optimal regional infrastructure model

Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model___________________________________________________
Report for Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group 30873
30873 | Issue Number 8 | Date 3-Mar-21 Public
Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model | i
Public Ref: 30873_BSWWRRG ORIM_V08.00 Issue Number 8
Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning
Customer: Ricardo Contact:
Maarten de Beurs e: [email protected]
Customer reference: Author:
30873 Jess Braun Katie Becker
Confidentiality, copyright & reproduction: Approved By:
This report is the Copyright of Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group and has been prepared by Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning a trading name of Ricardo-AEA Ltd under RFQ “Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model Project” and acceptance letter titled “Re: Letter Of Acceptance of Quotation Offer BSWWRRG Optimal Regional Infrastructure Project” dated 16 June 2020. The contents of this report may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person without the specific prior written permission of Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group. Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning accepts no liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage arising from any interpretation or use of the information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expressed therein, other than the liability that is agreed in the said contract.
Maarten de Beurs
Ref: 30873_BSWWRRG ORIM_V08.00 / Issue Number 8
Issue History
1 24/11/2020 Draft for review
2 27/11/2020 Draft for circulation
3 10/12/2020 Revised draft for circulation to PCG
4 23/12/2020 Executive summary only, for distribution to stakeholders
5 1/02/2021 Draft final – section added
6 10/02/2021 Draft Final for presentation
7 15/02/2021 Final Report
8 03/03/2021 Public Report
Executive summary
Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group (BSWWRRG) engaged Ricardo Energy,
Environment and Planning (Ricardo) to produce an Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model (ORIM)
and recommendations report. The project aims to support investment in waste and resource recovery
infrastructure within the Barwon South West Region.
The waste and resource recovery industry has experienced significant change in recent years both
locally and internationally. These changes stem from China’s implementation of their ‘National Sword’
Policy in 2018 which imposed strict contamination thresholds on the importation of solid waste
materials. A significant impact of this Policy to the Barwon South West region was the collapse of
SKM, a key processor of commingled recyclables. The failure of SKM, including the Barwon South
West region’s facility in Geelong, revealed a lack of local alternatives for the processing of
commingled recyclables. Specifically, the SKM situation led to a decision by BSWWRRG to take
action to help support the region to build a more resilient system and gain greater control over the fate
of recyclables in the region. Increased resilience and control over material fate are key drivers to the
Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model.
The ORIM was developed in parallel with other changes to the Victorian waste system. These
changes include the Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group’s (MWRRG) collaborative
procurement project, DELWP’s statewide kerbside transition planning for separate glass and organics
services, and the implementation of a Container Deposit Scheme in Victoria arising from Recycling
Victoria – A New Economy, Victoria’s circular economy policy.
Stakeholder engagement was a crucial activity to ensuring that the ORIM was relevant to the existing
industry and for the verification of assumptions. Stakeholders were identified and contacted to inform
them of the project, with many participating in interviews as an information sharing exercise. Key
feedback from the stakeholders included:
• Removal of contamination would be beneficial for MRF operations, create a more desirable
feedstock and support local jobs.
• New facilities are proposed in Ballarat and Mt Gambier which are seeking additional
feedstock to support economies of scale.
• Separation of glass is beneficial for MRF operations.
• The use of glass in local construction projects such as road base is becoming more
widespread and accepted in the industry.
• Economies of scale are crucial to enable investment into the right technology.
Through the stakeholder engagement, modelling of the current baseline system, and workshopping
with BSWWRRG and the PCG, the following models were developed:
• Option 1: maximise local processing opportunities. The market for recycled materials in the
Barwon South West region is currently limited, however stakeholder feedback has revealed
that there are small scale regional processing opportunities which can be achieved. These
small-scale opportunities are:
- Separation of ferrous metals; and
- Manual pre-sort of contaminants.
• Option 2: maximise regional connections. Option 2 leverages off facilities that are progressed
or have had a business case / feasibility completed with proximity to the region which includes
new MRFs proposed for Mt Gambier and Ballarat, and a new MRF in Geelong. While the
modelling assumes the Mt Gambier location due to the development of a pre-feasibility study,
Warrnambool may be an alternative location subject to further investigation. Construction of a
Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model | iii
pre-sort and glass crushing facility is currently underway in Warrnambool following a
successful funding application to Sustainability Victoria. This site should be monitored for
capacity and viability as a regional option. The modelling also assumes the new Geelong
MRF is located in South Geelong. There are multiple potential sites in Geelong as an
alternative to the modelled site. Option 2 incorporates the small-scale opportunities in Option
1.
• Option 3: Single regional facility. Option 3 involves all kerbside commingled recyclables
processed at one facility in the region. Due to the proportion of waste generated by Geelong
and its proximity to existing reprocessing markets in Melbourne, Geelong has been selected
as an indicative location for the facility. This option also incorporates the small-scale
opportunities in Option 1.
The options were assessed and compared through a multi criteria assessment (MCA). The MCA tool
used for the ORIM assessed the three options through political, environmental, social, technological,
legal, and economic (PESTLE) lenses. Option 2 resulted in the highest outcome from the MCA with a
score of 53, followed by Option 1 (45.8) and then Option 3 (40.0).
Outcomes from the modelling and MCA process show that the Optimal Regional Infrastructure
Model is Option 2. While the ORIM process has determined a preferred outcome, there is more
detailed investigation required to understand the implementation pathways for this option.
This report recommends that:
- Option 2 be adopted as the optimal system design for the Barwon South West Region.
- Further investigations be undertaken to identify the path to implement this optimal system.
Suggested actions are included in Section 7.
- Enabling “Hubs” or resource recovery precincts as identified in the Statewide Waste and
Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan (SWRRIP) to promote remanufacturing of processed
materials be pursued in the Barwon South West Region; and
- Further investigations be undertaken to confirm and take action to improve the size of
markets for recovered materials.
Table of contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Interacting Projects .......................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Methodology Summary ................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Commingled Composition ............................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Waste Volumes ...................................................................................................... 12
2.1.3 Waste projection ..................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Current Facilities.............................................................................................................. 16
2.4.2 Recovery to Reprocessing ..................................................................................... 18
2.5 Jobs ................................................................................................................................. 20
2.6.1 Costs ...................................................................................................................... 20
2.6.2 Emissions ............................................................................................................... 21
2.6.3 Jobs ........................................................................................................................ 21
3 Optimisation ............................................................................................................. 22
4.2 Option 2: Regional Connections...................................................................................... 26
4.4 Comparison of Results .................................................................................................... 29
4.4.1 Costs ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.4.2 Emissions ............................................................................................................... 29
4.4.3 Jobs ........................................................................................................................ 30
5.1 MCA Results .................................................................................................................... 32
6 Optimal Model .......................................................................................................... 34
7 Implementation ........................................................................................................ 36
7.2.5 Procurement ........................................................................................................... 39
7.2.6 Specification ........................................................................................................... 40
7.3 Decontamination and Metals ........................................................................................... 41
7.3.1 Market..................................................................................................................... 41
7.3.5 Procurement ........................................................................................................... 43
7.4 MRFs ............................................................................................................................... 46
7.4.3 Procurement ........................................................................................................... 47
7.5 Waste Authority ............................................................................................................... 49
7.6.2 Capital and Operational Expenditure ..................................................................... 52
8 References ............................................................................................................... 54
List of figures
Figure 1-1 Barwon South West Councils ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2-1 Glass Service Implementation ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 2-2 Commingled Recycling Projection ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-3 Landfill Levy Increases Per Tonne ...................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-4 Landfill Gate Fee Increases Per Tonne ............................................................................... 15 Figure 2-5 Baseline Costs ..................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-6 Baseline Emissions.............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 4-1 Options Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4-2 Cost Comparison ................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 4-3 Emissions Comparison ........................................................................................................ 30 Figure 4-4 Jobs Comparison ................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 7-1 Glass process ...................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 7-2 Cumulative Glass Tonnage ................................................................................................. 39 Figure 7-3 VicRoads Glass Spec (Section 407, Table 407.032) .......................................................... 40 Figure 7-4 Decontamination and metals process ................................................................................. 42
List of tables
Table 1-1 Interacting Projects ............................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-1 Recyclable Materials Tonnages ............................................................................................ 12 Table 2-2 DELWP CDS Impacts ........................................................................................................... 12 Table 2-3 Victoria In Future Population Projection ............................................................................... 13 Table 2-4 Current Facilities ................................................................................................................... 16 Table 2-5 Distance from Transfer Station to Recovery Facility Assumptions ....................................... 17 Table 2-6 Local Reprocessing Assumptions ......................................................................................... 18 Table 2-7 Export Reprocessing Assumptions ....................................................................................... 18 Table 2-8 Jobs Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 20 Table 2-9 Baseline Jobs at 2-Year Intervals ......................................................................................... 21 Table 3-1 Infrastructure Limitations ...................................................................................................... 23 Table 4-1 Option 1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 25 Table 4-2 Option 2 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 26 Table 4-3 Option 3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 28 Table 5-1 MCA Considerations ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 5-2 Criteria Weighting ................................................................................................................. 32 Table 5-3 MCA Scoring System ............................................................................................................ 32 Table 5-4 MCA Weighted Results ......................................................................................................... 33 Table 6-1 Business Case Opportunities ............................................................................................... 34 Table 6-2 Key Information Gaps ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 7-1 Glass estimates .................................................................................................................... 38 Table 7-2 Glass Next Steps .................................................................................................................. 40 Table 7-3 Contamination and metals estimates.................................................................................... 42 Table 7-4 Decontamination and Metals Next Steps ............................................................................. 45 Table 7-5 MRF estimates ...................................................................................................................... 46 Table 7-6 MRF Next Steps.................................................................................................................... 48 Table 7-7 Glass Implementation ........................................................................................................... 51 Table 7-8 Decontamination and Metals Implementation ...................................................................... 51 Table 7-9 MRF Implementation............................................................................................................. 51 Table 7-10 Indicative Capex ................................................................................................................. 52 Table 7-11 Indicative Opex ................................................................................................................... 52
Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model | vii
Abbreviation Definition
CDS Container Deposit Scheme
DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
EPA Environment Protection Authority
FTE Full Time Equivalent
ORIM Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model
PESTLE Political, Environmental, Social, Technological, Legal and Economic
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
VIC Victoria
1 Introduction
Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group (BSWWRRG) engaged Ricardo Energy,
Environment and Planning (Ricardo) to produce an Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model (ORIM)
and recommendations report. The project aims to support investment in waste and resource recovery
infrastructure within the Barwon South West Region.
The Barwon South West region is in the south west region of Victoria, extending from Geelong in the
east to the border with South Australia. The region includes the nine councils of:
• Borough of Queenscliffe.
1.1 Background
The waste and resource recovery industry has experienced significant change in recent years both
locally and internationally. These changes stem from China’s implementation of their ‘National Sword’
Policy in 2018 which imposed strict contamination thresholds on the importation of solid waste
materials. A significant impact of this Policy to the Barwon South West region was the collapse of
SKM, a key processor of commingled recyclables. The failure of SKM, including the Barwon South
Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model | 9
West facility in Geelong, revealed a lack of local alternatives for the processing of commingled
recyclables. Barwon South West’s options for alternative facilities were in Echuca, Albury, Bendigo,
Wangaratta, or Metropolitan Melbourne. The lack of infrastructure in the region led to the landfilling of
some commingled recyclables, damaging public perceptions of local government kerbside services,
and providing poor environmental outcomes for those materials.
SKM’s downfall highlighted weaknesses in the Victorian recycling system and lack of clarity around
the fate of recyclable materials. Specifically, the SKM situation led to a decision by BSWWRRG to
take action to build a more resilient system and gain greater control over the fate of recyclables in the
region. Increased resilience and control over material fate are key drivers to the Optimal Regional
Infrastructure Model.
Other changes influencing the development of the ORIM include:
• Introduction of the ‘Recycling Victoria, A New Economy’ Policy which seeks to reform the
Victorian recycling system and transition the economy towards a more circular approach.
Implementation of the Policy will also lead to a separate glass and food organics service for
all residents, the roll out of a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) and increased Landfill Levy
rates.
• Council of Australian Governments (COAG) bans on the export of waste plastic, paper, glass,
and tyres. The ban is driven by growing community concern over the fate of recyclable
materials and a shift of focus towards resource recovery rather than disposal.
• Infrastructure Victoria’s advice to the government regarding waste and resource recovery
infrastructure requirements. A key recommendation from the advice was to improve
infrastructure capacity and capability for recovering and reprocessing priority materials. An
Infrastructure Gap Analysis was also completed which resulted in a recommendation for
investment in approximately 87 resource recovery facilities across Victoria by 2039.
These changes to the waste industry have led to BSWWRRG’s recognition that investment in the
region’s waste and resource recovery infrastructure is needed.
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The aim of the project is to produce an optimal regional infrastructure model and recommendations to
support investment in new regional infrastructure. The scope of the ORIM is limited to kerbside
collected commingled recyclables and materials that are traditionally placed in the yellow bin. As
such, glass is included throughout the modelling despite the separation of the material from the
kerbside bins as specified by the Recycling Victoria policy. Furthermore, modelling does not include
the collection of commingled recyclables, with the scope beginning with consolidation of each
council’s material at a consolidation point such as a transfer station.
1.3 Interacting Projects
The ORIM was developed in parallel with other changes and investigations to the Victorian waste
system. How these changes and investigations interact with the ORIM project are outlined in Table
1-1 below.
Victorian Recycling
Sustainability Victoria (SV) is leading a project to update the
VRIP (formerly known as the SWRRIP). The infrastructure
recommendations made in the ORIM will be provided to this
project.
project for all local governments, including the Barwon South
West region, to deliver facilities for processing kerbside
recyclable materials. The infrastructure recommendations
made in the ORIM will be provided to this project.
Department of Environment,
As part of the kerbside reforms, the Recycling Victoria policy
outlines that the kerbside recycling system for Victoria should
include a glass and a food and garden organics service. In late
2020 all Councils were required to develop a draft transition
plan to outline their approach to implementing a glass and food
and garden organics service. DELWP is producing a state-
wide consolidated transition plan at the time of the ORIM
development. The expected timings for transition of the
Councils in the Barwon South West region have been adopted
in the ORIM modelling.
The Recycling Victoria policy commits the State to implement a
CDS in Victoria. At the time of the ORIM development, few
details had been released regarding the structure of the
scheme and the impacts it would have on the recycling system.
A discussion paper was released on the proposed design.
The ORIM model has adopted assumptions presented by
DELWP to support the Councils’ transition planning.
1.4 Methodology Summary
The methodology for the development of the ORIM followed four key steps, which included: 1. Baseline modelling: Gaining an understanding of the flow of materials within the region and
out of it, costs for the service and transport distances. 2. Stakeholder engagement and information gathering: Stakeholder engagement was a crucial
activity to ensuring that the ORIM was relevant to the existing industry and for the verification of assumptions. Stakeholders were identified and contacted to inform them of the project, with many participating in interviews as an information sharing exercise.
3. Option development: following the consolidation of information from the stakeholders and the understanding of material flows in the Barwon South West region, three options were developed. Crucial drivers that underpinned the option development were Barwon South West’s need for increased resilience and control over fate of recyclable material.
4. Option modelling: Each option was modelled separately using the same structure as the
baseline to enable simple comparison of changes.
2 Baseline Regional Infrastructure Model
A baseline model was developed to enable comparisons of the different infrastructure models. The
baseline model includes the following future changes:
• Introduction of CDS – modelled for first full year of operation in 2024
• Introduction of export bans
• Introduction of separate glass services for each council according to the expectations of when
they might transition to this new service. These plans are not yet finalised and may not be
council approved, but are assumed for modelling as shown in Figure 2-1 below.
Figure 2-1 Glass Service Implementation
2.1 Commingled Composition
Composition of the commingled recyclables was calculated from kerbside bin audit data provided by
each Council. The data was rationalised into the following material categories:
• Cardboard
Appendix A provides the breakdown of commingled materials for each council.
2.1.1 Waste Volumes
Kerbside collected waste tonnages for 2019 were provided by each council and are detailed in Table
2-1. The table shows that most of the region’s tonnages (approximately 60%) are generated in
Geelong, followed by Surf Coast (9.8%) and Warrnambool (8.1%).
Table 2-1 Recyclable Materials Tonnages
Council Commingled kerbside (t)
Commingled at RRC (t)
Total commingled recycling (t)
Queenscliffe 472
Glenelg 1,770 348 2,118
Total 44,363 1,709 46,072
The modelling includes kerbside collected material only. Commingled material at resource recovery
centres represents 3.7 % of the total commingled material in the region. While this is a minor portion
of the total material and not all councils have a RRC, these volumes may help support economies of
scale and should be included in business case considerations.
2.1.2 Container Deposit Scheme
Assumptions for the impacts of the CDS for Victoria have been adopted from the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s (DELWP’s) guidance for use in transition planning. The
estimated material diverted is shown in Table 2-2 below. Given that the ORIM scope is limited to
kerbside collected material only, material that is diverted to the CDS is excluded from the modelling.
Table 2-2 DELWP CDS Impacts
Material % Remaining Post CDS
While the DELWP assumptions are the best available for the Victorian CDS, it is important to be
aware that there will be fluctuations in the amount of material remaining in the kerbside system
following the introduction of the scheme. Behaviour change modelling has not been completed to
inform this.
A CDS typically diverts those materials that have a high resale value, such as aluminium, PET and
HDPE. Any future infrastructure business case should investigate revenue impacts of the Victorian
CDS for Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) operations and any potential partnership arrangements to
gain access to the CDS material, or as a network operator.
2.1.3 Waste projection
Waste projections are based on population projections published by Victoria In Future1(VIF) and
shown in Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-3 Victoria In Future Population Projection
LGA 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
Colac-Otway (S) 21,362 21,624 21,892 22,136 22,330
Corangamite (S) 16,243 15,808 15,439 15,166 14,892
Glenelg (S) 19,759 19,582 19,431 19,138 18,757
Greater Geelong (C) 239,529 271,254 301,563 330,720 360,245
Moyne (S) 16,737 17,206 17,800 18,404 19,026
Queenscliffe (B) 2,929 3,037 3,083 3,127 3,168
Southern Grampians (S) 16,123 16,103 15,871 15,494 15,029
Surf Coast (S) 30,465 34,831 38,922 42,789 45,438
Warrnambool (C) 34,242 35,723 37,149 38,582 39,931
The population estimates, provided by VIF at 5-year intervals, were expanded out to annual estimates
using a linear estimate function. Growth rates were then calculated for each council across each year
and applied to the waste tonnages.
Figure 2-2 Commingled Recycling Projection
1 https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/vif2019-population-households-dwellings-vifsa-lga-2036
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Surf Coast Colac Otway Queenscliffe
Corangamite Moyne Warrnambool
Figure 2-2 above shows the waste projection for each Council. The decline in material tonnage in
2024 is attributed to the implementation of the CDS which will divert material out of the kerbside
system. Please note that Geelong’s projection is presented on a different axis.
2.2 Costs
Current costs for the commingled kerbside service were provided by each Council. While collection is
excluded from the ORIM modelling, it has been included in the costs modelling. Each Council’s
recycling service is built upon a different pricing structure, with some not able to separate out bin lift,
transport, and processing into individual rates. Therefore, a total rate was calculated for each council
for the collection, transport, and processing of every tonne of commingled recycling. Costs are
escalated at 1.5% CPI over the model period and are confidential but ranged between $200 and $560
per tonne.
2.2.1 Landfill Disposal Costs
Costs for the landfilling of contamination were separated out from the commingled processing costs
due to the forecasted increases in the EPA Landfill Levy. These levy rates are published on the EPA
website2 and increase until 2023. From 2024 onwards the levy is escalated at a rate of 3%.
The landfill levies are shown in Figure 2-3.
Gate fees are also charged by the landfill operator. Indicative gate fees were selected to represent
rural and metro landfills. These fees were:
• Rural gate fee: Naroghid $142.10 (including levy)
• Metro gate fee: Wyndham $160.00 (including levy)
Gate fee rates are escalated annually at an assumed 3% and are shown in Figure 2-4.
The graph also shows a ‘split’ rate for the levy and gate fee. This rate is used in the models for the
portion of material captured in manual picking of contamination which is then sent to a rural landfill for
disposal. The split rate and subsequent use of rural landfill charges applies for all Councils except
Geelong, Surf Coast and Queenscliffe as these three councils have closer proximity to metro landfills.
2 https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/for-business/find-a-topic/landfill-guidance/landfill-and-prescribed-waste-levies#landfill-levy-rates
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Surf Coast Colac Otway Queenscliffe
An assumption was developed to model in the amount of contamination that could be expected to be
captured through the manual picking of contamination at a transfer station prior to bulk-hauling the
material. In accordance with information provided by stakeholders, the model assumes 50% of
contamination that is present in the kerbside collected material (for example, bagged material, glass
and organics) is captured, along with 5% of other recyclable materials that are unintentionally
removed while capturing contamination. Under the ‘split’ rate, the captured contamination (and the
“good recyclables” also removed during this process) is disposed of at a rural landfill, and the
remainder of the material (including the remaining contamination) continues to the MRF and is
separated and disposed of at a metro landfill. The ‘split’ rate consolidates the different fates of the
materials as described above into one number for the cost calculations.
All councils currently pay a metro gate fee for the disposal of contamination in the recycling stream in
the baseline scenario, as contamination is only sorted and removed at a MRF located in Metropolitan
Melbourne.
Figure 2-4 Landfill Gate Fee Increases Per Tonne
Note: while the landfill gate fee is greater than the metro fee as shown in Figure 2-4, the total rate
including levy is lower for a rural landfill.
2.2.2 MRF Gate Fees
Gate fees for MRFs used in the base case modelling were sourced from Councils and are
confidential. MRF gate fees are typically charged per tonne and influenced by the quality of the
material. These fees vary substantially across different facilities.
2.3 Current Facilities
Current facilities utilised by the councils are detailed in Table 2-4 below. The two main facilities are
operated by Cleanaway in Laverton North, and Visy Recycling in Heidelberg. It is understood that
while these two are the main facilities used for Barwon South West recyclables, Cleanaway may send
material to their Coolaroo site, and Visy to their Springvale site. These decisions are typically made
because of fluctuations in feedstock at the MRFs.
Australian Paper Recovery (APR) accepts material that has minimal glass content, typically only
accepting council sourced material where a separate glass service has been implemented. Moyne
Shire is the only council to have implemented a glass service for the whole municipality and are the
only Council sending material to APR at the time of ORIM modelling.
Table 2-4 Current Facilities
Geelong Cleanaway Recycling Geelong Cleanaway Recycling Laverton North
Surf Coast Cleanaway Recycling Geelong Cleanaway Recycling Laverton North
Colac Otway Alvie Transfer Station (operated by Wheelie Waste)
Visy Recycling MRF (Heidelberg)
Corangamite Corangamite (Naroghid) Regional Resource Recovery
Visy Recycling MRF (Heidelberg)
Southern Grampians
Glenelg Portland Landfill and Transfer Station Cleanaway Recycling Laverton North
* Moyne processing location of APR accurate at time of modelling. Facility changed to Cleanaway
prior to finalisation of the report.
2.3.1 Capacities
Discussions were had with each of the recovery facilities regarding their capacities and capability to
process increased materials in the future. All three facilities described that capacity is not a fixed
number. The facilities can augment operations and shift timing to address fluctuations in material
throughput. Indicatively, the current operating throughputs of each facility are:
• Cleanaway Recycling Laverton North – 110,000 tpa
• Visy Recycling MRF (Heidelberg) – 100,000 tpa
• Australian Paper Recovery (Truganina) – 20,000 tpa of Council sourced material (additional
C&I throughput also managed)
2.4 Emissions
Emissions were calculated across two stages of the recycling process:
1. Transport from the transfer station to recovery facility
2. Transport from recovery facility to reprocessing facility
Table 2-4 above shows the transfer station adopted for each Council. The transfer stations are
locations where the commingled recyclables are consolidated prior to bulk haul to the MRF. Some
councils do not have a transfer station within their boundaries or utilise a facility in a neighbouring
council area due to proximity.
The emissions calculations were limited to Scope 1 Greenhouse Gas emissions and calculated
according to the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2019, Department of the
Environment and Energy.
Emissions generated from the kerbside collection of the recycling and MRF processing emissions
have not been included in the modelling. Collection emissions have not been considered because
collection routes can vary across weeks and between drivers, and collection is excluded from the
scope of the ORIM. MRF processing emissions can vary according to the level of technology and age
of the machinery, and there is limited data on metrics for these different aspects. In addition, all
material must be processed at a MRF and material quantities are not changing substantially.
Therefore, it is difficult to calculate emissions changes across scenarios and if a common emissions
assumption was adopted it would not change across scenarios.
2.4.1 Transfer Station to Recovery Facility
Calculating emissions for transport of materials from the transfer station to the recovery facility (MRF)
was based on the assumptions presented in Table 2-5 below.
Table 2-5 Distance from Transfer Station to Recovery Facility Assumptions
Item Detail Source
National Greenhouse Accounts Factors.
National Greenhouse Accounts Factors.
to 0.2776 l/km
Capacity of
recovery
https://www.google.com/maps/@-
2.4.2 Recovery to Reprocessing
Calculating emissions for transport of materials from the MRF to the reprocessing facility was based
on the assumptions presented in the tables below. Table 2-6 shows the assumptions built into the
calculations for materials that are transported for local reprocessing, and Table 2-7 shows the
assumptions for materials that are exported for reprocessing. Local reprocessing is assumed to be
within 50km of the MRF location (i.e. within Victoria) and the export of material for reprocessing is
assumed to be shipped to Asia.
Table 2-6 Local Reprocessing Assumptions
Item Detail Source
to 0.2776 l/km
Item Detail Source
type 39.7 GJ/kL
Energy. (2019). National Greenhouse
CO2: 73.6
CH4: 0.07
N2O: 0.6
Energy. (2019). National Greenhouse
Cruising speed of container
surcharge practices of container shipping
lines: Is it about cost recovery or revenue-
making
Fuel consumption (tonnes) 229 tonnes/day for 6,500
TEU
surcharge practices of container shipping
lines: Is it about cost recovery or revenue-
making
L / fuel oil / tonne 15.72802198 L/tonne/export trip
Calculation
The split of materials that are transported for local reprocessing and exported overseas is presented
in Appendix B. The breakdown of the splits was determined through stakeholder interviews and the
COAG waste export bans. The COAG waste export bans include banning:
• Export of unprocessed glass 2020,
• Export of mixed plastics in 2021,
• Export of single polymer unprocessed plastics in 2022, and
• Export of mixed paper in 2024.
These have been highlighted in the table in Appendix B.
Emissions are also generated during the reprocessing phase of resource recovery. Much of the
sorted recycling is exported overseas where unknown processing activities take place. Given the lack
of detail for this phase of the recycling process, emissions have not been calculated for this stage.
3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229050596_Fuel_surcharge_practices_of_container_shipping_lines_Is_it_about_cost_recovery_or_rev
enue-making
2.5 Jobs
The jobs calculation is split into jobs for transfer of materials and processing of materials. These
assumptions are shown in Table 2-8 below. Processing jobs include employment at MRF operations
and do not extend to the reprocessing phase. Similar to the emissions calculations above, there is a
lack of metrics available for the calculation of overseas reprocessing jobs per tonne of material and
they have therefore been excluded. Following implementation of the export bans however, an
increase in local reprocessing jobs is anticipated.
Table 2-8 Jobs Assumptions
Access Economics Pty Limited. (2009). Employment in Waste
Management and Recycling. The Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage, and the Arts.
Transfer jobs 1 job per 10,000 tonnes4
2.6 Baseline Modelling Results
2.6.1 Costs
Total costs are shown in Figure 2-5 below, and include bin lifts, transport, gate fees and levies.
Please note that Geelong’s projection is presented on a different axis. Geelong has the highest cost
compared to the other Barwon South West Councils due to the higher volume of material generated
there. A cost decrease can be seen on the figure in 2024 with the first full year’s implementation of the
CDS included in the model there.
Figure 2-5 Baseline Costs
2.6.2 Emissions
Total emissions are shown in Figure 2-6 below. Please note that Geelong’s projection is presented
on a different axis.
Emissions drop substantially when the ban on export of mixed paper bales is implemented, as it is
assumed that local markets are available to process the material, along with an investment in
processing infrastructure to separate different types of fibre that can then be reprocessed in Australia.
This means that the paper does not incur emissions from export at a distance of 10,000km and is
reprocessed locally with an average 50km transport distance.
Figure 2-6 Baseline Emissions
2.6.3 Jobs
Jobs are shown in Table 2-9. Please note that the table excludes reprocessing jobs.
Table 2-9 Baseline Jobs at 2-Year Intervals
Job Type and Location
2 0 1 9
2 0 2 1
2 0 2 3
2 0 2 5
2 0 2 7
2 0 2 9
2 0 3 1
2 0 3 3
2 0 3 5
2 0 3 7
2 0 3 9
BSW Processing Jobs - - - - - - - - - - -
VIC Processing Jobs 41 42 44 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 50
BSW Transfer Jobs 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
VIC Transfer Jobs - - - - - - - - - - -
3 Optimisation
3.1 Key Objectives
Key objectives behind the development of the optimal model were the need to increase resilience in
the existing system and the region’s control over the fate of materials. Resilience in the system
translates to either:
• A greater spread of processing facilities used by the region’s councils, not relying on a single
provider; or
• A MRF that can produce high quality outputs that have local demand, but also meet the
requirements of the COAG waste export bans, leading to options being available for local
reprocessing or export as required.
Control can be incorporated through the procurement process for the new infrastructure and should
be considered further at the business case stage. While the optimal model represents the best
operational system for the region, it does not yet consider how to transition to that system.
3.2 Stakeholder Engagement
Engaging with the stakeholders identified for the project was a crucial task to ensure that the ORIM is
appropriate and relevant to the region. The following stakeholders were included for consultation in an
interview format:
Council
The key points of information gathered through the stakeholder engagement include:
• Removal of contamination would be beneficial for MRF operations, create a more desirable
feedstock and support local jobs.
• The proposed Ballarat and Mt Gambier facilities are seeking additional feedstock to support
economies of scale.
• Separation of glass is beneficial for MRF operations.
• The use of glass in local construction projects such as road base is becoming more
widespread and accepted in the industry.
• Economies of scale are crucial to enable investment into the right technology.
Summaries of the information gathered have been provided confidentially and separately to
BSWWRRG.
3.3 Infrastructure Limitations
The development of the options was also guided by infrastructure limitations. Typically, for most types
of waste infrastructure there are thresholds for the quality or quantity of feedstock that need to be met.
Table 3-1 below outlines the limitations which guided the options.
Table 3-1 Infrastructure Limitations
Glass processing
Glass crushing can be managed at a small scale, regional level
and generally doesn’t have a minimum volume threshold.
Introduction of the CDS will provide a source of low-
contamination glass which is desirable for food grade glass
manufacture. It is not recommended that a MRF seek to
compete in providing colour separated glass.
Fibre - Pulp Mill Requires large economies of scale which Barwon South West do
not have.
threshold for a MRF is approximately 20,000 tonnes per annum.
Removal of glass from the feedstock can improve the
maintenance requirements and longevity of the plant.
Contamination through bagged material and non-recyclable
material is a major issue for MRFs.
Local processing of mixed bales
Baling of material into a mixed bale presents small scale
opportunities which can lead to transport efficiencies.
Removal of glass is a good outcome for mixed baled material as
it reduces the potential for fibre contamination by glass fines.
LDPE/HDPE plastic
Requires large economies of scale which Barwon South West do
not have.
Plastics Recycling Facility Minimum threshold for a facility that processes MRF recovered
mixed plastics is between 20,000 – 30,000 tonnes per annum.
Soft plastics processing
There is limited opportunity to include soft plastics processing at
MRFs because this material emulates paper in current
technology which means it typically contaminated the fibre
output.
Metals
Ferrous metals are relatively simple to extract from a feedstock
through a magnet and don’t require minimum thresholds.
Overseas markets for metals, including nonferrous metals such
as aluminium, are stable.
4 Models
The purpose of the ORIM project is to provide support for new regional infrastructure with an
underlying driver to build a more resilient system. The following options were developed following
extensive stakeholder engagement and focus on varying levels of infrastructure. The options include:
• Option 1: Local Processing – maximise local processing opportunities for metals, glass, and
contamination diversion
• Option 2: Regional Connections – utilise facilities that are progressed or have had a business
case / feasibility completed with proximity to the region
• Option 3: Single regional facility – development of a new facility to service the whole Barwon
South West region
Figure 4-1 below shows the infrastructure included in the options development and baseline model.
Figure 4-1 Options Infrastructure
4.1 Option 1: Local Processing
Option 1 is oriented to maximise local processing opportunities. The market for recycled materials in
the Barwon South West region is currently limited, however stakeholder feedback has revealed that
there are small scale regional processing opportunities which can be achieved. Appropriate
processing opportunities include:
• Glass processing: Consolidation of glass at the existing transfer location, crushing and local
use as construction material or aggregate
• Separation of ferrous metals: Magnet separation of ferrous metals for resale to a local
consolidator as an additional income stream.
• Manual pre-sort of contaminants: Primary removal of contaminants at existing transfer
location and transport to rural landfill for disposal
Option 1 assumes that the Barwon South West region cannot reach the economies of scale required
to develop a higher level of infrastructure that serves the region and seeks to integrate with the
existing MRFs and recycling system in place.
Table 4-1 Option 1 Assumptions
Item Detail / Comment
Percent of contamination captured through pre-
sort 50%
contamination pre-sort 5%
Council Landfill Rate
represent local uptake of the material.
Jobs
and contamination sorting are located within
BSW region
Existing transfer stations are
activities.
been considered at this stage, however
commentary regarding the likely costs is
provided in Section 7.6.2.
Fate of materials See Appendix C, as per base case.
4.2 Option 2: Regional Connections
Option 2 leverages off facilities that are progressed or have had a business case / feasibility
completed with proximity to the region. These facilities are:
• Ballarat MRF: City of Ballarat have completed a business case and is progressing the project
into a development phase.
• Mt Gambier MRF: An investigation has been completed into the viability of establishing a
MRF in the Limestone Coast region. For the purposes of this Option, Warrnambool may be an
alternative location subject to further investigation. Construction of a pre-sort and glass
crushing facility is currently underway in Warrnambool following a successful funding
application to Sustainability Victoria. This site should be monitored for capacity and viability as
a regional option.
• Cleanaway, Victoria Commingled Resource Recovery (VCRR) South Geelong: the site is
currently operated as a transfer station. Cleanaway is investigating the requirements and
costs of upgrading the facility to appropriate safety and capability standards, with the aim of
developing sorting and local end markets to the region. There are also alternative MRF
development options in Geelong which may be considered.
Option 2 also incorporates the local reprocessing opportunities modelled in Option 1.
recovery facility
Moyne 174
Warrnambool 174
Fate of materials
See Appendix C
There is a higher proportion of local uptake compared to the
baseline. Ballarat MRF and Mt Gambier both driven to
support local economy.
Geelong MRF assumed to have the same fate of materials as
baseline for the existing Cleanaway South Geelong facility.
MRF gate fees
Gate fees for Mt Gambier and Ballarat MRFs were sourced
from various reports and are confidential. The Geelong gate
fee has been adopted from the current rate charged to BSW
councils and is also confidential.
Estimated facility tonnages (2019)
Mt Gambier 2,187 (8% of total)
Ballarat 5,141 (18% of total)
4.3 Option 3: Single Regional Facility
Option 3 involves all kerbside commingled recyclables processed at one facility in the region. Due to
the proportion of waste generated by Geelong and its proximity to existing reprocessing markets in
Melbourne, Geelong has been selected as an indicative location for the facility.
Option 3 also incorporates the local reprocessing opportunities modelled in Option 1.
Glenelg 293
MRF gate fee Gate fees were sourced from various reports and are confidential.
Fate of materials
See Appendix D.
Higher proportion of local uptake compared to the baseline. The
development of the new MRF would give the region greater control over
the fate of materials and capability to support local reprocessing activities.
The average transport distance to enable local uptake of materials was
estimated at 250km to reflect the likely need for material to be transported
to locations across Victoria in order to access reprocessing capacity and
support 100% local uptake for all materials (except metals).
4.4 Comparison of Results
Comparison of results is shown in the sections below for one year of operation, 2039.
4.4.1 Costs
Comparison of costs across the three options are shown in Figure 4-2 below. Option 1 shows the
greatest cost reduction compared to the baseline. This is due to the avoidance of transportation costs
for glass and captured contamination and the lower gate fee charged for the disposal of captured
contamination at a rural landfill compared to a metro landfill.
Option 2 also shows a cost reduction from the baseline, but this is not as great as for Option 1. This is
because the gate fees assumed to be charged at the new MRFs in Ballarat and Mt Gambier are
higher than the base case MRF gate fees.
Option 3 shows a cost increase of 2%. This is attributed to the changes to processing costs, despite a
reduction in transport costs. The adopted gate fee for the facility is higher than the base case
assumptions for all councils.
It is important to note that these costs comparisons are operating costs for council, including gate fee,
levies, and transport. The capital costs for developing new infrastructure have not been considered at
this stage, however these costs may be accounted for in the gate fees included in the model.
Figure 4-2 Cost Comparison
4.4.2 Emissions
Comparison of emissions against the base case are shown in Figure 4-3 below. Option 3 shows the
greatest reduction in emissions because the material pathways have been modelled to be majority
local uptake, except for export of metals. By increasing the amount of local uptake, assumed to be on
average 250km from the MRF, there is a significant reduction in transport distance as exported
material is modelled to be transported to Asia, approximately 10,000km. Options 1 and 2 also show a
reduction in emissions due to the transport avoidance of glass and captured contamination.
Figure 4-3 Emissions Comparison
4.4.3 Jobs
A comparison of jobs is presented in Figure 4-4 below. While Option 3 shows all jobs, both transfer
and processing, to be within the Barwon South West region, it is important to note that Geelong’s
proximity to other regions may result in staff being employed from outside the region. The same
limitation is applied to the Geelong facility in Option 2.
BSW processing jobs for Option 1 are a result of the glass, metals and contamination activities
occurring at the transfer points within the region.
The total number of jobs across the three options remains the same because the number of jobs is
calculated from the volume of material. Given the volume of material is consistent across the options,
the location of the jobs has also been included to highlight the opportunity for local employment.
Increased recycling typically generates greater employment opportunities when compared to
landfilling of waste. The industry adopted metric for jobs in the waste and resource recovery industry
in 9.2 FTE for every 10,000 tonnes of material recycled, compared to 2.8 FTE for the same amount of
material landfilled (Access Economics, 2009). It is therefore beneficial for the BSW region to
encourage greater recycling to support job creation.
Figure 4-4 Jobs Comparison
5 Multi Criteria Assessments
A multi criteria assessment (MCA) is a decision-making tool used to help compare different options where some impacts are not easily translated into monetary terms. The MCA tool used for the ORIM assessed the three options through political, environmental, social, technological, legal, and economic (PESTLE) lenses. The criteria considerations are shown in Table 5-1 below. Table 5-1 MCA Considerations
Area Criteria Consideration
Existing objectives / policies
How well does this option align with current policies / objectives?
Control of material fate To what degree does the Option give the region greater control on the fate of its recyclables?
Environmental
Emissions To what degree does the option reduce emissions?
Circular economy How well does the option support the recovery and reuse of Barwon South West's commingled recyclables?
Social
Community engagement How will the region's community view the option?
Employment To what degree does the option support local employment?
Technological
Quality How well does the option improve the quality of processed recycled materials?
Resilience How well does the option respond to changes in feedstock (composition and volume)?
Legal Legislations, regulations, and policies
How well does the option align with current and impending legislative framework?
Economic
Operational costs To what degree does the option impact costs for the region?
Resilience How well does the option future proof the region to changes in the waste industry?
A weighting process was conducted as part of a workshop to tailor the assessment to the project and regional perspective. The weightings, 1, 2 or 3 with 3 being the highest importance/priority to the project, were discussed as a group for each criterion. The weightings that were determined are shown in Table 5-2 below.
Table 5-2 Criteria Weighting
Emissions 3
Operational costs 3
Economic Resilience 3
Following a description of each option and how it related to each criterion, a simple scoring task was completed by each member of the PCG. The rating system is described in Table 5-3 below. Table 5-3 MCA Scoring System
Scoring Description
-2 Worse than base case
-1 Slightly worse than base case
0 No change from base case
1 Slightly better than base case
2 Better than base case
3 Significantly better than base case
5.1 MCA Results
Scoring from each PCG member were consolidated into an average result for each criterion and the
weighting applied to give a total weighted result. Table 5-4 below shows the results. Option 2 is the
preferred model for the region with the highest overall score of 53, followed by Option 1 (45.8) and
then Option 3 (40.0).
Table 5-4 MCA Weighted Results
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Governance arrangements 1.4 2.0 1.2
Existing objectives / policies 1.2 3.6 3.2
Control of material fate 3.6 4.2 6.0
Emissions 3.0 3.0 6.0
Employment 3.6 4.0 3.6
Quality 5.4 5.4 6.6
Legislations, regulations, and policies 0.6 0.8 1.0
Operational costs 9.0 9.0 -3.0
Economic Resilience 4.8 7.8 4.2
Total weighted result 45.8 53.0 40.0
Option 2 was chosen as the optimal solution, with its high scoring due to its economic resilience,
providing a robust system of infrastructure as well as positive circular economy outcomes,
consistency with existing objectives and policies and good employment outcomes while also
maintaining low operational costs.
Option 1 scored well on operational costs and returned average scores for most other areas. Option 3
scored negatively on operational costs due to the modelled results of increased costs for this option
which, as a weighted result, has had the greatest impact on its overall score. Option 1 and 2
presented cost savings in the modelling and therefore had positive MCA scoring. Option 3 had the
highest results for emissions due to the greater local uptake, and quality because of the higher level
of control over the material processing. Option 3 also had the lowest score for circular economy
outcomes due to the reliance on a single MRF processor which was not seen to be the best approach
to fostering local remanufacturing and circular outcomes for the recyclables.
6 Optimal Model
Outcomes from the modelling and MCA process show that the Optimal Regional Infrastructure Model
is Option 2. Option 2 supports regional connections and the development of facilities in proximity to
the Barwon South West Region that have already completed some level of feasibility and includes
facilities in Mt Gambier, Ballarat, and Geelong. Option 2 also includes local reprocessing opportunities
in the removal of contamination and ferrous metals from the recyclables stream and local uptake of
separated, crushed glass.
6.1 Opportunities
Key opportunities which have been identified through the ORIM process, and which should be
addressed in the business case development phase of implementing this optimal system are outlined
in Table 6-1 below.
Opportunity Detail
eastern Councils
Option 2 includes a facility for the processing of Geelong, Surf Coast
and Queenscliffe’s recyclables. Stakeholder feedback showed that
existing opportunities are present in the Geelong locality: Cleanaway
are currently investigating their MRF in South Geelong to determine
the level of investment required to upgrade it to appropriate safety and
capability standards. There are also alternative MRF development
options in Geelong which may be considered.
The business case should confirm the functional needs of the Geelong
MRF and allow the market to verify the appropriate location. For
example, the market may indicate that a MRF collocated or close to a
landfill near Geelong will provide transport efficiencies for
contamination disposal and back hauling of MRF outputs to local
markets.
It is noted that further funding for the development of regional MRFs
has recently been announced. This $41M commitment could support
the development or upgrading of new or existing facilities.
Contamination
reducing contamination in feedstock. The key types of contamination
that should be minimised are bagged recyclables and soft plastics.
Minimising contamination may provide an opportunity to reduce gate
fees at MRFs and can support the processing of higher quality recycled
material.
Material Source Options
The scope of the ORIM was limited to kerbside collected recycled
materials. Stakeholder engagement revealed that the C&I sector
typically produces higher quality recyclables than residential sources
and this could improve the economy of scale in future infrastructure.
Similarly, resource recovery centres operating in the region capture
various forms of recyclables which may support the development of
new infrastructure.
Wheelie Waste operations
in Warrnambool
Warrnambool is an important hub for Councils in the western and
central areas of the BSW region. Wheelie Waste, located in
Warrnambool, intends to implement decontamination activities to clean
the collected mixed recyclable material prior to baling it for transport to
Visy in Melbourne. Wheelie Waste may implement additional sorting
and baling of individual products at a later stage.
Wheelie Waste’s new operations are currently under construction and
present an opportunity to align the outcomes of the ORIM with existing
private industry activity. The second stage of Wheelie Waste’s
operations, which would see them expand towards a MRF operation,
may also present an alternative to the Mt Gambier MRF for councils in
the west of the region. should this facility take too long to develop, fail
to reach operational stages, or prove more feasible for those councils.
Funding
There are funding opportunities to support councils’ delivery of the
ORIM recommendations. Sustainability Victoria have a 4-year funding
program through the ‘Recycling Victoria Councils Fund’ which supports
councils to reduce waste and transition towards a circular economy.
Funding of up to $500,000 is available through this avenue.
In addition DELWP is expected to launch a program of funding shortly
for regional Transfer Station Upgrades as part of the Recycling Victoria
kerbside reforms.
6.2 Key Information Gaps
Key information gaps which present a limitation to the ORIM are outlined in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Key Information Gaps
Information Gap Comment
CDS assumptions included in the ORIM model are sourced from
DELWP. More detail is required to reflect behaviour change over time.
For example, patronage of the CDS may begin strong and taper off over
time.
This modelling is dependent on the education program/s rolled out for
the scheme and their duration, location of facilities and governance
structure.
facilities
The gate fee for the proposed Mt Gambier facility is an early estimate
that will need to be confirmed as the project progresses.
7 Implementation
The optimal infrastructure model described above (the ORIM) is a theoretical best case set of
infrastructure for the region as a whole. It is likely that in progressing to the implementation of the
ORIM that the business case phase will identify circumstances where only some of the modelled
infrastructure is cost effective. For example, implementing local processing of material such as
contamination, where a key aim is to reduce the cost of transporting material from rural areas of the
Barwon South West region, may not be viable in areas closer to metropolitan Melbourne.
This section provides preliminary business case information to assist BSWWRRG or its successor
body in progressing the implementation of the ORIM, including a recommendation of the next pieces
of work required to identify the appropriate infrastructure for each council.
7.1 Summary Recommendations
It is recommended that:
- Option 2 be adopted as the optimal system design for the Barwon South West Region.
- Further investigations be undertaken to identify the path to implement this optimal system.
- The Barwon South West Region enable “Hubs” or resource recovery precincts as identified in
the Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan (SWRRIP) to promote
remanufacturing of processed materials; and
- Further investigations be undertaken to confirm, and take action to improve, the size of
markets for recovered materials.
7.2 Glass
7.2.1 Market
Sustainability Victoria have examined the Victorian glass market in the release of their Market
Bulletins. Recent insights in edition 15 of the bulletin revealed that the demand for collected glass
material as a sand substitute is high in Victoria and currently competing well on price and quality with
virgin sand. There has been a rising demand for the use of recycled glass products in the construction
industry, with the Victorian government using the material in some major projects such as freeway
upgrades and level crossing removals.
Some councils in Victoria have already implemented a separate bin system for residential glass,
including Hobsons Bay, Macedon Ranges, City of Yarra and three within Barwon South West: Moyne,
Warrnambool and most recently Surf Coast council. All these existing glass services funnel recycled
glass into the construction industry. Primary uses of glass in this industry include as road base
material, an additive into asphalt, replacement of sand, pipe bedding and as an abrasive. While these
uses are beneficial and replace the need for virgin resources, they are considered as ‘downcycling’
the material. It is noted that Yarra City Council intend to transition away from construction and close
the loop back into new glass packaging when the opportunity is available.
The introduction of a CDS in Victoria will likely create a new stream of glass that is of a higher quality
than the kerbside collected material. Evidence from existing CDS systems in other jurisdictions has
shown that glass returned through the CDS is significantly cleaner compared to kerbside material and
is therefore in higher demand.
Visy, who now own Victoria’s only glass bottle reprocessing plant, have released media statements
indicating that an increased volume of glass may be required. Currently, recycled glass containers are
manufactured with approximately 30% recycled content. Visy have stated their intention to increase to
70% recycled content, however this is likely to be serviced by increased supply of local and high
quality glass material.
The export market for glass packaging to be recycled is not high due to its low value and relatively
high weight which impacts on shipping costs. Similarly, it can be prohibitive to transport glass material
long distances from rural areas to metropolitan Melbourne where the glass manufacture is located.
The reduced costs of local reprocessing of glass (due to lower transport distances) has been included
in the modelling and contributes to the cost saving of Option 2 compared to the base case.
Furthermore, since councils are responsible for local roads and other capital projects, there is a
potential market for the glass product in these local construction activities.
The upcoming implementation of the CDS which may reduce demand for kerbside glass into
packaging manufacturing, and the high cost of transporting glass indicates that use in local
construction is the highest viable use for kerbside glass in the Barwon South West Region.
7.2.2 Processing
The suggested glass processing operations for the ORIM are outlined as follows:
1. Glass is delivered to site by kerbside collection vehicles (where kerbside collections are included in council transition plans) or other vehicles (where drop off facilities are implemented).
2. Glass is emptied onto a temporary storage area. 3. An excavator loads the glass into a crusher. 4. Glass is crushed to meet the specification of the contracted construction purpose (i.e. road
base or pipe bedding). 5. The material is put through a washing process to remove contaminants. 6. Processed glass is either temporarily stockpiled prior to use or transported to end user. 7. Processing losses and contaminating materials loaded into truck for disposal to landfill.
Figure 7-1 below provides a summary of the process.
Figure 7-1 Glass process
The 2018 kerbside bin audit showed that the commingled recyclable stream for the Barwon South
West Councils is comprised of 31% (average) glass. The quantities of glass estimated for each
Council are shown in Table 7-1 below. It should be noted that the implementation of CDS will impact
these numbers. DELWP estimate that 28% of total glass would be diverted as eligible glass
containers. In conjunction, non-eligible glass containers may be diverted from the residual kerbside
bins where they are presently incorrectly disposed of. The residual kerbside stream is not included in
the scope for the ORIM and an accurate estimation of the final impact of these changes cannot be
completed.
Table 7-1 Glass estimates
Geelong 5,167 19%
Total 10,813 31% (avg)
7.2.3 Siting and Planning
Glass reprocessing is a complementary activity to existing functions such as transfer stations and
waste consolidation. It is therefore recommended that the glass activities be accommodated at
existing sites such as transfer stations. Further investigation into the available space at existing waste
facilities is required.
Glass activities such as consolidation and crushing will generate noise. Noise is currently regulated by
EPA guidelines including the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce,
Industry and Trade) and ‘Noise from industry in regional Victoria: Recommended maximum noise
levels from commerce, industry and trade premises in regional Victoria’. The glass activities will need
to comply with EPA guidelines. It is important to note that the guidelines will change as of 1 July 2021,
removing the SEPPs and introducing a new Environmental Reference Standard that is currently in
final draft format.
It is recommended that appropriate buffers are in place from sensitive receptors such as residential
areas, prior to establishment of the glass activities. All planning schemes include a minimum
threshold distance between resource recovery centres and residential or sensitive uses which may be
extended to the glass activities. Industrial 1 Zoning requires materials recycling to be at least 30
metres from land such as an Activity Centre, residential zone, hospital, and other sensitive uses. The
EPA recommended separation distance for manufacturing glass or glass products, which recycled
glass aggregates may be considered, is 500m. Alternatively, MRF separation distances are
determined on a case by case basis. Engagement with the EPA will be required to confirm any
necessary separation distances or new requirements as a result of the implementation of the
Environment Protection Act (2017) in July 2021. Additional environmental requirements include
appropriate management of stormwater and leachate runoff.
Stockpile fires at MRF facilities in Melbourne have resulted in guidance on the management of glass
reprocessing activities. The EPA recommends that glass reprocessors develop and implement a
management plan to ensure that excessive amounts of glass do not accumulate on site. Large
stockpiles present health and environmental hazards and should be minimised. While this risk is
unlikely for the quantities of glass generated in the Barwon South West region, a robust end market
agreement for the use of the crushed glass will help reduce any backlog of material that is stockpiled.
7.2.4 Opportunities and Barriers
One of the main barriers to improving and implementing resource recovery in regional areas is the
large transport distances from the waste generator to the processor. The cost of transportation is
often prohibitive to resource recovery. Glass is increasingly being demonstrated as fit for purpose in
use as construction materials, including as an aggregate, pipe bedding and road construction.
Construction activities occur in regional areas, as well as metropolitan, which indicates that there is
potential for local uptake of the glass material in regional construction activities. Stakeholder feedback
has indicated that this is already occurring and that there is demand for more glass material in the
Warrnambool area especially.
Trials for use of recycled glass products in concrete is a developing opportunity. While use of glass in
specific functions such as road base or pipe bedding has been a proven use, concrete is a key
construction material in both residential and commercial projects, which presents an opportunity at a
larger scale. The recycled glass can replace sand, which is often virgin sourced, thereby increasing
the recycled content and reducing the need for virgin materials.
Stakeholder feedback has also revealed that a key barrier in the use of recycled glass in new
applications is meeting construction specifications. The rigorous testing required to determine if the
use of glass is fit for purpose can increase the costs beyond the cost of using virgin materials. Testing
can also be time consuming. These barriers are likely to reduce once the use of recycled glass in
construction is more prevalent and proven, however in the short term using recycled glass in new
applications may require economic assistance to be financially competitive.
7.2.5 Procurement
It is important to note that the procurement of glass processing services needs to align with the
Barwon South West Councils’ individual transition plans which will significantly influence the delivery
of the glass activities. Figure 7-2 below demonstrates the impact of different timings for the adoption
of a glass service and the cumulative tonnages across the period. The assumed timing of Geelong’s
service in 2026 more than doubles the amount of glass available in the region.
Figure 7-2 Cumulative Glass Tonnage
The quantities of glass in the Barwon South West region equate to approximately 10,800 tonnes by
2027. The quantity of glass from the Barwon South West Councils would be more attractive to private
industry if offered as a single processing contract or several joint contracts.
The lower tonnages of glass collected across the west of the region, particularly prior to 2026, may
favour the establishment of a mobile glass crushing system. In this case, the consolidation points
could remain, while a mobile system could move between the points to process the material, ready for
local uptake. This solution could also function by consolidating the smaller volumes of glass at a
single regional location such as Warrnambool prior to 2026. This solution would enable processing of
the material prior to achieving an economy of scale where a more permanent solution could be
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Cumulative Glass Tonnage
established. An alternative approach to the use of a mobile crusher is to make use of existing crusher
infrastructure in Warrnambool and Geelong. A feasibility should be conducted to compare the options
of bulk hauling the glass to existing facilities or the use of a mobile crusher.
Given the established nature of glass processing activities in the resource recovery industry, with
operators already in Geelong and Warrnambool, outsourcing is recommended for either the mobile
plant and or bulk haul approaches. Contracting out the service has the advantages of supporting local
businesses and driving improvements through a KPI driven contract structure (e.g. to minimise
stockpiles, all glass must be processed and sold within a specified number of weeks).
7.2.6 Specification
The glass processing specification for the Barwon South West region should meet the requirements
of the construction industry, as it is unlikely that demand for kerbside glass into bottle remanufacture
will increase enough into the foreseeable future, especially with the implementation of CDS. Given
that use in road construction is a main source of demand for recycled glass products, the BSW
councils should require specification to meet Vic Roads glass requirements as follows:
• consist of a uniformly graded product with a maximum particle size of 5 mm.
• be generally free of contaminants such as paper, corks, metals, and other harmful materials with a maximum limit of 2% contamination by mass.
• Consist primarily of container glass and shall not include glass from ceramics, cathode ray tubes, fluorescent light fittings and laboratory glassware.
• comply with the grading limits specified in Table 7-3 below for manufactured sand; and
• be cubical in shape, not sharp edged or elongated.
Sieve Size
AS (mm)
Crusher Fines
Figure 7-3 VicRoads Glass Spec (Section 407, Table 407.032)
It is noted that some glass is currently being reused into concrete prod

optimal regional infrastructure model

Documents