aggregate, masonry & soil (ams) and garden and timber ...€¦ · detox your home a victorian...
Post on 31-Aug-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Aggregate, masonry & soil (AMS) and garden and timber waste (GTW) product improvement project North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group
NORTH EAST WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY GROUP
AGGREGATE, MASONRY & SOIL (AMS) AND GARDEN &
TIMBER WASTE (GTW) PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
Author Matt Genever, Paul Randell
Reviewer Paul Randell
Approver Matt Genever
Reference RI045-01-R01
Date 27 June 2018
This report has been prepared for NEWRRG under the agreement dated 10 April 2018. Reincarnate (ABN: 83 620 459 387)
cannot accept any responsibility for any use or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 3
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
3 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT STATE ...................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Timber waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Garden waste .............................................................................................................................................................. 26
3.3 Concrete and brick ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
3.4 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39
4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED PROCESSES .............................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Improvement opportunities at regional scale ............................................................................................................. 41
5 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR LARGER SITES..................................................................................................... 45
5.1 Timber waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 45
5.2 Garden waste .............................................................................................................................................................. 47
5.3 Concrete ...................................................................................................................................................................... 51
5.4 Brick ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53
5.5 Soil (clean fill) .............................................................................................................................................................. 54
6 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR SMALLER SITES .................................................................................................. 56
6.1 Timber waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 56
6.2 Garden waste .............................................................................................................................................................. 56
6.3 Concrete and brick ...................................................................................................................................................... 56
6.4 Soil (clean fill) .............................................................................................................................................................. 56
7 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FINANCIALS ............................................................................................................... 57
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Examples of current RRC storage conditions for AMS and GTW wastes .......................................................................... 9
Figure 2 Waste generation in the north east ............................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3 Project stages ................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4 Examples of receival and storage areas for timber in the north east ............................................................................ 20
Figure 5 Typical mobile timber shredding process ....................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6 Examples processed timber stockpiles in the north east ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 7 Examples of receival and storage areas for garden waste in the north east ................................................................. 27
Figure 8 Examples processed garden waste stockpiles in the north east .................................................................................... 29
Figure 9 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east ............................................... 33
Figure 10 Example of a mobile crushing plant for concrete and heavy materials (including brick and asphalt) ......................... 34
Figure 11 Examples processed concrete and brick waste stockpiles in the north east ............................................................... 35
Figure 12 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east ............................................. 39
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 4
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 Overview of the current state for AMS and GTW wastes in the north-east...................................................................... 8
Table 2 Summary of current financials for AMS and GTW wastes ............................................................................................... 10
Table 3 Summary of material specific process improvements..................................................................................................... 11
Table 4 Summary of financial analysis for improved recovery processes for AMS and GTW wastes .......................................... 12
Table 5 Overview of timber waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east ....................................................................... 19
Table 6 Current financial summary – timber waste ..................................................................................................................... 25
Table 7 Overview of garden waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east ...................................................................... 27
Table 8 Current financial summary – garden waste ..................................................................................................................... 30
Table 9 Overview of concrete and brick waste acceptance at RRC facilities assessed in the north east ..................................... 32
Table 10 Current financial summary – concrete and brick........................................................................................................... 37
Table 11 Current financial summary – soil ................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 12 Recommended process improvements to be considered at a regional scale ............................................................... 42
Table 13 Recommended process improvements for timber waste at larger RRC facilities ......................................................... 45
Table 14 Recommended process improvements for garden waste at larger RRC facilities ......................................................... 48
Table 15 Recommended process improvements for concrete waste at larger RRC facilities ...................................................... 51
Table 16 Recommended process improvements for brick waste at larger RRC facilities ............................................................ 53
Table 17 Recommended process improvements for soil (clean fill) at larger RRC facilities ........................................................ 54
Table 18 Improved process financial summary – separated raw timber waste........................................................................... 57
Table 19 Improved process financial summary – garden waste .................................................................................................. 58
Table 20 Improved process financial summary – concrete and brick .......................................................................................... 59
Table 21 Improved process financial summary – soil................................................................................................................... 60
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 5
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
TERM MEANING
Cages A receptacle or storage area that does not have fully enclosed sides, generally using
wire mesh or steel mesh sides. Some cages have bunding units at the base to prevent
spillage.
Covered area An area with a roof and no more than three sides.
Dangerous goods Dangerous goods relate to items that have immediate physical effects such as
explosion, fire, corrosion or poisoning. A waste material can be both a hazardous
waste AND a dangerous good (such as batteries, which may contain acids that can
impact human health, explode and/or corrode).
Detox Your Home A Victorian Government program that uses event-style collections for household
hazardous waste drop-off.
E-waste Electronic or electrical waste. In Victoria, this is essentially defined as anything with a
cord or a battery. There are different types of e-waste and each may have its own
storage and management requirements based on the level of risk. Whitegoods such
as fridges are metal rich forms of e-waste. These must be degassed prior to
processing to reduce the risk from ozone depleting refrigerant gas.
Garden organics Organics derived from garden sources e.g. grass clippings, tree prunings. Also known
as garden waste.
Gatehouse A building (temporary or permanent) that is the first point of contact for a customer
at a waste and resource recovery facility. Site operatives take payment and direct
customers from this point of the site.
Hazardous waste Hazardous wastes are those wastes that pose a risk to human health. These can
include chemicals such as pool chlorine, cleaning solvents and bleach. Common
hazardous waste collected at a transfer station or resource recovery centre include
batteries, some types of e-waste, paint, fluorescent tubes and gas bottles.
Household Chemical Collection A network of 30 permanent sites funded by Sustainability Victoria for the collection of
common household “problem wastes” including paint, batteries and fluorescent
lights.
Hubs The concentration of reprocessing facilities where there is sufficient waste derived
feedstock to support viable reprocessing options. The location of hubs will vary for
individual material streams.
Office A building (temporary or permanent) that is used by site operatives for office related
activities. For the purposes of this report, an office that is part of the gatehouse has
not been treated separately and is simply referred to as a gatehouse.
Paved A road or pathway that is surfaced in some way.
Recycling shed A shed at a facility that is primarily used for the purposes of collection and storage of
waste or recycling materials.
Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) A facility whose primary purpose is to aggregate, sort, and consolidate reusable and
recyclable materials prior to transport to another facility for recovery or
management. It may include a resale centre. They may be designed to receive specific
material streams such as metals or organics or to receive multiple streams such as
those from households including residual waste. Can be combined with a transfer
station and may include resale centres.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 6
TERM MEANING
Sealed A road or pathway that is sealed with bitumen or concrete.
Spokes The sequence of activities that move materials from waste generators to (and from)
hubs e.g. collection, transport and sorting. The length of the spoke and hence the
location of the hub for a particular material stream is influenced by the impact of
transport on the margin of return for that particular material stream.
Transfer Station (TS) A facility allowing the drop-off and consolidation of garbage and a wide range of
recyclable materials. Can be combined with a resource recovery centre and may
include resale centres. Transfer stations technically do not undertake reprocessing
activities and for this reason we have used the term resource recovery centres (RRCs)
throughout the report.
Transfer Trailer A location, commonly in holiday areas or remote areas, that allows the drop-off of
residual waste and often commingled recyclables for collection. Commonly used in
areas that do not have a regular kerbside service.
Work shed A shed at a facility that is used for site operatives and site work, as opposed to a shed
that is used for the acceptance and storage of waste or recycling materials.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group (NEWRRG) is a statutory body established under the Environment
Protection Act 1970 and is responsible for coordinating and facilitating best practice waste management and
resource recovery across Victoria’s north-east.
NEWRRG has identified a number of waste streams received at resource recovery centres (RRCs) in the region that
are not being managed to maximise potential returns and to promote the creation of value-add recycled products.
Specifically, these wastes include:
➢ Aggregate, masonry and soil (AMS) waste – which includes heavy waste associated with building, demolition
and landscape works and includes concrete, brick, rock, stone, asphalt and soil.
➢ Garden waste and timber waste (GTW) – which includes RRC garden waste and all types of timber waste.
In response, NEWRRG has appointed Reincarnate Pty Ltd (Reincarnate) and Randell Environmental Consulting Pty
Ltd (REC) to investigate options for improved processes and procedures at RRCs that could:
• improve product quality, consistency and saleability
• reduce the impacts of material contamination
• increase material separation
• create higher value end products through processing improvements
• unlock potential end markets for processed materials.
In general, AMS and GTW wastes are processed onsite at RRC facilities, using contracted mobile crushing /
mulching / chipping infrastructure that moves from site to site as part of a processing “milk run”. In most instances
this is managed council by council, with the exception of garden waste which is currently processed through a
regional contract, which is due for retendering in 2019.
The project has taken a staged approach to identifying opportunities for improvement, including:
• A review of available data and information
• Site visits to nine of the 14 council owned RRCs operating in the region
• Analysis of the current state of AMS and GTW wastes
• Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each material stream and its markets
• Review of current financial costs and benefits with current AMS and GTW processes
• Identification and documentation of recommended process improvements (including accompanying flow
charts)
• High-level analysis of financial costs and benefits associated with recommended process improvements.
CURRENT STATE
An analysis of the current state for receival, management and processing of AMS and GTW wastes was developed
using data provided by councils site visits at nine of the regions RRC facilities. A brief summary of the current state
analysis for AMS and GTW wastes in the north-east is presented in Table 1.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 8
Table 1 Overview of the current state for AMS and GTW wastes in the north-east
Material Acceptance and management at RRCs Current end markets
Timber Timber waste is accepted at all 14 RRCs, 12
of which accept mixed timber and shred the
material onsite for use as landfill cover or
rehabilitation. Two sites separate raw
(clean) timber into 30m3 bins for recycling.
End markets for mixed timber do not
currently exist due to the contamination
associated with treated and processed
timbers. This material is only suitable for
landfill. However, the region has significant
opportunities for raw (clean) timber in the
manufacture of particleboard, a fuel source,
or for creating raw timber mulch products.
Garden waste Garden waste is accepted at all 14 RRCs in
the region, 12 of which store the material
separately and process it into a mulch
product when suitable volume is available.
Two sites co-process garden waste with
mixed timber. Gross contamination in
garden waste stockpiles is a key issue,
especially for sites that co-process green
and timber waste together.
Processed garden waste is generally used by
councils for low-value applications such as
embankment fill and landfill rehabilitation.
Visible contamination and inconsistent
product size (often associated with the
current regional contract), as well as the
presence of weed seeds remains a barrier.
Concrete and
brick
Concrete and brick are accepted at 10 of
the 14 RRC sites, generally stored together
in open areas that lack good hardstands.
Material is crushed into a mixed aggregate
product of varying size and consistency.
Signage stating the acceptance of “mixed
rubble” and “contaminated fill
(concrete/bricks/tiles)” at some sites
presents a contamination risk from asbestos
and other materials.
Processed aggregate is mostly used by
council on landfill haul roads or as
handstands or pavement base. A lack of
screening down to a consistent industry
standard (circa 40mm) limits sale options
for this material, however commercial
processors in the region generate revenue
from the same processed material.
Soil (clean fill) Soil is not widely accepted at RRC facilities
in the region.
Those sites that do accept soil use it
exclusively as gully fill or landfill cover.
Examples of typical RRC storage conditions for AMS and GTW waste can be seen in Figure 1.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 9
Figure 1 Examples of current RRC storage conditions for AMS and GTW wastes
The current state review also includes analysis of current financial associated with AMS and GTW wastes.
Reincarnate collated data from councils, industry and some external sources to ascertain current costs and
revenues, which are presented in Table 2. Note: negative returns or losses are highlighted with a red outline.
The financial data suggests that on average, RRC sites are making good margins on AMS and GTW wastes,
generating more revenue on gate fees than they pay in processing costs. This is particularly the case with garden
waste where the 14 sites across the north-east generated more than $400,000 in 2016/17. Similarly, profits for
timber waste and concrete and brick are also high, both generating around $90,000 profit regionally.
It is important to note that this is a limited financial analysis and only provides insight into a set of ‘direct’ profits
and losses for the management of each waste stream. The scope of this financial assessment is limited to the
profits and losses listed in the tables below. Other 'indirect' costs and benefits are not included in this analysis
(such as staff time, site operation expenses, reduced fire risk, reduced stockpiling, improved amenity etc). Costing
all site costs and benefits is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.
This report is accompanied by an Excel workbook (RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) that details all
calculations and assumptions included in the project financial analysis.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 10
Table 2 Summary of current financials for AMS and GTW wastes
Esti
ma
ted
to
nn
es o
r cu
bic
met
ers
rece
ived
per
yea
r
Ga
te f
ee (
$/m
3 O
R $
/t)
Pro
cess
ing
co
st (
on
site
or
off
site
)
($/m
3 O
R $
/t)
Tra
nsp
ort
co
st (
$/m
3 O
R $
/t)
Lan
dfi
llin
g c
ost
($
/m3
OR
$/t
)
Rev
enu
e fr
om
sa
les
of
pro
cess
ed
ma
teri
als
($
/m3
OR
$/t
)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t p
er m
3 O
R p
er t
on
ne
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l an
nu
al c
ost
or
pro
fit
($/y
ear)
(In
c. G
ST)
TIMBER WASTE
Highest ($/m3) 3,275 $45 -$9 -$13 -$33 $- $40 $32,881
Lowest ($/m3) 11 $5 $- $- $- $- -$8 -$1,172
Average ($/m3) 733 $28 -$5 -$3 -$3 $- $16 $6,267
Totals 10,266 $87,742
GARDEN WASTE
Highest ($/m3) 20,000 $23 -$5 -$2 $- $- $18 $287,411
Lowest ($/m3) 67 $5 -$5 $- $- $- -$0 -$4,134
Average ($/m3) 4,139 $15 -$5 -$0 $- $- $8 $28,719
Totals 49,673 $402,063
CONCRETE & BRICK
Highest ($/m3) 1,697 $57 -$15 -$6 $- $37 $58 $33,942
Lowest ($/m3) 10 $18 -$9 $- $- $- $- $-
Average ($/m3) 436 $32 -$14 -$1 $- $4 $17 $6,436
Totals 5,230 $90,098
SOIL
Highest ($/m3) 764 $11 -$6 -$6 $- $- $9 $4,202
Lowest ($/m3) 190 $- $- $- $- $- -$6 -$1,458
Average ($/m3) 399 $6 -$1 -$1 $- $- $2 $560
Totals 1,994 $6,164
RECOMMENDED PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The report sets out a number of detailed process improvements for each of the materials analysed, including
specific actions for larger sites, where volumes and throughput are higher, and smaller sites, where only small
quantities of materials may be accepted. These improvements are presented in tables and accompanying process
flow charts that provide an easy to follow reference guide for councils and site operatives.
Given the materials are received and stored in very similar ways, the report makes a series of recommendations
for process improvements apply to most of the target materials and that could be potentially delivered at regional
scale. These include:
• Improved operator training and development of standard operating procedures.
• Changes to acceptance processes to ensure that contamination, either gross contamination or the presence of
asbestos, is minimised from the outset.
• Triggers for rejecting loads that are potentially contaminated.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 11
• Changes to gatehouse signage to promote load separation.
• Improved oversight of drop-off areas where feasible.
• Investment in upgraded hardstands for storage areas and site traffic flow.
• More regular removal of gross contamination by site operatives.
• Collaborative procurement of processing services to improve consistency and generate economies of scale.
• Greater engagement with council works departments who are at present the most common end user of
processed AMS and GTW products.
• Improved leverage of regional opportunities such as current energy recovery facilities.
In addition to regional recommendations, specific process improvements are documented for each material
stream, which are highlighted in Table 3.
Table 3 Summary of material specific process improvements
Material Recommended process improvements
Timber • Separation of raw (clean) timber from processed and treated timbers. This will
allow councils to access existing and potential markets for clean timber, such as
waste to energy, particleboard manufacture and use of clean chipped timber as
high-quality ground cover mulch
• Separation of high-value reusable timber, such as hardwood beams, doors,
windows, decking boards and potentially treated pine posts. There is a strong
salvage market for these timbers.
• Landfilling of treated and processed timber for which there is currently no viable
market.
Garden waste • A strong focus on removal of gross contamination at the gatehouse and prior to
mulching, as contamination is increased exponentially through mulching.
• Training of site operatives to identify persistent/noxious weeds such that these can
be directed to landfill and not the garden waste stockpile.
• Mulching to a desired specification in line with market requirements, such as 50mm
minus. For larger sites, separate grades of mulch could be produced using different
size screens.
• Potential bulk haulage of garden waste for processing at a fully licenced composting
facility to ensure products are processed in controlled conditions to Australian
Standards.
Concrete and brick • Changes to acceptance processes to stop receival of mixed “building rubble” or
“contaminated fill (concrete/bricks/tiles)” which carries a high risk of asbestos
contamination and cannot be easily separated.
• Separation of high-value reusable bricks, such as clinkers or other bricks that are
required for renovation of older buildings.
• Crushing of brick and concrete to specification, for example a 40mm minus product
that is useful in a number of applications such as road base and hardstands.
• Potential consolidation and processing at larger hub sites to improve product
quality and economies of scale.
Soil (clean fill) • Given the inherent risk from visible and non-visible contamination in soil, site
operatives should reject loads suspected of any form of contamination, by visual
inspection at the gatehouse and/or where the soils have come from potentially
contaminated sources (e.g. industrial sites, old petrol stations etc) the customer
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 12
would need to provide results of analytical testing that classifies the soils as ‘Clean
Fill’ according to EPA requirements. Where loads are rejected, customers should be
provided with details of disposal options for contaminated soil within the region.
• Potential for screening of clean fill into higher value soil by removal of oversize
pieces.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESSES
Whilst many of the process improvements suggested are low or no cost to council, those that require additional
sorting, processing, screening or transport are likely to have higher upfront costs that the current status quo.
However, the resulting product is intended to be more saleable, easily moved, have the potential to generate
additional revenue and greatly improve site amenity.
Reincarnate has assessed the potential costs and revenues associated with the process improvements for each
material stream. In all cases, with the exception of garden waste, there is an increase in the return at a regional
level. A summary of the financial analysis for the improved recovery processes for AMS and GTW wastes is
presented in Table 4 with additional detail provided in Section 6. This report is accompanied by an Excel workbook
(RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) that details all calculations and assumptions included in the financial
analysis below.
Table 4 Summary of financial analysis for improved recovery processes for AMS and GTW wastes
Material Description / comments Financial analysis
Timber Under the proposed process changes, raw timber would
be separated for recovery at all sites, with treated and
processed timber directed to landfill. Reincarnate
estimates around 4,700m3 of material would be
recovered and transported to Benalla or Wangaratta for
recycling or energy recovery. Under this scenario, the
region could generate an additional $67,455 from timber
waste at RRCs
Current $87,742
Future $155,197
Net outcome $67,455
Garden waste It is assumed that around 52,000m3 of garden waste
would be recovered at RRCs across the region, a slight
increase on current rates as Indigo would be separating
garden waste from timber waste under the changes.
There is an assumed increase in processing costs to
ensure standardised, high-quality mulching to 50mm
minus. It is assumed that no revenue would be generated
from sale of mulch, however demand would increase
leading to a likely reduction in stockpile risks.
Current $402,063
Future $358,888
Net outcome ($43,175)
Concrete and brick Concrete and brick represent the most significant
opportunity for AMS and GTW wastes in the region.
Under the proposed changes, sites would divert only
clean loads for processing, with mixed loads of demolition
waste being sent to landfill. Material would be
consolidated at larger sites for processing into a 40mm
Current $90,098
Future $335,834
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 13
Material Description / comments Financial analysis
minus product. An assumed sale rate of $37/tonne has
been applied, reflecting past rates and the current
commercial market rate. The region has the potential to
generate almost $250,000 in additional revenue from this
material stream.
Net outcome $245,736
Soil Currently, only small amounts of soil (clean fill) are
accepted at RRC facilities in the north east. The process
improvements recommended focus on reduced risk of
contamination and improved load acceptance
procedures. There is no additional cost or revenue
associated with these changes.
Current $6,164
Future $6,164
Net outcome $0
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 14
1 INTRODUCTION
NEWRRG has a role in the planning and facilitation of improved outcomes for waste and recycling in Victoria’s
north east. Central to this is the development of the NEWRRG Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan
(NE Implementation Plan), which sets out a 10-year framework for new and improved infrastructure and services.
In delivering its role, NEWRRG has identified an opportunity for improved management and recovery of AMS and
GTW wastes received at RRC facilities across the region. These materials tend to be processed onsite using
shredding / crushing equipment, into commodities that can be used by council or potentially sold back into the
market.
However, due to a number of persistent barriers the quality of the processed commodities is variable and, in many
instances, RRC facilities do not produce outputs that can be readily used. These barriers occur both before and
after the material is processed, including site processes, contamination and limited controls on sizing and
screening.
According to the statewide data (presented in Figure 2), AMS waste – which is predominantly concrete, brick, rock,
stone, asphalt and soil – makes up around 38% of all waste generated in Victoria1. However, unlike many waste
streams, AMS waste has benefited from very high rates recovery, with more than 80% of material diverted to
recycling and reuse markets. This reflects the impact of landfill levies which are applied on a per tonne basis and as
such disproportionately impact heavy waste streams.
GTW waste makes up around 8% of waste generation, of which 5% comes from garden waste and 3% from wood
and timber waste. There is no verified statewide data on the split of raw timber (sometimes referred to as “clean”
timber) and treated and processed timber, although a market assessment undertaken by Sustainability Victoria in
2014 suggests around 15% – 20% of all timber waste generated is treated or processed2.
Figure 2 Waste generation in the north east3
1 NEWRRG 2017. NE Implementation Plan, North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group 2 Sustainability Victoria 2014. Fact Sheet: Market summary – recycled timber, Accessed 7 June 2018. 3 NEWRRG 2017. NE Implementation Plan, North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 15
NEWRRG has engaged Reincarnate and REC to undertake an analysis of how AMS & GTW wastes are received and
managed at RRC facilities, and to develop a set of process recommendations that would seek to optimise sorting,
separation, infrastructure, recovery and processing of the materials. It also aims to develop a high-level business
case for improvement scenarios against the current base-case, identifying where additional costs and savings
might be generated through process improvements.
This report is accompanied by an Excel workbook (RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) that details all
calculations and assumptions included in the project financial analysis.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 16
2 METHODOLOGY
Reincarnate has taken a staged approach to identifying options for process and product improvement for GTW and
AMS materials in the north-east. The project stages are presented in Figure 3 and explained in more detail below.
Figure 3 Project stages
Stage 1 – Project Inception, project planning, literature review data collation
The project team attended an inception meeting with NEWRRG which was followed by a period of data collection
where a standard excel proforma was used to capture information on tonnages of the target materials accepted at
RRCs.
Stage 2 – Consultation and site visits and “current state” analysis
Some 9 of the 14 RRCs in the NE region were visited as part of targeted site assessments. The site assessments
aimed at capturing information on:
• target materials accepted
• acceptance and storage procedures and infrastructure
• processing operations
• end products.
Following on from the site assessments, Reincarnate undertook targeted consultation with industry processors
that service the existing RRC market. The consultation focused on areas for process and product improvement and
potential costs. Consultation data was used to develop part 1 of the financial analysis which summarises the
current financials for receiving and processing GTW and AMS materials in the north-east.
Stage 3 – Improved recovery process analysis
Reincarnate then developed improved receival and sorting processes for differing sized sites in the region that
could drive improved recovery of AMS and GTW. This analysis includes the recommended process and, where
required, the infrastructure and plant required. Part 2 of the financial analysis of AMS and GTW recovery was then
completed for each process and includes: operational and capital costs, estimates of any revenue, avoided landfill
levies and estimated payback periods.
Stage 4 – Reporting and workshop
Workshop: To support the analysis and reporting, Reincarnate facilitated a workshop with council and NEWRRG
representatives to present findings and discuss potential options for improvements.
Reporting: All of the analysis and site findings were then pulled together as a draft report and final report with
required changes (following NEWRRG comments).
Stage 1 – Project Inception, project planning, literature review data collation
Stage 2 – Consultation and site visits and “current state” analysis
Stage 3 – Improved recovery process analysis
Stage 4 – Reporting and workshop
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 17
NOTE ON DATA TABLES PRESENTED THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT
It should be noted that the financial data tables presented throughout this report have been structured to show
lowest cost, average cost and highest cost for each of the material streams being discussed (as opposed to costs
for each of the 14 RRC sites). The “Total” row provided in each table reflects the totals for all 14 RRC sites and as
such the columns in each table that show lowest, average and highest cost do not add up to the totals figure.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 18
3 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT STATE
In determining the current state for processing and markets for AMS & GTW wastes, Reincarnate undertook
primary data collection and visited nine RRC facilities4 with relevant council officers, including:
Site Council
Beechworth RRC Indigo Shire
Benalla RRC Benalla Rural City
Mansfield RRC Mansfield Shire
El Dorado RRC Rural City of Wangaratta
Myrtleford RRC Alpine Shire
Rutherglen RRC Indigo Shire
Tallangatta RRC Towong Shire
Wangaratta RRC Rural City of Wangaratta
Wodonga RRC Rural City of Wodonga
The purpose of the site visits was to:
• understand current processes for waste acceptance and load oversight
• assess drop-off, collection and storage activities
• examine stockpiles of processed and unprocessed material
• discuss contamination management.
Detailed site reports for each of the sites are provided in Appendix 1 to this report.
This section provides an overview of our findings, including an analysis of the data supplied by councils and existing
regional data from the North East Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan (NE Implementation Plan).
The commentary provided aims at providing a snapshot of the current state of conditions for the target materials
and for each waste type includes:
• acceptance and storage processes
• current waste processing
• a discussion of end markets
• analysis of barriers and opportunities
• summary of current financials.
Notes: Excel workbook (RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) for details of all calculations and assumptions
included in the project financial analysis. In the financial analysis tables that follow a negative return or loss is
highlighted with a red outline.
4 Note that the scope of the project involves council owned RRC facilities only. We also note that during the site visit planning, Markwood RRC was swapped with El Dorado RRC.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 19
3.1 Timber waste
According to the NE Implementation Plan, the region generates some 8,500 tonnes of timber waste per annum,
with a recovery rate of around 30%5. Timber waste is accepted at all of the 14 RRC sites examined6, either as a
mixed timber stream or separated into timber types. Data collected from councils suggests that around 1,500
tonnes of timber is accepted at RRCs, of which roughly half is mixed timber and half is separated raw or “clean”
timber. There is a significant difference between the volume of timber generated and recovered at RRC facilities
which is likely to be a product of:
• Data methodology issues, with the NEWRRG Implementation Plan using data from the Sustainability Victoria
Waste Projection Model which uses standard compositional splits for waste generation rather than primary
data.
• Upstream recycling, where timber is collected and reprocessed directly by timber recyclers without reaching
an RRC facility (as discussed in D&R Henderson case study, below).
• Inadequate reporting and data collection at RRC facilities for volumes of material being disposed at sites.
ACCEPTANCE AND STORAGE PROCESSES
There are two typical models for the acceptance and storage of timber waste at RRC facilities, which include:
• stockpiling in open areas, commonly adjacent to garden waste storage areas
• collecting in 30m3 skip bins for bulk haulage.
Incoming loads of timbers waste/mixed waste are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then directed
to tipping areas. At most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for concealed
wastes such as asbestos.
Timber acceptance and storage processes are summarised in Table 5 and Figure 4.
Table 5 Overview of timber waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east
Site Mixed or separated
raw timber
Current acceptance and storage procedures
Beechworth RRC Mixed Large stockpile in centre of site for mixed timber and garden
waste which are stored and processed together.
Benalla RRC Mixed Mixed timber is received at the site and stockpiled loose on
the ground. Mixed timber is processed separate from garden
waste.
Mansfield RRC Separated Timber is dropped off the elevated platform onto a hardstand
where it is separated by site staff. Raw timber is loaded into
30m3 bins and treated / manufactured timbers are disposed
to landfill.
5 NEWRRG 2017. North East Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan, pp25, Table 5 6 Note that RRC facilities in the Alpine Resorts, including Mt Buller, Mt Hotham, Dinner Plain and Falls Creek have been excluded from the study as these sites do not accept AMS GTW wastes
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 20
Site Mixed or separated
raw timber
Current acceptance and storage procedures
El Dorado RRC Mixed Mixed timber is accepted at stockpiled in the unrehabilitated
area of the closed landfill. Mixed timber is processed
separate from garden waste.
Myrtleford RRC Mixed Mixed timber is received at the site and stockpiled loose on
the ground to the east of the gatehouse. Mixed timber is
processed separate from garden waste.
Rutherglen RRC Mixed Large stockpile on western side of site for mixed timber and
garden waste which are stored and processed together.
Tallangatta RRC Mixed Timber is separated and stored in the area adjacent garden
waste near site entrance. Mixed timber is processed separate
from garden waste.
Wangaratta RRC Mixed Mixed timber waste is accepted in a 30m3 skip off the
sawtooth with a further bin used for rotation. Mixed timber is
processed separate from garden waste off-site at Bowser
landfill.
Wodonga RRC Separated There is a clean timber 30m3 skip off the elevated general
waste area which is bulk hauled to Albury landfill for
processing. Treated / manufactured timbers are disposed to
landfill.
Figure 4 Examples of receival and storage areas for timber in the north east
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 21
TIMBER PROCESSING
Timber is mostly mulched, chipped or shredded onsite (see Figure 5 and Figure 6 below) using specialist
contractors that visit site when volumes are sufficient to warrant processing (commonly this will be assessed
across all of a council’s sites such that processing can be done at all sites during the one round of processing).
Visual inspection of processed timber piles suggests that a coarse shred is preferred which aims to keep costs
down.
Not all sites that accept timber waste process it onsite. Wodonga, Mansfield and Wangaratta separate raw timber
into 30m3 skip bins which are moved offsite for processing.
Figure 5 Typical mobile timber shredding process7
7 Photo source: The Rock Yard http://www.therockyard.com.au/recycling/timber-waste-shredding
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 22
Figure 6 Examples processed timber stockpiles in the north east
CURRENT END MARKETS
The north-east region benefits from a number of markets for raw, well-separated timber waste. The area around
Benalla and Wangaratta is recognised as a regional hub for timber processing with two industrial processors
processing recycled timber, being:
• D&R Henderson (Benalla) – Particleboard manufacturer that uses recycled timber as an input in the
manufacture of new particleboard. The company has the only 100% recycled particleboard product that meets
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 23
the current Australian Standard8. D&R Henderson also use reclaimed timber to generate power and heat in
their industrial boiler.
• Alpine MDF (Wangaratta) – Manufacturer of medium-density fibreboard (MDF) reportedly using recycled
timber to feed a timber boiler.
In addition to these industrial operations, there are commercial garden supplies using shredded timber in
production of mulch products for retail and wholesale markets. However, these operators tend to prefer bulk
contracts which may be difficult to service from smaller RRC facilities.
Current markets for timber waste from RRCs is varied and depends on the degree to which material is separated.
The two councils that separate raw timber have good existing markets for this material stream. Material from
Mansfield Shire is bulk hauled in 30m3 bins to D&R Henderson where it is used as a raw input for the production of
new particleboard and laminated timbers. Similarly, raw timber from Wodonga RRC is moved in 30m3 skips to
Albury landfill where it is processed (chipped) with other raw timber into a landscaping product. There appears to
be an opportunity for Benalla and Wangaratta, at least, to separate clean timbers (such as pine pallets) and send
this stream to D&R Henderson and or Alpine MDF, as discussed below.
Case Study 1 – D&R Henderson, Benalla9
D&R Henderson is a specialist manufacturer of
particleboard and wood panel products,
employing more than 400 people across NSW,
QLD, SA and Victoria. At their manufacturing site
in Benalla, D&R Henderson receive waste timber
from more than 100 suppliers and use this
material to produce Australia’s only 100% recycled
particleboard products. Currently, the site is
accepting around 24,000 – 36,000 tonnes of raw
timber waste per annum.
The key challenges in the use of waste timber relate to contamination, with dirt and sand being commonly
found in timber loads from RRCs due to material being stored on the ground. The presence of processed and
treated timber is another concern that restricts D&R Henderson’s ability to receive RRC timber waste.
The site presents a market opportunity for RRC sites in the north east for raw, separated timber (such as
packaging timber and pallets) with D&R Henderson’s accepting this at the gate for free.
Consultation with D&R Henderson during this project confirmed that if RRCs could separate pine pallet wastes,
store the material on a concrete hardstand, and deliver the material to site the material would be suitable to
their process. Council would have to pay for transport costs, however, would save on shredding costs and would
be supporting a recycling fate arguable more beneficial that use in landfill tipping area hardstand.
8 SV 2015. Investment case study, D&R Henderson. Sustainability Victoria 2015 9 Information sourced from D&R Henderson Investment Case Study - http://www.drhenderson.com.au/giving-recycled-wood-a-new-lease-of-life/. Image sourced from D&R Henderson website http://www.drhenderson.com.au/news/ and through a direct consultation held on 9 June 2018.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 24
Case Study 2 – Reid Brothers Sawmill, Yarra Junction10
Reid Brothers Timber is one of Victoria’s oldest sawmills, having operated
in Yarra Junction for almost 80 years. As a provider of kiln dried timbers,
Reid Brothers were impacted by increasing LPG costs and had
traditionally sent waste timber to landfill in the absence of other viable
options. The decision to install a 1MWth (thermal) timber fired boiler has
reduced the sites energy and landfill costs significantly.
The boiler uses a walking floor fuel supply system and automated ash
removal to ensure a highly efficient process that requires low operational
labour costs. At present, the boiler consumes more than 4,000 tonnes of
timber waste per annum, including offcuts and sawdust. Capital costs for the installation were around $360,000
with a payback period of 1.3 years due to the offset of both LPG and landfill disposal costs.
Whilst the Reid Brothers Sawmill is not located in the north east region, it highlights the waste to energy
opportunities presented by raw, separated timber (and potentially woody garden waste).
Case Study 3 – Alpine MDF, Wangaratta11
Alpine MDF Industries is a manufacturer and supplier of
medium-density fibreboard (MDF) and has been operating in
Wangaratta since 1996. The towns largest employer, Alpine
MDF processes timber in a large industrial facility, processing
more than 150,000m³ of MDF per year12.
Alpine MDF are currently using timber powered boiler which
utilises bark, off cuts from logs processed onsite and waste
woodchip material from off-site as feedstock. The boiler
offsets gas usage at the site and reduces landfill costs
associated with MDF process residues.
The site offers another regional opportunity for disposal of separated raw timber, with Alpine MDF showing a
genuine interest in receiving clean timber such as pallets and packaging timber, provided nails are removed and
the material is shredded. The company is currently paying $30 - $40/tonne for shredded wood waste from
offsite. There is also scope for woody garden waste (potentially oversize fraction) to be used in the boiler,
provided the moisture content is low so that it is not too active (i.e. prior to composting / breakdown
commencing) and again this would need to be delivered in shredded form.
Treated timber and manufactured timbers (including mixed timber streams that include both raw and treated
timbers) are exclusively sent to landfill with no recovery occurring across the region13. This reflects the lack of
viable markets and safety issues associated with chemical treatments (particularly copper chrome arsenic (CCA))
and the presence of glues and resins (such as those in ply or medium-density fibreboard (MDF)). In some instances,
10 Information and image sourced from Energy Victoria Reid Brothers Case Study - https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/bioenergy/sawmill-powered-by-wood-waste 11 Information and image sourced from direct consultation with Alpine MDF on 13 June 2018. 12 Friday Offcuts Wood News - http://fridayoffcuts.com/dsp_article.cfm?id=713&date=%7Bts%20%272017-03-10%2000:00:00%27%7D&aid=8418 13 Several sites use chipped timber waste to establish a tipping area at the active area of the landfill. In winter shredded timber can be particularly useful to prevent vehicles getting bogged. If the timber is too coarsely chipped Council have issues with vehicles getting punctures as they unload waste into the landfill.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 25
this material is shredded first to improve transport efficiencies and to ensure that the material can be used for
landfill rehabilitation or tipping area pads.
Note: mixed timber waste that is co-processed with garden waste is discussed in the garden waste section of the
report.
CURRENT FINANCIALS – TIMBER WASTE
Table 6 provides a summary of the current financials for timber waste in the region. Note: negative returns or
losses are highlighted with a red outline. Gate fees vary widely across the region with an upper rate of $45 per
cubic meter to as low as $5 per cubic meter. There is an opportunity for Council to agree on a uniform tipping rate
for timber waste that ensure all costs and liabilities are covered whilst providing a consistent service cost across
the region.
Processing costs for timber waste are currently around $5 per cubic meter for all sites apart of Wodonga whose
processing cost are around $9 per cubic meter.
Transport costs for most sites are currently very low or zero, where the materials are being used onsite. The Alpine
Shire has been transporting shredded timber long distances for disposal at either Bowser landfill or as part of bulk
haul loads to Patho landfill due to the mixed shredded timber material (treated, raw, manufactured etc.) having no
off-take markets in the region.
Current landfilling costs for timber waste are only included for two Alpine Shire sites where the timber waste is
trucked off-site to landfill and a gate-fee paid. For all other sites where the shredded mix timber is utilised onsite
for landfill hardstands, rehabilitation no landfilling cost is allocated. For sites consuming landfill airspace with
timber waste used as a hardstand, a cost could be assumed, which would make negatively impact the theoretical
net profit that Council are receiving at the moment (discussed below).
Currently no sites in the region receive any revenue from the sale of timber wastes. This is mostly due to the lack
of any off-take markets for mixed (treated, raw, manufactured, etc.) shredded timber waste.
Overall two sites in the region currently have a negative net return on the receival of timber waste with all other
sites receiving a small profit, on average around $6,000 per year.
Important: the scope of this financial assessment is limited to the items listed in the table below. Financials only
consider the 'direct' costs and profit that are listed. Other 'indirect' costs are not included in this analysis (such as
staff time, site operation expenses, etc). Costing all site costs is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.
Table 6 Current financial summary – timber waste
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te (
m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(on
site
or
off
site
)
($/m
3)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($/m
3)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st
($/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s
of
pro
cess
ed
mat
eri
als
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t
($/m
3)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 3,275 $45 -$9 -$13 -$33 $- $40 $32,881
Lowest ($/m3) 11 $5 $- $- $- $- -$8 -$1,172
Average ($/m3) 733 $28 -$5 -$3 -$3 $- $16 $6,267
Total (all sites) 10,266 87,742
Number of sites with negative net return
2
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 26
TIMBER WASTE STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY THREAT ANALYSIS
Strength
• Most sites collect timber waste separately
• Some waste timber is sought after for reuse
(structural and CCA treated posts)
• Raw timber has a high calorific value and can
provide valuable fuel source
• Raw timber can be used in manufacture of
Medium-density fibreboard (MDF)
• Landfill operation use shredded timber to create a
tipping area in wetter months.
Weakness
• Most sites combine treated or manufactured
timber with 'raw' timbers limiting reuse and
recycling opportunities
• Once CCA treated, MDF and painted timber are
mixed, energy from waste options are not available
in the region
• Poor separation by customers and challenges
identifying timber types makes it difficult to keep
'raw' timber waste separated and from
treated/manufactured timbers
• It takes a long time to build-up sufficient volume of
timber before processing occurs
• The use of mixed shredded timber in landfill tipping
area prevents the pursuit of higher value reuse or
recycling options.
Threat
• Stockpiles of timber are a fire risk
• Shredded timber wastes can cause tyre punctures
and potential of tyre blow-outs (on the road).
Opportunity
• High value timbers such as structural and CCA
treated posts have a reuse market that would
require minimal investment to set-up.
• The region has a local MDF manufacturer that is
able to receive raw timbers
• The region has local energy from waste options for
raw timbers.
• There are market gardeners that also seek a clean
mulch product that raw timber could contribute to.
3.2 Garden waste
Garden waste is one of the most prolific materials accepted at RRC facilities across regional Victoria. In the north-
east, garden waste is accepted at all 14 RRC sites, predominantly as a source separated material with the
exception of Indigo Shire where garden waste and timber waste are co-stored and co-processed. Data received
from councils indicates that more than 7,000 tonnes of garden waste is received at RRC facilities, which is around
half of all garden waste generated in the region14.
ACCEPTANCE AND STORAGE PROCESSES
Acceptance and storage of garden waste at RRCs in the NE region is limited to stockpile areas where garden waste
is dropped off by customers and compacted and consolidated wherever possible by site staff (using either heavy
14 NEWRRG 2017. North East Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan, pp25, Table 5 notes that around 12,700 tonnes of garden waste is generated per annum
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 27
machinery or forklifts). In most cases, the storage area for garden waste and timber are side by side and
hardstands are limited to compacted dirt or gravel rather than fully sealed concrete or bitumen areas. In wetter
periods, these areas tend to become boggy and difficult to access for normal 2WD vehicles.
Incoming loads of garden waste/mixed waste are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then directed
to tipping areas. At most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for concealed
wastes such as asbestos.
Garden waste acceptance and storage processes are summarised in Table 7 and Figure 7.
Table 7 Overview of garden waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east
Site Separated or mixed
with timber
Current acceptance and storage procedures
Beechworth RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles with timber waste, in the open with
no hardstand.
Benalla RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.
Mansfield RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.
El Dorado RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.
Myrtleford RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.
Rutherglen RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles with timber waste, in the open with
no hardstand.
Tallangatta RRC Separated Stored loose in the open with no hardstand.
Wangaratta RRC Separated Stored loose in the open with no hardstand.
Wodonga RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.
Figure 7 Examples of receival and storage areas for garden waste in the north east
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 28
GARDEN WASTE PROCESSING
As with timber waste, garden waste is generally processed via mulching or chipping using a mobile shredder that
moves from site to site. NEWRRG facilitates a regional contract for the processing of garden waste which is due to
be retendered in 2019. The current contractor for regional garden waste processing is Ausshredding who use a
large capacity Tana Shark and screen to mulch the material. The current contract requires the product to be
processed to a 50mm minus product, however several council officers noted that this was not often the case and
that an 80mm – 100mm screen is often used which results in a poor quality, coarse product with limited off-take
markets.
Examples of current products arising from garden waste processing are presented in
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 29
Figure 8.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 30
Figure 8 Examples processed garden waste stockpiles in the north east
CURRENT END MARKETS
At present, the majority of processed garden waste in the north-east is being used as landfill rehabilitation, landfill
cover or in low-value uses on site, such as batters and general site landscaping. Some councils note that garden
waste is available to the public when the quality of the product is good enough to be used however this is not
often the case.
At Wodonga, shredded garden waste is further screened into coarse and fine fractions which is then used by the
works department for site and roadside landscaping. Apart from this, there is little productive reuse of garden
waste from RRCs in the region.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 31
CURRENT FINANCIALS – GARDEN WASTE
Table 8 provides a summary of the current financials for garden waste in the region. Gate fees vary across the
region with an upper rate of $23 per cubic meter to as low as $5 per cubic meter. There is an opportunity for
Councils to agree on a uniform gate fee for garden waste that ensure all costs and liabilities are covered whilst
providing a consistent service cost across the region.
Processing costs (shredding) for garden waste are currently around $5 per cubic meter for all sites across the
region. It is noted that this cost is not achieving a mulch product of sufficient quality (screen size is far too large) at
most sites resulting in significant stockpiling of product on some sites in the region.
Transport costs for all sites but Wangaratta are currently zero as the materials are being used onsite. Wangaratta
transport garden waste to Bowser landfill using contracted walking floor trucks which is estimated to cost around
$250 per load.
Currently no sites in the region receive any revenue from the sale of garden wastes. This is due to the lack of off-
take markets shredded garden waste. The lack of material off-take is linked to several key issues including: the
shred screen being too coarse, customers needed/wanting the material to be loaded, and concern about weed or
other contamination.
Overall just one site in the region currently have a negative net return on the receival of garden waste with all
other sites receiving a profit, on average around $28,000 per year.
Important: the scope of this financial assessment is limited to the items listed in the table below. Financials only
consider the 'direct' costs and profit that are listed. Other 'indirect' costs are not included in this analysis (such as
staff time, site operation expenses, etc). Costing all site costs is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.
Table 8 Current financial summary – garden waste
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te
(m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(o
nsi
te
or
off
site
) ($
/m3
)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($
/m3
)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st (
$/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s o
f
pro
cess
ed
mat
eria
ls
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t ($
/m3
)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 20,000 $23 -$5 -$2 $- $- $18
$287,411
Lowest ($/m3) 67 $5 -$5 $- $- $- -$0 -$4,134
Average ($/m3) 4,139 $15 -$5 -$0.15 $- $- $8 $28,719
Total (all sites) 49,673 402,063
Number of sites with negative net return
1
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 32
GARDEN WASTE STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT (SWOT) ANALYSIS
Strength
• Most sites collect garden waste separately
• Garden waste contamination rates are very low
• Garden waste can be recycled into a valuable
product by composting
• Most sites have sufficient area to collect garden
waste.
Weakness
• Where garden waste and timber wastes are
mixed, the end-use are limited to landfill tipping
pad and some rehabilitation (if the material is
approved for use)
• For many sites it is difficult to find markets for
processed material due to the material often not
being shredded to a fine enough screen and/or
difficulty in loading the material for domestic
customers
• It takes a long time to build-up sufficient volume
of garden waste before processing occurs
• Garden waste is bulky and expensive to transport
with shredding first
• The use of mixed garden waste in landfill
rehabilitation uses prevents the pursuit of higher
value reuse or recycling options.
Threat
• Stockpiles of garden waste are a fire risk
• Shredded garden waste will begin to compost after
a few days and if wet can cause significant odour
• EPA could require a composting licence if the
amount of materials received is more than 100
tonnes or 200 cubic meters in any month
• Most sites do not store garden waste in
accordance with better practice guidelines,
including hardstand and run-off management. If
offsite impacts occurred, EPA could require site
upgrade.
Opportunity
• The region is about to open a new composting
facility in Bowser, which will provide an excellent
outlet for separated garden waste
• There are market gardeners that also seek a clean
mulch product that shredded clean garden waste
can provide
• If garden waste was shredded to a fine screen,
customers would likely collect the material (if it
was free)
• If garden waste was consolidated at one main
site, the shredding costs would be reduced.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 33
3.3 Concrete and brick
Concrete and brick are accepted at 10 of the 14 sites included in the project, mostly as a mixed stream of material
(despite some sites having separate areas for concrete and brick, the materials are almost exclusively mixed
together). This material is generated by households and also small commercial contractors with most sites allowing
small commercial loads into RRC facilities (limited to a ute or ute and trailer combination for example). Data
provided by councils suggests that around 2,500 tonnes of concrete and brick are received per annum at RRCs.
ACCEPTANCE AND STORAGE PROCESSES
Heavy wastes such as concrete and brick are exclusively stored loose and in the open, generally in larger areas at
RRCs where there is room for unloading of trailers and small trucks. The site visits suggest that, as with garden
waste areas, the storage of concrete and brick tends to be in areas that lack a hardstand, although given crushing
of the material often occurs in situ, residual crushed material often improves surfaces in these areas somewhat.
Concrete and brick acceptance and storage processes are summarised in Table 9 and shown in Figure 9.
Incoming loads of concrete and brick and mixed waste are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then
directed to tipping areas. At most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for
concealed wastes such as asbestos.
Table 9 Overview of concrete and brick waste acceptance at RRC facilities assessed in the north east
Site Mixed or separated Current acceptance and storage procedures
Beechworth RRC NA Not accepted
Benalla RRC Mixed* Brick and concrete is stored in separate piles at the rear of the
site. The area cannot be easily observed from the gatehouse, so
customers are instructed upon entry.
Mansfield RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand
El Dorado RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand
Myrtleford RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area on a gravel hardstand
Rutherglen RRC NA Not accepted
Tallangatta RRC Mixed* Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand
Wangaratta RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand
Wodonga RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand
* Note that these sites have areas for separated brick and concrete collection however material was mixed at the time of the site visits
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 34
Figure 9 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 35
CONCRETE AND BRICK WASTE PROCESSING
Processing of concrete and brick occurs through crushing, mostly via mobile crushing plants working site to site in
a milk run (similar to garden waste and timber processing) as can be seen in Figure 10.
Figure 10 Example of a mobile crushing plant for concrete and heavy materials (including brick and asphalt)
Once crushed, the material is screened to a certain size which will ultimately determine the applications for which
the product can be used. Typical industry sizes for aggregate are a 20mm minus product, however most councils
reported screen sizes of between 45mm and 80mm which produces a much coarser grade product (processing
costs are lower for larger screen sizes as the material generally only needs to be passed through the crushing plant
once).
Examples of current products arising from concrete and brick waste processing are presented in Figure 11.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 36
Figure 11 Examples processed concrete and brick waste stockpiles in the north east
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 37
CURRENT END MARKETS
The industry for crushed, recycled aggregate (mainly crushed concrete) has developed considerably in Victoria
over the past decade with large scale processors, such as Alex Fraser, developing products that meet or exceed
industry specifications for aggregate and road base. The material is cost competitive (or sometimes cheaper) than
virgin aggregate and has the advantage of improved tensile strength as the residual cement is remobilised and
reset during laydown of the product. Similarly, recycled brick has now been approved by VicRoads for use in
subbase as a result of research undertaken by Swinburne University and Sustainability Victoria.
Due to the size and quality of material produced, there are limited markets for processed concrete and brick waste
from RRCs in the north-east, with the majority of crushed material being used by internal council departments or
given away at low cost or no cost to residents and local businesses. Internal council uses include:
• Landfill haul roads
• Roadside verges and pavement base
• Hardstands at RRCs or council depots or other council facilities
• Fill material
Several councils noted that material can be slow to move, particularly when there are large quantities of aggregate
produced.
Case Study 4 – Jackson’s Earthmoving, Wodonga15
Jackson’s Earthmoving is a large industrial business that is co-located with the
Wodonga Transfer Station. The site specialises in the processing of AMS &
GTW materials and resale of processed commodities including aggregates,
road base and mulch.
The facility already processes waste from surrounding RRC facilities but is
potentially underutilised as a market outlet. Jackson’s are able to process
high-grade aggregates and mulch for their existing customer base and would
likely negotiate a near $0/tonne gate fee if transported directly to site. The
additional transport costs may therefore be offset by reduced concrete
crushing fees at RRCs (however, it must be noted that Jackson’s would
require very low incidence of contamination).
Councils with limited markets for processed concrete, brick and garden waste
could consider a bulk haulage option to Jackson’s or a similar company.
15 Image sourced from NEWRRG Implementation Plan - http://www.newrrg.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/North-East-Implementation-Plan-July-2017.pdf
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 38
CURRENT FINANCIALS – CONCRETE AND BRICK
Table 4 provides a summary of the current financials for concrete and brick waste in the region. Gate fees vary
widely across the region with an upper rate of $57 per cubic meter to as low as $18 per cubic meter. There is an
opportunity for Councils to agree on a uniform gate fee for concrete and brick waste that ensure all costs and
liabilities are covered whilst providing a consistent service cost across the region.
Processing costs (crushing) for concrete and brick waste are currently around $15 per cubic meter for all sites
across the region except Wodonga which is able to leverage its location (being located next to a concrete recycler)
and processes concrete and brick for around $9 per meter.
Transport costs for all sites but Wangaratta are currently zero as the materials are being used or collected from the
site. Wangaratta transport concrete and brick waste to Bowser landfill for processing and use in landfill operations
using contractors each time a load is accumulated.
Current landfilling costs for concrete and brick waste are assumed to be zero for all other sites where the crushed
concrete and brick is utilised onsite for landfill hardstands, rehabilitation no landfilling cost is allocated. For sites
consuming landfill airspace with concrete and brick waste used as a hardstand, a cost could be assumed, which
would make negatively impact the theoretical net profit that Council are receiving at the moment (discussed
below).
Alpine (Myrtleford site) and Wodonga have been successful in producing a valuable and sought after recycled
concrete and brick aggregate. They received around $37 per cubic meter for the material. Currently, no other sites
in the region receive any revenue from the sale of processed concrete and brick. Wangaratta and Benalla utilise
the crushed concrete in landfill operations (for haul roads and hardstand). Smaller sites across the region collect
such small tonnages that many of the sites have not processed the concrete for ‘many’ years and typically the
material has been stockpiled onsite for 10-20 years.
Overall no site in the region currently have a negative net return on the receival of concrete waste with all sites
receiving a profit, on average around $6,000 per year.
Important: the scope of this financial assessment is limited to the items listed in the table below. Financials only
consider the 'direct' costs and profit that are listed. Other 'indirect' costs are not included in this analysis (such as
staff time, site operation expenses, etc). Costing all site costs is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.
Table 10 Current financial summary – concrete and brick
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te (
m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(on
site
or
off
site
)
($/m
3)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($/m
3)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st
($/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s
of
pro
cess
ed
mat
eri
als
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t
($/m
3)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 1,697 $57 -$15 -$6 $- $37 $58 $33,942
Lowest ($/m3) 10 $18 -$9 $- $- $- $- $-
Average ($/m3) 436 $32 -$14 -$1 $- $4 $17 $6,436
Total (all sites) 5,230 90,098
Number of sites with negative net return
0
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 39
CONCRETE AND BRICK STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT (SWOT) ANALYSIS
Strength
• Concrete and brick can be made into a valuable
and high-volume demand product (road base, hard
standing, etc.)
• Recycled concrete and brick aggregate performs
very well due to the high cement content, that
virgin aggregates to not contain
• Alpine Shire Council has previously produced clean
recycled aggregates that were approved to
VicRoads specification and had excellent market
uptake once the market knew the material were
available.
• There is reuse demand for second hand bricks in
the building trade for renovations (to match older
bricks) and new builds.
Weakness
• Concrete and brick are often mixed with other
construction and demolition (C&D) wastes which
limits end-uses landfill haul roads (if the material is
approved for use)
• It is difficult control contamination from other
C&D wastes at RRC, the only option being to
accept loads of concrete and brick ONLY with
mixed loads of C&D going direct to landfill.
• For many sites it is difficult to find markets for
processed material due to the historical/current
contamination issues
• It takes a long time to build-up sufficient volume
of concrete and brick before processing occurs
• The use of crushed concrete and brick waste in
landfill haul road prevents the pursuit of higher
value reuse or recycling options
• Gate fees do not always cover the costs of
processing
Threat
• A lack of control over unloading processes may
lead to asbestos contamination
• The risk of asbestos contamination in recycled
aggregate has the potential to completely halt the
use of the recycled materials
• If the materials are not crushed to the correct
grade Council can be left with a stockpile of
materials with no end market.
Opportunity
• There are proven markets in the region for clean
aggregates that meet VicRoads specification. The
key is to only allow clean separated concrete and
brick waste to be stockpiled. All mixed loads are
landfilled due to contamination risks
• There is reportedly demand for second hand
bricks. If only clean concrete and brick are
stockpiled, there is also an option to keep bricks to
one side and offer the bricks for sale unprocessed.
If they are not sold, they are crushed along with
concrete
• Clean concrete and brick from smaller sites could
be transported to a main Council or regional site
for crushing, to reduce processing costs and allow
for more frequent crushing.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 40
3.4 Soil
Separated soil is accepted at Benalla RRC and Wodonga (Kane Road) RRC (although it must be noted that other
sites will accept fill material for use as batters or embankments on site when required), with data provided by
councils indicating around 1,100 tonnes of soil is accepted per annum.
ACCEPTANCE AND STORAGE PROCESSES
Soil is stored in stockpiles in open areas, typically without a hardstand as can be seen in Figure 12.
Incoming loads of soils are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then directed to tipping areas. At
most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for concealed wastes such as asbestos.
Figure 12 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east
CURRENT END MARKETS
Soil received at RRC facilities in the region is used exclusively for landfill cover and onsite embankment fill.
CURRENT FINANCIALS – SOIL
Table 11 provides a summary of the current financials for waste soil in the region. Only 5 of the 14 sites in the
region have a clear acceptance process and pricing for soils. Other sites may, at times, accept soils, however, the
process and pricing are not clear.
Gate fees vary across the region with an upper rate of $11 per cubic meter to as low as $0 per cubic meter. There
is an opportunity for Councils to agree on a uniform gate fee for waste soil that ensure all costs and liabilities are
covered whilst providing a consistent service cost across the region.
Processing costs for soil waste are currently around $6 per cubic meter at Wodonga, which is the only site
processing soils. Other sites simply reuse the materials onsite.
Transport costs for all sites but Wangaratta are currently zero as the materials are being used onsite. Wangaratta
transport soils to Bowser landfill for use onsite, often with the use of a private contractor at a cost of about $175
per load.
Currently no sites in the region receive any revenue from the sale of soil.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 41
Overall just Wangaratta currently has a negative net return (due to loading and transport costs) on the receipt of
soil waste with all other sites effectively breaking even.
Important: the scope of this financial assessment is limited to the items listed in the table below. Financials only
consider the 'direct' costs and profit that are listed. Other 'indirect' costs are not included in this analysis (such as
staff time, site operation expenses, etc). Costing all site costs is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.
Table 11 Current financial summary – soil
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te
(m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(o
nsi
te
or
off
site
) ($
/m3
)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($
/m3
)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st (
$/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s o
f
pro
cess
ed
mat
eria
ls
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t ($
/m3
)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 764 $11 -$6 -$6 $- $- $9 $4,202
Lowest ($/m3) 190 $- $- $- $- $- -$6 -$1,458
Average ($/m3) 399 $6 -$1 -$1 $- $- $2 $560
Total (all sites) 1,994 6,164
Number of sites with negative net return
1
SOIL STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT (SWOT) ANALYSIS
Strength
• Soil (clean fill) is sought after, often in high
tonnages (filling in low areas, etc.)
• Where soils were seen stockpiled, gross
contamination was very low.
Weakness
• It is difficult control contamination in soils. Not all
contamination will be visible, chemical
contamination for example
• Clean fill is required to be levied if taken at landfill,
a cover rebate of 15% is given to all landfill sites to
compensate
• The dollar value of fill material is generally low.
Threat
• The risk of contamination in clean fill has the
potential to make Council liable for damages.
Opportunity
• Where contamination is controlled and end-use is
not sensitive, Council can make use of fill materials
in works project and within landfill operations.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 42
4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED PROCESSES
This section of the report contains detailed analysis and recommendations on potential process improvements for
AMS & GTW wastes. Reincarnate has presented these opportunities at the following scales:
• Regional opportunities that would benefit most sites and target materials (Section 4.1)
• Process improvements for larger sites (Section 4.2)
• Process improvements for smaller sites (Section 4.3)
To support the analysis in this section of the report, Reincarnate has developed a series of process flow charts for
each of the target AMS & GTW materials. This aims to provide a simpler, visual representation of the better
practice processes being recommended. This is supported by more detailed text in the sections below which looks
at site improvements across the following key stages:
The process flow charts for each material are provided at Appendix A.
4.1 Improvement opportunities at regional scale
There are a number of opportunities to improve process and material outputs for AMS & GTW materials that
would be best applied at regional scale. These improvements are detailed below, rather than being duplicated for
each material in later sections.
Recommended actions for process improvements that should be considered are a regional scale are presented in
Table 12.
Customer phase
This includes the customers engagement with the site, including entrance via the gatehouse, access through the facility, drop-off of waste materials and exit. There are critical points of engagement between the site operator and customer that can significantly impact the quality and usability of AMS & GTW wastes.
Site operator
phase
Once material has been dropped off at an RRC facility, the material is managed onsite before being processed into a commodity or bulk hauled offsite.
Processing contract
phase
The majority of AMS & GTW wastes in the north east are processed onsite and the processing phase usually involves a contract with an external provider that shreds, mulches, crushes and screens materials into products.
End markets phase
Once processed, AMS & GTW commodities are used by councils, sold or given away to residents. The saleability and usability of products is typically a direct result of the previous three phases of material management.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 43
Table 12 Recommended process improvements to be considered at a regional scale
Improvement area Description
Operator training and
standard operating
procedures (SOPs)
There is a need for ongoing operator training that focuses on the key steps in the
RRC receival and management process. In the first instance, training should focus
on load oversight at the point of entry to ascertain the origin of loads and identify
contaminants such as asbestos and treated timbers prior to entry.
To support this, the region could look at developing standard operating
procedures for management of RRC materials. It is probable that SOPs already
exist in some councils and it may be simply a process of combining and building on
these. Visual aids, such as the process flow charts developed for this project could
be used to support the translation of SOPs in everyday use.
Estimated cost: nil if developed in-house or around $30,000 for external delivery
Lead: NEWRRG
Upgrades to gatehouse /
entrance signage
The gatehouse is generally a customer’s first point of engagement with an RRC
and in many cases signage is limited to traffic warnings and a fee board. Clear,
practical signage that uses visual aids (photos and illustrations) and focuses on the
importance of load separation and what materials are not accepted at the site
should be installed. Sites not already collecting registration details at the
gatehouse should consider this practice as it is likely to act as some deterrent
against dumping of prohibited materials at the site.
Estimated cost: $1,500 per site
Lead: Councils, NEWRRG could support standardisation
Load oversight and
contamination
management
Acceptance procedures for AMS & GTW wastes are similar if not identical at most
sites given the materials tend to be bulk stockpiled in a similar manner. In general,
loads are inspected at the gatehouse either at an elevated platform (for example,
Wodonga) or at ground level. Any visual issues, such as cement sheet or asbestos
looking materials are flagged and potentially rejected at this stage.
The degree to which inspections at the gatehouse occurs differs from site to site
and Reincarnate witnessed a range of processes during the site inspections. At
some sites, load inspection was thorough with the site operative actively looking
through the load to flag potential issues. At other sites, load inspection was little
more than a cursory glance. The state of stockpiled materials provides evidence of
poor load oversight at several sites, with significant cross contamination, which in
turn leads to poorer quality outputs which also contain visual contamination and
decreases saleability.
Reincarnate notes that there appears to be a direct correlation between mixed
AMS & GTW wastes and higher levels of contamination. Sites that separated
materials fully (for example, separate piles for concrete and brick and separate
piles for timber and garden waste) have fewer contamination issues than sites
storing these materials in mixed piles, particularly sites storing garden waste and
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 44
timber waste together. It is likely customers see a mixed pile of material as a
waste pile and are possible less inclined to separate their own material.
Councils note that at some sites, operatives will actively remove gross
contamination when they see it, although at smaller sites staffed by one operative
this appears to be less common.
Estimated cost: nil, costs covered under Operator training and standard operating
procedures (SOPs)
Lead: Council
Oversight of drop-off
areas
Ideally, larger sites would be appropriately resourced such that customers are
observed at the point of material drop-off in addition to the gatehouse. This is a
useful point of engagement, not just as a means of ensuring that contamination of
stockpiles is minimised, but as a general education and engagement opportunity.
This may not always be possible, depending on the size and layout of the facility,
therefore the following should be considered:
• Rearranging the site to provide better oversight from the gatehouse and
tipping areas of wastes that are particularly important to keep free of
contamination (e.g. concrete and brick, garden waste, separate raw timbers)
• Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to provide improved site
oversight from the gatehouse.
• Installing dummy CCTV cameras (for sites that lack power) to provide a visual
deterrent against dumping.
Estimated cost: Variable depending on steps taken. Dummy CCTV cameras $350
each. Wireless CCTV to iPad $4,000 (includes 3 cameras and iPad).
Lead: Councils
Infrastructure
improvements
This project, and the recent NE RRC Assessments project, highlights a broad range
of recommended infrastructure improvements at RRC facilities, a number of which
relate to AMS & GTW wastes. There is scope for coordinated investment in
infrastructure upgrades that could be packaged up and released to the market for
several sites under the one procurement. These upgrades include:
• Improved hardstands to AMS & GTW storage areas
• Improved oversight of drop-off areas (see above)
• Improved site layout and traffic flow.
Estimated cost: Site by site. Quality hardstands
Lead: NEWRRG
Collaborative
procurement
Collaborative procurement is a key mechanism that NEWRRG can use to affect
change in the region. The collection and processing of AMS & GTW materials at
RRCs is often impacted by poor economies of scale, particularly when councils are
working independently as it may take some time for sites to aggregate the
required feedstock to warrant transportation or onsite processing. The longer
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 45
material stays stockpiled onsite, the greater the chances of some form of
contamination.
There is scope for NEWRRG to facilitate collaborative procurement for the
processing and/or transportation of AMS & GTW products. Given the consistency
in which the products are treated (i.e. most sites use crushing / mulching onsite as
the preferred processing option) a large number of sites could potentially be
linked into the same processing contract, underpinned by clear SOPs for both the
sites and the processor. It is likely that this could generate both improved
products and lower costs for councils.
There is already a joint contract in place for processing garden waste, which
should be revised, strengthened and put back out to market as soon as practicable
given the current issues with the existing provider, and timber could be
incorporated into this contract if it is not already. A parallel process for concrete
and brick crushing should also be considered.
Estimated cost: nil if developed in-house or around $40,000 - $60,000 for external
delivery
Lead: NEWRRG
Waste to energy
opportunities
The region benefits from existing industrial boilers that are reportedly capable of
accepting timber waste as feedstock, including Alpine MDF at Wangaratta and
D&R Henderson at Benalla16. These facilities could provide a regional outlet for
raw, separated timber either individually or through a regional contract.
The Reid Brothers case study (see Section 3.1) suggests that small scale timber
boilers offer a cost-effective offset for facilities using gas fired boilers and other
opportunities in the region should be investigated.
Estimated cost: Nil, feasibility for future timber boilers $30,000
Lead: NEWRRG
Engagement with council
works departments
One of the most important offtake markets is councils own internal works
departments, who often require mulch for landscaping and remediation works. In
many regional areas, these opportunities are not leveraged, with works
departments favouring mulch purchased externally. There is scope to engage with
these departments individually and as a group to workshop potential ways to
improve product quality to the standard that is required. The current push from
state government toward circular economy thinking aligns well with this and
messaging can be developed around this idea.
This could involve a regional workshop with council waste and works department
officers to identify barriers to uptake of RRC generated commodities, and
opportunities for greater uptake and reuse within council. This could be supported
by expert speakers on key materials such as organics and road aggregates.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: NEWRRG
16 NE Implementation Plan, p38
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 46
5 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR LARGER SITES
Larger sites in the north east service the key population centres, such as Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla, and
have the level of throughput that would more likely support investment in process improvements and site
infrastructure. The following process improvements, which are detailed in the process flow charts, relate to larger
RRC sites in the region.
5.1 Timber waste
This report highlights the difference in market opportunities for raw or clean timber compared to processed and
treated timber. There are no recycling or energy recovery markets for processed and treated timber and under
current market conditions these should be separated from raw timber and sent straight to landfill, once high value
reusable items are removed.17 Ensuring that processed and treated timbers do not end up as contaminants in
other material streams provides the greatest opportunity for new/expanded markets for clean timber products.
Recommended actions for process improvements for timber waste are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 Recommended process improvements for timber waste at larger RRC facilities
Improvement area Description
Customer Phase
Separation of raw timber
from processed timber
There are currently only legitimate end markets for raw timber, such as pine
pallets or packaging timber, and high value treated and processed timber products
that can be reused or repurposed. There are no markets for most processed,
painted or treated timbers and as such these should be sent directly to landfill.
The focus on timber waste at RRCs should therefore focus on effective separation
of raw timber at all points within the RRC chain. This should include at least the
following steps:
➢ Clear signage at the gatehouse and throughout the appropriate drop-off
areas.
➢ Identification of raw timbers for separation at the gatehouse, including
high-value reusable timber (see below).
➢ Improved oversight of drop-off areas (see below).
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils supported by site operatives.
Oversight of drop-off area Ideally, larger sites would be appropriately resourced such that customers are
observed at the point of material drop-off in addition to the gatehouse. This is a
useful point of engagement, not just as a means of ensuring that contamination of
stockpiles is minimised, but as a general education and engagement opportunity.
This may not always be possible, depending on the size and layout of the facility,
therefore the following should be considered:
17 high value reusable treated and processed timber products, such as posts, beams, doors, window frames should be set aside for resale for reuse.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 47
➢ Rearranging the site to provide better oversight from the gatehouse and
garden waste drop off areas.
➢ Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to provide improved
site oversight from the gatehouse.
➢ Installing dummy CCTV cameras (for sites that lack power) to provide a
visual deterrent against dumping.
Estimated cost: Variable depending on steps taken. Dummy CCTV cameras $350
each. Wireless CCTV to iPad $4,000 (includes 3 cameras and iPad).
Lead: Councils
Site Operator Phase
Separation of high-value
reusable timber
The separation of high-value reusable timber, such hardwood beams, feature
grade Australian timber, hardwood doors and windows, hardwood decking boards
and potentially treated pine posts (provided they are clearly separated from other
timber wastes).
This may not make up significant volumes as the salvage market for good timber is
already established. However, it is likely that at least some timber will be of a
quality that can be salvaged and reused.
Estimated cost: $5,000 – 10,000 to set-up a covered area and racks for timber for
reuse/resale.
Lead: Councils working with site operatives
Stockpile separation Once a customer has entered the site, processes must focus on separation and
stockpiling of materials in well managed, separate piles. This is dependent on both
the behaviour of the customer, the layout and infrastructure onsite and the role of
the site operative.
As noted previously, the separation of raw timber and processed timber is
important as it facilitates better reuse and recycling opportunities. RRC sites
accepting timber waste should have a designated area for raw timber, preferably
on a sealed hardstand or in a 30m3 bin off the sawtooth, which would support
aggregation of clean material, reduce contamination, save the need to load the
materials for transport and potentially open up other markets.
In all instances, garden waste should be separated from timber waste at RRC sites.
Estimated cost: Some sites nil, potential upgrades to hardstands in the order of
$20/m2 (200mm crushed rock) to $100m2 (concrete slab). Significant additional
costs to set-up raw timber collection off sawtooth where the site is not developed
with sawtooth for waste drop off for garbage, metals, recyclables, etc.
Lead: Councils
Removal of gross
contamination by site
operator
Site operators should be working to ensure that gross contamination in the raw
timber stockpile is identified and removed as soon as possible. During each shift,
operators should be undertaking a site “walkthrough” that looks to identify
contamination / stockpile mixing issues. Where it is safe and practical to do so, the
operators should remove visual / gross contamination.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils, supported by site operators
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 48
Processing Contract Phase
Improve pre-processing
activities
In addition to removal of gross contamination by site operatives, processing
contracts / arrangements should have provisions that encourage further removal
of contaminants before and during processing of timber waste, where safe to do
so.
Estimated cost: Could be built into new contracts at minimal additional cost
Lead: Councils / NWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)
Ensuring timber chipping
is done to required
specification
Sites choosing to process raw separated timber into mulch products should ensure
that contracts specify chip sizes that meet the requirements of existing and future
customers (and any industry standards and specifications).
Processed raw timber is commonly used as ground cover mulch as it provides
more air pockets than mulch made from garden waste. This allows water to
penetrate into the soil and improves airflow and weed suppression. Chipping to
30mm – 50mm would meet these requirements.
A finer grade 40mm minus product could be used for soft fall mulch in children’s
playgrounds.
Contract specifications should allow for councils to vary screen sizes based on
their customer needs (with appropriate pricing scales built into the contract)
which will ensure greater flexibility and adaptability.
Estimated cost: $7.5/cubic meter (inc GST). This is $2.30 more than current
contract, to allow for an improved shredding process/screen size to be contracted
in the next contract.
Lead: Councils / NWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)
End Markets Phase
Leverage existing regional
markets for timber waste
Larger sites are likely to have the volumes of raw timber required to access the
existing regional markets for timber waste, including:
➢ Inputs of raw timber for manufacture of particleboard and timber panel
at D&R Henderson, Benalla.
➢ Inputs for existing timber fired boilers at Alpine MDF, Wangaratta and
D&R Henderson, Benalla.
Estimated cost: Transport costs to the gate using bulk haulage (using b-double
with two 30-meter bins) will add cost, in the order of $1.40 per km or $145 per
load (60 cubic meters) for a 50 km travel distance (return trip or 100 kms) and
excluding loading/unloading costs.
Lead: Councils
5.2 Garden waste
Garden waste is a significant material stream within RRC facilities as these sites are often the only option for
residents seeking to dispose woody organics, that cannot be disposed in the kerbside green bin. The improvement
opportunities for RRC garden waste are considerable and exist across all areas of the product chain. Improved
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 49
practices to monitor incoming loads and updated procedures for mulching and contamination management are
likely to result in higher quality materials that generate greater demand.
Recommended actions for process improvements for garden waste are presented in Table 13.
Table 14 Recommended process improvements for garden waste at larger RRC facilities
Improvement area Description
Customer Phase
Improved inspections of
incoming loads
Garden waste is commonly contaminated by plastic, timber and building waste
when it enters an RRC facility in a mixed load. Heaped up garden waste in a trailer
or ute can also be used to hide other materials beneath. Whilst it is not always
possible to inspect a whole load, site operatives should be vigilant in inspecting all
incoming loads and working to identify gross contamination in garden waste piles.
Where large loads are delivered to site (or where the operative can’t do a good
visual inspection), the operative should instruct the customer to put their load in
an area directly adjacent to the main garden waste drop off area.
By partially segregating the material, the operative can identify contamination and
keep it out of the garden waste stockpile and also to identify poor customer
practices and address these (for example by taking customer details at the
gatehouse).
For mixed loads of waste with some garden waste in the load, the whole load
should be directed to the landfill bin and the customer charged accordingly and
provided information about the cost savings of keeping garden waste separate.
In all instances, garden waste should be separated from timber waste at RRC sites.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils supported by site operatives.
Training to identify
persistent/noxious weeds
RRC garden waste tends to be generated through tree clippings and branches
rather than weeding and grass clippings which are more frequently disposed
through the kerbside green bin.
The potential presence of weed seeds constitutes a significant barrier to markets
for mulched garden waste. Whilst it would be impossible for gatehouse operators
to eradicate weeds entirely, there is scope for training to assist operators in
identifying key regional weeds, such as tussock, paspalum, ivy, wandering jew and
spear thistle, amongst others.
Where weeds are suspected, the operator could ask for these to be separated and
removed or direct the load to the landfill bin at the appropriate cost.
Estimated cost: No or low cost, should be existing government staff to provide
training
Lead: Councils working with DELWP and NE CMA
Oversight of drop-off area Ideally, larger sites would be appropriately resourced such that customers are
observed at the point of material drop-off in addition to the gatehouse. This is a
useful point of engagement, not just as a means of ensuring that contamination of
stockpiles is minimised, but as a general education and engagement opportunity.
This may not always be possible, depending on the size and layout of the facility,
therefore the following should be considered:
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 50
➢ Rearranging the site to provide better oversight from the gatehouse and
garden waste drop off areas.
➢ Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to provide improved
site oversight from the gatehouse.
➢ Installing dummy CCTV cameras (for sites that lack power) to provide a
visual deterrent against dumping.
Estimated cost: Variable depending on steps taken. Dummy CCTV cameras $350
each. Wireless CCTV to iPad $4,000 (includes 3 cameras and iPad).
Lead: Councils
Site Operator Phase
Stockpile separation Once a customer has entered the site, processes must focus on separation and
stockpiling of materials in well managed, separate piles. This is dependent on both
the behaviour of the customer, the layout and infrastructure onsite and the role of
the site operative.
Garden waste should be stored in a large area with suitable hardstand, ideally
with areas adjacent to the main stockpile where targeted customers can drop off
their waste before it is integrated into the larger pile (for example, loads
suspected of having gross contamination).
In all instances, garden waste should be separated from timber waste at RRC sites.
Estimated cost: Nil, potential upgrades to hardstands in the order of $20/m2
(200mm crushed rock) to $100m2 (concrete slab).
Lead: Councils
Removal of gross
contamination by site
operator
There are often long periods between onsite processing of garden waste at RRCs.
During this period, site operators should be working to ensure that gross
contamination is identified and removed as soon as possible. During each shift,
operators should be undertaking a site “walkthrough” that looks to identify
contamination / stockpile mixing issues. Where it is safe and practical to do so, the
operators should remove visual / gross contamination.
The condition of sites and stockpiled materials is an important visual cue that
impacts customer behaviours. Messy sites beget messy behaviours and this
ongoing process of removing contamination should support improvements in site
behaviours over time.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils, supported by site operators
Processing Contract Phase
Improve pre-processing
activities
In addition to removal of gross contamination by site operatives, processing
contracts / arrangements should have provisions that encourage further removal
of contaminants before and during processing, where safe to do so.
Estimated cost: Could be built into new contracts at minimal additional cost
Lead: Councils / NWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)
Ensuring mulching is done
to required specification
Garden waste can be processed into a few products, depending on the technology
and the screens being used. There are existing standards that define the
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 51
characteristics of compost, mulch and soil conditioner which are the most likely
outputs of garden waste processing. However, the processing of some of these
products may require the site to be licensed by EPA Victoria.
Councils report that mulch screened to a 50mm minus product (which is required
under the current mulching contract but often not adhered to) creates a highly
usable product that can be utilised by council’s internal departments and the
public. This should therefore be the target for product size.
Sites with larger volumes could consider using multiple screens to provide some
product differentiation. For example, a finer fraction of 15mm – 50mm which can
be used as soil improvement mulch, and a coarser fraction 50mm – 80mm which
can be used as ground cover mulch. Sites should be mindful of the risk of EPA fines
or pollution abatement notices as material below 15mm has the potential to
compost, thus resulting in potential odour off-site impacts and compliance issues.
Estimated cost: $7.5/cubic meter (incl GST). This is $2.30 more than current
contract, to allow for an improved shredding process/screen size to be contracted
in the next contract.
Lead: Councils / NEWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)
Consider bulk haulage to a
licensed garden waste
processing facility.
The proposed construction of a fully licensed composting facility at Wangaratta
presents a potential opportunity for RRC sites to bulk haul all their garden waste
for processing at this site. Whilst bulk haulage will present an additional cost,
some of this could be offset against current mulching costs (although it must be
noted that a coarse mulch may be required to ensure transport efficiencies can be
achieved).
This approach has the benefit of ensuring that all garden waste is processed under
controlled conditions and made into products that are able to meet the current
Australian Standard AS4454.
Estimated cost: Transport costs to the gate using bulk haulage (using b-double
with two 30-meter bins) will add cost, in the order of $1.40 per km or $145 per
load (60 cubic meters) for a 50 km travel distance (return trip or 100 kms) and
excluding loading/unloading costs.
Lead: Councils
End Markets Phase
Engage with council works
departments
Council’s own works departments are likely to be key customers for mulch
products. It is important that their needs are understood and met as far as
possible. Councils should ensure that relationships and lines of communication
between waste officers and works officers are well developed. Working together
to set clear requirements for mulch products may benefit both product quality
and the reliability of offtakes.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils / NEWRRG (potential for a regional process)
Investigate local
partnerships
Larger sites that have regular volumes of mulch available should investigate local
partnerships with landscapers and garden supplies and other sites/companies that
may have regular need for mulch products. This could provide regular offtake
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 52
opportunities that would allow for more long-term planning and stockpile
management.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils
5.3 Concrete
Concrete waste (and building waste in general) is a high-risk waste stream for asbestos contamination, which not
only creates a liability for the site but presents a potential risk to health and safety. Rigorous oversight of incoming
loads is essential to identify potential contamination, in particular the presence of asbestos.
Recommended actions for process improvements for concrete waste are presented in Table 15.
Table 15 Recommended process improvements for concrete waste at larger RRC facilities
Improvement area Description
Customer Phase
Changes to acceptance
procedures for building
“rubble”
Several sites in the north east accept “building rubble” at RRC facilities and this is
listed on site entrance boards. The acceptance of mixed rubble does not support
the separation of material nor does it support contamination management,
particularly addressing the risks from asbestos contamination. Sites should
consider:
➢ Removing any reference to “building rubble” or “mixed building
materials” from site entrance boards
➢ Direct any heavily mixed building / demolition loads directly to landfill
and charge customers accordingly.
➢ Ensure signage and pricing clearly states that only separated concrete
and brick will be accepted for recycling.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils
Load rejection
requirements
Given the inherent risk from asbestos contamination in brick and concrete loads
(particularly mixed loads as outlined above) site operatives should reject loads
suspected of containing asbestos at the gatehouse. Customers should be provided
with details of asbestos disposal options within the region.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils
Oversight of drop-off area Ideally, larger sites would be appropriately resourced such that customers are
observed at the point of material drop-off in addition to the gatehouse. This is a
useful point of engagement, not just as a means of ensuring that contamination of
stockpiles is minimised, but as a general education and engagement opportunity.
This may not always be possible, depending on the size and layout of the facility,
therefore the following should be considered:
➢ Rearranging the site to provide better oversight from the gatehouse and
commonly used areas.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 53
➢ Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to provide improved
site oversight from the gatehouse.
➢ Installing dummy CCTV cameras (for sites that lack power) to provide a
visual deterrent against dumping.
Estimated cost: Variable depending on steps taken. Dummy CCTV cameras $350
each. Wireless CCTV to iPad $4,000 (includes 3 cameras and iPad).
Lead: Councils
Site Operator Phase
Stockpile separation Once a customer has entered the site, processes must focus on separation and
stockpiling of materials in well managed, separate piles. This is dependent on both
the behaviour of the customer, the layout and infrastructure onsite and the role of
the site operative.
Where practicable, brick and concrete should be stored in separate piles onsite as
a means of encouraging material separation and discouraging mixed loads and
cross contamination.
However, some councils note that processors have requested that brick and
concrete be stored together. In these instances, additional care should be taken to
ensure that only brick and concrete are being disposed to the stockpile.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils
Removal of gross
contamination by site
operator
There are often long periods between onsite processing of concrete at RRCs.
During this period, site operators should be working to ensure that gross
contamination is identified and removed as soon as possible. During each shift,
operators should be undertaking a site “walkthrough” that looks to identify
contamination / stockpile mixing issues. Where it is safe and practical to do so, the
operators should remove visual / gross contamination.
The condition of sites and stockpiled materials is an important visual cue that
impacts customer behaviours. Messy sites beget messy behaviours and this
ongoing process of removing contamination should support improvements in site
behaviours over time.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils, supported by site operators
Processing Contract Phase
Improve pre-processing
activities
In addition to removal of gross contamination by site operatives, processing
contracts / arrangements should have provisions that encourage further removal
of contaminants before and during processing, where safe to do so.
Estimated cost: Could be built into new contracts at minimal additional cost
Lead: Councils / NWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)
Ensuring crushing is done
to required specification
Consultation with the aggregates industry suggests that the ideal aggregate sizes
are between 20mm – 40mm as this allows for a wide range of uses, including
drainage aggregate, irrigation medium and use as road base.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 54
Contracts should include specific requirements for processing materials to the
required specification, which should be set by councils / NEWRRG based on
consultation with end users. In many cases, this will be councils own internal
works departments and their requirements should be considered first and
foremost.
The minimum and maximum requirements for oversize and undersize outputs
should also be stipulated, which in turn may require the use of two or more
screens to remove these fractions (the oversize then being recirculated through
the process).
Estimated cost: $15 per cubic meter.
Lead: Councils / NWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)
End Markets Phase
Engage with council works
departments
Council’s own works departments are likely to be key customers for crushed
concrete products. It is important that their needs are understood and met as far
as possible. Councils should ensure that relationships and lines of communication
between waste officers and works officers are well developed. Working together
to set clear requirements for crushed concrete/brick products (internal or external
specifications for example) may benefit both product quality and end markets.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils / NEWRRG (regional process)
Consider consolidation of
storage and processing
Larger sites could act as consolidation points for processed (or unprocessed)
concrete to ensure that quality standards can be met and provide the volumes
required to support better processing.
Estimated cost: Transport costs to the gate using bulk haulage (using b-double
with two 30-meter bins) will add cost, in the order of $1.40 per km or $145 per
load (60 cubic meters) for a 50 km travel distance (return trip or 100 kms) and
excluding loading/unloading costs.
Lead: Councils
5.4 Brick
Brick and concrete are often co-stored and co-processed at RRC facilities and as such most of the commentary for
concrete applies to bricks with a one additional process improvement recommendation made below in Table 16
Table 16 Recommended process improvements for brick waste at larger RRC facilities
Improvement area Description
Site Operator Phase
Separation of high value
bricks for reuse
There is a market for reuse of certain types of whole bricks (i.e. not damaged) for
renovations. New bricks are not made in the same size and colour as old bricks
and as such salvage of old bricks is often necessary when restoring older
properties. There are certain types of brick that have greater potential to be
salvaged, such as old red bricks, and sites should develop relationships with local
salvage yards to help identify and resell these products.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 55
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils, supported by site operators
5.5 Soil (clean fill)
At present, soil (clean fill) is only accepted at a limited number of sites in the north east and is mostly used for
onsite landscaping or as landfill cover. Potential process improvements for receival and management of soil (clean
fill) at RRC facilities are limited to improved acceptance procedures and potential screening of fill to produce a
higher-grade soil mix.
Recommended actions for process improvements for soil (clean fill) are presented in Table 17.
Table 17 Recommended process improvements for soil (clean fill) at larger RRC facilities
Improvement area Description
Customer Phase
Clean fill acceptance
procedures
There are strict requirements as to what constitutes “clean fill” which are set by
EPA Victoria in the Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines: Soil Hazard
Categorisation and Management.
RRC sites accepting clean fill should have appropriate processes, including a
management plan, in place to ensure that they are not accepting contaminated
soil. This should include the following18:
➢ pre-receipt procedures for soil, which includes assessment and/or
analysis that provides evidence fill material is clean
➢ staff training requirements
➢ load inspection procedure
➢ non-conforming load procedure
➢ topsoil management
➢ drainage and erosion control
➢ community engagement (where appropriate)
➢ monitoring and maintenance
➢ site security (to prevent unauthorised access)
➢ noise and dust-mitigation procedures.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils accepting soil at RRC facilities
Load rejection
requirements
• Given the inherent risk from visible and non-visible contamination in soil, site
operatives should reject loads suspected of any form of contamination, by
visual inspection at the gatehouse and/or where the soils have come from
potentially contaminated sources (e.g. industrial sites, old petrol stations etc)
the customer would need to provide results of analytical testing that classifies
the soils as ‘Clean Fill’ according to EPA requirements. Where loads are
rejected, customers should be provided with details of disposal options for
contaminated soil within the region.
18 EPA Victoria 2016. Industrial Waste Fact Sheet, Publication 1624, May 2016 - https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/1624.pdf
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 56
Improvement area Description
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils
Site Operator Phase
Stockpile separation Once a customer has entered the site, processes must focus on separation and
stockpiling of materials in well managed, separate piles. This is dependent on both
the behaviour of the customer, the layout and infrastructure onsite and the role of
the site operative.
Where practicable, soil (clean fill) should be stored in separate piles onsite as a
means of encouraging material separation and discouraging mixed loads and cross
contamination.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils
Removal of gross
contamination by site
operator
As with other AMS materials, management of contamination on site should be
undertaken in a proactive manner. During each shift, operators should be
undertaking a site “walkthrough” that looks to identify contamination / stockpile
mixing issues. Where it is safe and practical to do so, the operators should remove
visual / gross contamination.
Estimated cost: Nil
Lead: Councils, supported by site operators
Processing Contract Phase
Potential for soil screening Depending on volumes, there is scope at large RRC sites to screen clean fill into a
25mm minus fraction and an oversize fraction. Whilst this is likely to incur
additional cost, it would allow for the higher-grade material to be sold rather than
used onsite or as landfill cover (the oversize fraction could be used for this
purpose).
Estimated cost: $5.5 per cubic meter
Lead: Councils
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 57
6 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR SMALLER SITES
Smaller (and mid-size) RRCs are common across the north east and tend to service smaller population areas with
more limited site infrastructure. The lack of throughput at these sites presents a significant challenge, and the
recommended process improvements outlined in this section of the report should be considered in light of site
costs and efficiencies. The importance of regional collaborative procurement to provide improved services to
smaller RRCs should not be underestimated, and many of the process changes suggested would benefit from this.
Management and processing of AMS & GTW wastes at smaller RRCs is a balance between cost and pragmatic
solutions. In many cases, it would not be feasible for small sites to implement all of the process changes
recommended in this section. However, there are many that are cost neutral and rely simply on behaviour change
in and around the site.
This section includes the improved processes recommended for small sites. To avoid repetition of content, where
the process for large and small sites is the same, this section refers back to Section 5 above for larger sites. As with
the process improvements for larger sites outlined above, this section of the report is supported by the process
flow charts presented in Appendix 1.
6.1 Timber waste
As with the commentary for timber waste at larger sites, management of timber waste at smaller RRC sites should
also focus on separation of raw (clean) timber from processed and treated timbers. This will provide significantly
greater opportunity for recycling and reuse of the material. The recommended improved process for timber waste
at smaller RRCs are the same as for larger sites, refer to Table 13.
6.2 Garden waste
Recommended actions for process improvements for garden waste at smaller RRCs are the same as for larger sites,
refer to Table 14. There is one key difference in the recommended process between larger and smaller sites is the
recommended screening size. Councils report that mulch screened to a 50mm minus product (which is required
under the current mulching contract but often not adhered to) creates a highly usable product that can be utilised
by council’s internal departments and the public. This should therefore be the target for product size for smaller
sites.
6.3 Concrete and brick
Recommended actions for process improvements for concrete and brick at smaller RRCs are the same as for larger
sites, refer to in Table 15.
6.4 Soil (clean fill)
The acceptance of soil (clean fill) at smaller RRC sites in the region is currently limited and given the acceptance
requirements (such as a formal management plan), councils should consider whether it is practical and worth the
risk to accept soil at smaller sites. For smaller sites that decide to continue receiving soils the recommended
improved processes are the same as for larger sites, refer to Table 17.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 58
7 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FINANCIALS
This section includes analysis of the financials for the improved resource recovery processes that are outlined
above for each waste stream. It is important to note that this is a limited financial analysis and only provides
insight into a set of ‘direct’ profits and losses for the management of each waste stream. The scope of this financial
assessment is limited to the profits and losses listed in the tables below. Other 'indirect' costs and benefits are not
included in this analysis (such as staff time, site operation expenses, reduced fire risk, reduced stockpiling,
improved amenity etc). Costing all site costs and benefits is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.
For each waste stream the change in the financial outcomes is compared to the main outcomes of the current
process and includes a discussion of the key process changes and assumptions that are used in deriving the
financial estimates. Note: in the tables that follow, negative returns or losses are highlighted with a red outline.
IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – TIMBER WASTE (SEPARATED RAW TIMBER ONLY)
Table 18 provides a summary of the improved process financials for separated raw timber waste in the region.
Table 18 Improved process financial summary – separated raw timber waste
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te (
m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(on
site
or
off
site
)
($/m
3)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($/m
3)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st
($/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s
of
pro
cess
ed
mat
eri
als
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t
($/m
3)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 3,275 $45 -$7.5 -$9 $15 $5 $52 $115,771
Lowest ($/m3) 3 $11 $- $- $15 $- $24 $147
Average ($/m3) 336 $28 -$6 -$3 $15 $4 $37 $11,086
Total (all sites) 4,701 $155,197
Total of current process 10,266 $87,742
Change resulting for process change
-5,565 $67,455
Number of sites with negative net return
0
The separation of raw timber is estimated to result in a collection of around 4,70019 cubic meters of waste for
recovery across the region. This is around 5,500 cubic meters less material diverted for recovery than is currently
diverted because it is assumed that all treated, manufactured, painted timbers are sent to landfill either directly or
after shredding (to enable use as tipping area hardstand). Council would need to set the gate fee for treated,
manufactured, painted timbers to ensure full cost recovery (at least) for landfilling of these materials.
Gate fees for raw timbers are assumed to stay the same for all sites apart from Benalla, who have noted plans to
increase gate fees to around $11.20 per cubic meter ($70 per tonne).
The improved process financial analysis assumes that Benalla and Myrtleford would send the separated raw
timber directly to D&R Henderson for recycling without shredding. For all other sites it is assumed that raw timbers
19 This assumes that 25% of the current timber waste stream is raw timbers that are suitable for recovery. The remaining 75% are assumed to be sent to landfill either directly or after shredding (to enable use as tipping area hardstand).
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 59
would be separated, shredded and transported to Wangaratta for energy recovery at Alpine MDF or sold as a
mulch product (which could be via a market garden outlet or via the new composting facility that is to open in
Bowser).
Processing costs for raw timber waste are assumed to increase to $7.5 per cubic meter for all sites apart of Benalla
and Myrtleford as their raw timber is assumed to be sent directly to D&R Henderson for recycling. The increased
processing costs would allow for the raw timber to be shredded to a 30-50 mm screen size to ensure it is suitable
for a range of off-take markets.
The is an assumed saving of $15 per cubic meter ($45/tonne) for avoided landfilling costs for the raw timber waste
volumes. When raw timbers are mixed with other timbers there are no off-take markets and the waste is sent to
landfill. In these circumstances it is reasonable to assume a saving of landfill airspace and cost. This is the only
waste stream where an assumed landfill saving is allocated because for the other waste stream there is some
current off-take markets.
For all site sites, except Benalla and Myrtleford, a modest return of $5 per cubic meter is assumed from the sale of
processed raw timber product. Alpine MDF currently pay around $30-40 per tonne for timber wastes to fuel their
boiler (when they require off-site materials) so it seems reasonable to assume a $5 per cubic meter return. Raw
timber waste sent to D&R Henderson from Benalla and Myrtleford is assumed to receive $0 payment, however,
the material does not require shredding, so the outcome is similar.
Overall it is estimated that the improved process would return around $155,000 to the region which is around
$67,000 more than the current process, despite assuming recovery of only 25% of the all incoming timber wastes.
Importantly, the improved process would also prevent the current issues associated with mixed timber waste
stockpiling at some sites, which will in-turn reduce fire risk, vermin issues and improve site amenity.
IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – GARDEN WASTE
Table 19 provides a summary of the improved process financials for garden waste in the region.
Table 19 Improved process financial summary – garden waste
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te
(m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(o
nsi
te
or
off
site
) ($
/m3
)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($
/m3
)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st (
$/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s o
f
pro
cess
ed
mat
eria
ls
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t ($
/m3
)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 20,000 $23 -$7.5 -$2 $- $- $16 $250,273
Lowest ($/m3) 67 $10 -$7.5 $- $- $- $- $-
Average ($/m3) 3,648 $16 -$7.5 -$0 $- $- $8 $25,635
Total (all sites) 51,073 $358,888
Total of current process
49,673 $402,063
Change resulting for process change
1,400 $-43,175
Number of sites with negative net return
0
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 60
Around 51,700 cubic meters of garden waste is estimated to be recovered across the region. This is around 1,400
cubic meters more material diverted for recovery than is currently diverted because it is assumed that Indigo
Council sites would collect and process garden waste separately from timber wastes.
Gate fees for garden waste are assumed to stay the same for all sites apart from Benalla, who have noted plans to
increase gate fees to around $11.20 per cubic meter ($70 per tonne).
The improved process financial analysis assumes that all sites separate and shredded garden waste and allow free
collection by internal works departments or the public.
Processing costs for garden waste are assumed to increase to $7.5 per cubic meter for all sites. The increased
processing costs (from $5.20 per cubic meter) would allow for the garden waste to be shredded to a 50 mm minus
screen size to help ensure it is a good mulch product sought after by works departments and the public.
There are no assumed cost saving for avoided landfilling costs by garden waste landfill diversion as no sites
currently send garden waste to landfill.
No assumed revenue for the sale of mulched garden waste is assumed.
Overall it is estimated that the improved process would return around $360,000 to the region which is around
$43,000 less than the current process. The reduced return is linked to the increase in processing costs. Whilst the
return is lower than the current process it is still a good return and more importantly the garden waste mulch
would be of a quality that would ‘move’ more easily.
Importantly, the improved process would also prevent the current issues associated with garden waste stockpiling
of processed materials at some sites.
IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – CONCRETE AND BRICK
Table 20 provides a summary of the improved process financials for concrete and brick in the region.
Table 20 Improved process financial summary – concrete and brick
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te (
m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(on
site
or
off
site
)
($/m
3)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($/m
3)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st
($/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s
of
pro
cess
ed
mat
eri
als
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t
($/m
3)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 1,697 $70 -$15 -$9 $- $37 $92 $155,283
Lowest ($/m3) 10 $18 -$9 $- $- $37 $- $-
Average ($/m3) 436 $35 -$14 -$3 $- $37 $47 $23,988
Total (all sites) 5,230 $335,834
Total of current process
5,230 $90,098
Change resulting for process change
- $245,736
Number of sites with negative net return
0
Around 5,200 cubic meters of concrete and brick garden waste is estimated to be recovered across the region via
the RRC network. This is the same amount that is estimated to be recovered by the current process.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 61
Gate fees for concrete and brick are assumed to stay the same for all sites apart from Benalla, who have noted
plans to increase gate fees to around $70 per cubic meter ($70 per tonne).
The improved process financial analysis assumes that all sites divert only clean concrete and brick loads for
processing, with mixed loads of construction and demolition waste being sent directly to landfill due to
contamination risks. For sites receiving less than 100 cubic meters of concrete per year, it is assumed that the
concrete and brick are bulk hauled before processing to a larger site in the region for processing. This change is to
enable these smaller volumes to be processed more regularly and explains why the transport costs are higher in
the improved process estimates.
Processing costs for concrete and brick are assumed to stay the same at $15 per cubic meter for all sites, except
Wodonga. The processing costs allows for the concrete and brick waste to be crushed to a 40 mm minus screen
size to help ensure it is a good product sought after by works departments and by customers such as VicRoads.
There are no assumed cost saving for avoided landfilling costs by concrete and brick landfill diversion as most sites
currently do not send concrete to landfill, except where the concrete and brick are used as landfill haul roads.
For all sites a return of around $37 per cubic meter is assumed from the sale of processed concrete and brick
product. This is slightly below the current market rate of $40 for recycled aggregate and this price was achieved by
Myrtleford when they put recycled product to the market a few years ago. Where sites currently use crushed
concrete and brick onsite for haul roads etc, it is assumed that using the recycled concrete and brick off-sets the
cost of bringing in aggregate from off-site, as hence the assumed revenue from sales is maintained in the
estimates.
Overall it is estimated that the improved process would return around $336,000 to the region which is around
$245,000 more than the current process. Importantly, the improved process would also prevent the current issues
associated with concrete and brick stockpiling at smaller sites due to a lack of volume for processing.
IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – SOIL
Table 15 provides a summary of the improved process financials for soils in the region.
Table 21 Improved process financial summary – soil
Est.
am
ou
nt
of
was
te
(m3
/yr)
)
Gat
e f
ee
($
/m3
)
Pro
cess
ing
cost
(o
nsi
te
or
off
site
) ($
/m3
)
Tran
spo
rt c
ost
($
/m3
)
Lan
dfi
llin
g co
st (
$/m
3)
Re
ven
ue
fro
m s
ale
s o
f
pro
cess
ed
mat
eria
ls
($/m
3)
Co
st o
r p
rofi
t ($
/m3
)*
(In
c. G
ST)
Tota
l ne
t p
rofi
t/lo
ss
($/y
ear
)* (
Inc.
GST
)
Highest ($/m3) 764 $11 -$6 -$6 $- $- $9 $4,202
Lowest ($/m3) 190 $- $- $- $- $- -$6 -$1,458
Average ($/m3) 399 $6 -$1 -$1 $- $- $2 $560
Total (all sites) 1,994 $6,164
Total of current process 1,994 $6,164
Change resulting for process change
- $-
Number of sites with negative net return
1
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 62
Around 2,000 cubic meters of soil is estimated to be recovered across the region under the current and the
improved process.
Following the project workshop, it is understood that the focus for soils is to recommend an improved process for
receiving soils that better manages the risk of contaminated soils being disposed.
The improved process includes no change to the gate fees, processing costs, landfilling costs, or revenue and there
is therefore no change in between the current and improved process financials.
REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 63
APPENDIX 1 – PROCESS FLOWCHARTS FOR AMS & GTW WASTES
top related