove additional recoverable materials, stabilise residual organic material and reduce the volume of residual waste requiring disposal.

The modelling assumes a MBT cost (CAPEX of $24M Opex $126/T), incorporating operating costs and revenue from recovered materials. The range is based on information from Australian markets (Port Stevens and Coffs Harbour), with the selection of $200/T based an estimated cost for the NZ context. This still requires testing and verification. The reduction in residual waste disposal is assumed to be in the order of 30%.

D. Residual waste to EfW (ash to Omarunui Landfill)

Option D involves processing of residual waste through an Energy from Waste [EfW] (gasification) facility to remove additional recoverable materials, as well as recover energy and produce an ash product. For the purposes of modelling the ash is assumed to be landfilled. Sub-options will consider sizing the EfW facility for 100% or 50% of the projected residual waste stream and early implementation (from 2020, to extend the life of the current landfill area).

The modelling assumes an EfW cost (CAPEX of $71M Opex $225), incorporating operating costs and revenue from recovered materials. The range is based on information from Australian markets, with the selection of $250/T based an estimated cost for the NZ context. The reduction in residual waste requiring disposal is assumed to be in the order of 65%.

Note: Where CAPEX figures have been used for any of the above options it was assumed it would be paid off over 20 years with 6% interest rate.


APPENDIX C: THE GOVERNMENT PRIORITY WASTE STREAMS The Waste Minimisation Fund priority waste streams have been developed to support the ‘reduction of harm to the environment’ goal in the New Zealand Waste Minimisation Strategy. Priorities also reflect central Government’s focus on reducing harm.

The scoring tool used by the Waste Minimisation Fund assessment panel considers the priority of a waste stream when assessing projects for funding. The scoring tool gives a higher score to projects that address high-priority waste streams.

Very high

• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) • Timber (treated and non-treated) • Primary sector related hazardous waste (e.g. tannery, wool scouring, factory wastes) • Manufacturing and services sector hazardous waste (e.g. aluminium processing waste) • Agrichemicals • Medical waste • Asbestos • Contaminated soil

High

• Oil • Refrigerants • Biosolids • Primary sector related organic waste (eg, agricultural or forestry wastes) • Household organic (food waste and green waste) • Paint • End-of-life tyres • E-waste • Nappies and sanitary • Commercial green waste

Medium

• Packaging – household and commercial • Demolition materials – inert • Paper and cardboard (household and commercial) • Plasterboard • Construction materials (eg, PVC, insulation, metal works, glass)

Low

• Cleanfill • Furniture • Textiles

Other (assessed on a case-by-case basis)

• Other potentially hazardous; • Other organic • Other – not specified elsewhere


APPENDIX D: SECTION 3.7 OF THE REGIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN


20 REFERENCES

Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand. (2010) The New Zealand Waste Strategy

Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand. (2015) Waste Assessments and Waste Minimisation Planning. A guide for territorial Authorities

Napier and Hastings. New Zealand. (2004) Solid waste survey of Napier City and Hastings District

Napier and Hastings. New Zealand. (2001) Solid waste survey of Napier City and Hastings District

Moseley. Napier and Hastings. (1997) The Napier City and and Hastings District Solid waste Survey 1998

Napier and Hastings. New Zealand. (2000) Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2000-2006



Waste Not Consulting for Napier and Hastings. New Zealand. (2007) Survey of Solid Waste in Hawke’s Bay 2007




Jacobs Consulting for Napier and Hastings. New Zealand. (2015) Waste Futures Economic Case

Jacobs Consulting for Napier and Hastings. New Zealand. (2017) Napier and Hastings WMMP Waste Assessment 2018-2024

waste assessment - hastings, new zealand...hdc and ncc waste assessment 4 d.10 litter act 1979...

Documents