You are on page 1of 471

Appendix C

Page 1 of 470

LIMITATIONS
The preparation of the Waste Assessment has relied on information from multiple sources, including SWAP Analysis from the legacy councils, the Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents, and annual reports. The accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time and the degree of disclosure from the Waste Industry. It is not possible to calculate, with any degree of precision, up-to-date tonnage and composition of waste being disposed to landfill in the Auckland region without mandatory industry disclosure. Information has also been sought from landfill and refuse transfer station operators, who have no obligation to supply the requested information. In some instances information has been voluntarily provided, however on others the requests have been declined to supply information for this purpose. Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the time of drafting of the waste assessment. The proposed way forward, a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of data, will mitigate the potential for discrepancies / errors in further waste minimisation planning.

Page 2 of 470

APPENDIX C - SUPPORTING REPORTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Investigation into Options for the Beneficial Processing of Food Waste Stage 1 Investigation into Preferred Options for Foodwaste / Organics Collection and Processing - Stage 2 Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment Auckland Transition Agency - Composition of Kerbside Refuse from Residential Properties in Auckland - WasteNot Consulting - October 2010 Establishment for a Green Waste Facility for the Auckland Region - Hill Young Cooper - July 2007 pg 3 pg 190 pg 272 pg 424 pg 443

Page 3 of 470

INVESTIGATION INTO OPTIONS FOR THE BENEFICIAL PROCESSING OF FOOD WASTE STAGE 1

Page 4 of 470

Auckland Region Organic Waste Working Group:

In Association with:

Final Report - CONFIDENTIAL: Investigation into Options for Beneficial Processing of Food Waste

July 2009

AUCKLAND SYDNEY

CHRISTCHURCH BRISBANE

HAMILTON ADELAIDE

Page 5 of 470

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................3 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................14 1.1 Project Background........................................................................................14 1.1.1 Regional Approach to Waste Planning ...................................................14 1.1.2 Aucklands Waste Minimisation Philosophy............................................14 1.2 Project Overview............................................................................................16 1.2.1 Project Development ..............................................................................16 1.3 Project Objectives and Scope........................................................................17 1.4 Related Studies..............................................................................................18 1.5 Council Studies ..............................................................................................18 1.6 Private Studies...............................................................................................18 2. CURRENT SITUATION ..........................................................................................20 2.1 3. Organics Processing in the Auckland Region................................................20

EXISTING FOOD WASTE DIVERSION METHODS ..............................................22 3.1 Home Composting .........................................................................................22 3.1.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste................................22 3.1.2 In-sink Food Waste Disposal Units.........................................................23 3.1.3 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste................................25 3.2 Use as Stock Feed.........................................................................................26 3.2.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste................................27 3.3 Worm (Vermi) Composting ............................................................................28 3.3.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste................................28 3.4 EM Bokashi....................................................................................................29 3.4.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste................................30 3.5 Section Summary Existing Food Waste Diversion Methods.......................31

4.

TONNAGE DATA REVIEW ....................................................................................33 4.1 Population and Growth ..................................................................................33 4.2 Waste Composition........................................................................................33 4.3 Organic Waste Quantities ..............................................................................33 4.3.1 Food Waste ............................................................................................34 4.3.2 Greenwaste ............................................................................................35 4.3.3 Other Wastes..........................................................................................36 4.4 Section Summary Tonnage Data Review ...................................................36

5.

COLLECTING DOMESTIC FOOD WASTE ...........................................................38 5.1 Description of Options....................................................................................38

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 6 of 470

5.1.1 Separate vs. Co-collection of Food Waste with Greenwaste..................38 5.1.2 Containment ...........................................................................................40 5.1.3 Frequency of Collection of Food Waste..................................................42 5.1.4 Charges ..................................................................................................42 5.1.5 Frequency of Rubbish Collection............................................................42 5.1.6 Rubbish Collection Containment ............................................................43 5.1.7 Charging for Rubbish Collections ...........................................................43 5.1.8 Communications .....................................................................................45 5.1.9 Principles of effective food waste collection. ..........................................45 5.2 Section Summary Food Waste Collection ..................................................46 6. PROVEN LARGE-SCALE OPTIONS FOR PROCESSING ...................................48 6.1 Composting....................................................................................................48 6.1.1 Static Pile / Windrow Composting...........................................................48 6.1.2 In vessel Composting ..........................................................................49 6.2 Anaerobic Digestion.......................................................................................51 6.3 Waste Incineration .........................................................................................52 6.4 Mechanical Biological Treatment ...................................................................52 6.5 Initial Selection of Processing Options...........................................................52 7. TECHNOLOGY REVIEW........................................................................................54 7.1 Systems Considered......................................................................................54 7.2 Basis for Comparison.....................................................................................66 7.3 Processing Suitability waste type, quantities and flexibility.........................66 7.4 Integration with Collection..............................................................................68 7.5 Contaminant Issues .......................................................................................69 7.6 Environmental Considerations .......................................................................69 7.6.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................69 7.6.2 Other Environmental Considerations......................................................70 7.7 Cultural Considerations..................................................................................71 7.8 Other Social Considerations ..........................................................................72 7.9 Economic Considerations ..............................................................................72 7.10 Operating Footprint ........................................................................................75 7.11 Products.........................................................................................................75 7.12 Section Summary Processing Options .......................................................76 8. FACILITY OPTIONS...............................................................................................80 8.1 Facility Scenarios...........................................................................................80 8.2 Organic Waste Tonnages for Processing ......................................................83 8.3 Logistical issues.............................................................................................84 8.3.1 Food Waste Collection............................................................................84 8.3.2 Logistics of facility scenarios ..................................................................86 8.3.3 Proximity to markets ...............................................................................87 8.4 Section Summary...........................................................................................87

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 7 of 470

9.

COST EVALUATION OF FACILITY OPTIONS, LAND ESTIMATE ......................88 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Cost Model Assumptions ...............................................................................88 Results ...........................................................................................................90 Land Requirements........................................................................................93 Section Summary - Cost Evaluation and Land Areas....................................93

10.

PRODUCTS AND MARKETS ................................................................................95 10.1 Composting....................................................................................................95 10.1.1 Product Benefits .....................................................................................95 10.1.2 Product Enhancement ............................................................................96 10.1.3 Potential Markets ....................................................................................97 10.1.4 Product Value .........................................................................................97 10.2 Anaerobic Digestion.......................................................................................98 10.3 Section Summary Products and Markets....................................................99

11.

FACILITY MANAGEMENT (STRUCTURE, FUNDING) .......................................102 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 Regional approach and governance The Royal Commission...................102 The business structuring implications of processing organics .....................102 Ownership and Governance Structures.......................................................103 CCO Structures............................................................................................104 Shared ownership - Joint ventures and PPPs .............................................106 Other Contractual Options ...........................................................................107 Capital Funding............................................................................................108 The contestable Waste Minimisation Fund ..................................................109

12.

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW .......................................................................................110 12.1 The New Zealand Waste Strategy NZWS ................................................110 12.2 Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008 ..........................................................111 12.3 Emission Trading / Carbon Tax Legislation .................................................112 12.3.1 Obligations and Emissions Factors ......................................................113 12.4 Section Summary Legislation ...................................................................113

13.

CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................114 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Current Situation ..........................................................................................114 Increasing Diversion ....................................................................................115 Processing and Facility Options...................................................................116 Products and Markets ..................................................................................123 Other Considerations ...................................................................................125 Next Steps ...................................................................................................125

14.

BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................126

APPENDIX A Waste Data Tables.................................................................................134 APPENDIX B Processing Facility Tonnage Estimates .................................................137
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 8 of 470

APPENDIX C Review of Emerging Technologies .......................................................139 APPENDIX D Review of Proprietary Technologies and Processing Systems ..............147 APPENDIX E Further Information on Anaerobic Digestion ...........................................169 APPENDIX F Cost Modelling Further Details: Results and Assumptions ..................175 LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1: Food waste only collection - participation, capture, kg................................ 39 Table 5-2: Co-mingled food & greenwaste collections Food Capture Rates............. 39 Table 5-3: Likely Capture Rates for Weekly vs. Fortnightly Collection......................... 42 Table 5-4: Effects of Collection Frequency on Food Waste Capture ........................... 42 Table 7-1: Proprietary Technologies and Plants Considered ....................................... 55 Table 7-2: Advantages & Disadvantages of Processing Technologies ........................ 60 Table 9-1: Estimated Costs for Regional Composting Scenarios................................. 91 Table 9-2: Estimated Costs for Regional wet Anaerobic Digestion Scenario ............. 92 Table 14-1: Population by TLA ................................................................................... 129 Table 14-2: Organic Fraction of Kerbside Collected Waste ....................................... 129 Table 14-3: Food Waste Estimates ............................................................................ 129 Table 14-4: Separated Greenwaste ........................................................................... 129 Table 14-5: Landfilled Greenwaste............................................................................. 130 Table 14-6: Estimated food & green waste quantities for Auckland ........................... 130 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1-1: Waste Processing Options .............................................................15 Figure 7-1: Indicative Technology Supply Costs - CONFIDENTIAL..................74 Figure 7-2: Operating Footprints for Selected Technologies............................75 Figure 8-1: Single Facility Option - with Transfer Stations ................................81 Figure 8-2: Multiple Facility Option....................................................................82
Morrison Low & Associates PO Box 9126 Newmarket Auckland 1149 Tel: 09 523 0122 Fax: 09 523 0133 www.morrisonlow.com

Document Status
Approving Director:
Morrison Low

Date:

27 July 2009

Except for all client data and factual information contained herein, this document is the copyright of Morrison Low & Associates Ltd. All or any part of it may only be used, copied or reproduced for the purpose for which it was originally intended, except where the prior permission to do otherwise has been sought from and granted by Morrison Low & Associates Ltd. Prospective users are invited to make enquiries of Morrison Low & Associates Ltd concerning using all or part of this copyright document for purposes other than that for which it was intended.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 9 of 470

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study benefited from the input of a number of other consultants, local authorities, and the waste industry. The following individuals are acknowledged and thanked for their input. Contributing Authors / Subconsultants Duncan Wilson and Dominic Hogg, Eunomia Research & Consulting - lead author of Sections 3, 4, 5 and Appendix C of this report, reviewers for digestion technology descriptions and costings Chris Hearn and Jurgen Thiele, Waste Solutions - advice and input into the review and costings of anaerobic digestion systems, facilities and products

Auckland Organic Waste Working Group: Jon Roscoe, Waitakere City Council Stuart Gane, Manukau City Council (Project Manager) Patricia Facenfield, Manukau City Council Parul Sood, Waitakere City Council Warwick Jaine, North Shore City Council Rennae Corner, Auckland City Council Sue Martin, Papakura District Council Nigel Birse, Franklin District Council Marcus Braithwaite, Rodney District Council Sandi Murray, Auckland Regional Council Other Local Authorities sharing their experiences in establishing municipal organic waste collection and processing: Mark Christison and Tim Scott, Christchurch City Council Ruth Clarke, Timaru District Council (TDC), and Brian Gallagher (consultant to TDC)

Other Council Organisations providing viewpoints on food waste collection diversion, as relevant to their core business Watercare Services Limited Metrowater Limited

Other Consulting Professionals: Bruce Middleton and Sunshine Yates, WasteNot Consulting - sharing initial results from the Food & Beverage Food Waste study

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 10 of 470

Waste Industry for advice on organic waste processing, materials handling, processing technologies, and product markets: George Fietje and Steve Wilson, Living Earth Ltd Robert Lind, Gary McGuire, Andrew Bayley, Envirofert - for indicative pricing, system footprints and general advice on specific systems Alan Martin and Anthony Kanak, Evergreen Energy Corporation (Kompogas supplier) Jim McNelly, Renewable Carbon Management (Naturtech supplier) John Harvey, Brentwood Recycling Systems (Gicom and Wasteology suppliers) Paul Brown, Gravity Environmental Technologies Ltd (VIVC supplier) Paul MacBride, TPI Cleanaway (Gore Cover System supplier) Peter Robinson, R5 Solutions (HotRot and MIDAS suppliers) Steve Kroening and Paul Mesman, Andar Holdings Ltd (Rotocom and WTT suppliers)

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 11 of 470

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
In line with the New Zealand Waste Strategy, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and Council Waste Management Plans (WMPs), the eight Auckland councils are committed to reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. The councils seek to provide opportunities to avoid waste creation and to divert materials away from landfill for beneficial reuse or recycling. As part of that aim, this study was undertaken to identify options for the beneficial reuse of domestic food waste generated from across the greater Auckland area. As with previous investigations, regional solutions for Auckland are a priority. The need for a regional approach is further emphasised by the recommendations from the Royal Commission Governance Review (report dated March 2009) and the allowance for regional waste planning as set out within the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA). Many of the factors relating to food waste processing have changed since previous studies, with further technology developments and increased examples of food waste collection and processing undertaken in New Zealand and overseas. The economics have also changed, with increased product demand and value, the prospect of landfill levies providing a new funding source with the enactment of the Waste Minimisation Act, 2008 (WMA) and the potential for an additional landfill charge for methane emissions. Growing concerns about climate change and renewable energy supplies have also altered the organic waste processing environment, leading to a greater interest in anaerobic digestion and other waste to energy based solutions. Objectives and Scope The key objective for this study is to provide the Auckland councils with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the future management and minimisation of organic waste across the region, and to decide upon an appropriate processing technology for the region. The project scope includes a high level review of potential food waste tonnages available for beneficial reuse; generic kerbside collection options; markets for end products; and implications of the Royal Commission Auckland Governance review, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and a potential New Zealand Emissions Trading scheme. The main focus of beneficial reuse options is on the evaluation of processing methods and technologies - the black box that would most effectively divert organic wastes from Auckland landfills. Existing diversion methods such as in-sink food waste disposal units and stock feed are also considered, as are emerging technologies. However, the greatest focus is placed on the evaluation of organic waste processing systems with a proven ability to handle large quantities of putrescible wastes, namely composting and anaerobic digestion. Processing options are evaluated in terms of functionality and performance; suitability for an urban environment and ability to cater for future growth; product type, quality and value; environmental, social and cultural issues; and financial implications. Financial implications include an estimate of capital and operating costs, as well as average annual operating costs. Possible facility scenarios (number, general location etc.) and logistical issues for the delivery of wastes to the facility/ies are also considered in a general sense. Total systems costs for collection and processing are not considered within this initial project stage.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 12 of 470

KEY FINDINGS
The Current Situation No council collection or processing of organic wastes currently occurs in the Auckland region. However, private operators collect and compost around 75,000 or more tonnes per year of greenwaste, with much of that done at two composting facilities The Living Earth facility on Puketutu Island and the Envirofert facility in Tuakau (Franklin District). An invessel composting system at the Waitakere Transfer Station is also consented to process up to 10,000 tonnes per year of greenwaste and food waste in small quantities. Envirofert claim to have permission from Environment Waikato for a food waste composting trial. However, Environment Waikato does not have any record of this and it is unclear to what stage the trial has progressed. Most compost created from Auckland wastes is sold back into the Auckland residential market, with some additional compost sold into agricultural and horticultural markets south of Auckland. These agricultural and horticultural markets are continuing to develop, and are considered to be a key opportunity for large scale absorption of compost products. Home composting, worm composting, bokashi and in sink food waste disposal systems are all existing options that can divert food waste from landfill at the household level. Accordingly, the Auckland Councils already contribute to the promotion of home composting, worm composting and bokashi systems. Councils do not specifically promote the use of in sink food waste disposal systems, nor do they actively discourage their use. The amount of domestic food waste still being disposed of to landfill indicates that these options are not currently providing a full solution for diverting Aucklands food waste stream. Increasing Diversion (using existing methods) The data suggests that there is in the order of 150,000 tonnes of food waste in the Auckland region that could theoretically be diverted from landfill and instead put to beneficial use. This includes approximately 100,000 tonnes per year of domestic food waste and the balance from commercial sources. In addition to the greenwaste that is already being diverted and composted (estimated at between 75,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year), there is additional greenwaste in the order of 70,000 tonnes per year that is still being disposed of to landfill. These estimates of greenwaste and food waste currently going to landfill are based on the results of waste audits for kerbside refuse bags across the Auckland region, as well as audits conducted at the Waitakere transfer station on material going to landfill. At this stage the type of collection method that would be introduced is uncertain. However a range of organic waste tonnage bands have been selected as possible processing facility capacities. These tonnage bands assume that the kerbside collection service is delivered to between 60 and 80 percent of households across the region, and captures between 50 and 70 percent of each households food waste. For a commingled food and green waste collection it is further assumed that there will be around five parts greenwaste collected to three parts food waste (by weight). Other potentially recoverable organic wastes going to landfill include sanitary wastes and biosolids. Handling requirements, contamination risks and product markets differ for these wastestreams compared to food and greenwastes. Home composting and the use of in-sink food waste disposal units are diversion options that could potentially be increased. However, the uptake of these options is very much based on householder preferences. Based on the amount of food waste still going to landfill, other
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 13 of 470

methods of food waste (and greenwaste) diversion appear to be required in order to achieve Council waste minimisation objectives. Although the use of domestic food waste as stock feed has some potential for growth, the variability of domestic food wastes and the inclusion of meat products may raise processing costs and decrease product values to a point that is uneconomic. It is likely that conversion to stock feed is an application that is best suited to commercial food wastes, where waste quantities and properties are likely to be more consistent. At a regional level, there may be opportunities for worm composting and EM Bokashi to be incorporated into traditional composting operations, however, the viability of doing so would need to be based on end market requirements and increased product value. Bokashi could be considered for use as part of the front end food waste collection service. However, viability would need to be assessed based on a cost-benefit review of collection methods. Regional Processing Options Technology Review The most widely used processing methods for solid organic wastes are composting and anaerobic digestion. Other large scale options that could be used to process food waste include incineration, and Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). However, under the current waste management regime of separation at source, incineration and MBT / AWT1 systems are not considered to be viable options for processing the Auckland regions organic wastes, and are not considered further within this report. This study assessed the following composting and anaerobic digestion technologies in terms of their suitability to process domestic food wastes from across the Auckland region: Gore covered windrow composting system Covered windrow composting system intended for the Envirofert facility IPS agitated bay composting system Wasteology agitated tunnel composting system HotRot, Rotocom and VIVC mechanical composting systems Gicom, MIDAS, WTT, Wasteology and Living Earth (Christchurch) static tunnel composting systems Naturtech static container composting system Kompogas dry anaerobic digestion system Waste Solutions wet digestion - as per Sydney Earthpower system

The assessment considered the ability of each system to process expected waste tonnages, and material types, provide flexibility for varying tonnages, and varying feedstocks, maximise product quality and value and integrate with possible collection scenarios. Also taken into consideration were costs, operating footprint, cultural and social issues, and environmental impacts (including carbon emissions). Comparisons were drawn between processing methods, i.e. composting versus anaerobic digestion, and between specific technologies within each category. Suitability for Aucklands Organic Wastes Food waste is successfully processed at both composting and anaerobic digestion facilities although large scale facilities are more numerous for composting technologies. This may change as greater value is placed on carbon reduction.
1

AlternativeWasteTechnology

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 14 of 470

Mechanical composting systems would only be suitable for processing Auckland domestic food waste if more, smaller facilities were created, with a maximum size of around 35,000 to 45,000 tonnes of biowaste per year. For larger facilities, static, batch-fed tunnel or container based composting systems are more appropriate. Covered windrow systems are also an option if a suitable site is available (large and in a rural location). Based on feedback from technology suppliers, the upper limit for tunnel, container or covered windrow systems is generally around 65,000 to 100,000 tonnes (total mixed waste). However, there are some examples of container and covered windrow facilities composting between 100,000 and 200,000 tonnes of mixed food and greenwaste. Minimum facility sizes for anaerobic digestion are around 10,000 tonnes per year. Although there are some examples of anaerobic digestion facilities processing 70,000 to 150,000 tonnes per year of putrescible wastes, most large, established facilities appear to take around 40,000 to 60,000 tonnes per year. This is a similar scale to large municipal composting facilities, although it is noted that composting facilities tend to process a greater proportion of greenwaste, and correspondingly lower putrescible waste portion, than anaerobic digestion facilities. There have been a number of problems experienced with the EarthPower food waste digestion facility in Sydney. This resulted in commercial failure of the site prior to its sale to Veolia and Transpacific Industries (joint venture). Discussions with the facility designers and current operators have indicated that problems are primarily due to the difficulty in securing clean (low contamination) food wastes. Other examples of successful food waste processing are to be found elsewhere, particularly in Europe and North America. Municipal wastes can be subject to variability, particularly when processing at a regional scale. If greenwaste is collected with food waste, peak season quantities could increase by up to 50 percent. Waste composition would also vary. Mechanical composting and anaerobic digestion systems are best suited to constant waste tonnages. Simpler systems such as covered windrows, composting tunnels or containers are most flexible for varying tonnages, however, have less ability to optimise material properties during processing (e.g. through agitation or air injection). Higher pathogen risk materials, such as sanitary wastes and biosolids, require a greater level of agitation and process control. Although not recommended, if such wastes were to be included, then agitated composting technologies, such as the IPS, agitated Wasteology system and the HotRot would be more appropriate than static tunnel, container or covered windrow systems. Anaerobic digestion systems may also be more suitable. However, regardless of the technology type, plastics within sanitary wastes would create a source of contamination. This would need to be allowed for within system design and would impact on the end product markets and value. The food and green waste processing facility in Christchurch (operated by Living Earth Limited) is an example of a tunnel composting facility that could be developed for the Auckland region. Although limited information is available on the intended covered windrow system, the Envirofert site would provide another example of a processing technology that may be suitable for processing domestic food waste from the region. Anaerobic digestion systems often include composting to further treat solid materials generated by the digestion process. Therefore, a composting facility developed initially could be upgraded to a dry digestion facility in the future, with the composting system retained as a secondary process. This scenario may become viable if the value of energy increases, and/or carbon credit incentives become available.
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 15 of 470

Compatibility with Collection Method Dry anaerobic digestion systems are compatible with a commingled domestic food and greenwaste collection, while wet digestion facilities are best suited to food waste only collections (greenwaste could be collected separately by council or remain as a private-only collection service). Composting systems can work with either a food waste only or a commingled collection. If a food waste only collection service was introduced, a greenwaste/bulking agent source would be required for composting. Contaminant Issues Contamination levels of around 2.5 - 3 percent are considered the maximum acceptable for both composting and anaerobic digestion systems. Static composting tunnels and containers are less susceptible to equipment damage from waste contaminants than more automated anaerobic digestion or agitated/mechanical composting systems - plastic or stringy greenwaste can wrap around moving equipment, and larger, solid contaminants can cause impact damage to processing equipment. Environmental, Cultural and Social Considerations Both composting and anaerobic digestion significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill disposal of organic wastes, with composting offering a 79 percent reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e)2 emissions and anaerobic digestion offering a 96 percent reduction. Although emissions from both processes are relatively low, CO2-e emitted from 1kg of organic waste is 8.4 times higher from composting than from anaerobic digestion. Digestion has the additional carbon related benefit of creating a renewable energy source. Other environmental impacts of composting or anaerobic digestion, such as discharges to air, land and water (surface and ground water) depend on how well the process is managed and what environmental protection measures are in place. These would be managed, at minimum, by resource consent requirements, and by site design and operational practices. The risk of odour, leachate and vermin attraction is greatest when wastes first enter the processing facility, and within the following few weeks. Correct operation and control of the mix can significantly reduce the risk of odour and leachate. This is demonstrated by the low number, or in some cases nil, odour complaints received for the composting facilities currently operating in Auckland. It is also assumed that regardless of the processing option, food waste receival areas would be enclosed within a building (under negative extraction) and that processing within this higher risk period would also be undertaken in an enclosed manner. Cultural considerations would be considered on a case-by-case basis for any organic waste processing facility (as part of the consenting process), with site selection and the management of discharges to air, land and water likely to be the focus of any concerns. Cultural considerations formed an important part of resource consents for the Wellington biosolids composting plant. Although some concerns were raised due to the nature of the biosolids, all Maori groups eventually decided to not object on the basis that the proposal was a close approximation to natural processes and that health risks would be managed.

Allgreenhousegasemissionsareconvertedtotheirequivalentcarbondioxidevalue.Factorsareappliedbasedontheglobalwarming potentialdisplayedforeachgreenhousegascomparedtocarbondioxide(whichisallocatedaglobalwarmingpotentialfactorof1).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 16 of 470

Any concerns about health risks, or environmental risks such as elevated heavy metal levels, are expected to reduce if biosolids are not processed at the facility. Anaerobic digestion processes do not reflect natural processes as directly as composting. However, the core process itself remains a biological one, generating products that can be put back to land as natural fertilisers. Other social considerations would primarily relate to nuisance issues, such as odour and dust, vehicle movements, visual impacts. There may be other concerns about less direct impacts such as affects on housing values. As with environmental impacts, social impacts would be managed through site selection, the resource consent process and operational practices. To minimise nuisance issues, regional food waste processing would preferably be located somewhere where larger buffer distances are possible. Finding affordable, larger sites in Auckland, away from urban areas, would have its challenges. Therefore, social considerations, and resulting consent issues, may push regional food waste processing to rural or industrial areas on the outskirts of the Auckland region. Cost Considerations (from technology review only) Generally speaking, capital costs for anaerobic digestion technology are higher than for composting technology and mechanical composting systems are more expensive than static tunnel or container based systems. Indications are that the WTT tunnel system and the Naturtech container system require the lowest level of capital investment, starting at around $6M for 80,000 tonnes of mixed food and green waste per year, and up to around $13M for 200,000 tonnes per year. It could also be possible to reduce capital costs through local design and construction, rather than the purchase of propriety technologies. By comparison, a wet anaerobic digestion facility, as modelled on the Sydney Earthpower operation, would have a capital cost of around $13M for 30,000 tonnes per year of food waste and around $21M for 75,000 tonnes per year of food waste. In all instances additional costs would apply for site development, buildings, decontamination facilities and ancillary equipment. Operating costs are driven not only by the processing technology itself but also by the various material handling and refinement processes required for the wider facility. Composting is generally more labour intensive than digestion, which is likely to be more highly automated. Operating costs are discussed in terms of total facility costs rather than limited to the processing technology itself. With the planned upgrade to allow food waste composting (aerated, covered windrow system), the Envirofert composting facility would provide an option for the Auckland Council that requires no capital investment. Instead, a gate fee per tonne would be charged to Council. Due to concerns about commercial sensitivity, Envirofert has elected to not provide further details of the intended composting technology nor would they confirm if the planned food waste composting trial has gone ahead. However, the site is well located relative to growth product markets and is already operating commercially for greenwaste composting. Envirofert claim to be developing high-value markets for their products and has said that they could find markets for all food waste compost that could be produced from the Auckland domestic waste stream. They maintain that vermicomposting allows them to achieve an optimum sale price for their composted products, allowing the process to be driven by market demand and product value rather than solely by gate fee incomes.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 17 of 470

Regional Facility Scenarios & Total Costs A single processing facility option is not costed in this report as, due to the volume of material involved, it is considered impractical for a full regional solution. Considering the logistics of material handling, collection and transport, multiple facility options offer greater benefits. This is particularly true for waste collection and transport, as multiple facilities would reduce travel distances and times and therefore reduce the collection vehicle numbers and the impacts on traffic congestion. Two multiple facility options were considered to test the impacts on processing costs: (1) A single processing facility supported by two organic waste transfer facilities; and (2) Two processing facilities with no transfer stations. A single processing facility with transfer facilities offers the greatest flexibility and most efficient combination of collection, transport and processing. Additional benefits would be realised if wastes could be transported between transfer facilities and the main processing facility during off-peak periods. There are potential double handling considerations when using transfer facilities, however, these could be overcome if paired with a transportable container processing system that can be used for both bulk haulage and processing. Cost modelling for the transfer station option assumes of such a technology. The transfer station option has also been modelled for two collection bin options a large bin (e.g. 240L) which would result in more bulky greenwaste being collected (requiring shredding) and a small bin (e.g. 80L) which would reduce greenwaste size and shredding requirements. Collection costs are not modelled as the Stage 1 study is focussed on processing options. The transport of material between the transfer facilities and the processing facility are also not costed. However, it is assumed that these movements would be offset by the bulk haulage of material within containers. It is intended that collection, transport and processing costs be modelled together as part of Stage 2. This will require additional details as to where the facilities may be located and what collection regime/s would be followed. The following table summarises the results of the cost modelling taking into account a range of facility sizes, and comparing costs for composting and anaerobic digestion (for the two facility option). Composting technology costs are based on average supply costs obtained for tunnel and container systems. Anaerobic digestion technology costs are based on a wet digestion model similar to the Sydney Earthpower plant. Costs are presented not only for capital and operating expenditure, but also as a total cost operating per year that takes into account the processed tonnes - tonnes processed via composting are a mix of food and green wastes whereas the digestion costs are based on a wet process that treats food waste only. Potential revenue values are also provided for the sale of products. It is noted that these revenue values are indicative only and have not been subject to detailed analysis. Operating costs presented do not include any operator margin or land costs. Indicative revenue values are provided but do not include income from the acceptance of other private waste tonnages. Due to the creation of biogas the revenue from an anaerobic digestion facility is expected to be higher than revenue from composting product sales, and this could potentially shift the balance between composting and digestion operations. However, without more detailed analysis of markets and product values a complete financial assessment of costs and revenues is difficult at this stage.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 18 of 470

Summary of Facility Cost Modelling


Composting Total incoming Processing Costs (excl. contractor profit, land) Food waste Opex Capex + Opex Annual Operating Cost ($M) commingled wastes Facility scenario component (T/yr) Capex ($M) $/T Opex x T/yr ($/T) ($/T) (T/yr) OPTION 1: SINGLE REGIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITY WITH TRANSFER STATIONS (assumes transportable container technology, two transfer facilities) 80000 Option 1A: 240L commingled collection bins (shredder required at RTS & main facility) 120000 160000 200000 80000 Option 1B: 80L commingled collection bins (no shredder required at RTS, replaced with trommel screen & mixer) 120000 160000 200000 30000 45000 60000 75000 30000 45000 60000 75000 $16.4M $19.9M $25.1M $28.4M $15.5M $18.8M $23.9M $27.1M $59 $48 $43 $39 $55 $45 $42 $37 $60 $50 $49 $65 $53 $51 $80 $65 $60 $55 $75 $62 $58 $52 $80 $68 $65 $86 $72 $69 $4.7M $5.7M $7.0M $7.9M $4.4M $5.4M $6.7M $7.5M $6.1M $6.6M $8.1M $6.5M $7.0M $8.4M

OPTION 2: TWO REGIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITIES (no transfer stations) 80000** 30000 Option 2A: container 120000** 45000 $25.5M technology, no transfer stations 160000** 60000 $30.2M 200000** 75000 $33.9M 80000** 30000 120000** 45000 $27.2M Option 2B: tunnel technology 160000** 60000 $32.2M 75000 $37.2M 200000**

*Total incoming tonnages based on an assumed mix ratio of 5 parts greenwaste collected for each 3 parts of food waste **Stated tonnages are the total tonnage over the two facilities, assumed to be split equally amongst the sites

Potential Revenue: 3 It is assumed each 1T of mixed food and green waste produces 1-1.2m of compost (approx. 0.6T) 3 Product value of $30-$40/m of compost produced, equating to around $18-$24/T.

Anaerobic Digestion Total incoming Processing Costs (excl. contractor profit, land) Food waste Opex Capex + Opex Annual Operating Cost ($M) Facility scenario commingled wastes component (T/yr) $/T Opex x T/yr Capex ($M) ($/T) ($/T) (T/yr) OPTION 3: TWO REGIONAL ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES (no transfer stations) 30000* 30000 'wet' digestion process, food 45000* 45000 $40.0M $73 $156 $3.3M waste only collection 60000* 60000 $49.3M $63 $141 $3.8M 75000 $53.2M $58 $125 75000* $4.4M
*Stated tonnages are the total tonnage over the two facilities, assumed to be split equally amongst the sites

Potential Revenue: 3 It is assumed each 1T of mixed food and green waste produces 111m of biogas, 50kg of solid product (for use as fertiliser or conversion to compost) and 40kg of liquid fertiliser 3 . Product value of 40-50 cents per m of biogas Markets for solid and liquid fertilisers would need to be developed, but could have a value of around $8/T for the solid product and around $4.50 for the liquid.

Anaerobic digestion operating costs will vary significantly depending on the scale of the facility, level of automation required and properties of incoming wastes. However, based on cost modelling undertaken as part of this study (modelling a system similar to the Sydney EarthPower facility), digestion processing costs would be around $58 to $73 per tonne for two facilities (excluding amortisation of capital). This compares to a per tonne composting cost of around $49 to $65 for the equivalent two processing facilities option, or $37 to $59 per tonne for a single facility plus transfer stations alternative. A wet digestion facility removes the need for greenwaste to be added to food waste. Therefore, although costs per tonne are higher, the lower tonnages would result in a lower annual cost than for composting. However, greenwaste diversion would not be addressed to any greater level than the current situation (unless it was to be composted in windrows at the digestion site or elsewhere, adding additional cost and land requirements).
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

10

Page 19 of 470

Products and Markets The strength of the end market and value of the product affects the economic viability of an organics processing facility. The products from both composting and anaerobic digestion also offer a number of environmental benefits. According to the 2007 State of the Environment Report (MfE, 2007),3 Seventeen percent of New Zealands gross domestic product depends on the top 15 centimetres of our soil (Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative, no date) and national soil health monitoring4 shows widespread moderate compaction of soils and a demonstrated loss of organic matter and soil structural stability as a result of cropping activities. Compost application offers a range of physical, chemical and biological benefits for soils that would overcome existing damage, improve plant growth, pathogen and weed suppression and increase the future ability of soils to retain moisture and nutrients. Soil structure improvements and improved moisture retention are of particular benefit to Auckland soils. The ability to increase and better retain soil nutrient levels is of increasing value as the cost of synthetic fertilisers rises. The strongest markets for compost generated from Aucklands food wastes would be the agricultural and horticultural markets. The bulk of these are located in Franklin District and further south of Auckland (including the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions). However, for both of these markets it is essential to understand their product requirements and design post curing processes accordingly. Use by Councils own Parks and Reserves unit would also be an option that could have a relatively large capacity, although may not provide the same income level (avoided cost rather than direct income). As with any compost product, appropriate land application methods would need to be followed to protect the health of workers handling the material and park/reserve users. A more detailed assessment of markets would need to be made to ascertain location, scale etc. Alternatively, the development of markets and associated risks could be attributed to the contractor within any agreement they have with Council, although there would be a cost associated with this risk allocation. Two key parties involved in the sale of compost in the Auckland region (Living Earth and Envirofert) have indicated that the Auckland residential compost market is already near saturation, with limited potential for expansion. Around $30 to $40 per m3 could be considered an average value for compost and related soil amendment products in a developed market. However, this may be lower for some bulk markets and there may in fact be additional costs initially to develop those markets. The cost models created for this project have assumed a market development / product refinement cost of $5 per tonne of incoming waste. This would be over and above marketing staff costs. Vermicomposting is a means to increase the value of the end product. Perry Environmental product retail values determined during the previous OWWG composting study (URS, 2004) demonstrated standard compost prices of $35-39/m3 increasing to $208/m3 for vermicompost. Blends of standard compost and vermicompost can also increase sale price. If vermicomposting occurs after a pre-composting phase, with the pre-composting phase already achieving a volume reduction in order of 50 percent, then each cubic metre of mixed food and greenwaste waste would produce around 0.2 m of vermicast.
3 4

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07dec07/environmentnz07dec07.pdf Soilhealthmonitoringcarriedoutunderthe500SoilsProjectandsubsequentregionalcouncilprogrammes.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

11

Page 20 of 470

Anaerobic Digestion produces: Biogas Liquid fertiliser Dry fertiliser (or compost)

Product generation rates are set out in the table below (assuming 80 percent moisture and 0.85 percent nitrogen), followed by a summary of product uses and potential value. Similar to compost products, there may be additional costs involved in establishing markets for the dry and liquid digestion products. Markets for such products would be fairly undeveloped for an Auckland scenario, however, they would offer similar (or potentially even higher) soil and plant growth benefits as compost.
Products out Dry Solid (kg) 50

Food waste in (T) 1

Biogas (m3) 111

Liquid (kg) 40

The estimated value of anaerobic digestion products is set out in the following table, although markets for dry and solid products will require development. The production of biogas, a renewable energy source, is clearly a key benefit of anaerobic digestion. This is particularly the case in much of Europe, parts of the United States and in developing countries where carbon reduction and renewable energy credits are available. This is not currently the case within New Zealand. However, this may change in the future as our national carbon reduction obligations and emission trading opportunities increase.
Product Use Replacement for: natural gas electricity (2.2kWh/m3 of gas) diesel (0.55L /m3 of gas) dry fertiliser liquid fertiliser Products out - value Biogas Dry Solid ($/m3) (T) Liquid (T) $0.47 $0.40 $0.60 $8.00 $4.50 Cost

lowest cost for conversion however, approx. $1M for engine and H2S scrubber however, diesel cost of $2.20/L required for viability

Other Considerations Comparisons between the cost of sending organic waste to landfill and the cost of processing for beneficial reuse should consider the following legislatively driven costs: $10 per tonne landfill levy, potentially increasing with time, plus $14 per tonne carbon charge, expected to apply from 2013 onwards.

The WMA offers a potential opportunity to fund an organic waste diversion scheme, both through the 50 percent of landfill levy funds distributed back to Councils (on a per capita basis) and the additional contestable fund. Based on the tonnes of organic waste that could be diverted from landfill across the Auckland region, the contestable fund offers significant potential as a partial capital investment source. The New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), as it is currently designed, does not offer the same potential for carbon credits / offsets as available under European schemes or
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

12

Page 21 of 470

through the Kyoto protocol (primarily aimed at carbon reduction projects within developing countries). However, the ETS will add additional costs to the disposal of organic wastes to landfill, as per the cost per tonne estimated above. Next Steps A total system approach, from kerbside through to market, is required in order to select the optimum organic waste collection and processing scenario for the Auckland region. Cost modelling should consider combinations of different collection and processing options, along with implications for transport between sites (e.g. transfer and processing facilities) and transport of products to end markets. Costs and revenue streams should be considered as part of benefit cost analyses, as should environmental and social factors. Organic waste diversion priorities should also be reconfirmed that is, whether the priority is to divert food waste from landfill, or food waste and greenwaste, as should the basis on which costs be considered per tonne, per household (private and council services) or annual. Following sign-off on this Stage 1 report, the existing Auckland councils will consider what further elements should be considered as a Stage 2 piece of work.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

13

Page 22 of 470

1.

INTRODUCTION

In line with the New Zealand Waste Strategy, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and Council Waste Management Plans (WMPs), the eight Auckland councils are committed to reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. The councils seek to provide opportunities to avoid waste creation and to divert materials away from landfill for beneficial reuse or recycling. As part of that aim, this study was undertaken to identify options for the beneficial reuse of domestic food waste generated from across the greater Auckland area. This report presents the outcomes of this current investigation, as well as consolidation of findings from earlier related studies. As with previous investigations, regional solutions for Auckland are a priority. The need for a regional approach is further emphasised by the recommendations from the Royal Commission Governance Review (report dated March 2009) and the allowance for regional waste planning as set out within the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA). 1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 Regional Approach to Waste Planning The dissolution of the existing councils and creation of a single Auckland council has significant implications for the management and minimisation of the regions wastes. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance report (March 2009) anticipates that solid waste will be managed by the new Auckland Council, either directly or via a single Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). All waste policy, services and supporting public programmes would be undertaken in accordance with a regional Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP), and the need for a regional approach is specifically noted within the Royal Commission report. Although a regional WMMP is not currently in place, a regional approach to waste management and minimisation has been considered by the current eight councils for a number of years. Waste minimisation initiatives are already being progressed via regional programmes, and waste policy and planning is discussed regionally via the Auckland Waste Officers Forum (AWOF)5. As organic waste makes up around half of Aucklands domestic waste stream, the AWOF also has a sub-group specifically focused on regional solutions for organic wastes, referred to as the Auckland Organic Waste Working Group (OWWG). It is the OWWG that has commissioned this study, as well as previous work related to domestic food waste diversion. 1.1.2 Aucklands Waste Minimisation Philosophy The general approach for the beneficial reuse of wastes generated across the Auckland Region, and indeed across the country, is one of separation at source. Although this philosophy creates the need for additional collection services compared to a mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) collection, effective source separation reduces the need for mechanical or manual sorting and decontamination (i.e. at a centralized processing facility) and results in a higher quality end product.
5

TheAWOFiscomprisedofrepresentativesfromAuckland,Manukau,NorthShoreandWaitakereCityCouncils,Franklin,Papakuraand RodneyDistrictCouncilsandtheAucklandRegionalCouncil.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

14

Page 23 of 470

Figure 1-1 provides an overview of the various reuse and recycling options that are available, grouped between those suitable for source separated waste streams and those developed for mixed MSW streams. The figure also illustrates the range of options that have previously been considered by the Auckland councils for domestic organic wastes (primarily food and green wastes). Based upon the separation at source philosophy and the results of previous investigations, those options shown in blue boxes are given the greatest focus within this current study.

Figure1-1: Waste Processing Options

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

15

Page 24 of 470

1.2

Project Overview

1.2.1 Project Development In 2002 and 2003, the OWWG commissioned research into the available options for domestic food waste management. The options reviewed at that time were: In-sink waste disposal units Landfill disposal Composting Anaerobic digestion Incineration

Following this study, the OWWG identified composting as the most viable solution for Aucklands domestic food waste. A second study then focused on a wide range of issues related specifically to composting including processing methods, proprietary technologies, end product markets, facility management considerations and indicative capital and operating costs. Key outcomes from the study were: a number of technological solutions were available to allow large scale, urban composting; however, processing costs were significantly higher than landfill disposal rates; and, further development of the compost market was required to be able to absorb all compost produced from Aucklands domestic food wastes.

In March 2006 it was reported to the Auckland Councils CEO Forum that a regional team would develop a policy framework for waste minimisation. In July 2006 it was further reported to the Mayoral Forum that the AWOF member councils wished to develop a regional waste strategy. This approach was supported by both forums and in 2007 Waitakere City Council (WCC) funded a project to identify regional strategic priorities for waste management and minimisation. This report was developed by the AWOF as a first step towards a regional WMP. The report again highlighted organic wastes6 as a priority waste stream requiring diversion for landfill. Many of the factors relating to food waste processing have changed since the previous investigations, with further technology developments and increased examples of food waste collection and processing undertaken in New Zealand and overseas. The economics have also changed, with increased product demand and value, the prospect of landfill levies providing a new funding source with the enactment of the Waste Minimisation Act, 2008 (WMA) and the potential for an additional landfill charge for methane emissions. Growing concerns about climate change and renewable energy supplies have also altered the organic waste processing environment, leading to a greater interest in anaerobic digestion and waste to energy based solutions. As a result of the priority placed on domestic organic wastes, the OWWG went to market in late 2008 seeking expressions of interest to carry out a further study on regional opportunities for the beneficial reuse of household kitchen wastes. The
6

Domesticorganicwasteswereselectedasaprioritywastestreambasedonthehighquantitiescurrentlygoingtolandfilland thenuisanceissuescreatedbytheuncontrolleddecompositionoforganicwasteswithinalandfill(generatingodour,leachate andlandfillgas).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

16

Page 25 of 470

process following included a formal request for proposal, evaluation, negotiation and engagement of the Morrison Low & Associates led team to prepare this study. Manukau City Council has acted as project manager on behalf of the OWWG. As noted above, Figure 1-1 indicates where options were previously assessed and either discounted or identified as potential solutions. It also indicates where options previously discounted are now being reassessed through this current study due to technological advances and potentially improved viability. 1.3 Project Objectives and Scope

The key objective for this study is to provide the Auckland councils with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the future management and minimisation of organic waste across the region. Based on the results of the study, and taking into account upcoming changes to the Auckland local government environment, next steps could include a tender process for specific and region-wide organic waste services or further investigation of specific details highlighted during this first stage. The project scope includes a high level review of potential food waste tonnages available for beneficial reuse; generic kerbside collection options; markets for end products; and implications of the Royal Commission Auckland Governance review, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and a potential New Zealand Emissions Trading scheme. The main focus of beneficial reuse options is on the evaluation of processing methods and technologies, i.e. the black box that would most effectively divert organic wastes from Auckland landfills. Existing diversion methods such as in-sink food waste disposal units and stock feed applications are also considered, along with emerging technologies. However, the greatest focus was placed on the evaluation of organic waste processing systems that have a proven ability to handle large quantities of putrescible wastes, namely composting and anaerobic digestion. Processing options are evaluated in terms of functionality and performance; suitability for an urban environment and ability to cater for future growth; product type, quality and value; environmental, social and cultural issues; and financial implications. Financial implications include an estimate of capital and operating costs (per tonne of material processed) as well as consideration of potential funding models. Separate consideration of capital and operating costs is to assist the OWWG in their consideration of capital funding options (e.g. via the WMA waste levy contestable fund) and in a comparison of operating costs against landfill disposal rates. Possible facility scenarios (number, general location etc.) and logistical issues for the delivery of wastes to the facility/ies were also considered in a general sense. However, the identification of specific facility locations, collection and transport costs is beyond the scope of this stage of work. It is recognised that a total system approach, from kerbside through to market, requires further consideration. It is envisaged that this will be addressed as a Stage 2 piece of work.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

17

Page 26 of 470

1.4

Related Studies

The brief developed for this current study specified the need to consider various related studies. This objective has been approached by way of the review of earlier OWWG reports, and discussions with representatives involved in relevant privately-led studies7. Further detail on these OWWG and privately commissioned studies are provided below, along with report reference details. 1.5 Council Studies

Within the description of this projects development history, Section 1.2.1 mentions a number of earlier studies commissioned by the OWWG. Reports arising from those studies are noted below: Assessment of Options for the Management of Organic Kitchen Waste, August 2002, Waste Not Ltd. Regional Options for Food Waste Composting, June 2004, URS Regional Options for Food Waste Composting - Market Issues, June 2004, URS

The objective of the Waste Not report was to establish if there was reasonable evidence of environmental, economic, and social value in the alternative disposal options for organic kitchen waste, compared to the status quo systems, which resulted primarily in the landfilling of the material. The report outlined the range of treatment options available at that time and discussed their particular attributes. From this report, the councils selected composting as the most appropriate process to investigate further for the Auckland region. The first of the URS reports examined in detail several composting technologies and compared the indicative facility costs for a range of facility sizes on a cost per tonne basis. The second of the URS reports addressed a number of issues that would be associated with the marketing of compost produced by a food waste composting facility in the Auckland region. At the time the reports were completed, the cost to separate and process food waste was more than the councils were prepared to accept, as the additional cost (when compared to landfill disposal) would fall on ratepayers. 1.6 Private Studies

There is an increased interest by industry groups in investigating the alternatives to landfilling for food waste in the Auckland region. With funding from the Sustainable Management Fund, Enterprising Manukau and the Food & Beverage Sector Group are currently seeking alternatives to landfill disposal for the large quantity of organic waste generated by the sector.

PersonalcommunicationsbetweentheMorrisonLow/EunomiaprojectteamwithBruceMiddleton,projectmanagerforthe Food&Beveragestudy,andAndrewHiggs,GeneralManagerofParexIndustriesLimited.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

18

Page 27 of 470

The Food & Beverage Sector Environmental Waste Project, the first stage of which is scheduled for completion in June 2009, has surveyed manufacturers and processors and existing waste disposal providers in the Auckland region to determine the volume and composition of organic waste generated and to establish current methods of disposal. The project is intended to identify new and innovative organic waste disposal processes that could be adopted to meet the goals of the Food & Beverage Sector group and the individual members. In its second stage, the project will facilitate the linking of organic waste generators with organic waste solution providers. In 2008 Parex Industries Limited commissioned engineering and environmental consultants MWH to investigate the ability of in-sink waste disposal units (such as InSinkErators) to provide a beneficial reuse solution for food waste8. This is on the basis that food waste captured via in-sink waste disposal units is conveyed to existing centralised wastewater treatment facilities for processing, negating the need for road transport of those wastes to an additional solid waste processing facility. Further, the food waste particles contained within the wastewater stream can be used to generate beneficial by-products, in gaseous, liquid and solid form.

MWH(2008).ParexIndustriesLtd,FoodWasteManagementinNewZealand(MainReport,SupplementaryReport(byDrT Evans)andExecutiveSummaryreport),MWH,NewZealand,March2008.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

19

Page 28 of 470

2. 2.1

CURRENT SITUATION Organics Processing in the Auckland Region

No council collection or processing of organic wastes currently occurs in the Auckland region. However, the region is generally well serviced by private operators who collect and compost around 75,000 or more tonnes per year of greenwaste. This greenwaste is either collected from kerbside, disposed of to transfer stations or taken direct to composting facilities. The largest facilities composting Aucklands greenwaste are Living Earth Limited (LEL), located on Puketutu Island, and Envirofert Limited (Envirofert), located in Tuakau (Franklin District). These facilities currently process around 50,000 and 25,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year, respectively. An in-vessel composting system located at the Waitakere Transfer Station is also consented to process up to 10,000 tonnes per year of greenwaste (the plant is not currently in operation). Other smaller composting operations in place include the Heards composting facility in Papakura and the Warkworth and Silverdale transfer stations. Other organic processing facilities located outside of, but still servicing the Auckland region include the Daltons and HG Leach composting facilities in Matamata, and the Sustainable Waste Management composting operation in Ruakaka9. These facilities service the Auckland region by accepting Auckland wastes and/or creating compost products for sale into the Auckland market. Some diversion of commercial food wastes is also occurring - through use as stock feed, conversion to compost, or digestion through the wastewater system (e.g. via insink waste disposal systems). Much of the organic waste used for stock feed is generated from food processing operations, with some additional wastes generated from the hospitality industry. The in-vessel composting system at the Waitakere Transfer Station is consented to process food waste in small quantities. Envirofert claim to have permission from Environment Waikato for a food waste composting trial. However, Environment Waikato does not have any record of this and it is unclear to what stage the trial has progressed. Envirofert has stated that they are currently in the process of obtaining the necessary approvals and upgrading their facility to allow food waste composting on a commercial scale (using a covered, aerated windrow composting system combined with vermicomposting). This will provide a potential option for processing of Aucklands domestic food waste stream, as well as a number of commercial food waste industries. However, there is limited information available as to what the process will involve (details withheld by Envirofert on the basis of confidentiality and commercial sensitivity).

SustainableWasteManagementcompostingfacilityprocessesgreenwasteandcommercialfoodwastefromAuckland,aswellas septicsludgeandroadsweepings(thelaterundercontracttoAucklandCouncils).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

20

Page 29 of 470

The bulk of the compost created from Auckland wastes is sold back into the Auckland residential market, with some additional compost sold into agricultural and horticultural markets south of Auckland. These agricultural and horticultural markets are continuing to develop, and are considered to be a key opportunity for large scale absorption of compost products.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

21

Page 30 of 470

3.

EXISTING FOOD WASTE DIVERSION METHODS

The OWWG do not wish to pursue collection and large scale treatment of domestic organic wastes without first considering other diversion options that are available. This section describes a range of alternative diversion methods and assesses the extent to which these options can be used to divert organic wastes from Aucklands landfills. It is expected that many of these diversion methods will continue to play some role in the spectrum of organic waste reuse and recycling options. 3.1 Home Composting

Home composting is recognised as one of the first steps to divert organic waste from landfill. Correct operation is essential to ensure that home composting piles remain aerobic. Poorly maintained home composting can lead to anaerobic conditions, which case the generation of odour and release of methane a potent greenhouse gas with 23 times10 the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. To maximise the uptake of aerobic home composting, local and regional councils throughout New Zealand elect to play a community education and promotional role. Auckland, North Shore and Manukau City Councils and Franklin, Rodney and Papakura District Councils all run the Create Your Own Eden programme. This programme provides an information-based website11 and printed resources, as well as regular free composting courses. The programme content addresses traditional composting, worm or vermicomposting and the use of Bokashi products. Waitakere City Council does not run the Create Your Own Eden programme but instead run community composting courses through the Waste Minimisation Learning Centre (at the Waitakere Transfer Station), and through Sustainable Living Programmes delivered by the Ecomatters Environment Trust. It is noted that composting technologies are evolving at the household level as well as at a commercial scale. New generation home composting systems such as the New Zealand designed Earthmaker12 seek to overcome many of the traditional barriers to home composting (difficult to use, labour intensive etc). Adoption of such systems could potentially increase the level of uptake for home composting. However, the ability for such products to increase diversion from landfill is currently untested. 3.1.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste

Although the environmental, social and economic benefits of aerobic home composting are well understood and promoted accordingly, there will always be circumstances where home composting is not considered an option. This includes multi unit dwellings and sites with little or no green space, as well as the reluctance of many people to compost meat products or other putrescible wastes that may create objectionable odours or attract vermin.

10 11

http://www.climatetrust.org/solicitations_2007_Metrics.php http://www.createyourowneden.org.nz/ 12 http://www.earthmaker.co.nz/ Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

22

Page 31 of 470

Although some of these objections can be overcome through education on how to compost, there will always be a proportion of household organic waste that is put out at kerbside for collection and disposal or treatment elsewhere. This is demonstrated by the quantities of domestic wastes continuing to be disposed of to landfill from across the Auckland region (refer to Section 4). 3.1.2 In-sink Food Waste Disposal Units

Estimates are that around 34 percent13 of the total housing stock and close to 50 percent14 of new homes are fitted out with food waste disposal systems. These systems provide an option for food waste to be macerated and disposed of to the wastewater system for processing and final disposal. There is marketing material available from in-sink food waste suppliers around the world to promote their systems as a sustainable alternative compared to collection and processing via digestion or composting. This stance is supported by a number of life cycle assessments that have been prepared by independent consultants to evaluate food waste disposal systems against other forms of kitchen waste collection and processing. The study prepared by MWH for Parex Industries Limited (insinkerator supplier) is a local example of such an assessment. The optimum solution is noted as on-site home composting but with a number of benefits offered for the waste disposal alternative. Food waste disposal units are found to be a cost-effective, convenient and hygienic means of separating putrescible domestic kitchen food waste at source and diverting it from landfill15. An additional benefit is that digestion technology and processing infrastructure may already be in place at the downstream wastewater treatment facility, removing the need for new facilities to be developed. Carbon benefits are also highlighted, primarily due to reduced collection vehicle emissions and energy recovery at the wastewater treatment digestion facility. The benefits of the in-sink disposal option depend largely on the wastewater collection infrastructure and the mode of final treatment and disposal. The ability for the wastewater collection and treatment network to cope with additional food wastes needs to be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account the age and condition of the infrastructure, pipe grades and hydraulic gradients, and overall ability of the system to cope with any increase in organic loading and resulting suspended solids concentrations. Discussions with Auckland sewer network providers indicate that the use of domestic in-sink food waste disposal units does not have any significant impacts on the sewer network. Impacts of increased in-sink food waste disposal use are also potentially significant for the wastewater treatment provider. Therefore, discussions have been had with

13 14

MWH,2008.FoodWasteManagementinNewZealand,preparedforParexIndustries,March2008. EstimateprovidedbyAndrewHiggs,GeneralManagerofParexIndustriesLimited 15 MWH,2008.FoodWasteManagementinNewZealand,preparedforParexIndustries,March2008ExecutiveSummary SupplementReportbyD.T.Evans. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

23

Page 32 of 470

Watercare Services Limited (WSL), who treat over 80 percent of wastewater generated across the Auckland region16. WSL has provided the following comments17: The food wastes from household waste disposal units do not cause any particular operational difficulties in the trunk wastewater collection or treatment system. We are unable to comment on the effects of these wastes on local networks or small local treatment plants. Watercare relies on carbon in the wastewater to assist with nitrogen removal at the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. The carbon also provides the opportunity to enhance biogas generation at the treatment plant, which is used for on-site electricity generation to reduce the need to import energy to the plant. Household food wastes are relatively high in carbon and the consequences of significantly reducing food wastes in wastewater would need very careful evaluation before the full effects on the performance of the Mangere wastewater treatment plant could be determined. Our current expectation is that such a reduction would be detrimental and any decision to do so would need to be justified by clear benefits in other areas. The potential could exist to increase the quantities of food waste in wastewater from a trunk system perspective18, but this would also require careful evaluation, including consideration of the effects on local pipe networks. Watercare's current overall position is that it sees no obvious benefit in reducing the use of household waste disposal units from a trunk wastewater perspective, there could be wastewater treatment benefits in increasing their use, but before any change is made, careful evaluation of the costs and benefits of different alternatives would be required.

Watercares comments appear to indicate that they have some concerns about food waste concentrations within wastewater being reduced. However, if a kerbside collection of organic wastes was introduced, it is not expected that there would be a significant change in behaviour for those households that currently use in-sink waste disposal units. Other environmental drawbacks sometimes noted for in-sink disposal units are higher water use and potential eutrophication effects downstream through increased nutrient loading. However, additional water usage is only thought to be around 2 or 3 percent19 and any increases in downstream eutrophication are difficult to assess. Effects depend on the type of downstream treatment and design assumptions that were made in terms of organics in the wastewater stream. The 2002 WasteNot food waste report presented a view that the additional biological oxygen demand provided by food waste could assist wastewater treatment processes in nutrient removal, particularly the

16

ThreeWatersStrategicPlan,FinalVersion,December2008(producedbyWatercareServicesLimited,Auckland,Waitakere, ManukauandNorthShoreCityCouncils,Franklin,RodneyandPapakuraDistrictCouncilsandManukauWater,Metrowaterand UnitedWater) 17 PersonalcorrespondencebetweenJoanneMcGregor,MorrisonLowandJimHodges,WatercareServicesLimited. 18 ThepotentialforWatercaretohandleincreaseddomesticfoodwastequantitiesisnotcurrentlyquantifiablefurtherwork wouldbeneededtotesttheavailablecapacitywithinWatercaresystemandpipeconveyancenetworks. 19 Asreportedinthefollowingstudy:FoodWasteDisposalOptionsStudyAreportpreparedforHousingNewZealand: HobsonvilleLandCompanyBraidwoodResearchandConsultingLtd,December2007. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

24

Page 33 of 470

removal of phosphorous. This would then aid in the reduction of eutrophication of waterways20,21 (phosphorous being a major cause of eutrophication). 3.1.3 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste

There are two essential differences between the in-sink food waste disposal pathway for food waste and a more conventional collection and centralised composting method: The food waste is transported via the sewerage system as opposed to road transport; and the material is mixed with sewage and other effluent before being treated through biodigestion. In-sink disposal units offer potential benefits in terms of reduced vehicle movements, avoided fossil fuel use (and the associated carbon benefits) and reduced labour costs. Offset against these are increased water usage, power consumption associated with the use of the disposal units and wastewater pumping, and increased loadings on the sewerage systems. The treatment of the material through bio-digestion allows for the possibility of energy recovery, which would have carbon benefits. The dewatered sludge can have further application through land-spreading (e.g. forestry) or site remediation, or it may be disposed of to landfill. Of potential concern however is the reduced value of food waste as a resource. In an urban setting such as Auckland, significant contamination with industrial waste products is likely to occur. Once the material has been through the treatment process contaminants such as heavy metals, PCBs dioxin, and brominated flame retardants, may remain22. The presence of these contaminants potentially restricts the uses for treated biosolids material. The extent to which this is an issue will depend on the level of these contaminants in the final product and the nature of use for which the material is intended. In effect however, potentially valuable food waste material is mixed with a potentially contaminated source and the food waste is effectively down-cycled. Biosolids can be mixed with greenwaste and turned into a high nutrient value compost23. However, Aucklands markets for these products may be restricted due to contamination and perception issues. Creating compost using biosolids would also require an in-vessel composting facility, effectively removing one of the potential advantages of the in-sink disposal route (new infrastructure not being required). Based on feedback from Watercare and others involved in the Auckland wastewater industry, domestic in-sink disposal units do not appear to create any significant issues for the sewer network or for wastewater treatment. Therefore, there is potential to increase their use as one means of diverting domestic food waste from landfill. There are currently no council restrictions in place to prevent the use of in-sink food waste disposal systems, so their installation and use is therefore a question of personal preference. High levels of domestic food waste found in the refuse stream indicate that in-sink disposal systems are not used by a significant portion of the community. Therefore
20 21

PersonalCommunicationwithPaulVickers(2002)ProcesscontrolScientist,RosedaleTreatmentPlant. Qasim,S(1988)Enhancedbiologicalnutrientremovalinamunicipalwastewatertreatmentplantat www.twri.tamu.edu/twripubs/v1n3/abstract3.html 22 http://faculty.washington.edu/clh/understandingbiosolids/Ch7organics.pdf 23 TheLivingEarthfacilityinWellingtoncreatedcompostproductsusingbiosolidsandgreenwastefeedstocksuntiltheplantwas decommissionedattheendof2008. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

25

Page 34 of 470

other options to manage and beneficially reusing domestic food wastes are likely to also be required. Further investigation would be required to determine the costs and benefits of this approach in the Auckland context, taking account of diversion potential, sewerage system loadings, and product end use and markets. It is also noted that the installation of in-sink disposal units is not a decision that can be made by those living in rented accommodation. By comparison, participation in a kerbside collection service for food waste would be available to all on the collection route, regardless of whether they are a homeowner or not. 3.2 Use as Stock Feed

Waste food is traditionally used as a feedstock for animals, in particular pigs. However, the use of mixed food waste as stock feed appears to be declining due to: 1. concerns about transmission of diseases such as BSE, swine fever and foot and mouth 2. a growing trend towards optimising nutrition in pig and ruminant feed to maximise growth rates (and hence profitability)24 3. concerns about the presence of contaminants such as broken glass, cutlery, plastic film etc25. These considerations, in particular the desire to maximise growth rates, have resulted in commercial scale pig farms moving away from mixed food waste (although separate food waste streams such as bakery rejects and dairy products are still used). Discussed below is the potential to redevelop the stock feed market as a large scale diversion method for Aucklands domestic food waste stream. One of the most critical concerns with feeding mixed food waste to animals is the pathogen risk from meat, or food that has been in contact with meat. Feeding meat and food waste containing meat to pigs is considered a disease risk to New Zealands livestock industries. The Biosecurity (Meat and Food waste for Pigs) Regulations 2005 were introduced to control the spread of diseases like swine vesicular disease, swine fever and foot and mouth disease. The Regulations require meat, and food waste that has come into contact with meat, to be heated to 100oC for one hour (e.g. by boiling) to destroy any bacteria or virus. Under the Biosecurity Act 1993, penalties for feeding non-compliant food to pigs are up to $5,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a corporation.26 NZ Pork indicates that there may be some flexibility to develop a compliant treatment process that is outside the above specifications. NZ Pork also indicated they would be very interested in supporting any endeavours to turn non compliant food waste into a
24

Highperformancepigshaveveryspecificnutritionalneeds.Ratesofgrowthusingmixedfoodwastewouldmostlikelybe belowoptimumgrowthandprofitabilityratesthatcanbeachievedthroughcarefullycontrolleddiets. 25 Afurtherconsiderationthatmayrequireinvestigationistheimpactofbiodegradableplasticlinersinfoodwastecollections(if used).Itisnotknownwhatissues,ifany,mayarisefromthepresenceofbiodegradableplasticfilminstockfeed. 26 http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/foodwaste Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

26

Page 35 of 470

compliant pig feed. They suggest that one option could be to supplement the mixed waste in order to improve its nutritional value and make it attractive to farmers27. 3.2.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste

On Farm Requirements A number of farms around the country are set up to sterilise food waste and feed it to pigs. This requires a cooking or steam injection facility and a feeding system that can handle liquid slurry to distribute the processed food. Testing procedures need to be in place to monitor quality and ensure that sterilisation standards have been met. Systems for identifying and removing contaminants (chemicals, glass, metal etc) also need to be in place. This can require magnets to remove metals and blowers to remove plastic films, increasing the level of capital investment required. Consistent supply is essential, as are short storage times. Daily delivery of reasonably consistent quantities is therefore important. After cooking for 1 hour at 100oC the food waste would have lost much of its nutrient value, and proteins will have been damaged. The boiled food waste would therefore be considered an energy rather than nutrient source and would require supplementing. Quantities Pigs eat between approximately 2 and 6 kg per day. Dry sows eat 1.8kg - 2.3kg per day, milking sows 4.5kg 5.4kg per day and boars about 2.3kg to 3.1kg per day. Assuming an average of 2.5kg per day for a herd, it would require about 400 pigs to consume a tonne of food waste per day (if this was their only food source). This means that to process 100,000 tonnes of food waste per annum (274 tonnes per day) would require a herd of about 110,000 pigs or approximately 2/3rds of the total 28 number of pigs in the North Island . Farm Size There has been a trend towards large scale farming of pigs with herds of 1,000+ 29 accounting for 72 percent of New Zealand's total pig population . Most commercial scale farms have herd sizes of at least 4 - 5,000 with around 10,000 being typical. To process Aucklands food waste would therefore require at least 10 large farms accepting the food as primary feedstock. Cost and Income Balanced commercial feeds consisting of 90 percent dry matter sell for approximately $500 per tonne. Cereals which make up a base feed are approximately $400 per tonne. Mixed food waste consisting of approximately 20 percent dry matter might be expected to fetch approximately $100 per tonne delivered, although this will depend on the costs of required pre-treatment. Ruminants In terms of stock feeds for other than pigs, the Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein) Regulations 1999 (which aim to preserve New Zealands BSE-free status and manage the risk of a BSE outbreak) prohibit the feeding of ruminant protein (except dairy produce) in any form to ruminant animals. This means that any form of meat or meat
27 28

PersonalcommunicationbetweenDuncanWilson,Eunomia,andFrancesClement,NZPork www.statistics.co.nz 29 StatisticsNewZealand,2002 Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

27

Page 36 of 470

product is excluded from feeding to cows, sheep or goats. This effectively excludes these stock types as potential markets for mixed food waste, as it would be virtually impossible to guarantee that household food waste did not contain meat or had not come into contact with meat products. 3.3 Worm (Vermi) Composting

Vermicomposting uses special worms (usually Tiger Worms, Eisenia foetida) to process organic material (mainly softer organic wastes) and produce a high quality soil amendment product. When the waste material passes through the worms gut the nutrients become more bio-available, with many times more (for example) nitrogen and phosphorous available than normal top soil. As a result the output is becoming sought 30 after by farmers and market gardeners who may pay up to $400 per tonne . Worm composting is also a promoted option for home composting, particularly suited to households with small sites or limited amounts of greenwaste. Worms used for commercial vermicomposting are housed in beds which can be either enclosed or set up as open windrows. The worms feed on a layer of slightly decomposed material 5 to 10cm below the surface, leaving behind the castings which are a rich soil-like substance. Most worm farms are fed with layers of material at the top and worm castings are harvested at the bottom, although there are variations on this theme such as a horizontal continual flow system. Worm farms also produce a liquid (vermi-liquid or worm tea) which can be diluted about 1:8 and used as a direct application plant food. Many medium-scale commercial operators carefully balance the inputs to their vermicomposting systems to minimise liquid outputs, and will add any liquid back to the system to be fully processed by the worms. 3.3.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste

Worm farming has tended to operate at relatively small scales in New Zealand, although there have been operations established to process abattoir paunch waste, pig 31 manure and biosolids. An Australian firm, Vermitech , has established relatively large scale operations processing sewage sludge. Vermicomposting is most suitable for high nutrient value waste streams, such as sewage sludge, primary processing wastes, and kitchen wastes; where it is desirable to add value to the materials. A number of large scale operations have been set up around the world, but the science and practice of vermicomposting is still developing with respect to large scale operations. Worms are relatively sensitive to the types of feedstocks and careful blending of materials is required to avoid stressing or killing the worms, or ending up with retained unprocessed organic waste. Small quantities of bulking agents (up to 30 percent) are required for food waste to avoid the process becoming anaerobic. Worms are usually fed a pre-processed mixture of organic materials either pre-composted material or raw material that has been blended to ensure the right ph and moisture balances, aeration structure and Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio (20-25:1). There are potential issues with pathogen control in the system. In order to effectively kill pathogens (harmful micro-organisms including communicable diseases), material needs to be treated at a minimum of 55oC for at least 3 days. Vermicomposting
30 31

PersonalCommunicationbetweenDuncanWilson,Eunomia,andColinMcPike,OrganicWasteSolutions RegionalOptionsforFoodWasteComposting,June2004,URS

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

28

Page 37 of 470

systems do not achieve this. Therefore some form of pre-treatment is likely to be required to pasteurise the material. This would add to the capital costs. Treatment of the feedstocks at high temperatures is also necessary to kill seeds (e.g. tomato and capsicum seeds), which would potentially contaminate the final vermicast product, and restrict the potential sale value (Liquid from the process is not affected by this consideration and may still have good market value). Worm composting alone is not generally used to process food waste from household collections at a large municipal scale such as would be required for the Auckland region. While this may be technically feasible there would appear to be a number of issues in particular the control of contamination, the lack of track record at large scale, and the need to further develop markets for the product (the potential for high returns from the product being key to a favourable cost/benefit profile for the technology). 3.4 EM Bokashi

EM stands for effective microorganisms, and Bokashi is a Japanese word which translates as fermented organic matter. The technology of EM was developed during the 1980s in Japan and has become well established globally, used in more than 120 countries around the world in a range of applications including agriculture, composting, bio-remediation, septic tanks and household use. EM is a mixture of organism groups, and has been described as a multi-culture of coexisting anaerobic and aerobic 32 beneficial micro-organisms . Main species involved in EM are; Lactic acid bacteria Photosynthetic bacteria Yeasts Actinomycetes Fermenting fungi

The theory is that this combination of organism groups act as a strong sterilizing compound, suppressing harmful micro-organisms and disease-inducing organisms (Higa, 1996) whilst enhancing the decomposition of organic matter. Proponents claim that EM will improve the efficiency of biological systems, reduce smell, and compete against harmful pathogens in the waste. It is also claimed that nutrients, particularly nitrogen, are retained and do not escape into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. The nitrogen is largely organically bound (i.e. less is mineralised), which reduces leaching into ground water. The most common application of EM Bokashi is in the household. Food waste is placed by the householder in an airtight bucket, and a layer of EM Bokashi bran is sprinkled on top. The dry bran is an organic (high carbon) material such as rice or wheat bran that has been inoculated with a fermented organic material made from molasses, water and the EM microorganisms. It is possible for householders to make EM, but more usually it is purchased when needed. In this anaerobic environment, the EM-Bokashi ferments the food waste, effectively pickling or preserving it and preventing it from rotting. This is said to eliminate odour and the attraction to flies. When the bucket is full, it is left for at least one week to
32

Daly&Stewart,1999

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

29

Page 38 of 470

ferment the food waste inside. The fermentation results in breaking lignin (fibers) in the food waste. This process is claimed to preserve vitamins, amino acids, and antioxidants and make them more bio-available. Once the material has matured it can be dug into the garden or added to a compost pile. The materials inside the buckets break down within two weeks after being buried in the ground or incorporated into an existing composting pile (it is not recommended to plant anything for two weeks after digging the material in). 3.4.1 Suitability for treatment of municipal organic waste

There are a number of potentially interesting aspects to the Bokashi process if it were to be applied to the municipal scale. In such a system householders could be supplied with Bokashi buckets and EM inoculated bran and either use the material at home or set it out for collection (either separately or added in to a greenwaste collection service). This could have a number of advantages including the following: The process preserves food waste material enabling it to be stored for longer than untreated food waste. This means that it could be collected less often (for example fortnightly), saving on collection time and costs. The Bokashi-treated material can potentially be processed in a windrow composting system or applied directly to land as a soil amendment, reducing processing costs associated with in-vessel treatment technologies. It is claimed that adding Bokashi to a composting process reduces the need for turning, reducing processing costs and fuel use in the composting process (although this claim would need to be tested). Promoters of Bokashi systems claim enhanced nutrient value for the outputs compared to material that is treated through a composting process. If this is the case, and the material is perceived by farmers or potential users to have agricultural benefits, then there is the possibility for the outputs to have greater market value than standard compost.

Savings from the collection and processing systems could be partially applied to the front end of the system (i.e. the householder) in terms of investing in education, support and effective user friendly systems. It is possible that such as system could prove, on balance, to be a cost effective alternative. It should be noted however that the above benefits are, at this stage, more theoretical than real. The application of Bokashi, while well established at a household level, has not been trialled or implemented at a municipal scale. New Zealand is said to be at the forefront of efforts to apply the technology at larger commercial scales, and so there appears to be little international experience that can be drawn on. In addition there are a number of further questions about the technology: The ability of the process to reduce pathogen risk. In order to effectively kill pathogens (harmful micro-organisms including communicable diseases), the accepted treatment for food waste is for it to be processed at a minimum of 55oC for at least 3 consecutive days. Bokashi systems, which are a cold process, do not achieve this, and it is not yet clear the degree to which the system effectively treats pathogens.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

30

Page 39 of 470

There is still significant work being done to understand the impact of Bokashi as a soil amendment. Until there is more data available markets are likely to be restricted. There is a lack of track record for Bokashi systems operating at significant scale, and it is not known what issues and costs are likely to be involved in scaling up the technology. Operation of the system correctly requires a reasonable level of householder knowledge and commitment. There is the risk that if material incorrectly treated (e.g. insufficient EM Bokashi applied or the container is insufficiently anaerobic) is placed into the municipal collection system it may result in processing failure, leading to vector attraction, odour and health risks.

On balance the EM Bokashi system, while appearing to have interesting potential, is not yet sufficiently proven for application at a scale beyond that of the household. 3.5 Section Summary Existing Food Waste Diversion Methods

Home composting, worm composting, bokashi and in sink food waste disposal systems are all options that can divert food waste from landfill at the household level. Accordingly, the Auckland Councils already contribute to the promotion of home composting, worm composting and bokashi systems. Councils do not specifically promote the use of in sink food waste disposal systems, nor do they actively discourage their use. These options have been available to householders for some time and are a question of the home owners personal preference. However, as is the case for home composting and bokashi systems, the amount of domestic food waste still being disposed of to landfill indicates that in-sink disposal units are not being used by a significant portion of the community. Impacts of increased use of domestic in-sink disposal units are expected to be minor for the sewer network and wastewater treatment facilities, although further work would be required to assess impacts of increased (or decreased) use in any detail. In-sink disposal units offer potential benefits over kerbside collection of food waste in terms of reduced vehicle movements, avoided fossil fuel use (and the associated carbon benefits) and reduced labour costs. However, these benefits are partially offset by increased water use and power consumption (to deliver food wastes to the wastewater treatment plant). The use of existing digestion systems (at the Watercare and Rosedale wastewater treatment plants) offers potential cost benefits compared to creating a new facility for food waste. However, contamination of the domestic food waste with industrial waste products would occur. As a result, potentially high value food waste is mixed with other contaminated wastewaters and the food waste is effectively down-cycled. The choice to install an in-sink disposal unit is also an option with limited potential for those Aucklanders that rent rather than own their home. Although the use of domestic food waste as stock feed has some potential for growth, the variability of domestic food wastes and the inclusion of meat products may raise processing costs and decrease product values to a point that is uneconomic. It is likely that conversion to stock feed is an application that is best suited to commercial food wastes, where waste quantities and properties are likely to be more consistent.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

31

Page 40 of 470

Worm composting and/or EM Bokashi products have potential to improve the quality of traditional compost. However, traditional composting or some other form of pasteurisation will still be required to destroy pathogens and weed seeds present within domestic food waste. At a regional level, there may be opportunities for worm composting and EM Bokashi to be incorporated into traditional composting operations, however, the viability of doing so would need to be based on end market requirements and increased product value. Alternatively, bokashi could be considered for use as part of the front end food waste collection service. In this instance, viability would need to be assessed based on a cost-benefit review of collection methods.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

32

Page 41 of 470

4.

TONNAGE DATA REVIEW

This section provides a review of current waste and population data, as a means to assess maximum and minimum residential and commercial organic waste tonnages potentially available for processing and beneficial reuse from across the Auckland region. Results of this high level analysis are summarised below, with an aim to extract baseline data required for the processing options review. Additional information and data tables are included within Appendix A of this report. This data review section should be read in combination with the collection options analysis (Section 5), as waste collection methods determine how much of the potential organic waste portion is made available for processing and beneficial reuse. 4.1 Population and Growth

The data analysis for this study is based upon population figures obtained from the last (2006) national census. The Auckland region population is expected to grow from its current size of approximately 1.4 million people to nearly 2 million people in just over 20 years. This is equivalent to a total growth rate of 44 percent over this time period. All parts of the Auckland region are expected to undergo substantial growth with Manukau City and Rodney District experiencing the highest growth rates. This level of population growth, if it eventuates, has significant implications for facilities planning. Capacity for this level of growth will need to be taken into consideration when sizing a facility and evaluating site capacities. The technology selected will either have to be capable of being expanded to meet future demand or will have to be sized to meet the anticipated demand over its lifetime. 4.2 Waste Composition

Based upon SWAP data collected by Aucklands seven territorial authorities, approximately 40 percent to 50 percent of the material in the kerbside collected refuse is organic waste, most of which would be suitable for composting. The proportion of food waste is estimated at around 30 percent to 40 percent, while greenwaste proportions have been shown to range across the region, from 3 percent in Papakura to 13 percent in Manukau. The kerbside collected material would be the primary source of food waste for an Auckland region compost facility (or facilities). These composition figures are used as a basis for estimating the tonnage of kerbside material potentially available for composting in the region. 4.3 Organic Waste Quantities

The following data has been compiled to derive an estimate of the tonnages of food and greenwaste potentially available for composting in the Auckland region. Data is

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

33

Page 42 of 470

based on information supplied by the Auckland regions territorial authorities and on estimates derived from known wastes data. 4.3.1 Food Waste
33

The available data suggests that in the order of 110,000 tonnes of food waste is potentially available from kerbside collected domestic waste, with a further 40,000 tonnes of food waste potentially available from commercial post consumer food waste sources such as the hospitality sector. This means that by 2011 there could be around 150,000 tonnes of food waste which could potentially be diverted to beneficial use in the Auckland region. This estimate of post consumer food wastes will be verified by Stage 2 of the Food and Beverage Industry Food Waste Project. For the purposes of this exercise food waste currently going to other beneficial use such as stock feed is not considered. Food and Beverage Industry Food Waste Project Enterprising Manukau and the Food and Beverage Industry Association are currently engaged in a project to examine opportunities to reduce wastes going to landfill from Aucklands food and beverage sector (i.e. pre-consumer food wastes). The project, which is supported by the Sustainable Management Fund (SMF), is currently in its first phase. This phase, undertaken between December 2008 and June 2009, has involved a detailed survey of food and beverage manufacturers to ascertain current practices with respect to food waste. A total of 65 businesses were surveyed, including all the major food and beverage manufactures in the Auckland region. The survey found that the combined 65 businesses produce 50,500 tonnes of food waste per annum. Existing uses for that food waste are as follows: 32,000 tonnes (63 percent) is used for stock feed 4,200 tonnes (8.3 percent) is used as fertiliser 3,300 tonnes (6.6 percent) is sent for composting 1,100 tonnes (2.2 percent) is sent for rendering 5,000 tonnes (9.8 percent) is sent to other uses including biofuel, pet food manufacturing, and charities

Approximately 2,600 tonnes (5.1 percent) of the total waste is sent to landfill on a regular basis with a further 2,400 tonnes (4.8 percent) occasionally sent to landfill depending on the availability of alternative collection services. Overall organic waste from the food and beverage sector would appear to be well managed by the private sector with a 90 percent-95 percent recovery rate. Of the material going to landfill there are issues with recovery relating to the need for

33

ThisfigureishigherthanthatderivedbytheURS2004studyduetoanincreaseofapproximately12%intheAucklandregion populationandtotheinclusionofFranklinDistrictinthefiguresusedforthisstudy.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

34

Page 43 of 470

depackaging, separation from contaminants and security of disposal (i.e. to avoid unsafe product being re-sold or distributed). Stage 1 of the Food and Beverage study suggests that there is very little commercial food waste from the food and beverage manufacturing sector that is not already being beneficially reused. Therefore a regional organic waste processing facility would not require additional capacity for these wastes. A subsequent phase of the project is examining food waste from the hospitality and catering sectors. It is anticipated there will be greater requirements to divert food wastes from these sectors from landfill. 4.3.2 Greenwaste

As most organic waste treatment processes require some form of bulking agent such as greenwaste, the quantities of greenwaste potentially available are also of critical importance. A significant portion of greenwaste from across Auckland is already separated for beneficial reuse. This is either sourced via private greenwaste collection services or is received at transfer stations as a separated waste stream. The analysis of council data indicates that there are approximately 50,000 tonnes of 34 greenwaste currently being separated for composting or mulch . Industry estimates are slightly higher, with around 50,000 tonnes of greenwaste composted at the Living Earth Limited on Puketutu Island and a further 25,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year composted at the Envirofert facility in Tuakau. Smaller quantities of greenwaste are 35 also composted at the Heards composting facility in Papakura and at two transfer stations in the Rodney District (Warkworth and Silverdale). Although this material is already being put to beneficial use it could potentially be combined with food waste in a composting or anaerobic digestion process and so is considered here. Landfilled greenwaste has been estimated by applying commercial waste composition and tonnage figures for a known facility across all TAs on a per capita basis. The available data suggests that in addition to the material currently being separated for beneficial use a further 70,000 tonnes of greenwaste is potentially available. The largest proportion of this is from commercial (predominantly landscaping) sources. It should be noted that not all of the material currently sent to landfill is likely to be suitable for composting. Organic material such as flax, bamboo, and cabbage tree leaves are not generally accepted for composting in commercial processes. If such material is mixed up in loads contaminating other potentially compostable material, then the entire load may be deemed unsuitable for processing. There is also a portion of domestic greenwaste that is used onsite rather than placed at the kerbside. This includes greenwaste that is composted or mulched, spread over lawns or gardens (e.g. grass clippings), or left to decompose in piles. It is very difficult to quantify these components of the greenwaste stream. However, it is noted that a council provided organic waste collection service would likely divert some of this material from current onsite uses, contributing additional tonnages to the greenwaste stream.
34

35

ThedatawasgenerallyderivedfromtransferstationdataforWaitakereCityextrapolatedacrossothercouncilareasbased onpopulation.TheexceptionisNorthShoredatawhichwassuppliedbyNSCC. AweighbridgehasbeenoperatingattheHeardsfacilityforthepasttwomonths,recording37.5tonnesofgreenwaste enteringthefacilityoverAprilandMay.Althoughannualtonnagesaredifficulttoassessatthisstage,assuminganaverage monthlyfigureof19tonnesandapplyingapeakfactorof1.5xthemonthlyaverage,annualtonnagesareestimatedinorder of250to270tonnesperyear.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

35

Page 44 of 470

4.3.3

Other Wastes

Other organic wastes potentially able to be processed and beneficially reused include sanitary wastes (e.g. nappies), and biosolids. According to SWAP waste data, nappies and sanitary products make up between 9 and 16 percent of Aucklands domestic 36 refuse stream . Much of the regions biosolids are produced by the wastewater treatment plants at Mangere and Rosedale. These produce 300 tonnes per day and 30 37 tonnes per day of biosolids , respectively, equating to more than 120,000 tonnes per year. Biosolids from the Mangere plant are being used to remediate disused oxidation ponds on site, while the Rosedale biosolids (around 11,000 tonnes per year) are currently being landfilled. Although some parts of sanitary products are not biodegradable, much of it is and composting trials were undertaken by Envirocomp in 2007 using a small HotRot Composting system. Although the trial was deemed a success by those involved, it has not yet been undertaken beyond a trial scale. A report prepared by Waitakere City Council in August 2008 evaluated the study and compared its costs and benefits38. The recommendation was that the Envirocomp nappy composting process did not provide sufficient benefits, either financially or environmentally, for the Council to support its adoption. Plastic contamination from sanitary products does remain in the composted product and uses and general acceptance of the product differ compared to composts generated from food and greenwastes. Biosolids are similarly able to be beneficially reused (composted, digested etc.), as demonstrated by the biosolids composting plant previously operated in Wellington (Council and Living Earth joint venture). However, additional waste handling requirements apply and product markets may differ. Although the main focus of this study is on options to beneficially reuse food waste, particularly domestic food waste, the ability of different technologies to process sanitary wastes and biosolids is discussed within Section 7. Cultural considerations are addressed as are impacts on products and markets. 4.4 Section Summary Tonnage Data Review

The data suggests that there is in the order of 150,000 tonnes of food waste in the Auckland region that could be diverted from landfill and instead put to beneficial use. This includes around 100,000 tonnes per year of domestic food waste and the rest from commercial sources. In addition to the greenwaste that is already being diverted and composted (estimated at between 75,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year), there is additional greenwaste in the order of 70,000 tonnes per year that is still being disposed of to landfill. These quantities will not be the same as the amount of material that is eventually able to be captured for processing. In particular, the quantities of food waste obtained from households is likely to be less than 100,000 tonnes per year, while quantities of
36 37

ACC11.4%,MCC12.2%,WCC15.6%,NSCC10.9%,FDC9.1%,PDC11.1%,RDC8.6% ThreeWatersStrategicPlan,FinalVersion,December2008(producedbyWatercareServicesLimited,Auckland,Waitakere, ManukauandNorthShoreCityCouncils,Franklin,RodneyandPapakuraDistrictCouncilsandManukauWater,Metrowaterand UnitedWater) 38 WaitakereCityCouncilAgendaitemforthePolicyandStrategyCommittee7August2008 Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

36

Page 45 of 470

greenwaste may be greater if free (rates funded) collections are provided which pulls material away from on-site treatments (home composting, mulching, land application etc.). These issues are discussed further in Section 5 where potential capture rates for domestic food and greenwastes are assessed. Section 8.2 provides a further assessment of the range of organic waste tonnages that could be made available for further processing and beneficial reuse. Other potentially recoverable organic wastes going to landfill include sanitary wastes and biosolids. Handling requirements, contamination risks and product markets differ for these wastestreams compared to food and greenwastes. Processing and market issues are discussed within Sections 7 and 10, respectively.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

37

Page 46 of 470

5.

COLLECTING DOMESTIC FOOD WASTE

Kerbside collection systems for food waste are an integral part of any system that attempts to divert organic waste from the municipal residual waste stream. They can have a profound effect on the quantity and quality of materials collected, and on the overall costs of the organic waste collection and processing system. The focus in this section is to highlight the key performance parameters of organic waste collection systems and how collection systems may impact on the viability of a regional approach to organic waste processing. This includes how collection might influence the quantities of materials collected, the quality of those materials and the overall system costs. This section focuses on food waste collection, although greenwaste collections are also considered in terms of co-collection of food and greenwaste. There are other factors which may be important considerations in the selection of a food waste collection system but which are outside the scope of the current report. These include: health and safety, the impact on private garden bag/bin operators, integration with existing refuse and recycling systems, residents preferences and the desire to promote home composting and other organic waste prevention initiatives. 5.1 Description of Options

The key parameters in respect of organic waste collections are as follows: whether food should be collected together with greenwaste or separately what type of containment to use the frequency of collection any charges applied to the collection services

In addition there are a number of other factors outside of the organic waste collection system which can influence organic waste collection performance. These include: the frequency of rubbish collection services the type of containment of refuse collections any charges applied for waste collection the frequency and quality of communications

The impact of each of these parameters is discussed in the following subsections. 5.1.1 Separate vs. Co-collection of Food Waste with Greenwaste

In separate collection systems food waste is collected on its own using separate containment. In a co-collection system food and greenwaste are collected in the same container and on the same vehicle. The decision to collect food waste with or without greenwaste depends on a range of factors, the most important being whether the key objective is to reduce food waste only or both food and green waste to landfill, the

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

38

Page 47 of 470

desired processing option and the target end market. The impacts of each collection scenario are discussed below. Participation and Capture If food waste is collected separately, then the quantities collected are straightforward to determine. However food waste is often co-collected alongside other organic material and the lack of good composition data makes it difficult to estimate food waste quantities in co-collection systems. The following table shows participation and capture 39 rates for a range of systems and studies that collect food waste separately : Table 5-1: Food waste only collection - participation, capture, kg
Scheme/Study Italy (aggregated data) Catalonia (Spain) WRAP food waste trial (UK)40 Bristol UK Ealing trials (UK) Christchurch food (2002) Participation Rate 80%-90% 80% 41% to 83% (average 63%) 36% 23% (opt in) Capture Rate 75% 62% Kg per participating hh/wk 3.5 3.7 2.41 2.69 3.11 4.0 Kg per hh/wk 2.96 2.96 1.53 1.52 1.13

27%

waste

trials

The following table shows participation and capture rates for a range of systems and studies that co-collect food waste with greenwaste. The information provided for Christchurch is based on a collection trial undertaken in 2005. Earlier this year a commingled food waste collection service was rolled out across Christchurch, utilising an 80L collection bin (without caddy or liners). At the time of writing this report, audit data for the new organic waste kerbside service was not yet available. However, trials will be undertaken in time, and the results will provide useful data for Auckland. Table 5-2: Co-mingled food & greenwaste collections Food Capture Rates
Scheme/Study Christchurch organic trial (2005) Timaru 3 bin system (2007 audit) Participation Rate 97% (garden & food waste) Capture Rate Kg per participating hh/wk 2.4 2.97kg (2.86kg excl. contaminated food) 4.01 Kg per hh/wk 1.85

North Shore MGB Trials (2003)

Burnside food waste trial (South Australia) Bexley Trial (UK) Composting operator estimates (UK)41

53% (food and garden) 42% food only 60% (food only) 39%

55% (est.)

1.68

36.3% 31% 10% 2.38 0.74 0.38

39

Participationrateistheproportionofhouseholdsusingaservice.Capturerateistheproportionofmaterialavailableinthe wastestreamthatispulledoutorcapturedbytheseparatecollectionsystem. 40 Thesetrialscover19localauthorities 41 EstimateswereobtainedfromtheLondonWasteECOparkcompostingplant,andGreenfinchinShropshirewhichsuggesta5% minimumfigureoverthesummermonthsandamaximum15%figureduringwinter.Averagedovertheyearthiswould suggestabout10%or20kgfoodwasteforatypical200kg/hh/yrgreenandfoodcollection. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

39

Page 48 of 470

The above data illustrates that there is a wide range of performance for both separately collected and co-collected food waste systems. Allowing for different methodologies in recording data, the WRAP trials in the UK suggests a 63 percent average participation rate and a food waste capture rate across all systems of approximately 62 percent. Data for co-collected systems from the North Shore trial in 2003 suggests a 42 participation rate of 42 percent for the food waste collection service but a capture rate 43 of 55 percent of food that was going to residual . Timaru District Council has also provided collection data, which has remained fairly consistent over the past two annual 44 45 audits . Their data suggests a food waste capture rate of 49 percent based on a comparison between food waste contained in audited refuse and organics bins audited. Key Issues and Risks Separate collection of food waste can result in higher collection costs if greenwaste is also collected, as two collection systems must effectively be provided. However separate collections may allow for lower overall system costs. For example, separate greenwaste can be collected less frequently, charged for, and processed in cheaper windrow systems. Co-collection of food and greenwaste restricts the flexibility of management systems in a number of ways: collection of food waste is best done weekly to avoid odour issues. Collecting less frequently also results in lower participation and capture of food waste. rates funded and frequent collection of greenwaste often results in large quantities of greenwaste that were not previously in the household collection 46 system . This is an extra potential expense for the council which could be constrained by providing smaller bin sizes. all material collected must be processed in more expensive contained systems. contamination is generally more difficult to control in co-collection systems. Contamination is harder to see when mixed with greenwaste, especially in wheeled bin systems utilising automated lift systems. The larger bin size also allows more and larger contaminants to be included. Containment

5.1.2

Containment can have a significant impact on participation in a food waste collection service and hence on capture rates. The most significant factor is the provision of inhouse containment in addition to roadside containment. In-house containment adds
42

TheNorthShoretrialdemonstratedaparticipationrateof53%forbothfoodandgreenwaste.Anauditofthebinsshowed 20%ofbinswithgreenwasteonly,indicatingthat80%ofthehouseholdsusingtheserviceuseditforfoodwaste(i.e.42%). 43 Thereareanumberofpossibleexplanationsastowhythecapturerateissignificantlyhigherthantheparticipationrate:itis likelythathouseholdsthatparticipatedarethosewiththelargestquantityoffoodwastetodisposeof.Addedtothisthose thatchosenottoparticipatearelikelytoincludehouseholdswithinsinkdisposalunitsandhouseholdsthathomecompost theirfoodwasteandsocontributedlittlefoodwastetotheresidualwastestream 44 BasedonpersonalcommunicationwithRuthClarkeofTimaruDistrictCouncil.Actualparticipationandcaptureratesbasedon TDCJune2007WasteAuditreport. 45 The2007TDCwasteauditshowedanaverageof2.4kgoffoodwasteremainingintheresidualwastebin.Addingthistothe averageof2.32kgoffoodwasteperhousehold,justunderhalfofthedomesticfoodwastestreamisbeingdivertedfrom landfillforthosehouseholdsfoundtobeparticipating(participationratesnotknown). 46 UKdatasuggeststhistobearound200kg/hh/yronaverage.DatafromtheNorthShoretrialssuggestsafigureofaround260kg peryear,whilefiguresfromTimaruindicatearound230kgperhouseholdperyear. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

40

Page 49 of 470

convenience for householders and if the containment is well designed it can help to reduce odours and mess. The main options for in-house containment include: householder provides their own solid sided caddy (typically 7-10 litres) solid sided caddy with liners (either paper sacks or compostable plastic liners) ventilated caddy with liners (either paper sacks or compostable plastic liners)

Existing collections and studies identify that the best performing systems supply caddies with liners. Italy and Spain for example have participation rates over 80 percent and predominantly use ventilated caddies with liners; UK and South Australia: 60 - 63 percent using predominantly solid sided caddies with liners. The 2005 Christchurch trial indicated that 85 percent of households preferred the biodegradable 47 48 liners to lining bins with newspaper and a UK study conducted by Eunomia suggests that using a caddy will have approximately 30 percent better participation levels than if no caddy is used. Capture rates indicate that, compared to using a solid sided caddy alone, using liners resulted in 36 percent greater capture of material when used in a ventilated caddy system and 22 percent greater capture of material when used with a solid sided caddy. The selection of the roadside containment system should also take into account implications for animal strike and vandalism. When considering kerbside bins, bin size and its resulting stability should be taken into account. Combined experience and knowledge of the OWWG members is that there will be some instability issues for bins up to 80L in capacity, and that 140L or larger will be more stable. Key Issues and Risks Provision of caddies and liners add cost to the system. The capital cost for caddies are expected at around $8-9, and liners of compostable plastic (cornstarch) at around 49 10c per bag for a 7 litre bag. If the equivalent of two bags per week were supplied to households this would increase collection costs by around $10 per household per year. Risks are identified regarding the logistical issues associated with providing the liners to the householders, as well as issues of higher contamination due to use of what appear to be similar bags e.g. degradable supermarket shopping bags. The impacts of liners for processing also need to be considered. Although there are various compostable liners available, the conditions under which they breakdown can vary and would need to be matched with the processing system. Key processing conditions that would need to be considered would be moisture, temperature and retention time. Waste infeed systems would also need to be designed to allow for bags, as some conveyance systems (e.g. augers) would be problematic.

47 48

MooreT.(2005)TrialKerbsideCollectionofHouseholdOrganicWasteinChristchurch.PresentationtoWasteMINZConference. Eunomia(2006)KitchenWasteCollections:OptimisingContainerSelection.(UK) 49 BasedoncurrentcostsiflinersweresuppliedinbulkquantitiesfortheAucklandRegionthencostscouldreduce.IntheUK competitionandbulksupplyhasseenlinercostsdroptotheequivalentofnearly6cperbag. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

41

Page 50 of 470

5.1.3

Frequency of Collection of Food Waste

Schemes that collect food waste separately generally do so at least weekly. Fortnightly collections of food waste more usually occur when the material is co-collected with greenwaste. The available data suggests the capture rates given within Table 5.3.
Table 5-3: Likely Capture Rates for Weekly vs. Fortnightly Collection50
Fortnightly collection of food Kg / household / annum RANGE Kg / household / annum Approx AVERAGE Estimated capture rate (approx) 10 60 20 10% Weekly collection of food 60 - 120 80 40%

Key Issues and Risks Collection of food waste less than weekly can be off-putting for householders due to the increased risk of flies, odour and vermin, and collection bins being unpleasant to clean. This can lead to substantially lower capture rates as noted above. WRAP best practice research from the UK states quite strongly that food waste should be collected weekly for these reasons. This is likely to be even more important in Auckland where weather is hotter and warm periods last longer. 5.1.4 Charges

Because it is generally desired to encourage food waste to be diverted from the 51 residual waste stream, food waste collection tends not to be directly charged for . Collection of green and food waste separately enables the greenwaste to be charged for. Not only does this enable cost recovery on the greenwaste element but it serves to constrain the amount of additional greenwaste material that is brought into the municipal waste collection system. 5.1.5 Frequency of Rubbish Collection

There is good evidence to suggest that the relative frequency of the rubbish collection can have significant impact on the effectiveness of food waste collection schemes. Where rubbish collection is less frequent than the food waste collection, participation and capture in the food waste scheme is higher, and vice versa. The clearest data showing this comes from the WRAP trials in the UK as shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Effects of Collection Frequency on Food Waste Capture
Scheme/Study Fortnightly Rubbish Collection Weekly Rubbish Collection Participation Rate 66% 61% Capture Rate 66% 59% Kg per participating hh/wk 2.58 2.30 Kg per hh/wk 1.7 1.4

WRAP trial data shows an average of 12 percent higher capture rates for weekly food waste collections when accompanied by fortnightly refuse collections. In addition, the
50

51

BasedonDHogg(2008)OrganicsUppingtheAnte,PresentationtoWasteMINZConference2008,MarlboroughConvention Centre,Blenheim. OneexceptionisMackenzieDistrictinCanterburywhichcollectscompostablematerials(includingfoodwaste)inaplasticbag forwhichthereisa60ccharge.Recyclablematerialsareinaseparatebagandalsochargedat60cwhileresidualwasteis chargedat$1.20perbag.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

42

Page 51 of 470

WRAP trial found that food waste collections supported by fortnightly refuse collections had relatively stable participation and capture rates throughout the trial while those accompanying weekly refuse collections declined over the course of the trial. This suggests that the differential shown above could therefore increase further over time. Key Issues and Risks Risk is associated with the negative perception associated with a reduced frequency or capacity of collections. Householders often perceive it as a service reduction and with fortnightly collections, raise concerns relating to odour, vermin, and health risks. Most of these concerns can however, be effectively addressed through the provision of frequent food waste collections. 5.1.6 Rubbish Collection Containment

Studies indicate that the type of containment used can influence the quantity of material collected in food waste scheme. Bags are viewed as less secure and more prone to dog-strike and vermin than bins, therefore householders are more motivated to use the food waste service (provided it offers a solid bin-based alternative). The WRAP study found that areas with weekly collections of bags had approximately 12 percent higher capture rates compared to those with weekly collections of bins. Key Issues and Risks Bags are less secure storage for residual waste and can have associated litter and street scene issues. This can be partially addressed through the provision of good food waste collection services. 5.1.7 Charging for Rubbish Collections

User pays charges for rubbish collections provide a strong incentive for householders to divert their food waste from the residual. Evidence suggests that weight based charges52 are likely to be most effective at encouraging diversion. A Dutch study, by Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2004) , looked at data from the Netherlands Waste Management Council (AOO) for 1998, 1999 and 2000 to estimate the effects of 54 different charging schemes. The study suggested the following :
52

53

Weight-based schemes reduce total waste by 38 percent;

Weightbasedschemes:householdsarechargedonthebasisoftheweightofrubbishputoutforcollection(requiresweighing andrecordingmechanismsonthetrucks)

Bycomparison: Sackbasedschemes:ChargesareappliedpersackthisisthemostcommonsysteminNZ Frequencybasedschemes:Thesearenormallybinbasedschemes.Eachtimeabinisputourforcollectionitischargedfor (requireselectronicchipsorbarcodesonthebinsandappropriatecollectionhardwareandsoftware) Volumebasedsystemsapplyasetcharge(usuallyannual)forrubbishcollectionbasedonthevolumeofthebinsuppliede.g. a240litrebinwillcostmorethana120litrebin 53 Dijkgraaf,E.,andGradus,R.(2003)CostSavingsofUnitBasedPricingofHouseholdwaste,thecaseoftheNetherlands. Rotterdam:OCFEB 54 Thisdatasuggeststhattheapproachtothechargingofgreenwasteisalsoimportant.Itshouldbenotedthattheseeffectswere achievedatdifferentpricelevelsandthatwhetherornotweightbasedschemesoutperformsackorfrequencybased schemesatthesamepriceleveliscertainlynotclearfromthisresearch.Furthermore,theseremarkablysignificantresultsare probablyindicativeoftheNetherlandsexperiencewheregreenwastehadpreviouslybeencollectedfreeofcharge. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

43

Page 52 of 470

Sack-based schemes with charges also placed on compostable waste reduce total waste by 36 percent. Where compostable waste is not charged for, the reduction in total waste is 14 percent (the difference in the two is reflected mainly in the quantity of material collected separately from the kerbside); The frequency based system delivers a reduction in total waste of 21 percent; and The volume based bin system delivers a reduction in total waste of 6 percent.

While charging may be an effective way to divert material, the relative impact will also depend on scheme type (particularly the container size and frequency of collection), the quality of the recycling and compostable collection services provided, pricing 55 structures, levels of enforcement, charges applied to other material streams, etc. Quantifying the impact of charging can be difficult, as charging schemes are usually introduced as part of an overall service revision. In respect of recycling, available data from cities that did not change their recycling program with the introduction of user pays typically experienced increases of 32 to 59 percent in the weight of material 56 recycled . A similar magnitude of effect could be expected for food waste. Key Issues and Risks Charging for refuse collections does present a number of risks. These include: Illegal dumping & burning. The introduction of charging is generally perceived to lead to increased levels of illegal dumping though studies have shown that causal relationships are often tenuous. Enforcement mechanisms and convenient recycling schemes that are broad in the scope 57 of materials they cover can significantly reduce this risk. Waste migration (the migration of wastes to other localities or waste streams such as workplaces). The Eunomia study also found that waste migration does occur depending on the characteristics of the charging schemes and localities involved, but that this only accounts for a very small fraction of recorded waste reduction (in the order of 1 percent). Contamination of recyclable and compostable material. The Eunomia study found that there is not strong support that charging will lead to contamination, but neither can the notion be rejected. Some studies suggest increased contamination but, as with many of the other measures of change, the design of the waste management system and of the charging scheme itself are likely to be key factors shaping the nature of the response.

55

Refertothefollowingstudies:Eunomia(2003)ToChargeorNottoCharge?FinalreporttoIWM(EB);Eunomia(2005) EvaluationofLocalAuthorityExperienceofOperatingHouseholdWasteIncentiveSchemes,Defra;Hogg,D.(2006)Impactof UnitbasedWasteCollectionCharges,ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)10/FINAL,Paris:OECD;Hogg,D.,Wilson,D.,Gibbs,A.,Astley, M.,Papineschi,J.(2006b)ModellingtheImpactofHouseholdChargingforWasteinEngland,Defra. 56 MirandaandLaPalme(1997)inHogg,D.,Wilson,D.,Gibbs,A.,Astley,M.,Papineschi,J.(2006b)ModellingtheImpactof HouseholdChargingforWasteinEngland,Defra. 57 Hogg,D.,Wilson,D.,Gibbs,A.,Astley,M.,Papineschi,J.(2006b)ModellingtheImpactofHouseholdChargingforWastein England,Defra. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

44

Page 53 of 470

5.1.8

Communications

Communications around food waste collections are a central factor in achieving high capture rates. Separate collection systems have been pioneered in Europe with participation and capture rates of up to 80 90 percent contrasted with the UK exhibiting capture rates of typically around 25 - 30 percent. While this difference can be largely explained by the nature of the collection systems and level of service provided in Europe, this alone does not account for the difference in performance. Similar models in Preston, UK, achieved a participation rate of 56 percent compared to 58 Monza, Italy, which enjoys participation rates of around 90 percent . Food waste collections present a new set of barriers to participation, principally because it is for many a new concept, and initial reactions are that it will be messy, smelly, and have issues with insects, vermin and mould. Additionally, many do not understand why it is important to remove organic waste from the residual stream. There are a number of substantial issues of perception and education that need to be overcome and these will require more than a leaflet delivered with food waste 59 containers. Work done by Tucker on dry recycling participation and capture rates suggests that under a maximum promotion scenario participation in kerbside recycling can be raised from 70 percent (normal promotion) to 80 percent, and capture of materials can be increased by 54 percent, and it could be expected that similar multipliers could apply to food waste collection. Effective communication around food waste collections can be further supported by bylaws, enforcement and use of penalties. 5.1.9 Principles of effective food waste collection.

The key principles behind effective food waste collection systems are: 1. There must be a good incentive for householders to use the systems. User pays refuse collections provide the most direct incentive and are effective in promoting alternatives to disposal. Less frequent collection of refuse and more frequent food waste collections. Bag based collections provide an incentive through householders wishing to avoid dog strike and vermin.

2. The food waste collection service must be very user friendly. Food waste must enable the householder to have an experience that is odour free, convenient and easy to use, does not attract vermin, and has no or low direct cost.

3. The system must be cost effective.

58

ItshouldbenotedthattheItaliansystemshavetheadvantageofvariablechargingforresidualwastewhichwillaccountfora largeproportionofthedifferentialinperformance.HoweverPrestonoperatesAWCforrefuse,andthiswouldbeexpectedto provideasimilar,althoughlesser,levelofincentivetoparticipate. 59 P.TuckerandD.Speirs(2002)ModelForecastsOfRecyclingParticipationRatesAndMaterialCaptureRatesForPossibleFuture RecyclingScenarios,UniversityofPaisley,ReporttoTheCabinetOfficeStrategyUnit,www.number 10.gov.uk/su/waste/report/downloads/recycling_participation.pdf,July2002 Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

45

Page 54 of 470

In general systems that collect food waste separately and use small low cost collection vehicles tend to outperform other systems on a cost basis. There are a number of reasons for this: Separate collection provides the opportunity to either not collect greenwaste or to charge for its collection. Small collection vehicles are low cost and efficient in terms of pick up Separate collection of material maximises processing options and enables processors to control inputs to their composting processes Manual collections of food waste enables easier and better quality control resulting in superior diversion rates and more saleable final product If food waste systems are sufficiently effective in capturing material then the frequency of residual collections can be reduced and the savings used to offset the costs of separate collection.

5.2

Section Summary Food Waste Collection

Capture rates for domestic food wastes vary significantly depending on: collection frequency (for food waste and refuse) containment method (receptacle type, size and liner use) whether food and green wastes are commingled or collected separately pricing method; and how well collection requirements are communicated to the householder.

For the purposes of this report, high, medium, and low performing systems are described and an estimated level of performance is ascribed to each. High Performing System. High performing food waste collection systems will generally have a high (weekly) and more frequent collection than refuse, the material will tend to be separately collected, and householders will be supplied with ventilated kitchen caddies with biodegradable liners (with degradation properties that are matched to the processing method). A user pays bag based refuse collection will operate alongside and collections will be performed by single operatives in small tipper vehicles. This type of system is capable of achieving up to around 80 percent capture of food waste and contamination is low due to close monitoring by collection crews. Medium Performing System. Mid level systems will commonly have a similar level of frequency of food waste collection and residual collection (e.g. weekly). Material may be separately collected or co-mingled with greenwaste. Householders are supplied with solid sided caddies, with or without liners. A user pays and/or bag based refuse collection service may be in place. Mid level systems tend to be the most common as they attempt to provide a compromise in terms of cost and service provision. These systems will capture 40 - 55 percent of food waste, with acceptable levels of contamination. Low Performing System. The most ineffective food waste collection systems will provide householders with large frequently collected refuse bins (e.g. 240 litre wheelie bins collected weekly), co-collect the food waste with greenwaste, collect the food and greenwaste at less frequent intervals than the rubbish, and provide no form of in-home
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

46

Page 55 of 470

containment for the food waste. These types of systems are likely to deliver around 10 - 15 percent capture of food waste. There is a risk of unacceptable levels of contamination in these systems. What has been presented here is an overview of some of the key factors that are likely to affect the performance of kerbside collection of food waste. Considerable further work will need to be done to determine the best systems for collecting food waste in the Auckland context. Critical to this further work will be determination of the following: The quantities of food waste that is desired to be collected through the system. If relatively large quantities of food waste are required to achieve the necessary economies of scale for processing this will require a relatively high performing collection system. The quantity of greenwaste that is desired to be collected through the system. If this material is required for facility sizing or bulking agent, then free (rates funded) collections of greenwaste may serve a positive purpose. Quality issues around acceptable levels and types of contamination. Whole system costs - some collection system configurations may appear less costly when considered on their own, however the impact of collection systems on total system costs needs to be considered.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

47

Page 56 of 470

6.

PROVEN LARGE-SCALE OPTIONS FOR PROCESSING

The most widely used processing methods for solid organic wastes are composting and anaerobic digestion. Other large scale options that could be used to process food waste include incineration, and Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). An overview of these methods is provided below. There are also a number of emerging technologies that are less proven but offer potential solutions in the future. Emerging technologies considered within this study included: Bioreactor landfills Autoclaving / Mechanical Heat Treatment Gasification Pyrolysis Plasma Technolgies Reverse Polymerisation

Details of these emerging technologies are provided within Appendix C. 6.1 Composting

Composting, the biological and aerobic decomposition of organic material, is widely used to convert organic wastes into a largely usable product. Heat is produced biologically and the final product (humus material) is stable, free of pathogens and plant seeds, and able to be beneficially applied to land. Composting follows two phases the initial high rate, high temperature composting phase; and the slower, lower temperature curing phase. The first phase helps to kill pathogens and stabilise odours, while the curing phase allows the compost to mature for safe application to plants. Successful and nuisance free composting is dependent on establishing and maintaining conditions that suit the composting microbes. This includes a moisture content of around 30 percent, carbon to nitrogen ratio around 30: 1, and achieving suitable particle size and adequate air flow through the mass (size and air flow requirements vary with composting systems). Composting systems considered in this review are aerated, covered windrow systems and in-vessel composting systems. Detailed descriptions are included within the earlier OWWG food waste composting report60, and presented in summary form below. 6.1.1 Static Pile / Windrow Composting The most common and traditional method of large scale composting is in open piles or windrows61. Piles are generally static, whereas windrows are aerated and agitated by

60

RegionalOptionsforFoodWasteComposting,June2004,URS

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

48

Page 57 of 470

regular turning. Turning frequency varies from every 2-3 days to weekly depending on the temperature, moisture content and stage of decomposition. Static Piles may be aerated via a simple venting system that either blows or sucks air through the pile. As open piles and windrows are exposed to the environment, the potential for release of odour, particulates and aerosols is high, particularly if the process is not properly managed. Therefore, these methods are normally restricted to greenwaste only and/or composting in a rural setting with large odour buffers. A composting time of 16 to 20 weeks is usually necessary, followed by a curing period of 2 to 6 months. This longer processing time requires additional land area, again leading towards a rural rather than urban setting. For increased control and faster processing piles the windrows may be covered, either by a textile cover or mulch/compost layer, and subject to forced aeration. Aeration may be achieved via perforated piping that is laid beneath the window or inserted into the composting mass. The aeration piping is connected either to blowers (forced aeration) or to a vacuum (negative pressure) to move air in and through the pile. Use of negative pressure can also allow exhaust air to be captured and treated through a biofilter, providing increased odour control and a system that is suitable for processing putrescible wastes (such as food waste). With this maximised level of control, composting time can also be reduced to 3 to 4 four weeks plus curing (say a further 3 to 6 months, depending on product requirements). 6.1.2 In vessel Composting In-vessel composting systems allow a greater degree of process control compared to static pile or windrow systems. They are used for a wide variety of putrescible wastes including kitchen wastes, biosolids, and food processing sludges. In-vessel systems can reduce processing time by optimising conditions for biological decomposition, can reduce odour and other nuisance issues, decrease land area requirements and allow composting facilities to be located closer to industrial, commercial or residential areas. However, the greater degree of automation and enclosure means that in-vessel systems are typically more expensive to develop and operate than windrow or static pile composting facilities. In-vessel composting systems can be further categorised as either mechanical in-vessel systems or static, batch operated in-vessel systems. The differences between these categories are set out below. Mechanical In-vessel Composting Systems Mechanical in-vessel systems are typically constructed using a number of individual modules with shared control and material handling systems. They generally operate on a continuous basis, with material added and discharged on a daily or frequent basis. There is often some form of mechanical agitation used to convey the material between in-feed and discharge systems. Aeration of the composting material within in-vessel systems is generally automatically controlled in response to continuous temperature monitoring. The advantages of this degree of mechanical control are greater process control, lower staffing requirements and potentially less land requirements. However, maintenance costs and potential for mechanical failure increase and the system is more sensitive to fluctuations in infeed material quantity and composition. The main types of mechanical in-vessel composting systems are described below.
61

Windrowsareelongatedpileswitharoughlytriangularcrosssection,approximately2metreshighby45metreswideatthe base(varyinglengths).Compostingpilesaremorerectangularinshape,tallerandshorterinlength.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

49

Page 58 of 470

- Agitated Bed Agitated bed systems place the feedstock in a series of bays or tunnels and use mechanical means to mix and move the material from one end to the other. Generally these systems also use forced aeration. Agitated bed systems may be housed in a building under negative pressure, with exhaust gases treated by a biofilter or other odour treatment device. The IPS composting system previously operated in Wellington to compost mixed biosolids and greenwaste is an example of an agitated bay system. - Vertical or Horizontal Flow Vertical flow composting systems are container based systems where material is placed in the top and moves down through the vessel to the discharge system, either by gravity or assisted through agitation. Aeration can be either passive, whereby the heat from the composting material creates convective air currents, or forced via a blower or vacuum aeration system. Horizontal flow composting systems may use a rotating shaft to tumble material for mixing, aeration and movement along the container length, or may use a rigid container structure with a rotating core that pulls material along using teeth or tines. Both types of horizontal flow systems would typically also use forced aeration. The VCU facilities located in Waitakere, Matamata and Twizel are examples of a vertical flow system (non agitated, passively aerated) and the HotRot facility operating in Selwyn District is a horizontal flow example. Composting flow systems that do not agitate or actively aerate material are highly reliant on the initial feedstock being correct, and too small particle size or overly wet feedstocks can lead to clogging of material, slowed biological processing and increased leachate and odour. Agitated, aerated systems can be more forgiving due to mixing, drying and aeration being applied through the composting process. Static In-vessel Composting Systems - Tunnel or Containerised There are various composting systems that enclose material within tunnels or containers and operate as a static batch systems (rather than continuous, mechanical systems). Tunnels are typically constructed from concrete, either as prefabricated units or poured in-situ, with stainless steel doors. Containerised static systems may be constructed from purpose built or adapted steel containers (e.g. adapted shipping containers). Tunnels are typically set up within a building for added odour control during loading. Containers may be set within a building, or may remain outdoors if the site is suitable (e.g. with adequate buffer and/or a rural setting). Both tunnels and compost containers are designed to be opened for loading and unloading but otherwise remain sealed throughout the processing period. Tunnels and containers are connected to shared leachate collection and aeration systems, with monitoring devices (e.g. temperature, oxygen and moisture probes) installed within units. The monitoring equipment is important, as it enables any process failures within the sealed vessel to be quickly identified. The material would typically be left to compost in the sealed tunnels or containers for around 2 to 4 weeks, without agitation. After this time material may be removed and placed in curing windrows, or remixed then placed back into tunnels or containers for

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

50

Page 59 of 470

further enclosed processing. For additional mixing the operator may choose to remove material after 1 or 2 weeks, remix then place back into the tunnel or container. An advantage of static, batch based systems is the reduced number of moving parts compared to agitated bay or material flow systems. Loading and unloading methods are generally simpler, typically using loaders rather than conveyor or auger based feed and discharge systems. Their static nature also means that there is less odour release during processing (i.e. compared to covered windrows where odour is released during turning.) However, the static nature of tunnel based system can also lead to less optimisation of the process and is more reliant on the initial blend being correct. The Christchurch Biowaste62 Facility is an example of static, batch tunnel composting. 6.2 Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the bacterial breakdown of organic materials in the absence of oxygen. Controlled (AD) occurs in an airtight container (digester) where wet organic materials are combined with selected types of bacteria, initiating the anaerobic process. AD processing occurs in two main steps: 1. hydrolysis and acetogenesis: bacterial decomposition of organic material initially into molecules such as glucose and amino acids, then further conversion to fatty acids, hydrogen and acetic acid; 2. methanogenesis: conversion of organic acids into a methane rich gas (primary product, sometimes called biogas) plus some solid residue. A potential third step is the production of energy from the gas, and further processing of the solids residue to produce a soil amendment (usually via composting). Anaerobic digestion has traditionally been used for the processing of sewage solids, animal manures and low solids content organic industrial wastes. However, it is now also being applied to process other putrescible solid wastes such as domestic food wastes. The heterogeneous nature of domestic food wastes can make them more difficult to digest than relatively homogeneous wastewater biosolids. AD can be categorised as either wet or dry depending on the moisture content that the process requires. Wet AD processes material in a high moisture form, achieved either through the moisture content of the organic wastes or through the addition of water. Dry AD requires a much lower moisture content for processing and therefore may include further dewatering pre-treatment processes and the addition of a bulking agent such as greenwaste. For dry AD processing, greenwaste may be combined with food waste at a similar ratio to that employed for composting (i.e. around 1:1 by weight), although dry AD systems can be designed to allow food waste ratios to be increased from 50 to 70 percent. Generally speaking, anaerobic digestion necessitates more complex and expensive technology than composting, although is a less expensive waste treatment option than other large scale options such as incineration. The value of the renewable energy

62

Mixedfoodandgreenwaste

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

51

Page 60 of 470

source may also be higher than that of a compost product, potentially offsetting some capital and/or operating costs. Anaerobic digestion costs will vary significantly depending on the scale of the facility, level of automation required and properties of incoming wastes. However, as an example of digestion processing costs, the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility in Toronto has reported operating costs of around NZ$200 per tonne. This is made up of around $160/T paid to the operator and an additional $40/T for the disposal of liquid and solid wastes.63. 6.3 Waste Incineration

Waste incineration is a further option for processing large quantities of solid organic wastes, potentially with waste-to-energy conversion. However, food waste is a high moisture material rendering it less suitable for incineration, and large scale incineration of food wastes is not known to be practiced elsewhere in the world. Incineration is also unlikely to be viable under the current regulatory and political environment and therefore is not assessed further within this report. 6.4 Mechanical Biological Treatment

There is also a range of proprietary waste treatment systems within the category of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). These systems subject mixed municipal solid wastes (MSW) to a variety of mechanised processing and treatment steps to recover recyclables, energy and organic wastes. The recovered organics are further processed via composting or anaerobic digestion. Mixed MSW options are not compatible with the separation-at-source philosophy already in place in Auckland and carry a greater risk of product contamination. Therefore, under the current waste management regime, MBT / AWT systems are not considered to be viable options for processing the Auckland regions organic wastes, and are not considered further within this report. 6.5 Initial Selection of Processing Options

Based on the result of previous studies, the OWWG believe that composting and anaerobic digestion are the most viable options for the large scale processing and beneficial reuse of Aucklands domestic food waste stream. This finding is reinforced by the initial review of processing options presented above, primarily due to proven ability of these options to process domestic organic wastes at a large scale. Waste incineration (with or without waste-to-energy conversion) is not viable under the current regulatory and political environment and is also not consistent with the existing philosophy of source separation. Mixed MSW options are also not compatible with the separation-at-source philosophy and carries a greater risk of product contamination. Therefore, under the current waste management regime, incineration and MBT / AWT
63

Kelleher,M.(Aug2007).ANAEROBICDIGESTIONOUTLOOKFORMSWSTREAMS,BioCycleAugust2007,Vol.48,No.8,p.51.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

52

Page 61 of 470

systems are not considered to be viable options for processing the Auckland regions organic wastes, and are not considered further within this report. There are a large number of proprietary technologies available within the composting and anaerobic digestion categories, and a selection of these are described within the following section. These proprietary technologies also form the basis for facility cost modelling presented in Section 9.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

53

Page 62 of 470

7.

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

This technology review builds upon a similar assessment carried out within the 2004 OWWG study on composting options. Additional composting technologies have been considered, as have a selection of anaerobic digestion technologies. 7.1 Systems Considered

Further composting technologies were added to the 2004 study list of possible options based on technologies that have entered the New Zealand market over the past five years, or alternatives considered by suppliers who contributed to the 2004 study as better suited to the scale now required for a full regional solution. It is noted that VCU Technology Limited is now insolvent. Therefore the VCU system is not included in this technology review. However, ex-VCU staff has formed a new company, Gravity Environmental Technologies Limited, which supplies the VIVC technology. The VIVC is said to be similar to the VCU but improved in terms of operation, durability and cost, and has been considered within this review. Although anaerobic digestion plants can vary significantly, two example technologies were selected based on their Australasian presence and representation of two key approaches to digestion (wet or dry, that is, with and without greenwaste addition). Digestion examples considered are Kompogas, a European dry digestion proprietary technology that is now distributed out of Australia, and the Sydney EarthPower wet anaerobic digestion plant. The Sydney plant is a purpose built facility that was primarily designed by New Zealand company Waste Solutions64. This is local example of a large scale food waste digestion plant, designed to process more than 50,000 tonnes per year of putrescible wastes. Two additional composting facilities are included in the system assessment the tunnel composting facility in Christchurch (developed by Living Earth Limited for Christchurch City Council) and the covered windrow system intended to allow food waste composting at the Envirofert facility in Tuakau. Table 7-1 lists the systems that have been considered, along with some of their basic parameters, while Table 7-2 summarises advantages and disadvantages of each. Further description of each system is included within Appendix D. Following Table 7-2 is a discussion of the environmental, cultural, social and economic performance of each system. Further comparisons are then drawn between the two broad treatment types composting and anaerobic digestion and between specific technologies and systems.

64

WasteSolutionsispartofDuffillWatts,nowCPGNewZealand

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

54

Page 63 of 470

Table 7-1: Proprietary Technologies and Plants Considered65


Technology Covered Windrow Composting 4-8 weeks covered 4-8 weeks uncovered Plus curing Gore 3,000 200,000+ tpa, although 160,000 tpa recommended by supplier as maximum Timaru composting facility (commingled food and greenwastes) Process Time Composting Technologies Tonnage Range Facility Examples

Envirofert covered windrow

Limited information is available on the food waste composting technology to be employed at the Envirofert facility. However, it is understood that it will be a covered windrow system with negative air extraction. Following initial processing, the windrows would be uncovered for curing, with worms introduced at later stages to optimise product quality. According to Envirofert, the food waste composting operation will be able to process 50,000 m3 of food waste per year, and could be expanded as demand increases (land area available). Further details remain confidential at this stage66.

Facility will be capable of being scaled up to 50,000 tpa, with an ability to extend this further if there is demand.

Purpose built facility

In-vessel Mechanical Composting - Agitated Bay / Tunnel Recommended 21 days Plus curing 10,000 125,000 tpa Wellington biosolids and greenwaste composting facility (WCC and LEL joint venture no longer in operation)

IPS

65 66

Imagesweresourcedfromtechnologysupplierwebsites(asnotedinthereferencessectionofthisreport) InformationprovidedbyEnviroferttoStuartGaneofManukauCityCouncilandJoanneMcGregorofMorrisonLow(sitevisit7May2009).AdditionaldetailsrequestedfromEnvirofert(R.Lind) butwithheldonbasisofconfidentialityandcommercialsensitivity.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

55

Page 64 of 470

Technology

Process Time 2 6 weeks Plus curing

Tonnage Range 40,000 150,000 tpa

Facility Examples New technology, developed as alterative to static Wasteology tunnels (refer to following pages)

Wasteology Agitated Tunnel

In-vessel Mechanical Composting Horizontal Flow Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing HotRot 1-150 tp day, 300 50,000 tpa based on 6 d/wk, 52wk/yr operation -Tangguh LNG Project, Papua, Indonesia -New Era Technologies, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada -Australian National University, Canberra -Zinifex Mines, Northern Queensland, Australia -Selwyn District

Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing Rotocom

2-10 tonnes per day per unit, not deemed best option for 50,000+ tpa

Trial units only in New Zealand, large number of facilities operating internationally, primarily Asia

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

56

Page 65 of 470

Technology In-vessel Mechanical Composting Vertical Flow VIVC

Process Time Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing Approved in the UK for shorter processing time

Tonnage Range 500 50,000 tpa

Facility Examples Supplier has indicated that facilities are operating in China

Image not available

In-vessel Static Composting - Tunnel or Container Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing Gicom Tunnel System 2,000 200,000 tpa Large number of European sites, particularly in Germany and Italy ** the Living Earth composting facility in Christchurch is similar to this technology (designed to process 65,000T/yr)

Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing MIDAS Tunnel system

Supplier advice: logistical & operational issues above 50,000 tpa (for in-vessel systems generally), and 125,000 tpa recommended as absolute maximum for any single composting facility

Two UK facilities due to commence construction late 2009, for completion mid 2010

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

57

Page 66 of 470

Technology

Process Time Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR

Tonnage Range 8,000 to 100,000+ tpa (example source separated organics facilities around 20-25,000 tpa)

Facility Examples Northumberland, UK dedicated composting facility Aimag, Italy and Mr Binman Ireland integrated AD and composting facilities

WTT Tunnel system

Image not available

Plus curing

Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing Wasteology Static Tunnel

Existing facilities processing around 10,000 tpa to 60,000 tpa

Cambridge, Somerset and Leswalt Village, UK

Living Earth Tunnel Composting Facility Christchurch

Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing

Designed to process 65,000 tpa of domestic mixed food and greenwaste (collected commingled in 80L kerbside bins)

Purpose built facility

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

58

Page 67 of 470

Technology Naturtech Container system (2nd Generation Biocontainer)

Process Time Under NZ compost standard 14-21 days to achieve pathogen kill & VAR Plus curing

Tonnage Range 4 100 tons per day Converts to. 1,000 30,000 tpa (6 d/wk, 52 wk/yr operation)

Facility Examples Facilities throughout the United States, including fixed and movable units, and transfer facilities for remote locations (or as transport logistics require)

Anaerobic Digestion Proprietary Systems Dry AD System Kompogas Digester retention time of 10 15 days, total of 20 days for complete processing 4,000 40,000 tpa (minimum 10,000tpa recommended for cost efficiency)67 Switzerland: 12 plants (Kompogas operated and partially owned) Other locations: Germany, Austria, France Spain Martinique, Quatar, Japan.

Wet AD System EarthPower Facility 68 (Sydney)


69 HRT of 10 - 15 days 70 SRT of 40 - 60 days

50,000-70,000 tpa (solid food waste)

Single facility only (as custom built option)

67

PersonalcorrespondencebetweenAlanMartinofEvergreen(KompogasdistributorsforAustralasia)andJoanneMcGregorofMorrisonLow,Nov2008.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

59

Page 68 of 470

Table 7-2: Advantages & Disadvantages of Processing Technologies


Technology Composting Technologies Covered Windrow Composting Advantages Disadvantages


Gore

Simple technology, with few moving parts (reduced opex) Simple formation of windrows, few equipment requirements (e.g. loader) Low energy use Flexible facility capacity, with covers available in two lengths and windrows able to be formed over a number of days Good control and monitoring of temperature and aeration (while covered and on concrete pads) With correct operation quickly reaches temperatures required for pathogen destruction Local technical support (Australia) Able to cater for large tonnages (e.g. 60,000+) Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or food waste only collection, so long as equal tonnages of greenwaste are made available for mixing. Larger plant required to process commingled material assuming more than 50% greenwaste is collected from kerbside Some ability to on-sell processing technology, although depends on level of cover deterioration

High capital cost, although typically less than mechanical in-vessel or anaerobic digestion Large land area required (higher than mechanical in-vessel systems, but may be similar to tunnel or single level container systems) Need buffer distance to prevent odour nuisance Best suited to a rural rather than urban environment 7 year GORE cover life deterioration due to composting conditions and UV exposure As it is an outdoor process, winds and other environmental factors are more of an issue Limited agitation, reducing suitability for higher risk wastes such as biosolids

Envirofert covered windrow (Tuakau)

Limited information is available so it is difficult to assess its suitability/feasibility at this stage. However it is assumed that the covered windrow system would have the following benefits:

Private facility not requiring capital investment by Council Existing site, well located for product sales into agricultural and horticultural markets (growth of markets required) Simple technology, with few moving parts (reduced opex)

Limited information available on intended system (withheld due to concerns about commercial sensitivity and confidentiality) Envirofert has indicated that they have approval from Environment Waikato (EW) to test their intended food waste composting system, However, EW has no record of this and Envirofert have elected to not provide any further details. It is therefore unclear if the trial has been conducted and, if so, if it provided successful Below are general disadvantages for the proposed covered windrow

68 69

TheEarthPowerdigestionfacilityisnowownedbyTPIandVeolia,eachofwhomhavea50%interestinthefacility. HRT:HydraulicRetentionTimeaveragelengthoftimethatasolublecompoundremainsinaconstructedreactor(www.wikipedia.org) 70 SRT:SolidsRetentionTimeaveragelengthoftimethatsolidsremainsinareactor(http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Glossary/Conversion.htm) Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

60

Page 69 of 470

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages system, however, these disadvantages are expected to be able to be overcome by the size, nature and location of the Envirofert site: - Large land area required - Need buffer distance to prevent odour nuisance - Best suited to a rural rather than urban environment Covers may deteriorate due to composting conditions and UV exposure observation based on general issue with composting covers, specific details of Enviroferts intended process not known As it is an outdoor process, winds and other environmental factors are more of an issue Limited agitation during processing (depends on turning frequency)

Simple formation of windrows, few equipment requirements (e.g. loader) Flexible facility capacity, with windrows able to be formed over a number of days Able to cater for large tonnages (e.g. 50,000+ of food waste plus greenwaste / bulking agent) Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or food waste only collection. However, have specified preference for food waste only collection, with the ability to provide required green waste from other wastes received at the facility. Vermicomposting operation well established on site, creating potential to add value to composted products.

In-vessel Mechanical Composting - Agitated Bay / Tunnel Simple construction and low capital cost for IPS itself although potentially high cost for building Agitation can help overcome any inadequate mixing or over wetting of initial feedstocks High level of process control, through temperature and aeration IPS control and regular aeration Highly successful results for pathogen destruction Good access to remove material if required High quality control system

Relatively large area required and less flexible capacity (as within a building) Hot, damp, corrosive atmosphere increases operating costs, impacts on building maintenance and wear, and creates worker health and safety issues Agitators require regular servicing and maintenance No local technical support from supplier In-built nature of IPS bays limits the value and potential to on-sell technology (agitator has the greatest potential residual value) High capital cost higher than tunnel and container based composting due to greater level of automation (similar to AD) Agitators require regular servicing and maintenance In-built nature of concrete tunnels limits the value and potential to onsell technology (agitator has the greatest potential residual value)


Wasteology Agitated Tunnel

High level of process control, through temperature and aeration control and regular aeration Flexible facility capacity Agitation can help overcome any inadequate mixing or over wetting of initial feedstocks With correct operation quickly reaches temperatures required for pathogen destruction High quality control system Able to cater for large tonnages (e.g. 60,000+) Local technical support unknown (from Australia) Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

61

Page 70 of 470

Technology

Advantages food waste only collection, so long as equal tonnages of greenwaste are made available for mixing. Larger plant required to process commingled material assuming more than 50% greenwaste is collected from kerbside.

Disadvantages

In-vessel Mechanical Composting Horizontal Flow Flexible facility capacity and modularity Proven pathogen destruction and design prevents recontamination from pathogens in fresh feedstock Good access to remove material if required Good material blending and aeration Local technical support Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or HotRot, Rotocom food waste only collection, so long as equal tonnages of greenwaste are made available for mixing. Larger plant required to process commingled material assuming more than 50% greenwaste is collected from kerbside. Potential to sell the technology as a second-hand composting system, depending on age and condition In-vessel Mechanical Composting Vertical Flow VIVC Reduced footprint due to vertical units

High capital costs Complex feed systems for larger facilities Moving parts require regular servicing and maintenance Best suited to smaller to medium sized facilities, unlikely to be appropriate for the scale of one or two Auckland regional facilities

Proven pathogen destruction Flexible facility capacity, modularity Odour control using feedstock to self-biofilter plus additional units used as biofilters for larger facilities No moving parts for turning composting material Air injection to better control oxygen levels Local technical support (offshore manufacture) Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or food waste only collection, so long as equal tonnages of greenwaste are made available for mixing. Larger plant required to process commingled material assuming more than 50% greenwaste is collected from kerbside.

High capital costs, although supplier has indicated 1/3 less than 2 similarly sized VCU systems Complex feed systems for larger facilities Sensitive to overly wet or poorly mixed feedstocks (as not agitated) Complex feed systems for larger facilities Limited access to material if problems develop Best suited to smaller to medium sized facilities, unlikely to be appropriate for the scale of one or two Auckland regional facilities

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

62

Page 71 of 470

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Potential to sell the technology as a second-hand composting system, depending on age and condition

In-vessel Static Composting - Tunnel or Container Simple technology, with few moving parts (reduced opex), some options offer relatively low capital cost compared to other types of technologies Low energy use Loading of tunnels is simple with few equipment requirements (e.g. loader) Proven pathogen destruction Tunnel Systems Gicom, MIDAS, Tunnels able to be constructed locally, with proprietary process WTT, control equipment fitted potential for cost and time savings Wasteology, Good control of temperature and aeration Living Earth Tunnel Batch system enables processing material to be fully contained Composting Facility throughout the retention period Christchurch No moving parts for turning composting material Able to cater for large tonnages (e.g. 60,000+) Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or food waste only collection, so long as equal tonnages of greenwaste are made available for mixing. Larger plant required to process commingled material assuming more than 50% greenwaste is collected from kerbside. Naturtech Container system (includes 2nd generation Biocontainer)

High capital cost, although typically less than mechanical in-vessel systems and AD. (costs vary significantly between tunnel options) Relatively large area required, generally with tunnels loaded from within a building (under negative air extraction) Sensitive to overly wet or poorly mixed feedstocks (as not agitated during process) Limited agitation, reducing suitability for higher risk wastes such as biosolids There may be health and safety issues if unloading or entering tunnels part way through initial composting phase (safety issues created by heat, humidity, airborne microorganisms etc.) this is primarily a management issue although could be assisted through design (e.g. doors at either end to assist airflow) No ability to on-sell technology when tunnels are constructed as part of the building or as concrete bunkers

Simple technology, with few moving parts (reduced opex) Relatively low capital cost compared to other processing options Modular system with flexibility number of containers increased when quantities increase Low energy use Proven pathogen destruction Simple loading of containers (e.g. with loader) Good control of temperature and aeration Batch system enables processing material to be fully contained throughout the retention period No moving parts for turning composting material

High capital cost, although less than mechanical in-vessel or AD systems No local support (US based technology) Sensitive to overly wet or poorly mixed feedstocks (as not agitated during process) Supplier no longer retrofits standard shipping container, now manufactures purpose-built units out of China

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

63

Page 72 of 470

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Transportable, allowing bulk loading at transfer stations, then transport to main facility for processing Able to be stacked 2-3 high, reducing footprint Ability to on-sell containers, either as second-hand composting units, or potential for conversion back to shipping containers

Anaerobic Digestion Systems Dry AD System Kompogas Small footprint and standardised design Well proven internationally Local support (Australia) Generation of potentially high value products renewable energy plus liquid and solid fertiliser/soil amendment products High level of process control Typically involves a high level of automation for materials handling health and safety benefits (although increased cost) Compatible with commingled food and green waste collection or food waste only collection, so long as greenwaste tonnes are available at 30-50% of food waste quantities. Larger plant required to process commingled material with more than 50% greenwaste collected from kerbside, with energy output per incoming tonne reduced. AD systems are generally designed with a longer life than composting systems, therefore higher residual value Wet AD System WSL Wet Digestion facility (based on EarthPower Facility - Sydney)

High capital cost compared to composting, with added value of renewable energy generation less supported by New Zealand legislative environment (i.e. lack of carbon based economic incentives) Limited in the range of waste digestibility and degradation rate provision for expansion and variable feedstocks needs to be part of the initial design process High operational cost per tonne, and need for greenwaste increases the overall tonnage processed at the facility (at that high rate) Composting or other further processing (e.g. drying) required for solid by-product before it can be beneficially used (noted that post processing can increase product range, value and markets) Skilled operators required

Small overall foot print e.g. 1.2 Ha for the 50 - 60,000 Tpa Earthpower facility, which uses a dryer for the solid by-product (the alternative option of composting the solid product would increase land requirements, particularly if windrowed) Generation of potentially high value products renewable energy plus liquid and solid fertiliser/soil amendment products Smaller carbon foot print than a composting facility with potential for emission reduction credits No bulking agent required, reducing overall quantities for processing

High capital cost compared to composting, with added value of renewable energy generation less supported by New Zealand legislative environment (i.e. lack of carbon based economic incentives) Problems experienced with processing failure and inefficiencies this is thought to be primarily due to wastes differing from design parameters and high contaminant levels experienced highlights the need to understand and secure wastestreams Retrofitting of equipment to remove contaminants has resulted in significant added costs and commercial failure plant improvements

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

64

Page 73 of 470

Technology

Advantages High degree of automation health and safety benefits (although increased cost) Can accept wastes with varying properties and quantities (frontend plant upgraded to allow higher contamination flexibility carries a higher cost) Low odour risk Local technical support Compatible with food waste only kerbside collection service, without the need for greenwaste addition from other sources. AD systems are generally designed with a longer life than composting systems, therefore higher residual value

Disadvantages are now completed, high retrofitting costs resulted from wastes being more contaminated than expected and client electing to reduce preprocessing equipment initially. Further processing (drying) required for solid by-product before it can be beneficially used (drying can be replaced with composting, and post processing may increase product range, value and markets) Less flexibility for expansion - provision for expansion needs to be part of design process. High operational cost per tonne, although ability to process food waste only can reduce annual operating costs (by reducing overall tonnage). Skilled operators required Not suited to commingled food and green waste collection. Sydney facility continues to experience commercial challenges as it seeks to compete with other industries, e.g. stock feed, for clean food waste streams as a private facility, this competition for wastestreams is a significant issue compromising the site.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

65

Page 74 of 470

7.2

Basis for Comparison

The evaluation of processing options undertaken within this study is two-fold, comparing broad facility options as well as comparing specific technologies. This section compares specific technologies while facility development scenarios are evaluated within Sections 8 and 9. The facility scenario comparison is primarily cost and logistically driven, while this section considers the ability of the selected composting and anaerobic digestion. process expected waste tonnages, and material types provide flexibility for varying tonnages, and varying feedstocks maximise product quality and value integrate with possible collection scenario

Also taken into consideration are: - economic considerations - operating footprint - cultural issues - social impacts (odour and other nuisance issues) - environmental impacts (carbon emissions and other discharges) Comparisons are drawn between processing methods i.e. composting versus anaerobic digestion, and between specific technologies within each category. 7.3 Processing Suitability waste type, quantities and flexibility

All composting and anaerobic digestion technologies described in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are suitable for processing of food and garden wastes. This is demonstrated by existing food waste processing facility examples (as noted in Table 7-1). Generally speaking, current examples of large scale food waste processing facilities around the world are more numerous for composting rather than digestion technologies. However, this may change as greater value is placed on technologies to reduce carbon emissions. Included in Appendix E is a summary of digestion facilities that currently process food waste in significant quantities. Higher pathogen risk materials, such as sanitary wastes and biosolids, require a greater level of agitation and process control. Although not recommended for inclusion, if such wastes were present, then agitated composting technologies, such as the IPS, agitated Wasteology system and the HotRot would be more appropriate than static tunnel, container or covered windrow systems. Anaerobic digestion systems may also be more suitable. Regardless of the technology type, plastics within sanitary wastes would create a source of contamination. This would need to be allowed for within system design and would impact on the end product markets and value. The 2004 composting study reviewed technologies in terms of their suitability to process between 6,000 and 18,000 tonnes of food waste per year. However, with the focus now on full regional solutions, processing requirements are more in order of 30,000 to 75,000 tonnes per year of food waste (80,000 to 200,000 tonnes per year of

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

66

Page 75 of 470

commingled food and green waste). This increase in tonnages means that some technologies previously considered are no longer recommended. The supplier of the HotRot technology now recommends another of their proprietary systems - the MIDAS aerated bay system. Andar Holdings, suppliers of the Rotocom system, recommends the WTT Tunnel. These recommendations away from mechanical to static tunnel based systems are based on:71

cost large scale mechanical systems may be prohibitively expensive. feed systems with a large number of units, feed systems need to be fairly elaborate, which can lead to logistical and operational issues. flexibility - continuous mechanical systems (and particularly their feed systems) work best with a constant feed rate. This means that they are less suited to large municipal facilities which can be subject to high daily or seasonal tonnage fluctuations. Tunnel or container based systems filled using loaders allow large volumes of material to be moved quickly without encountering the same level of process bottlenecks that can occur with mechanical systems.

VIVC suppliers have recommended a maximum facility size of 50 chambers, however, their largest operating facility is currently 20 chambers72. Assuming 14 day processing 20 chambers would equate to a facility capacity of around 45,000 tonnes per year. It appears that mechanical systems would only be suitable for processing the Auckland regions domestic food waste if more, smaller facilities were created, with a maximum size of around 35,000 to 45,000 tonnes of biowaste per year. For larger facilities, static, batch-fed tunnel or container based composting systems are more appropriate. This is demonstrated world-wide with a prevalence of tunnel systems employed at large scale municipal facilities. Digestion technology providers have recommended minimum facility sizes of around 10,000 tonnes per year73. Although there are some examples of anaerobic digestion facilities processing 70,000 to 150,000 tonnes per year of putrescible wastes, most large, established facilities appear to take around 40,000 60,000 tonnes per year74. This is a similar scale to large municipal composting facilities, although biowaste composting facility tonnages generally include around half greenwaste (digestion facilities may require between zero and fifty percent greenwaste). As noted in Table 7-2, there have been a number of problems experienced with the EarthPower wet digestion facility. These problems have resulted in commercial failure of the site, which was eventually sold to Veolia and Transpacific Industries (joint venture) for the sum a $1. Discussions with the facility designers and current operators have indicated that problems are primarily due to the difficulty in securing clean (low contamination) food wastes. As a result of the high competition for wastes, material was being accepted with contamination well above design levels. This led to a build up
71

PersonalcorrespondencebetweenSteveKroening(previouslyofAndarHoldingsLimited,nowApexEnvironmental)andJoanne McGregorofMorrisonLow,byemail,20April2009. 72 PersonalcorrespondencebetweenPaulBrownofGravityEnvironmentalSolutionsLimitedandESPLimitedandJoanne McGregorofMorrisonLow,byemail,20April2009. 73 PersonalcorrespondencewithAlanMartin,EvergreenEnergyPtyLtd. 74 Indicatedbydesktopreviewofoperatingfacilities(AppendixE),supportedbyBiocyclearticlenoting50,000T/yrasatypical largefacilitysizeKelleher,M.(Aug2007).ANAEROBICDIGESTIONOUTLOOKFORMSWSTREAMS,BioCycleAugust2007, Vol.48,No.8,p.51.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

67

Page 76 of 470

of contaminants within the system and technology upgrades were required. These issues are less relevant to a municipal organic waste scenario as for Auckland. With anaerobic digestion being relatively new to this part of the world, other examples of successful food waste processing are to be found elsewhere, particularly in Europe and North America. A summary of large scale food waste composting sites is included within Appendix E. This summary includes information on site tonnages, material types, and costs and revenues (where available). Municipal wastes can be subject to variability, with the impacts of this variability increased when processing at regional scale. If greenwaste is collected with food waste seasonal tonnage fluctuations increase, with peak greenwaste tonnages estimated at around 1.5 times the average daily or weekly amount.75 Mechanical composting systems are designed for relatively constant waste tonnages. Generally speaking, this is also the case for anaerobic digestion systems. Although front end processes and equipment can be designed for variability, simpler systems such as covered windrows, composting tunnels or containers filled using loaders will be most flexible for varying tonnages. However, as noted in Table 7-1, these static type systems are more reliant on wastes entering the system in the correct form. Agitated, mechanical systems have greater ability to amend material properties once within the processing system (through water addition, mixing, increased air injection etc.) and therefore may have more flexibility for varying waste properties. Anaerobic digestion systems often include composting to further treat solid materials generated by the digestion process. Therefore, a composting facility developed initially could be upgraded to a dry digestion facility in the future, with the composting system retained as a secondary process. This scenario may become viable if the value of energy increases, and/or carbon credit incentives become available 7.4 Integration with Collection

Aside from the processing itself, it is necessary to consider how compatible technologies are with collection methods and product markets. Although, collection systems have yet to be selected, technologies can be assessed in terms of their compatibility with commingled food and green waste versus food waste only collection, and their ability to cope with varying levels of contamination. The two anaerobic digestion examples Kompogas and the Sydney plant provide a basis for comparison between wet and dry anaerobic digestion technologies. The dry AD process is compatible with a commingled domestic food and greenwaste collection, while the wet digestion process is best suited to food waste only collections. Composting systems can work with either a food waste only or a commingled collection. However, if food waste only is collected, an additional greenwaste source will be required for composting.

75

AsadvisedbyLivingEarthLimited,basedontheirexperienceofgreenwastecomposting.Thisassumptionisappliedtofacility costmodelsdevelopedforthisproject,toensurethatadequatecapacityisprovidedforpeakratherthanaveragetonnages.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

68

Page 77 of 470

7.5

Contaminant Issues

Although both manual and automated options are available to remove contamination from food and greenwastes, it is preferable to reduce contamination at source. Therefore reducing contamination should be considered as part of designing the collection method. To this end, it is likely that waste acceptance criteria would include acceptable contamination levels within collected material. Maximum contamination levels of around 2.5 3 percent are recommended for both composting and anaerobic digestion systems76. Static based systems such as composting tunnels and containers are less susceptible to equipment damage from waste contaminants, whereas more automated systems (anaerobic digestion and agitated/mechanical composting systems) may be more subject to damage. For example, plastic or stringy greenwaste can wrap around moving equipment, and solid contaminants (metal etc.) can cause impact damage. 7.6 Environmental Considerations

It is difficult to compare environmental impacts between specific technologies without undertaking detailed comparisons, e.g. on a life cycle assessment basis. However, environmental considerations of composting versus anaerobic digestion are commented on below. 7.6.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions There is increasing support for anaerobic digestion on the basis that compared to other organic waste alternatives, such as composting and landfill disposal, it offers reduced greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy production. In some instances anaerobic digestion facilities have qualified for carbon credits or other carbon based incentives. Carbon dioxide is a natural product of the composting process, although anaerobic pockets will also lead to the release of some methane. Atmospheric releases of methane from composting have been estimated at between <1 percent to a few percent of the initial carbon content of the waste material.77 Nitrous Oxide can also be produced from composting, with emission estimates from less than 0.5 percent to around five percent of the initial nitrogen content of the waste material.78 Generally methane produced from anaerobic digestion treatment is captured and used to produce heat or electricity. There is also research and development underway into the economic conversion of gases into vehicle fuels, with an early example being the Kompogas facility in Rumlang, Switzerland which uses biogas generated from 9,000 T/yr of food and green waste79 to power Migros trucks80. The IPCC guidelines (2006)
76 77

BasedonpersonalcommunicationswithGeorgeFietje,LivingEarthLtd,andChrisHearn,WasteSolutions. BeckFriis,2001;Detzeletal.;2003,Arnold,2005asreportedwithinthe2006IPCCGuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGas Inventories,Volume5,Waste. 78 Petersonetal.,1998;Hellebrand,1998;Vesterinene,1996:BeckFriis,2001;Detzeletal.,2003asreportedwithinthe2006 IPCCGuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories,Volume5,Waste. 79 Facilityprocessesdomesticcommingledfoodandgreenwaste,combinedwithhospitalityfoodwastes50%domesticand50% commercial,withatotalfoodwasteportionofaround70%(remaining30%isgreenwastes).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

69

Page 78 of 470

estimate that unintentional methane leakages will be up to 10 percent of the total methane produced (5 percent as an average, default value). According to the guidelines, Nitrous Oxide emissions are assumed to be negligible. Although actual emissions will vary significantly depending on the amount and type of organic waste, and the level of processing control, IPCC Tier 1 (default) emission factors for greenhouse gases from composting and anaerobic digestion are shown below: Composting: - 4g of methane produced per kg of (wet) organic waste composted - 0.3g of nitrous oxide produced per kg of (wet) organic waste composted Anaerobic Digestion: - 1g of methane produced per kg of (wet) organic waste digested - negligible nitrous oxide produced Based on these default factors, and taking into account global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide (100 year time horizon), carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions from 1kg of organic waste are 8. times higher from composting than from anaerobic digestion81. For completeness, a comparison should also be made with landfill disposal. According to MfE guidelines,82 0.559 kg of CO2-e is emitted for each kg of mixed food and greenwaste disposed of to New Zealand landfills (assuming landfill gas extraction for beneficial reuse, as is the case for Auckland landfills default MfE factor rather than landfill specific). This is significantly higher than the 0.117kg of CO2-e calculated for composting, and considerably higher than the 0.021kg calculated for anaerobic digestion. In emission reduction terms, diverting organic wastes from landfill for composting reduces emissions by 79 percent. Anaerobic digestion improves upon this further, achieving a 96 percent emissions reduction. 7.6.2 Other Environmental Considerations Other environmental impacts of composting or anaerobic digestion, such as discharges to air, land and water (surface and ground water) depend on how well the process is managed and what environmental protection measures are in place. These would be managed, at minimum, by resource consent requirements, and by site design and operational practices. By its nature, anaerobic digestion is a more enclosed processing method than composting. Therefore, environmental impacts may be more closely managed. However, it is expected that environmental performance would be an assessment

MigrosisawellknownSwisscompanythatoperatesinthefoodandnonfoodglobalretailindustry GWPofmethaneis21andGWPofnitrousoxideis310.Carbondioxideequivalentunitsforemissionsfromeachkgofwaste aretherefore:Composting4x21+0.3x310=177gofCO2e,AnaerobicDigestion1x21+0.0x310=21gofCO2e.CO2e emissionsfromcompostingaretherefore8.4timesthatforanaerobicdigestion. 82 GuidanceforVoluntary,CorporateGreenhouseGasReporting:Dataandmethodsforthe2007calendaryear September2008,RefME904http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/guidancegreenhousegasreporting2008 09/index.html


81

80

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

70

Page 79 of 470

criteria for any tendering process that may be followed to develop one or more regional food waste processing facilities. The most significant risk of environmental impacts such as odour, leachate and vermin attraction are in the early stages when wastes enter the processing facility, and within the following few weeks. Correct operation and control of the mix can significantly reduce the risk of odour and leachate. This is demonstrated by the low number, or in some cases nil, odour complaints received for the composting facilities currently operating in Auckland. It is also assumed that regardless of the processing option, food waste receival areas would be enclosed within a building (under negative extraction) and that processing within this higher risk period would also be undertaken in an enclosed manner. So long as successful processing occurs, environmental impacts during second stage processing should be able to be minimised. 7.7 Cultural Considerations

Tangata Whenua have a strong spiritual connection to the environment and its resources and, as a consequence of that, take on a guardianship role. This means that consultation with Maori is advantageous, and indeed necessary, for the development of any regional waste facilities. In the past the question has been posed whether municipal composting is in harmony with Maori traditions and views, as compared to alternative practices such as landfill disposal. This question, and responses to it, formed a key part of consultation and legislative processes for the Wellington Biosolids composting facility. Although concerns were raised about the possibility that human blood, body parts and tissues may be present in the biosolids, and ultimately spread on land within the compost, all Maori groups eventually decided to not object to the composting plant83. This was on the basis that the proposal was a close approximation to natural processes, and that health risks would be appropriately managed. It was also noted that: a truly traditional Maori view is one that grasps the possibilities of new technologies and understanding and manages them in a programmatic manner as consistently as possible with the core traditional concepts of tapu (forbidden or restricted) and noa (free from restrictions) and the balance between them.84 Based on the Wellington Biosolids composting example, it appears that the beneficial reuse of organic wastes via composting is generally in accordance with Maori cultural values. Anaerobic digestion processes do not reflect natural processes as directly as composting. However, the core process itself remains a biological one, generating products that can be put back to land as natural fertilisers.

83 84

ArticlebyRodgerSpillerandChellieLakeInvestinginCulturethe4 BottomLine,June2003EthicalInvestor,Issue22. MorrisTeWhitiLove,directoroftheWaitangiTribunalandtrusteeoftheWellingtonTenthsTrust,aspartoftheCourtof AppealhearingforTeRunanganuiOTaranakiWhanuiKiTeUpokoOTeIkaAMauiIncvWellingtonRegionalCounciland WellingtonCityCouncil,EnvironmentCourt,W48/98,8July1998,JudgeKenderdineasreportedbyTrevorGouldandTrevor DayaWinterbottomofChapmanTrippinPlanningQuarterly,June1999,articleentitledResolvingTroublingCulturalIssues.

th

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

71

Page 80 of 470

There is also an increasing move for Maori to embrace organic farming practices. An example is the Hua Maori organic growers certification and labelling standard85. Processing of domestic food wastes into soil amendment or fertiliser products creates an alternative to synthetic fertilisers. This is in accordance with traditional growing philosophies and there certainly appears to be potential to work with Maori to explore potential uses for composted or digested products. Cultural considerations are also addressed as part of the resource management process. These will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis for any organic waste processing facility, with site selection and management of discharges to air, land and water defining the range and focus areas for any cultural concerns. 7.8 Other Social Considerations

Social considerations for large scale organic waste processing relate to nuisance issues, such as odour and dust, vehicle movements, visual impacts and other less direct impacts such as (actual or perceived) impacts on housing value etc. As with environmental impacts, many social impacts should be managed through the resource consent process and through correct processing methods and site practices. Social impacts will also depend on the site setting and appropriateness of the facility to those surroundings - composting may be preferable to the community in a rural environment, compared to the more industrial nature of an anaerobic digestion facility. Again, these types of issues are managed through the resource consent process. To minimise nuisance issues, regional food waste processing would preferably be located somewhere where larger buffer distances are possible. Finding affordable, larger sites in Auckland, away from urban areas, would have its challenges. Therefore, social considerations, and resulting consent issues, may push regional food waste processing to rural or industrial areas on the outskirts of the Auckland region. Increased vehicle movements will be an issue, for both wastes entering the facility and products leaving the facility. Product (road) transport will be less for digestion than for composting, due to smaller quantities produced. If transfer stations and bulk haulage of wastes occurs it may be possible as back load vehicles between incoming waste and outgoing product. Increased vehicle movements will need to be managed as part of any food waste collection service design, and as part of facility land use consent/s. 7.9 Economic Considerations

Figure 7-1 provides a comparison of technology supply and installation costs, provided by suppliers in response to an industry survey distributed as part of this study. Generally speaking, capital costs for anaerobic digestion technology are higher than for composting technology. The exception is the agitated Wasteology tunnel composting

85

HuaMaoriconformstointernationallyrecognisedorganicstandardsandacceptedNewZealandstandardsbutalsoadoptsan indigenousframeworkthatrecognisesMaorivaluesandapproachestofoodproduction.Thisincludestheincorporationof Maoritikanga(protocol)andthespiritual,physicalandmetaphysicalattributesthathaveguidedourtraditionalorganic economiesformillenniahttp://www.huamaori.com/huamaori/

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

72

Page 81 of 470

system, which is comparably priced to a wet digestion system similar to that developed for EarthPower, Sydney. Mechanical composting systems are generally more expensive than tunnel or container based systems. For example, a large scale HotRot plant would be approximately 50 percent more expensive to construct than the proposed tunnel alternative (MIDAS). The HotRot facility would require less operating staff (one half to one third less) and would use significantly less land86. However, these operational benefits are unlikely to justify twice the level of capital investment. Less automated, batch based composting systems such as tunnels or static container technologies are cheaper to develop. This is not overly surprising, and it is assumed that these low automation technologies would also be cheaper to operate (although land use requirements may be higher and process control ability lower). Actual costs would need to be confirmed via a formal tendering process. However, indications provided by this study are that the WTT tunnel system and the Naturtech container system require the lowest level of capital investment starting at around $3M for a system processing 40,000 tonnes per year and around $12-13M for a system processing 200,000 tonnes per year87. It could be possible to reduce capital costs through local design and construction of tunnel or container composting systems, rather than the purchase of propriety technologies. This option could be included within a Request for Tender process. The processing technology cost is only one element of the facility set-up cost. Further discussion of facility development costs and operational costs per tonne (including all facility elements, not just processing technology), are presented within Section 9. Potential revenue from the acceptance of other wastes and from the sale of products also forms part of the overall operating cost for a facility. Anaerobic digestion products are also potentially of greater value than a straight composting product. More detailed assessment and comparison of product values is provided in Sections 7.11 and 10. With the planned upgrade to allow food waste composting (aerated, covered windrow system), the Envirofert composting facility would provide an option for the Auckland Council that requires no capital investment. Instead, a gate fee per tonne would be charged to Council. Due to concerns about commercial sensitivity, Envirofert has elected to not provide further details of the intended composting technology or costs that might be applied. However, the site is well located relative to growth product markets and is already operating commercially for greenwaste composting. In terms of product revenues for the facility, Envirofert claim to be developing highvalue markets for their products and has indicated that they could find markets for all food waste compost that could be produced from the Auckland domestic waste stream. They also maintain that vermicomposting allows them to achieve an optimum sale price for their composted products, allowing the process to be driven by market demand and product value rather than solely by gate fee incomes.

86

InformationprovidedbyHotRotOrganicSolutions(NZ)Ltd(HotRotandMIDASsuppliers),inresponsetorequestforinformation fromJoanneMcGregorofMorrisonLow,31March2009. 87 Indicativetechnologysupplycostsbasedona50/50mixoffoodandgreenwastes,andaminimumprocessingtimeof14days.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

73

Page 82 of 470

$60.0
$58.6

$54.0
WTT tunnel $48.8 VIVC

$48.0

Technology Supply Cost (NZ$M)

$42.0
$39.1 $35.1 Kompogas

$36.0
MIDAS

$30.0

$28.1 $29.2 $23.2 Wasteology Wet Digestion - Food waste only, i.e. no greenwaste added $19.2 $19.5 $21.2 $17.9 $15.6 $11.5 Naturtech

$24.0

$18.0
$13.1

$12.0

$12.9 $7.6 $8.6 $10.9 $7.7 $8.7 $10.3

Custom Wet Digestor (FW only)

$6.0
$1.0 $2.9 $2.6 $4.0

$4.2 $4.8 $4.5 $5.3

$6.4 $6.8

$6.6

$7.7

$-

$0.6

40

80

120

160

200

Annual Biowaste Tonnage (1,000s)

Figure 7-1: Indicative Technology Supply Costs - CONFIDENTIAL Notes: 1. Data points indicate actual pricing provided by suppliers (in response to Morrison Low supplier survey, which specified annual tonnages, a 50/50 mix of food and green wastes,
and a minimum processing time of 14 days).

2. Naturtech costs were estimated from sample facility pricing (as provided by supplier). Supplier has indicated a turnkey supply cost of around $15.6M (US$9.6M) for a 200,000tpa facility. Naturtech do not retrofit containers made by others their containers are manufactured in China and container handling systems in Australia.
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

74

Page 83 of 470

7.10

Operating Footprint

In addition to the supply costs presented in Figure 7-1, technology providers were also asked to provide information on the operating footprint for their individual systems. Figure 7-2 summarises the results from that information request88. Not surprisingly, the VIVC (vertical in-vessel system) has the smallest footprint of the composting systems. Anaerobic Digestion technologies, particularly Kompogas, are considerably more economical in size than composting tunnel or bay systems. This would be accentuated even further for a complete operating facility, where secondary processing for composting systems take place in open windrows significantly increasing the total facility size.

25000

20000

Technology Footprint (m )

15000

10000

5000

0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Facility Capacity (T/yr) VIVC (Vertical In-vessel) MIDAS (Aerated Bay) Wet Anaerobic Digestion (e.g.Earthpower facility) WTT (Static Tunnel) Wasteology (Agitated Tunnel) Kompogas (Dry Digestion)

Figure 7-1: Operating Footprints for Selected Technologies

7.11

Products

Both composting and anaerobic digestion systems create soil amendment products. AD systems can create both solid and liquid fertiliser products, as can some composting technologies (depending on the design of the leachate collection system). However, a benefit of AD technology is the creation of renewable energy, which can be converted to various forms of power and fuel. Envirofert maintain that the value of their compost product and the range and size of their markets is increased through vermicomposting and product certification targeted at specific market needs.

88

Indicativetechnologysizingandnumberofunitsbasedonaspecifiedtonnages,50/50mixoffoodandgreenwastes,anda minimumprocessingtimeof14days.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

75

Page 84 of 470

Wet digestion facilities demonstrate higher energy generation rates per tonne than dry systems. This is a result of dry systems producing low energy outputs from greenwaste component. Dry systems will also require larger digesters than wet systems, due to the additional capacity required for the greenwaste. Refer to Section 10 for more details of production rates and value of liquid, solid and gaseous products. 7.12 Section Summary Processing Options

Suitability for Aucklands Organic Wastes Food waste is successfully processed at both composting and anaerobic digestion facilities although large scale facilities are more numerous for composting technologies. This may change as greater value is placed on carbon reduction. Mechanical composting systems would only be suitable for Auckland if more, smaller facilities were created, with a maximum size of around 35,000 to 45,000 tonnes of biowaste per year. For larger facilities, static, batch-fed tunnel or container based composting systems are more appropriate. Covered windrow systems are also an option if a suitable site is available (large and in a rural location). Minimum facility sizes for anaerobic digestion are around 10,000 tonnes per year. Although there are some examples of anaerobic digestion facilities processing 70,000 to 150,000 tonnes per year of putrescible wastes, most large, established facilities appear to take around 40,000 to 60,000 tonnes per year. Municipal wastes can be subject to variability, particularly when processing at a regional scale. If greenwaste is collected with food waste, peak season quantities could increase by up to 50 percent. Waste composition would also vary. Mechanical composting and anaerobic digestion systems are best suited to constant waste tonnages. Simpler systems such as covered windrows, composting tunnels or containers are most flexible for varying tonnages, however, have less ability to optimise material properties during processing (e.g. through agitation). Higher pathogen risk materials, such as sanitary wastes and biosolids, require a greater level of agitation and process control. Although not recommended, if such wastes were to be included, then agitated composting technologies, such as the IPS, agitated Wasteology system and the HotRot would be more appropriate than static tunnel, container or covered windrow systems. Anaerobic digestion systems may also be more suitable. However, regardless of the technology type, plastics within sanitary wastes would create a source of contamination. This would need to be allowed for within system design and would impact on the end product markets and value. The food and green waste processing facility in Christchurch (operated by Living Earth Limited) is an example of a tunnel composting facility that could be developed for the Auckland region. Although limited information is available on the processing technology intended for food waste composting at the Envirofert facility, the planned development at this site will provide a possible alternative for Council a privately owned, covered windrow operation. Anaerobic digestion systems often include composting to further treat solid materials generated by the digestion process. Therefore, a composting facility developed initially could be upgraded to a dry digestion facility in the future, with the composting system
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

76

Page 85 of 470

retained as a secondary process. This scenario may become viable if the value of energy increases, and/or carbon credit incentives become available. Compatibility with Collection Method Dry anaerobic digestion systems are compatible with a commingled domestic food and greenwaste collection, while wet digestion facilities are best suited to food waste only collections. Composting systems can work with either a food waste only or a commingled collection. If a food waste only collection, a greenwaste/bulking agent source would be required for composting. Contaminant Issues Static composting tunnels and containers are less susceptible to equipment damage from waste contaminants than more automated anaerobic digestion or agitated/mechanical composting systems - plastic or stringy greenwaste can wrap around moving equipment, and larger, solid contaminants (metal) etc. can cause impact damage to processing equipment. Maximum contamination levels of 2.5 - 3 percent are recommended for both composting and anaerobic digestion systems. Environmental, Cultural and Social Considerations Both composting and anaerobic digestion significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill disposal of organic wastes, with composting offering an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions and anaerobic digestion offering a 96 percent reduction. Comparing the two processes, CO2-e emitted from 1kg of organic waste is 8.4 times higher from composting than from anaerobic digestion. Digestion has the additional benefit of creating a renewable energy source. Other environmental impacts of composting or anaerobic digestion, such as discharges to air, land and water (surface and ground water) depend on how well the process is managed and what environmental protection measures are in place. These would be managed, at minimum, by resource consent requirements, and by site design and operational practices. By its nature, anaerobic digestion is a more enclosed processing method than composting and therefore, environmental impacts may be more closely managed than for composting. The risk of odour, leachate and vermin attraction is greatest when wastes first enter the processing facility, and within the following few weeks. Correct operation and control of the mix can significantly reduce the risk of odour and leachate. This is demonstrated by the low number, or in some cases nil, odour complaints received for the composting facilities currently operating in Auckland. It is also assumed that regardless of the processing option, food waste receival areas would be enclosed within a building (under negative extraction) and that processing within this higher risk period would also be undertaken in an enclosed manner. Cultural considerations would be considered on a case-by-case basis for any organic waste processing facility (as part of the consenting process), with site selection and the management of discharges to air, land and water likely to be the focus of any concerns. Cultural considerations formed an important part of resource consents for the Wellington biosolids composting plant. Although some concerns were raised due to
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

77

Page 86 of 470

the nature of the biosolids, all Maori groups eventually decided to not object on the basis that the proposal was a close approximation to natural processes and that health risks would be appropriately managed. Concerns about health risks are reduced if biosolids are not processed with the food and green wastes. Anaerobic digestion processes do not reflect natural processes as directly as composting. However, the core process itself remains a biological one, generating products that can be put back to land as natural fertilisers. Social considerations would primarily relate to nuisance issues, such as odour and dust, vehicle movements, visual impacts. To minimise nuisance issues, regional food waste processing would preferably be located somewhere where larger buffer distances are possible. Finding affordable, larger sites in Auckland, away from urban areas, would have its challenges. Therefore, social considerations, and resulting consent issues, may push regional food waste processing to rural or industrial areas on the outskirts of the Auckland region. As with environmental impacts, social impacts would be managed through the resource consent process and operational practices. Regardless of technology type, increased vehicle movements will be an issue (for both incoming wastes and outgoing products). Vehicle movements would need to be managed as part of the food waste collection service and facility land use consent/s. The use of transfer stations or multiple processing facilities would assist in managing incoming vehicle movements. Cost Considerations Generally speaking, capital costs for anaerobic digestion technology are higher than for composting technology and mechanical composting systems are more expensive than static tunnel or container based systems. Indications are that the WTT tunnel system and the Naturtech container system require the lowest level of capital investment, starting at around $6M for 80,000 tonnes of mixed food and green waste per year, and up to around $13M for 200,000 tonnes per year. It could also be possible to reduce capital costs through local design and construction of tunnel or container composting systems, rather than the purchase of propriety technologies. This option could be included within a Request for Tender process. By comparison, a wet anaerobic digestion facility, modelled on the Sydney Earthpower operation, would have a capital cost of around $13M for 30,000 tonnes per year of food waste and around $21M for 75,000 tonnes per year of food waste. In all instances additional costs would apply for site development, buildings, decontamination facilities and ancillary equipment. Due to simpler operation, tunnel or container based systems should also be cheaper to operate, although land use requirements may be higher and process control ability lowered. Potential revenue from the acceptance of other wastes and from the sale of products also forms part of the overall operating cost for a facility. Anaerobic digestion products are also potentially of greater value than a straight composting product. Assuming the Envirofert facility is suitably developed to allow effective composting of mixed food and green waste at a commercial scale, an alternative option would be presented to the Auckland Council one which requires the payment of an agreed gate fee only, without the need for capital investment by council.
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

78

Page 87 of 470

Operating Footprint The VIVC (vertical in-vessel system) has the smallest footprint of the composting systems. Anaerobic Digestion technologies considered, particularly Kompogas, are considerably more economical in size than composting tunnel or bay systems.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

79

Page 88 of 470

8.

FACILITY OPTIONS

One of the key issues for any regional facility will be the logistics of collection, transporting and processing significant quantities of organics in a city like Auckland. This study has considered a number of different facility scenarios to process domestic food waste from across the Auckland region. These scenarios are based on differing options for collecting and processing organic wastes, including differing number and size of processing facilities, with or without the use of organic waste transfer facilities. Possible facility scenarios are identified and logistical issues for each are discussed. 8.1 Facility Scenarios

Three broad facility scenarios have been considered as options for regional processing. The first is a single processing facility that directly receives all domestic food and green wastes collected by Council from kerbside. It may also accept other commercial wastes for processing. A key consideration for this single facility option is the logistics of moving all wastes collected from kerbside across Auckland to a single location. These issues are discussed further within Section 8.3. The second and third multiple facility options, illustrated by Figures 8-1 to 8-2, assume either one or two main processing facilities and options to transport wastes either directly or via transfer facilities. Secondary processing could occur at either the same site as primary processing or at a separate site that may be closer to end use markets (also an option for the first scenario). These two variants on the multiple facility option offer an additional degree of flexibility for material transport, reducing collection travel distances from kerbside.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

80

Page 89 of 470

Figure 8-1: Single Facility Option - with Transfer Stations

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

81

Page 90 of 470

Figure 8-2: Multiple Facility Option

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

82

Page 91 of 470

8.2

Organic Waste Tonnages for Processing

This section combines results from the data analysis with likely organic waste capture rates set out within the collection options review. This amalgamation of organic waste quantities and potential capture rates is required to estimate required organic processing facility sizes. It is assumed that any domestic organic waste collection and processing service would be undertaken on a regional basis. The basis for the selected domestic food waste tonnage bands is included within Appendix B. The following domestic food waste tonnages were selected for modelling purposes: 30,000 T/yr of food waste 45,000 T/yr of food waste 60,000 T/yr of food waste 75,000 T/yr of food waste

These food waste tonnages represent what could conceivably be captured via a food waste only kerbside collection service for Auckland. Although collection options are not assessed in significant detail in this report, some base line assumption was needed to determine potential food and green waste quantities for processing. For a commingled collection, an assumed ratio of 3 parts food waste to 5 parts greenwaste was adopted. This ratio is based on the average household mix expected from the Christchurch commingled food and green waste kerbside collection89. Tonnages that could conceivably be captured via a commingled food and green waste kerbside collection service for Auckland are set out below: 30,000T/yr food waste + 50,000T/yr greenwaste - 80,000T/yr 45,000T/yr food waste + 75,000T/yr greenwaste - 120,000 T/yr 60,000T/yr food waste + 100,000T/yr greenwaste - 160,000T/yr 75,000T/yr food waste + 125,000 T/yr greenwaste - 200,000 T/yr

The two sets of tonnage bands outlined above form the basis for the facility costings modelled in Section 9. The nominated upper tonnage band, 75,000 T/yr food or 200,000 T/yr mixed food and green waste, allows for future population growth and a high performing organic waste collection service (70 percent food waste capture rate, delivered to 500,000 households). The low estimate of 30,000 T/yr food or 80,000 T/yr mixed food and green waste is based on a food waste capture rate of 50 percent and delivery of the collection service to 300,000 households.

89

FoodandgreenwastecollectionassumptionsforChristchurchwereprovidedbyLivingEarthLimited(G.Fietje,March2009). LivingEarthassumptionswerefor3kgfoodand5kggreenwasteperhousehold(foran80Lbin).Basedontheassessmentof likelyfoodwasteparticipationandcapturerates,thisstudytakesamoreconservativeviewandassumesafoodwastecapture rangeof23kgcombinedwith3.35kgofgreenwasteperhousehold.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

83

Page 92 of 470

More detailed analysis of collection systems and likely participation rates is required to refine estimates of how much material would be captured for processing. However, it is expected that captured food or food and green waste tonnages would most likely be around the mid-range tonnage bands set out above, that is, 45,000 to 60,000 T/yr of food waste, or around 120,000 to 160,000 T/yr of mixed food and green waste. 8.3 Logistical issues

There are a number of logistical issues that arise when planning to collect, process and beneficially reuse domestic organic wastes from across the entire Auckland region. Issues explored within this section (high level assessment only) include: 1. logistical issues for food waste collection 2. transport of wastes from kerbside to a processing facility (or facilities) 3. distribution of end products to their intended markets 8.3.1 Food Waste Collection Materials & bins Although overseas food waste collection systems indicate a higher capture rate when food waste is collected separately rather than mixed with greenwaste, the logistics of collecting differing bin types needs to be taken into account. Generally speaking, 40L bins are thought to be the smallest bins that can be collected using a bin lifter truck90. Anything smaller than this is likely to require manual collection. It is noted that for wet anaerobic digestion, a food waste only collection is the preferable option. This would allow for most efficient processing and greatest biogas output per incoming tonne. Although greenwaste can also be digested, the energy production rate from greenwaste is low and the additional volume would require a larger, more expensive facility. Dry anaerobic digestion does require a mix of food and green waste, and is therefore better suited than wet digestions to a commingled collection. Composting is suitable for commingled food and green waste collection, or a food waste only stream so long as a secure supply of greenwaste is also available (at approximately equal tonnages to the food waste). Similarly, dry anaerobic digestion can be undertaken for a food waste only stream, so long as supplementary greenwaste is available (at between 30 and 50 percent of food waste tonnes). Manual versus automated collection is a debate of its own that is outside the scope of this study. However, it is assumed that if food waste is collected separately it will be using a small hard sided container suitable for automated collection. Collection fleet Based on 400,000 households included in an Auckland organics waste kerbside collection, with an average of 2.4kg of food waste plus 4.0kg of greenwaste collected per household, a 5T truck would take around 5.2 hours to fill (assuming 150 bin lifts per hour). This equates to over 100 single truck runs per day (260 collection days per year). If collection vehicles were operated on a 10 hour working day (allowing for a 30

90

PersonalcommunicationwithJonRoscoe,WaitakereCityCouncil,April2009.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

84

Page 93 of 470

minute break after 5.5 hours work)91 and had an average turnaround time of 2 hours (including travel from the last collection point to the processing facility, unloading and travel back to base or to the start of the next collection route), then each truck could achieve only, on average, 1.4 collection runs per day. Practically speaking, a fleet of around 70 vehicles could carry out the collection with half the fleet doing one collection run per day and the other half able to do two runs per day (for collection routes closer to the processing facility). However, 70 organic waste collection trucks would be problematic for Aucklands roads and traffic congestion. Costs to maintain a fleet of that size would also be significant. Taking those factors into account, it is not considered logistically feasible to transport all organic wastes from households across the Auckland region to a single processing facility. To reduce fleet size the travel distance between collection points and the facility need to be reduced. One option to do this is to utilise waste transfer facilities. This would allow bulk haulage of wastes from transfer facilities to a processing site, with the added benefit of allowing transport to be scheduled outside of peak traffic times (at lest in part). Another option with logistical benefits is to have more than one processing facility, e.g. one to the north and one to the south of Auckland. These facility options are discussed in greater detail in Section 8.3.2. Options for increased productivity during collection Although a detailed assessment of collection options is beyond the scope of this study, potential ways to improve the collection productivity include ensuring the correct arm is used (i.e. for the bin type and size, street network and truck type), restricting on-street parking on narrow or busy streets (during nominated collection times), and using different truck sizes for different locations. Depending on the ability to manage odour and truck cleanliness, there may be potential for trucks to do a partial second collection run, store the waste overnight then complete the run the next morning. The timing for trucks arriving at the processing or transfer facilities should also be managed to avoid congestion. Again, this could be achieved through the use of varying truck sizes or split runs. As an indication of the potential for improved productivity, truck arm movements can vary between 6 and 20 seconds depending on the arm type, and no parking restrictions could achieve increases in productivity in up to 20 percent92. For the option involving waste transfer facilities, productivity could be increased by allowing movements between the transfer facilities and processing facility to occur outside of peak traffic times. The greatest benefit would be if transport could happen during the night. However, this would be contingent on the transfer and processing facilities being allowed to load / unload wastes during the night.

91

The10hrworkingdayisbasedonakerbsidecollectionperiodof6amto4pm.LTSAallowsa10hrworkingdaysolongasthereis a30minbreakafter5.5hrsofworktimeSource:http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/02.html 92 PersonalcommunicationwithBruceDean,Metrowaste,May2009(estimatesonly,basedonexperience) Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

85

Page 94 of 470

8.3.2 Logistics of facility scenarios Single facility only An organics collection service for Auckland may not necessarily follow the collection method outlined above. However, the outcome of this simple logistics modelling shows that potential fleet size, number of truck movements per day and associated transport costs will be significant. Taking into account Aucklands level of traffic congestion, average turnaround times will be slow, creating the need for additional vehicles. The collection vehicles will also add to existing congestion levels. As previously noted, the issues outlined above indicate that collection and direct transport of wastes from kerbside to a single processing facility will not be logistically feasible for Auckland. Multiple Facilities There are two approaches to overcoming logistical issues associated with transport of wastes to a single facility, both of which involve multiple organic waste facilities. The first option is to have two (or more) processing facilities, both of which receive wastes direct from kerbside. Identification of possible sites is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is assumed that one would be located north of the harbour bridge and the other to the south, potentially both towards the extremities of the Auckland region (or even outside the Auckland boundaries). The second option is to retain the single processing facility but to also develop organic waste transfer facilities. These transfer facilities could potentially be created at existing solid waste transfer stations. Logistically, both multiple facility scenarios will reduce collection and transport times, thereby reducing the required fleet size and number of trucks added to Aucklands roads. It is assumed that transfer facilities would need to include plant and staff for preprocessing functions (e.g. decontamination and potentially also shredding - depending on the size of the collection bin and amount of bulky greenwaste recevied). Transfer facilities would allow material to be hauled in bulk and could potentially be transported during off-peak periods, reducing the impact of truck movements on daytime traffic. There is a potential double-handling issue associated with the use of transfer stations. However, this could be reduced through appropriate processing technology selection. For example, the Naturtech container composting system can be used to both bulk haul the shredded, decontaminated wastes and to process the material once unloaded at the composting facility (container is connected to leachate collection and aeration systems and an empty container taken back to the transfer facility) - further information on the Naturtech option is presented in Section 7. The double-handling issue does not apply to the option of two processing facilities. However, it would require two suitable sites to be identified, consented and developed. The detailed evaluation of processing site locations, kerbside collection method and transport movements is beyond this scope of Stage One piece of work. However, based on the limited availability of large, affordable sites within the Auckland region, this would have its challenges. Potentially, two such sites would need to be located to

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

86

Page 95 of 470

the extremities of the region, or even in neighbouring areas. If this did occur, travel distances from kerbside would again increase, adding to collection fleet size and costs. 8.3.3 Proximity to markets For composting, a single facility located in South Auckland is the optimum solution in terms of proximity to markets and transport logistics. This is due to major compost markets being located around the Pukekohe/Bombay areas, the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty93. A northern composting facility would increase product transport requirements, with much of the product needing to be transported south. This applies for both a single northern processing facility, or twin facilities located north and south of the harbour bridge. Logistical issues for anaerobic digestion products are less about location and more about technology, particularly for the conversion of biogas to a useable energy source. Composting and digestion products are discussed in further detail within Section 10. 8.4 Section Summary

Considering the logistics of material handling, collection and transport, a single processing facility only is unlikely to be feasible for the Auckland region. Multiple facility options, either with processing at two or more sites or a single processing facility supported by organic waste transfer facilities, offer greater logistical benefits, particularly for waste collection. Of the two options, a single processing facility with transfer stations offers the greatest flexibility, particularly if wastes can be transported to the processing facility off-peak. There are potential double handling issues, however, these could be overcome if paired with a transportable container system that can be used for both bulk haulage and processing (for example, the Naturtech container composting system). Although the two facility option could reduce travel distances for collection trucks (depending on their locations), identifying, consenting and developing two suitable sites would add complexity and cost. Should composting be selected as the processing option, a facility located to the north of Auckland would be away from the largest product growth markets, increasing transport requirements for products. Processing costs for each of the multi-facility scenarios are presented within Section 9.

93

PersonalcommunicationwithEnvirofert,May2009.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

87

Page 96 of 470

9.

COST EVALUATION OF FACILITY OPTIONS, LAND ESTIMATE

This section presents facility development costs and operating costs for the two scenarios selected in Section 8, that is: one processing facility with two organic waste transfer facilities modelled for a commingled collection only, feeding into a composting process two processing facilities, both of which receive wastes direct from kerbside

Cost models were created for both composting and digestion technologies, in both cases modelled for a range of annual tonnages. A transfer facility option was not modelled for a food waste only stream due to the lower quantities of waste involved and the difficulties in double handling a highly putrescible waste. However, this is an option that could be considered further as part of the second stage project, particularly if food waste collection options assume the use of small collection vehicles that would best work with combined with transfer into larger vehicles for bulk haulage. An estimate of land area requirements is also provided. 9.1 Cost Model Assumptions

General assumptions applied to all cost models are noted below. costs are for processing only, excluding collection and transport costs facility operating parameters would be in accordance with applicable New Zealand and overseas standards and/or best practice 20% contingency applied to civil works, building construction and ancillary equipment purchases resource consenting costs estimated at $500,000 per site, assuming notification odourous activities carried out indoors green waste used as a bulking agent, where required 15 year cost model 8% discount rate applied to discounted cash flow analysis (model approach and value of discount rate consistent with 2004 cost assessment model) all costs modelled in todays dollars, i.e. no inflationary adjustments on rates all plant purchased new loaders, shredder and fork hoists assumed to be replaced once during 15 year period some plant may have residual value at end of 15 years. However, residual values unknown and are not applied the cost of land purchase or lease is excluded contractor profit is excluded from calculated costs per tonne 2.5% contamination of incoming wastes product revenue modelled at $0/T (for all gaseous, liquid or solid products), as revenue streams are not guaranteed and markets/end uses would require development in all cases no gate fee revenue included for additional wastes e.g. commercial greenwaste accepted for windrow composting

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

88

Page 97 of 470

Assumptions specific to composting cost models were: development costs for composting facilities are based on two technology options: (i) a container composting system, costs for which are based on information from Naturtech suppliers94 (ii) a tunnel composting system, based on average costs provided by suppliers (excluding the Wasteology system due to its significantly higher supply cost) plus 20%95 in-vessel retention time 14 days but sized for peak period tonnages sizing the facility for peak tonnages allows longer retention times throughout the rest of the year; curing time - 8 weeks; waste receival, processing and storage areas sized for weekly peak volumes/tonnages peak tonnages assumed to be 1.5 x average weekly tonnes (variation caused by greenwaste portion) indoor greenwaste shredding (allows for shredding of mixed food and greenwaste, plus longer operating hours) high spec shredder (as per Christchurch composting facility) 80L bin commingled collection, with a ratio of 5 parts greenwaste to 3 parts food waste cost of $5 per tonne assumed for product refinement and market development (in addition to allocated marketing staff) 50% technology replacement cost applied in year 896

Assumptions specific to anaerobic digestion cost models were: development costs for anaerobic digestion facilities are based on system similar to the Sydney Earthpower plant (processing food wastes only) plus 20%97 secondary processing in the form of drying (producing pelletized fertiliser)98 automated pre-processing - dewatering, nitrogen stripping, maceration/pulping food waste only collection

Assumptions specific to organic waste transfer facilities were: two transfer facilities, each taking one quarter of the kerbside wastes, with the remaining 50% of wastes delivered directly to the processing facility existing transfer stations would be used, allowing for some sharing of resources and reduced development costs impact of collection method on pre-processing requirements considered and modelled assumes commingled food and green wastes collected in a large
94

Additional20%costallowscapacity(e.g.extramodules)forpeakperiodtonnagesandforalowerdensitymix(i.e.theassumed 3:5ratiooffoodtogreenwasteratherthana50/50mixassumedforFigure81). 95 Additional20%costallowscapacity(e.g.extramodules)forpeakperiodtonnagesandforalowerdensitymix(i.e.theassumed 3:5ratiooffoodtogreenwasteratherthana50/50mixassumedforFigure81). 96 Basedonexperienceofexistingfacilitieswherehighmoisture,highheat,corrosiveenvironmenthasleadtosomepartshaving anoperatinglifeof710years,ratherthanthecostmodel15yearperiod. 97 20%contingencyallowsforcurrentuncertaintiesinmaterialpropertiesforafoodwasteonlystream. 98 DryingofthesoliddigestateisbasedontheoptionselectedfortheSydneyEarthPowerfacility.Thiswasdeemedtobethe mosteconomicallyviableoptionforthisparticularfacilitybasedonlocalmarketsandsiteconstraints.Analternative,and commonoption,iscompostingofthesolidbyproduct,usuallywithgreenwasteaddition.Landrequirementswouldincreasefor composting,withincreasedcapitalcostsforlandandcompostingequipmentpotentiallysimilartoadryerplant. Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

89

Page 98 of 470

bin (e.g. 240L) would require shredding, but wastes collected in a small bin (e.g. 80L) would require only limited shredding (small bin limiting bulky greenwaste) organic transfer station options assume use of a transportable container composting system, allowing greatest benefits by avoiding double handling of wastes (assumes preloaded container delivered to processing site and attached to leachate and aeration systems for composting) transport costs between transfer facilities and processing facility are not modelled, as for fair comparison with the two facility option a complete assessment from kerbside to the processing site is required. Furthermore, it is assumed that these transport costs would be offset by the ability to bulk haul waste within containers, reducing total number of trips to the processing site.

It is assumed that a complete collection-transport-processing cost assessment would be undertaken at Stage 2, with more specific detail available as to likely site locations. Specific options applied in the cost models, e.g. equipment size, quantities and costs, staffing numbers, energy usage etc., are detailed within Appendix F of this report. 9.2 Results

A summary of capital and operating costs are presented in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 for composting and anaerobic digestion facility scenarios, respectively, based on the selected annual tonnage bands. Also noted are average annual processing costs ($/yr), to take into account anaerobic digestion carrying a higher cost per tonne than composting but processing lower tonnages (food waste only, no greenwaste). The single facility option with no transfer stations is not presented for either composting or anaerobic digestion. This is on the basis that the option is not logistically feasible for Auckland (due to the volume of material that would need to be collected and transported across the region). Further breakdown of capital costs are provided in Appendix F, although with detailed assumptions and unit rates applied to develop capital and operating costs.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

90

Page 99 of 470

Table 9-1: Estimated Costs for Regional Composting Scenarios


Composting Total incoming Processing Costs (excl. contractor profit, land) Food waste Opex Capex + Opex Annual Operating Cost ($M) Facility scenario commingled wastes component (T/yr) $/T Opex x T/yr Capex ($M) ($/T) ($/T) (T/yr) OPTION 1: SINGLE REGIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITY WITH TRANSFER STATIONS (assumes transportable container technology, two transfer facilities) 80000 Option 1A: 240L commingled collection bins (shredder required at RTS & main facility) 120000 160000 200000 80000 Option 1B: 80L commingled collection bins (no shredder required at RTS, replaced with trommel screen & mixer) 120000 160000 200000 30000 45000 60000 75000 30000 45000 60000 75000 $16.4M $19.9M $25.1M $28.4M $15.5M $18.8M $23.9M $27.1M $59 $48 $43 $39 $55 $45 $42 $37 $60 $50 $49 $65 $53 $51 $80 $65 $60 $55 $75 $62 $58 $52 $80 $68 $65 $86 $72 $69 $4.7M $5.7M $7.0M $7.9M $4.4M $5.4M $6.7M $7.5M $6.1M $6.6M $8.1M $6.5M $7.0M $8.4M

OPTION 2: TWO REGIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITIES (no transfer stations) 80000** 30000 120000** 45000 $25.5M Option 2A: container 160000** 60000 $30.2M technology, no transfer stations 200000** 75000 $33.9M 80000** 30000 120000** 45000 $27.2M Option 2B: tunnel technology 160000** 60000 $32.2M 200000** 75000 $37.2M

*Total incoming tonnages based on an assumed mix ratio of 5 parts greenwaste collected for each 3 parts of food waste **Stated tonnages are the total tonnage over the two facilities, assumed to be split equally amongst the sites

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 100 of 470

Table 9-2: Estimated Costs for Regional wet Anaerobic Digestion Scenario
Anaerobic Digestion Total incoming Processing Costs (excl. contractor profit, land) Food waste Opex Capex + Opex Annual Operating Cost ($M) Facility scenario commingled wastes component (T/yr) $/T Opex x T/yr Capex ($M) ($/T) ($/T) (T/yr) OPTION 3: TWO REGIONAL ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES (no transfer stations) 30000* 30000 'wet' digestion process, food 45000* 45000 $40.0M $73 $156 $3.3M waste only collection 60000* 60000 $49.3M $63 $141 $3.8M $53.2M $58 $125 75000* 75000 $4.4M
*Stated tonnages are the total tonnage over the two facilities, assumed to be split equally amongst the sites

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

Page 101 of 470

9.3

Land Requirements

Estimated facility sizes are described below, with composting taking significantly larger land area than digestion. The digestion facility areas assume drying of solid byproducts. Land requirements would increase significantly (say by 2 4 Ha) if these products were to be composted (with greenwaste added for bulking).
Food Waste (T/yr) 30,000 Facility Size (excluding buffer land) Composting Anaerobic Digestion 4Ha 1.0Ha (for 80,000 T/yr including greenwaste) 7Ha (for 120,000 T/yr 1.1Ha including greenwaste) 9Ha (for 160,000 T/yr 1.2Ha including greenwaste) 11Ha (for 200,000 1.3Ha T/yr including greenwaste) Comments Site areas include 20% contingency to allow for vehicle movements, stormwater pond/s etc. Composting plant sizing based on total incoming tonnages of 80,000, 120,000, 160,000 and 200,000 T/yr (food + green wastes) Digestion facility size would increase if solid by-product was composted rather than dried say by 2 to 4 Ha

45,000 60,000 75,000

Land estimates given above do not include allowances for buffer land. The amount of additional area required for buffer land is difficult to assess at this investigation state. It would depend on a number of factors, including:

The extent to which site operations are enclosed site location and proximity to neighbours / sensitive users layout of activities in relation to sensitive users consenting requirements

9.4

Section Summary - Cost Evaluation and Land Areas

The cost modelling takes into account a range of facility sizes, and configurations between waste transfer and processing sites. They also provide a comparison between costs for composting and anaerobic digestion, in terms of capital and operating costs, and average annual costs based on the calculated NPV $/T operating cost multiplied by the total tonnages being processed. It is noted that the tonnes processed via composting are a mix of food and green wastes (Incoming T/yr), whereas the digestion costs are based on a wet process that treats food waste only. Development costs for composting facilities assume technology supply costs based on average values taken provided by suppliers (excluding the Wasteology option due to its higher cost). Development costs for anaerobic digestion facilities are based on a wet digestion system similar to that at the Sydney Earthpower wet plant. It is noted that the facility for an Auckland digestion facility could be configured in a multitude of ways,

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

93

Page 102 of 470

particularly in terms of selected pre and post processing options. However, the Sydney plant provides a suitable indication of the order of digestion costs. The comparison between container composting and tunnel composting shows that the container option could reduce capital costs by around $2-3M and operating costs by around $2-5 per tonne. Similarly, a smaller collection bin could lead to capital cost savings of around $1M and operational cost savings in order of $1-4 per tonne. Capital costs are lower for composting than anaerobic digestion, by around 30 to 40 percent, and, depending on facility size, operating costs are between $17 and $13 less per tonne (based on two facility scenario). However, a wet digestion facility removes the need for greenwaste to be added and therefore processes lower total tonnes per year. As a result, wet anaerobic digestion can offer annual operating cost savings in order of 45 percent, although there is no additional recovery of greenwaste achieved, landfill compared to the current situation. Those households wanting a greenwaste collection service will still be paying an additional (private) charge. The two composting facility option carries a highest capital cost than the single facility, transfer station option, ranging between $26M to $37M depending on the facility size, selected technology and size of the kerbside collection bin (larger bin collecting more bulky greenwaste, requiring additional shredding). Looking at the same tonnage range, capital costs for the scenario of a single processing facility plus two transfer facilities are in order of $8-10M less. Operating costs are also lower, offering a savings of up to $12-15 per tonne depending on the facility and bin size. It is noted that operating costs discussed above do not include any operator margin, nor any revenue from the sale of products or from the acceptance of other private waste tonnages. The stated costs for the transfer station do not include the cost of transporting material between the transfer stations and the main processing facility. A complete analysis of costs from kerbside to the processing site (or even to market) is required, and it is expected that this would form part a key part of the Stage 2 study. It is assumed that material would be sent to the transfer facilities only when the transport distance is less than to the main processing facility. It is also assumed that bulking of material within composting containers would offset the transfer-processing facility travel. Due to the creation of biogas the revenue from an anaerobic digestion facility is expected to be higher than revenue from composting product sales, and this could potentially shift the balance between composting and digestion operations. However, without more detailed analysis of markets and product values a complete financial assessment of costs and revenues is difficult at this stage. Product types, markets and potential values are discussed separately within Section 10. In terms of land area, up to 10-11 Ha would be required for large regional composting facilities (processing around 160,000 to 200,000 tonnes per year of mixed food and green waste). A significantly lower land area of around 1 Ha would be required for digestion facilities, plus an additional 2-4 Ha if the solid by-product is to be composted rather than dried.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

94

Page 103 of 470

10.

PRODUCTS AND MARKETS

The strength of the end market and value of the product affects the economic viability of an organics processing facility. Although in the past composting and waste to energy plants were typically driven by those seeking to better manage and reduce wastes, facilities are being increasingly driven from the front end, by market demand. Compost, mulch and various soil amendment blends are produced from a compost facility, whereas energy and a liquid and solid fertiliser product are created at an anaerobic digestion facility. A key driver for anaerobic digestion facilities, particularly within Europe and developing countries, are the carbon reduction and renewable energy benefits. These products assist in offsetting not only operating costs (via revenue streams) but also capital costs through the allocation of carbon credits. Carbon credits are not currently available within New Zealand. However, this may change in the future with the planned introduction of a New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Although a detailed market assessment is beyond the scope of this work, products from both processes and their potential uses and value are outlined below. Key market opportunities and risks are also discussed. 10.1 Composting

10.1.1 Product Benefits The earlier OWWG study on composting options (URS, 2004) provided an assessment of the general benefits from compost application. Benefits of compost noted in that study include:

physical benefits: - improved soil structure - increased moisture retention Chemical benefits: - changes to soil pH - increased cation exchange capacity99 - increased nutrient levels Biological benefits: - increases in soil micro-organisms - increases in earthworms

An additional benefit is aided suppression of soil borne plant pathogens and weeds. Soil structure improvements are of particular benefit to Auckland soils, which are primarily sedimentary in origin and characterised by high clay content. Moisture retention is also of significant benefit due to Aucklands high humidity levels in summer, which result in evapotranspiration exceeding rainfall.
99

Ahighercationexchangecapacitymeansincreasedabilityforsoilstostorenutrients,makingthemavailabletoplantsfor improvedhealthandgrowth

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

95

Page 104 of 470

The ability of compost to increase and hold on to soil nutrients is of increasing value as the cost of synthetic fertilisers continues to increase. As an example of the rate at which fertiliser cost increases are occurring, the cost of superphosphate in June 2009 was $392 a tonne, compared to $261 per tonne in April 2008. The increase is driven by global demand to support increased food and biofuel production.100 According to the 2007 State of the Environment Report (MfE, 2007),101 Seventeen percent of New Zealands gross domestic product depends on the top 15 centimetres of our soil (Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative, no date). Furthermore, national soil health monitoring102 shows widespread moderate compaction of soils utilised for agricultural and some horticultural uses, and a demonstrated loss of organic matter and soil structural stability as a result of cropping activities. As noted above, the application of compost to soils can help to overcome these issues, thereby maintaining the health and economic value of our soils. Intensive cropping applications around the Auckland region, particularly in the Pukekohe area, are therefore likely to see environmental and economic benefits of ongoing compost use. 10.1.2 Product Enhancement Once compost has been cured, the form and extent of post-processing is dependent upon the target market(s) for the product. The target market will determine the quality and characteristics desired for the end product, and therefore whether or not equipment such as screens, bagging machines and blending equipment is required. The most likely form of post processing that will be required is therefore screening of the harvested and cured product (note: screening of the product prior to curing is not recommended as it will severely restrict airflow through the windrows and is likely to lead to anaerobic conditions without frequent, and therefore, costly turning). Other ancillary equipment for product refinement may include a bagging machine and blending equipment for the addition of any amendments to the composted product. Envirofert support vermicomposting as a means to increase the value of the end product, and have indicated that they would combine covered windrow composting of Aucklands domestic food wastes with vermicomposting. The vermicomposting would be undertaken during the later curing stages, within outdoor windrows. It is noted that although vermicomposting increases the product value, it also reduces the total quantity of product available for sale. The Recycled Organics Unit (New South Wales) estimates that a vermicomposting facility processing 20,000 m of waste will produce around 7,000 m of vermicast103. This equates to a volume reduction of around 65 percent. If vermicomposting occurs after a pre-composting phase, with the pre-composting phase already achieving a volume reduction in order of 50 percent, then each cubic metre of mixed food and greenwaste waste would produce around 0.2 m of vermicast.
100 th

NickSmith,June2009.Willfertiliserscarcityharmfarmeconomy?ArticlepublishedinTheIndependent,18 June2009,pg. 17. 101 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/environment-nz07-dec07.pdf 102 Soilhealthmonitoringcarriedoutunderthe500SoilsProjectandsubsequentregionalcouncilprogrammes.


103

http://www.worms.com/wormpdfs/whats%20vermicomposting.pdf

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

96

Page 105 of 470

10.1.3 Potential Markets Potential markets for compost products include: Councils own Parks and Reserves unit - so long as the product meets council specifications then this option could provide a good starting market and relatively high-volume user for kitchen waste compost. As with any compost product, appropriate land application methods would need to be followed to protect the health of workers handling the material and park/reserve users. Agricultural market agricultural users are potentially high volume users, however, transport distances and application costs may be more prohibitive than for other potential markets. Growers (particularly Franklin District and further south of Auckland) the prevalence of growers in the nearby region may provide a good longer term market. Quality controls would need to be high to ensure that compost products are sufficiently mature, pathogen free and contain acceptably low weed seeds. Residential market the residential market is Auckland is generally accepted as being saturated. The product also needs to be bagged rather than sold in bulk. Application to forests this is a potential higher volume but lower cost market. This would most likely be an option for biosolids compost but may not be overly profitable or useful for kitchen waste compost.

10.1.4 Product Value The value of compost and other soil amendment products vary considerably around the country, depending on the balance between supply and demand. However, as an indication, high quality compost produced from waste can have a value of up to $80 per m3. Around $30 to $40 per m3 could be considered an average value. Impacts on product quality and value should be considered within both the selection of appropriate technology and the management of facility operations. It is important that suitable processing controls (e.g. temperature monitoring) and product quality standards are in place to maximize the range and value of markets. The New Zealand Composting Standard is recommended as a guide to ensuring appropriate provisions are in place to maintain product quality for compost. The type of waste used as feedstock will also impact on potential markets, as will the amount and type of contamination. For example, plastics contamination in kitchen waste (if not removed upfront or screened out) will affect the appearance of the compost and its marketability, as would the presence of live weed seeds if adequate temperatures were not achieved during composting. The previous OWWG composting study (URS, 2004) included an inventory of product types and values. At that time Perry Environmental was producing standard compost, vermicompost (castings) and combinations of the two. Perry Environmental product retail values determined during that study are replicated below. These prices demonstrate the potential increase in value from combining standard composting and vermicomposting practices. Screened Organic (BioGro) Compost Unscreened Organic (BioGro) Compost Revital Vermicast
Morrison Low

$39/m $35/m $208.00/m

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

97

Page 106 of 470

Revital Compost 10 (90 % Compost, 10 % Vermicast) Revital Compost 20 (80 % Compost, 20 % Vermicast) Revital Compost 30 (70 % Compost, 30 % Vermicast) 10.2 Anaerobic Digestion

$56.75/m $73.00/m $86.20/m

Anaerobic Digestion produces a number of products: Biogas a mixture of mainly methane and carbon dioxide with small amounts of water vapour, nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide and traces of volatile organic acids. The methane content is typically 60 percent v/v. Liquid fertiliser ammonia stripping produces a relatively concentrated solution of ammonium phosphate or ammonium sulphate. Concentration of about 30 percent Total Solids (TS) are obtainable. Lower concentration is acceptable to the market can result in some capital savings. Dry fertiliser drying of the solid residue from the digesters produces a pelletised fertiliser of about 85 -93 percent TS. The fertiliser typically has an NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium) content of about 6:2:0.7 (percentage dry weight basis). The appearance of the fertiliser depends on the dryer type selected. Drum dried fertiliser from the EarthPower site is shown below.

Assuming a total solids content in the food waste of 20 percent (or 80 percent moisture content) and a nitrogen content of 0.85 percent the following product generation is expected: Biogas 111 m3/tonne wet food waste Liquid fertiliser 40 kg wet/tonne wet food waste Dry fertiliser 50 kg fertiliser/tonne wet food waste Treated effluent 1.04 m3/tonne wet food waste Quantities of heavy fraction, rake fraction and grit fraction contaminants will depend on the content in the waste. Product Uses Possible uses for the biogas are: Replacement of fossil fuel in burners for boilers, heaters, dryers. Clean up of the gas to pipeline quality and injection into the natural gas grid. Clean up of the gas to pipeline quality and use as vehicle fuel (CNG). These last two options are relatively capital intensive but technologies in this field are being produced by Greenlane Biogas of Auckland.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

98

Page 107 of 470

Product Value The value of biogas depends on the use it is put and the price of the alternative. Use as a replacement fuel in a burner for producing steam or other heat requires little in the way of treatment, apart from removal of free water droplets and particulates. Assuming a natural gas price of $20/GJ, 1 m3 biogas has a value of approximately 47.4 cents if used to replace natural gas. Used in a co-generating engine the biogas normally requires removal of hydrogen sulphide to less than 200 ppmv. 1 m3 of biogas will produce about 2.2 kWh of electricity worth about 40 cents at retail prices. The engine would also provide about 10MJ of heat as exhaust and cooling water. However, a 1MWe engine will cost about $800,000 installed and more for grid connection, and a hydrogen sulphide scrubber would cost about $180,000. Operating costs would be about 2 cents per kWh. In order to be used as vehicle fuel biogas need to be cleaned of nearly all other gases except methane compressed to about 2000 PSI pressure and stored at that pressure. The overall cost of such a facility is dependent on the scale and commercial adoption has been largely restricted to a few EU countries where significant Government subsidies make it financially viable. It is commonly accepted that a petrol price of about $2.20/litre is required for financial viability. 1 m3 biogas at 60 percent methane has a calorific value of approximately 21.5 MJ or the equivalent of about 0.55 litres of diesel. This has a current retail value of approximately 60 cents. The price for liquid and dry fertiliser will be very market dependent. The price offered for dry fertiliser in 2002 was AUD1.5/kg of nitrogen + potassium+ phosphorus. One tonne of wet food waste will produce dry fertiliser with about 3.3kg of N, P & K. This would be worth about AUD 5.00 or NZD 8.00. Liquid fertiliser will contain about 2 kg N /tonne wet food waste and would potentially be worth around NZD 4.5/tonne wet food waste. Markets for solid and liquid digestion products would be undeveloped for an Auckland scenario, however, they would offer similar (or potentially even higher) soil and plant growth benefits as compost. 10.3 Section Summary Products and Markets

The strength of the end market and value of the product affects the economic viability of an organics processing facility. Compost, mulch and various soil amendment blends are produced from a compost facility, whereas energy and a liquid and solid fertiliser product are created at an anaerobic digestion facility. Compost Compost application offers a range of physical, chemical and biological benefits for soil, leading to improved plant growth, pathogen and weed suppression and increased ability of soil to retain moisture and nutrients. Soil structure improvements and
Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

99

Page 108 of 470

improved moisture retention are of particular benefit to Auckland soils. The ability to increase and better retain soil nutrient levels is of increasing value as the cost of synthetic fertilisers rises. According to the 2007 State of the Environment Report (MfE, 2007),104 Seventeen percent of New Zealands gross domestic product depends on the top 15 centimetres of our soil (Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative, no date) and national soil health monitoring105 shows widespread moderate compaction of soils utilised for agricultural and some horticultural uses, and a demonstrated loss of organic matter and soil structural stability as a result of cropping activities. The ability of compost to help to overcome these issues therefore has both environmental and economic value. The strongest markets for compost generated from Aucklands food wastes would be the agricultural and horticultural markets. The bulk of these are located in Franklin District and further south of Auckland (including the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions). However, for both of these markets it is essential to understand their product requirements and design post curing processes accordingly. Use by Councils own Parks and Reserves unit would also be an option that could have a relatively large capacity, although may not provide the same income level (avoided cost rather than direct income). As with any compost product, appropriate land application methods would need to be followed to protect the health of workers handling the material and park/reserve users. A more detailed assessment of markets would need to be made to ascertain location, scale etc. Alternatively, the development of markets and associated risks could be attributed to the contractor within any agreement they have with Council, although there would be a cost associated with this risk allocation. Two key parties involved in the sale of compost in the Auckland region (Living Earth and Envirofert) have indicated that the Auckland residential compost market is already near saturation, with limited potential for expansion. Around $30 to $40 per m3 could be considered an average value for compost and related soil amendment products in a developed market. However, this may be lower for some bulk markets and there may in fact be additional costs initially to develop those markets. The cost models created for this project have assumed a market development / product refinement cost of $5 per tonne of incoming waste. This would be over and above marketing staff costs. Vermicomposting is a means to increase the value of the end product. The Recycled Organics Unit (New South Wales) estimates that a vermicomposting facility processing 20,000 m of waste will produce around 7,000 m of vermicast106. This equates to a volume reduction of around 65 percent. If vermicomposting occurs after a precomposting phase, with the pre-composting phase already achieving a volume reduction in order of 50 percent, then each cubic metre of mixed food and greenwaste waste would produce around 0.2 m of vermicast.

104 105 106

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/environment-nz07-dec07.pdf Soilhealthmonitoringcarriedoutunderthe500SoilsProjectandsubsequentregionalcouncilprogrammes. http://www.worms.com/wormpdfs/whats%20vermicomposting.pdf

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

100

Page 109 of 470

Perry Environmental product retail values determined during the previous OWWG composting study (URS, 2004) demonstrated standard compost prices of $35-39/m3 increasing to $208/m3 for vermicompost. Blends of standard compost and vermicompost also provided additional revenue. Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic Digestion produces biogas, liquid fertiliser and dry fertiliser (or compost). Product generation rates are set out in the table below (assuming 80 percent moisture and 0.85 percent nitrogen), followed by a summary of product uses and potential value. Similar to compost products, there may be additional costs involved in establishing markets for the dry and liquid digestion products. Markets for such products would be fairly undeveloped for an Auckland scenario, however, they would offer similar (or potentially even higher) soil and plant growth benefits as compost.
Products out Dry Solid (kg) 50

Food waste in (T) 1 Product Use Replacement for: natural gas

Biogas (m3) 111

Liquid (kg) 40 Cost

Products out - value Biogas Dry Solid Liquid ($/m3) (kg) (kg) $0.47 $0.40 $0.60 $8.00 $4.50

electricity (2.2kWh/m3 of gas) diesel (0.55L /m3 of gas) dry fertiliser liquid fertiliser

lowest cost for conversion however, approx. $1M for engine and H2S scrubber however, diesel cost of $2.20/L required for viability

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

101

Page 110 of 470

11.

FACILITY MANAGEMENT (STRUCTURE, FUNDING)

This section discusses ways in which a regional organic waste facility (or collection number of transfer and processing facilities) could be established. Governance options are discussed along with possible funding mechanisms. This section takes into account the implications of a single Auckland Council and funding opportunities created by the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). 11.1 Regional approach and governance The Royal Commission

The Royal Commission Report on Auckland Governance Chapter 30 addresses the issues that the Auckland region is facing with respect to waste. Chapter 30 provides a good summary of the key issues relating to solid waste. The significance of securing levy funds is also identified, stating significant new investment in high technology methods of waste minimisation might be made if this revenue stream were pooled regionally and invested as a block and that the contestable fund might be more readily secured by a whole of Auckland initiative. In operational terms the document also recognizes that by aggregating waste tonnages further waste minimisation technologies become available through economies of scale. The benefits of a regional waste management strategy are identified and clause 30.26 discusses the need for regional approach. The clause also specifically refers to organic waste minimisation but it could apply to a range of waste management and minimisation initiatives. It is stated that opportunities like this are not being fully considered because of the fragmented approach..An allof-Auckland approach is required to implement these types of proposals, because they need to be founded on a combined waste stream, capital investment, and a public education campaign.. The Royal Commission Report recommends that The Auckland Council should develop a Regional Waste Management Strategy, including strategies for management of organic waste and integration of waste management with other environmental programmes. A Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) is also identified in the Royal Commission Report as the model to be used although there is little commentary provided on this by the Commission. The issues, advantages and disadvantages of this form of governance structure are discussed further below. 11.2 The business structuring implications of processing organics

There are several implications with respect to the processing of organic waste including business objectives, ownership, financial, investment, business risk and governance issues. While the business objectives are relatively straight forward, there are questions over the scale of infrastructure needed at variable volumes

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

102

Page 111 of 470

the implications of greenwaste and industrial waste that may or may not go through the process the success of the activity which is not assured and the final model that will work best yet to be determined

Ownership by councils is clear. The involvement of a private party in the ownership has mixed implications which are dealt with within Section 11.5 of this report. The capital costs of the assets needed are in the range of $18m to $53m outlay depending on the configuration and volumes. This is a relatively small outlay for the size of the Auckland Council and the population being serviced. Opex is relatively well understood and it is recognised that some parts of the equipment will wear out rapidly attracting high maintenance and frequent renewal. Revenues are uncertain as price and volume sensitivities are uncertain. The ability to access suitable funding from the national Waste Minimisation Fund is unclear at this point although it is likely that the proposed project will meet at least several of the Fund criteria. There are some business risks as there are waste generators and waste processors outside of council control and their commercial and waste minimisation interests may not align with councils. There are also several long running contractual commitments to deliver waste to landfills that may not be easily broken. The large scale processing of organics is relatively new to New Zealand and is somewhat risky. Therefore its likely the business model will need to be refined once its up and running. Its also non-core to the essential aspects of waste management that councils must perform, in as much as councils do not necessarily have to own or operate waste management and minimisation activities to meet their objectives. In considering these issues, at a minimum the activity should have a separate governance structure with clear accountability to optimise the trading activity and minimise deficits. Governance skills should include waste minimisation, commercial and strategic skills, financial management and possibly logistics. The activity should be separately accounted for so that the full financial understanding of the results and investment can be gained. 11.3 Ownership and Governance Structures

Councils can find it useful to conduct an activity through a form of corporate structure and separate governance established through formation of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). There are a number of issues to consider when determining when a structure such as a CCO is appropriate, and some key issues are considered below. Where a high level of business risk is being taken the more uncertain the outcome the less likely the activity should be undertaken by councils, and the more likely the activity should be in an arms length vehicle with specialised management and governance.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

103

Page 112 of 470

If the activity being undertaken is considered a non-core activity. In some cases activities are not managed well within a council environment. The delays in decision making through the need to report to various management and political groups, and the uncertainty of decision making restrict the ability to manage a business effectively. This is particularly the case with specialist or complex businesses such as the processing of organic waste. Where there are challenges in optimising revenue generation, reducing subsidisation or where there are mixed commercial and non commercial (public good) objectives to be achieved, separating governance in these cases from council control can allow relevant market specialists to become involved in the governance to the benefit of the activity. Where the activity is to be run as a business with an objective to produce a profit / commercial return on investment a focus needs to be brought to the business that often Councils can not provide internally. There needs to be transparency and the activity should be accountable to achieve these returns on a stand alone basis. Where external parties are involved (usually to bring in capital, management of technical skills) in partly owning and delivering the service; or in making investments in riskier types of activity. This typically requires an arms length investment / trading vehicle and a shared governance structure to be put in place. It is noted that external parties can also be contracted in to Council or a CCO to achieve similar outcomes. Inevitably in circumstances where a third party is involved with an investment interest and where a profit motive is present, the entity will be classed as a CCTO, a Council Controlled Trading Organisation. Where councils are acting jointly it is often useful to conduct a shared activity through a shared ownership structure and vehicle as this gives clear accountability and objectivity to the ownership, governance and performance. The emergence of the Super City solution is likely to remove the need to use a separate structure for shared council ownership purposes. 11.4 CCO Structures

The forms of structure and governance most suited to these circumstances could include the following: A CCO Management Trust. A CCO Management Trust does not own assets or funding but has distinct governance independence to manage the activity to meet the objectives as effectively and economically as possible. This would be a charitable trust with these features: Council(s) as Settlor who appoints Trustees Beneficiary is community Does not have a Return on Investment (ROI) objective, not a CCTO. Should be tax exempt Has council Settlor Representative Group comprising:

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

104

Page 113 of 470

i. Two Councillors ii. Two executives They exercise oversight through Savings on Investment (SOI), reports, annual and other meetings, and changes in Trustee appointments Representative Group makes recommendations on key decisions to Council for approval Management employed by Council Management report to Trustees on all matters Reports to Council line manager on asset / investment matters Uses all facilities and services of Council If Trustees are provided services by Council these are on a supply contract

A CCO company. A CCO company is arms length and owns the assets of the activity and carries out its business to best meet its objectives. This would be a company set up under the Companys Act and the arrangement would have these features: Council(s) as shareholder Does not have an ROI objective, not a CCTO. Should be tax exempt Has council Shareholder Representative Group comprising: Two Councillors Two executives They exercise oversight through SOI, reports, annual and other meetings, and appointments/changes in director appointments Representative Group makes recommendations on key decisions to Council for approval Company as standalone entity is separately funded and carries on the trading activity of processing food waste Management employed by the company Management report to board of directors on all matters If CCO is provided services such as accounting and payroll by Council these are on a supply contract Council would have to underwrite any deficits generated by the company as the directors have a responsibility not to trade under the risk of

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

105

Page 114 of 470

insolvency. In a CCO arrangement a shareholding Council can provide that assurance A CCO in the form of a Charitable Trust. In this case the charitable trust would carry out the business with much the same responsibilities and independence as a company. A charitable trust must be set up for a purpose that is charitable. This will be for the provision of a community service which can be related to the business activity, such as a waste minimisation, but places restrictions on the operation of the trust over any revenue the trust may generate. All assets of the trust must be put towards the charitable purpose of the trust. The main reason for using a charitable trust is to access its tax free status. As taxation does not appear a key aspect of cost in this initiative using a charitable trust has limited benefit. There is also a benefit that non commercial returns on funding can be easily deal with or justified in a charitable trust structure. This is not a benefit when compared with the flexibility available in 100 percent owned company, which can also act in that way. A charitable trust operating the business activity is not a desirable solution in this case. The main disadvantages of a charitable trust are: It has more limitations over the influence of Trustees by the Settlor than a company structure does in its shareholder / director relationships Trusts are more difficult to wind up than a company where the Settlor no longer wishes to continue with the CCO Trusts are less well understood by suppliers and others who contract with it than the more common company structure

If there is a clear purpose for the processing activity to generate a commercial return then a CCTO capability in the form of a company or trading trust should be considered. These are dealt with further in the following section. 11.5 Shared ownership - Joint ventures and PPPs

The drivers for shared ownership need consideration. As income streams and profitably are uncertain the reasons for third party involvement, as in a public private partnership, would be for wider strategic reasons such as to secure continued access to desirable waste streams. As returns are questionable and the business activity somewhat experimental the venture is on face value an ideal area for an interested party to introduce risk capital and thereby reduce the exposure of council funds earning sub-economic returns. However as profits appear more unlikely than likely, the risks of not achieving an ROI are too high to assume private investors will want to put their capital at risk by investing for normal commercial reasons. Third parties are therefore more likely to want to be involved in the managing of the business than in owning it. If the commercial arrangement was simply a management

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

106

Page 115 of 470

contract this would not require a distinct corporate structure to facilitate its successful implementation. On the basis that a third party is attracted to take a commercial ownership interest in the business activity then the forms of structure and governance most suited would be: A CCTO company. This would be in the same form and structure as the earlier CCO except that there would be an ROI objective. The skills on the board of directors would be more heavily weighted in commercial acumen. As soon as there is a profit expectation the question of tax efficiency arises and expert advice should be taken in this area. Should council invite an external shareholder ideally that partys holding should be limited to 33 percent so that Council retains clear control of the CCTO and protection from any future tax inefficiencies. A CCTO Trading Trust. The Trading Trust would have the same objectives as a CCTO company. Trading trusts can also be run by a company as a trustee, which is done to protect the directors of that trustee company from the personal liability they would have as trustees. The benefit of operating a trading trust lies in the fact that the distributions to beneficiaries of the trust are taxed at the beneficiaries tax rate. This is of no real benefit to a Council as a beneficiary, as tax would be required to be paid on income received by Council from the trading trust operating as a CCTO at full rates. For reasons given earlier we believe a company is a cleaner and more easily managed alternative to a trading trust. An Unincorporated Joint Venture. If either Council or the third party desire to access to losses generated by the processing business then an unincorporated joint venture or partnership may be more suitable. This arrangement is somewhat harder to work with and to apply effective governance over it. Many of the processes, obligations and protections offered by the Companies Act will have to be recreated in the venture agreement so that these aspects are understood and agreed to. Suppliers also find it harder to contract with this type of arrangement. The unincorporated joint venture might have merit if the parties have different interests in what they put into the venture say Council does funding and third party brings expertise and assured revenue streams. The joint venture can be purpose built to suit the needs and expectations. An unincorporated joint venture is still a CCO or CCTO and must comply with the Local Government Act on consultation, governance, SOI setting, reporting and the like. 11.6 Other Contractual Options

An alternative to shared ownership is to have a straight contractual relationship with Councils waste unit (which may be a CCO in its own right). This would involve Council seeking Tenders from the private sector to develop a facility under either a Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) scenario or a Design Build Operate (DBO) option.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

107

Page 116 of 470

A BOOT funding model would require council to contract a private sector party to develop and operate the facility for a nominated period of time, with council charged an agreed rate per tonne for processing of the organic waste. This rate per tonne would allow the contractor to recover capital and operating costs, plus an agreed profit margin. After the specified contractual period ownership of the facility would be transferred back to council. The land on which the facility would be sites can either be owned and nominated by Council, or by the contractor. Key benefits of a BOOT for council are the ability to spread capital investment costs, without upfront borrowing being required, with operating and construction risks placed on the contractor. The facility would be transferred back to council on the basis that it would be suitably maintained to allow further operating life without high deferred maintenance costs. The disadvantage of this approach is that there is ultimately a higher cost to the ratepayer. This higher cost is due to the spread of capital over the term (with interest rates likely to be higher for the contractor than what would be charged for council funded capital costs), plus the added cost from allocation of risk to the contractor. For major projects like this it can be desirable for the contractor to have some ownership (via a CCO) which often provides better alignment of performance and objectives; although it is noted that contracts can also be written in a manner to achieve similar outcomes. The BOOT option was the selected approach for the Auckland and Manukau City Council material recycling facility (MRF), which was developed on land owned by Auckland City Council. A DBO model is a similar approach to the BOOT option, where council would contract a private contractor to develop and operate the facility. However, at the end of the contract term the facility would remain in the contractors ownership rather than be transferred back to council. The most appropriate contract will depend upon a number of factors including the contract term versus projected facility life. Other advantages and disadvantages for a DBO are similar to that of a BOOT. 11.7 Capital Funding

The capital investment environment is relative risky and uncertain as: Funding demand is scalable to the potential size and success of the venture and how it will turn out is somewhat experimental. However the expected range of investment is not significant in total council asset terms The likelihood of uptake and success is uncertain, revenue rates uncertain and therefore the profitability uncertain and considered unlikely The assets are highly specialised and cannot be easily realised or sold second hand for alternative use. They are of limited value to a lender to use as security against a loan

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

108

Page 117 of 470

This makes funding directly into the business from both banks and third party equity investors unlikely when considering the business as a stand-alone corporate vehicle. These investors or lenders look for a degree of return commensurate with the risk in the business and for underlying security in assets or guarantees if debt servicing / ROI is uncertain. We assume these parties would request some form of underwriting of their investments and income streams by the council, in which case it will be more cost effective and simpler for council to fund the business by loan funding themselves. Further, as we understand the Local Government Act, a council cannot guarantee performance of a CCTO and that will exclude them guaranteeing or underwriting in any way the debts and shareholder funding in a CCTO. For the scale of capital investment required to develop one or more regional processing facilities, we expect that, given a reasonable period of notice, council could fund a loan to the processing business from their existing debt/ funding sources and revenue streams and should not need to establish a separate or fresh funding facility. If the business is able to attract equity funding from a third party this would need to be matched by equity funding from council in proportion to shareholdings. The funds would not necessarily be all introduced as equity and could in part be shareholder loans at an agreed interest rate. One way or another council would need to fund their share of the investment from its own funding sources, and if by debt would seek to at least recover the interest cost of such funding from the business. If there were a decision to raise separate bank facility (loan) funding for the business then current expert advice should be taken on the form of debt instrument to use, as traditional facilities and instruments used to minimise interest cost such as fixed rate interest swaps107 might no longer be suited following the global financial crises. The principles of matching the funding term and repayment plan to the period it is required for and potential life of the assets remains however. There may be an opportunity to lease some of the plant and equipment purchased. This decision would be cost driven when compared to other sources. 11.8 The contestable Waste Minimisation Fund

The final arrangements, criteria and process for potentially accessing the Waste Minimisation Fund created via the national waste levy are still being considered by MfE (refer to Section 12). In principle it is thought that the more stand alone and clear the structure, governance, purpose, waste minimisation outcomes, operations and funding of the activity are, then any received funding will be relatively clearly measurable and separately governed.

107

Interestrateswap:whereonepartyexchangesastreamofinterestpaymentsforanotherparty'sstreamofcashflows(based onWikepediadefinitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_swap).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

109

Page 118 of 470

12.

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW

Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the Governments core policy, The New Zealand Waste Strategy towards zero waste and a sustainable New Zealand 2002 (NZWS). The NZWS sets the overall framework, strategic vision, objectives and broad targets for achieving waste minimisation. A number of Acts of Parliament provide the legal framework for waste management and minimisation in NZ, with the primary legislation driving waste management and minimisation planning being the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA), the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The following is a brief review of these key policies and legislation impacting on the management and minimisation of organic waste. Specific implications and relevance to the context of organic waste minimisation in the Auckland region are indicated as relevant. 12.1 The New Zealand Waste Strategy NZWS

MfE and LGNZ together prepared the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) Towards zero waste and a sustainable New Zealand that was adopted as government policy in 2002. The NZWS presents a vision of minimising waste and optimising waste management toward the ultimate goal of zero waste to landfill. It sets out a practical programme of action as well as specific targets for waste reduction and management. The NZWS provides the strategic framework that councils are now legally required to have regard to the in the development of their local Waste Management and Minimisation Plans, as required by the s44 of the WMA 2008. The regulatory tools provided by the WMA enable New Zealand further improve how the NZWS can be implemented and how its targets can be measured. Effective and efficient waste management and minimisation planning is underpinned by the Governments three core goals as stated in the NZWS and which are now reflected in the purpose of the WMA:

To lower wastes costs and risks to society To reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste To increase economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently

Effective and efficient waste management and minimisation is achieved when less waste is going to landfill, when resources are used wisely, when the economic cost of managing waste is reduced and when societal costs and risks are minimised. It is acknowledged that it is unlikely that the best individual economic, environmental, cultural and societal outcomes can be met simultaneously, and there may be a higher economic cost (for instance) to achieve optimum environmental, social and cultural

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

110

Page 119 of 470

outcomes. In these cases councils must weight the costs of benefits of each aspect (economic, cultural, social and environmental) to arrive at the optimum overall solution. Similarly, there may be a trade-off between short and long-term costs for instance, greater up-front costs may lead to lower on-going operational costs. While non-statutory, the Government has established a set of national targets to provide direction for our efforts and as a way to measure progress toward waste management and minimisation goals. These have included specific targets in relation to the reduction of organic waste to landfill. Each of the individual councils of the Auckland region have in recent years agreed in principle with the NZWS and has reflected consideration of national policy in its local Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. MfE is in the process of considering submissions on a national waste policy discussion document that includes a draft revised set of NZWS targets. The targets are being consulted on at the time of writing and a revised NZWS is anticipated in late 2009. Territorial authorities will need to give on-going consideration to revisions and changes to the NZWS, including any revised targets, amendments to the NZWS or any future policy as it evolves. The proposed government policy outlines an overarching objective of reducing waste to landfill by 20 percent per capita by 2015 based on a 2010 baseline. The proposed national waste policy does include a continued emphasis on the reduction of organic waste to landfill. 12.2 Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008

The enactment of the WMA in 2008 represents a major change in the Governments approach to managing and minimising waste. The WMA recognises the need to focus efforts higher on the waste hierarchy in terms of reducing and recovering waste earlier in its life cycle, shifting focus away from treatment and disposal. This change in focus is reflected in new tools enabled by the WMA such as a framework for developing accredited product stewardship schemes and a national levy on waste to landfill set initially at $10 per tonne. The funds from the levy are to be used to promote or achieve waste minimisation. Taken together the WMA and other Acts provide the legislative imperative and tools to support progress toward the strategic vision outlined in the NZWS. The WMA represents an update and modernisation of waste legislation to emphasise and promote waste minimisation. The purpose of the Act (s3) is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to protect the environment from harm; and to provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits. The WMA contains seven parts. Part 3 and Part 4 are key and provide for the establishment of a waste disposal levy, and the responsibilities of territorial authorities in relation to waste management and minimisation respectively.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

111

Page 120 of 470

The Waste Minimisation Act requires TAs to consider these six methods of waste minimisation (listed in order of importance as per the WMA): (1) reduction (lessening waste generation) (2) reuse (reuse of products in their existing form) (3) recycling (making into new products e.g. packaging, or composting) (4) recovery (extracting materials or energy for further use) (5) treatment (changing the volume or character of waste for safe disposal) (6) disposal (deposit of waste on land set apart for the purpose, or incineration). Councils have a central role to play in contributing toward achievement of national targets and are legally required to complete a waste assessment and produce new Waste Management and Minimisation Plans by July 2012. These plans are to provide a clear strategic framework and plan of action to guide each TA in addressing national goals within the context of the waste issues facing its district and its desired community outcomes. It is anticipated that the newly formed Auckland Council will develop its first regional Waste Management and Minimisation Plan in this timeframe and will draw on existing individual council plans in the drafting process. The WMA allows for and encourages regional initiatives, joint waste management and minimisation planning and partnerships with private operators. The provision of a national waste levy with 50 percent of funds going back to TAs for waste minimisation initiatives will provide for support for some initiatives. As the funding distribution is based on population, it is anticipated that the Auckland Council when formed will receive a total of approximately $3 to $4m per annum in waste levy funds. While this may go some way to funding organics recovery, this will not provide enough funding to develop the necessary processing facility. The remaining 50 percent (minus administration cost) of the total funds collected nationally will be contributed to a contestable Waste Minimisation Fund managed by the Ministry for the Environment. The establishment of the levy and the Waste Minimisation Fund provides real incentive for larger scale initiatives to be pursued and is likely to be a source of funding to be pursued by the Auckland Council with respect to organics processing. 12.3 Emission Trading / Carbon Tax Legislation

The waste sector is currently set to be brought into the New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) as of 1 January 2013. The ETS will focus on methane emissions from landfills. Waste incinerators and wastewater treatment plants (including digesters at those facilities) are specifically excluded from the ETS. This is on the basis that they contribute a very small portion of the national emissions inventory and would be difficult and expensive to measure and administer. Carbon dioxide emissions from the

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

112

Page 121 of 470

composting of organic wastes will be excluded from the scheme, on the basis that these are natural emissions. 12.3.1 Obligations and Emissions Factors For the waste sector, points of obligation under the ETS will be the landfill owners, with costs passed down to the waste producers. Participants will need to account for their greenhouse gas emissions by surrendering one New Zealand Emission Unit (NZU) per tonne of carbon-equivalent emitted during the compliance period. The Climate Change Office have not yet developed the emissions factors for landfills and the regulations for the waste sector were originally scheduled to be promulgated in 2009. However, according to MfE guidelines, 0.559 kg of CO2-e is emitted for each kilogram of mixed food and green waste disposed of to New Zealand landfills (assuming landfill gas extraction, as is the case for Auckland landfills). At a carbon price of $25 for NZU this means that landfills would pass on to their customers an additional $14 per tonne of incoming organic waste (over and above landfill levy charges). This carbon charge would be saved if the waste was instead composted or digested. 12.4 Section Summary Legislation

Comparisons between the cost of sending organic waste to landfill and the cost of processing it for beneficial reuse should add the following additional costs to current landfill gate fees: $10 per tonne landfill levy, potentially increasing with time, plus $14 per tonne carbon charge, expected to apply from 2013 onwards.

The WMA offers a potential opportunity to fund an organic waste diversion scheme, both through the 50 percent of landfill levy funds distributed back to Councils (on a per capita basis) and the additional contestable fund. Based on the tonnes of organic waste that could be diverted from landfill across the Auckland region, the contestable fund offers significant potential as a partial capital investment source. The ETS as it is currently designed does not offer the same potential for carbon credits / offsets as available under European schemes or through the Kyoto protocol (primarily aimed at carbon reduction projects within developing countries).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

113

Page 122 of 470

13.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions of the study are presented under the following key aspects: Review of the current situation Ways to increase diversion Processing options Facility options Products and markets Other considerations

The review of the current situation considers existing methods used to divert food and green wastes from landfill, and the level of success in achieving that aim. Ways to increase diversion are concluded, focused on collection options, expected waste capture rates and estimated regional tonnes for processing. Processing options summarises key findings on suitable methods and specific technologies available for food waste processing, while the facility options presents study findings for the optimum configuration between regional processing and localised transfer station options. Products and markets are discussed in terms of any benefits and limitations they carry for processing options. Conclusions are also presented on the impacts of regionalisation, legislation, and options for funding and management structures. 13.1 Current Situation

No council collection or processing of organic wastes currently occurs in the Auckland region. However, private operators collect and compost around 75,000 or more tonnes per year of greenwaste. The largest greenwaste composting facilities are Living Earth Limited (LEL), located on Puketutu Island, and Envirofert Limited (Envirofert), located in Tuakau (Franklin District). An in-vessel composting system at the Waitakere Transfer Station is also consented to process up to 10,000 tonnes per year of greenwaste. Envirofert is consented to process food waste (currently on a trial basis but in the process of upgrading to commercial level consents), as is the Waitakere Transfer Station in-vessel composting facility. Home composting, worm composting, bokashi and in sink food waste disposal systems are all existing options that can divert food waste from landfill at the household level. Accordingly, the Auckland Councils already contribute to the promotion of home composting, worm composting and bokashi systems. Councils do not specifically promote the use of in sink food waste disposal systems, nor do they actively discourage their use. The amount of domestic food waste still being disposed of to landfill indicates that these options are not currently provide a wide scale solution for diverting Aucklands food waste stream.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

114

Page 123 of 470

The bulk of the compost created from Auckland wastes is currently sold back into the Auckland residential market, with some additional compost sold into agricultural and horticultural markets south of Auckland. These agricultural and horticultural markets are continuing to develop, and are considered to be a key opportunity for large scale absorption of compost products. 13.2 Increasing Diversion

The data suggests that there is in the order of 150,000 tonnes of food waste in the Auckland region that could theoretically be diverted from landfill and instead put to beneficial use. This includes around 100,000 tonnes per year of domestic food waste and the rest from commercial sources. In addition to the greenwaste that is already being diverted and composted (estimated at between 75,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year), there is additional greenwaste in the order of 70,000 tonnes per year that is still being disposed of to landfill. These quantities will not be the same as the amount of material that is eventually able to be captured for processing. At this stage the type of collection method that would be introduced is uncertain. However a range of organic waste tonnage bands have been selected. These tonnage bands assume that the kerbside collection service is delivered to between 60 and 80 percent of households across the region, and captures between 50 and 70 percent of each households food waste. For a commingled food and green waste collection it is further assumed that there will be 5 parts greenwaste collected to 3 parts food waste (as per Christchurch City 80 L bin assumptions). A. Commingled food and green waste collection: 30,000T/yr food waste + 50,000T/yr greenwaste - 80,000T/yr facility 45,000T/yr food waste + 75,000T/yr greenwaste - 120,000 T/yr facility 60,000T/yr food waste + 100,000T/yr greenwaste - 160,000T/yr facility 75,000T/yr food waste + 125,000 T/yr greenwaste - 200,000 T/yr facility

B. Food waste only collection: 30,000 T/yr processing facility (food waste only) 45,000 T/yr processing facility (food waste only 60,000 T/yr processing facility (food waste only) 75,000 T/yr processing facility (food waste only)

Other potentially recoverable organic wastes going to landfill include sanitary wastes and biosolids. Handling requirements, contamination risks and product markets differ for these wastestreams compared to food and greenwastes. Home composting and the use of in-sink food waste disposal units are diversion options that could potentially be increased. However, food waste composting is already promoted by Auckland councils and no restrictions are in place to prevent the use of household in-sink disposal units. The uptake of these options are very much based on householder preferences and, based on the amount of food waste still going

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

115

Page 124 of 470

to landfill, they are clearly not the preferred option for a significant portion of Auckland households. Although remaining part of the overall diversion strategy, other methods of food waste (and greenwaste) diversion appear to be required. Although the use of domestic food waste as stock feed has some potential for growth, the variability of domestic food wastes and the inclusion of meat products may raise processing costs and decrease product values to a point that is uneconomic. It is likely that conversion to stock feed is an application that is best suited to commercial food wastes, where waste quantities and properties are likely to be more consistent. There may be opportunities for worm composting and EM Bokashi to be incorporated into composting operations, however, the viability of doing so would need to be based on end market requirements and increased product value. Bokashi could be considered for use as part of the food waste collection service. However, viability would need to be assessed within a cost-benefit review of collection methods. Worm composting is currently used by Envirofert as a means to improve end product quality. The most widely used processing methods for solid organic wastes are composting and anaerobic digestion. Other large scale options that could be used to process food waste include incineration, and Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). Based on the result of previous studies, the OWWG believe that composting and anaerobic digestion are the most viable options for the large scale processing and beneficial reuse of Aucklands domestic food waste stream. This finding is reinforced by the initial review of processing options, primarily due to proven ability of these options to process domestic organic wastes at a large scale. Waste incineration (with or without waste-to-energy conversion) is not viable under the current consenting and political environment and is also not consistent with the existing philosophy of source separation. Mixed MSW options are also not compatible with the separation-at-source philosophy and carries a greater risk of product contamination. Therefore, under the current waste management regime, incineration and MBT / AWT systems are not considered to be viable options for processing the Auckland regions organic wastes, and are not considered further within this report. 13.3 Processing and Facility Options

This study assessed the following technologies in terms of their suitability to process domestic food wastes collected from across the Auckland region: Gore covered windrow composting system Covered windrow composting system intended for the Envirofert facility IPS agitated bay composting system Wasteology agitated tunnel composting system HotRot, Rotocom and VIVC mechanical composting systems Gicom, MIDAS, WTT, Wasteology and Living Earth (Christchurch) static tunnel composting systems Naturtech static container composting system Kompogas dry anaerobic digestion system Waste Solutions wet digestion - as per Sydney Earthpower system

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

116

Page 125 of 470

The assessment considered the ability of each system to: process expected waste tonnages, and material types provide flexibility for varying tonnages, and varying feedstocks maximise product quality and value integrate with possible collection scenario

Also taken into consideration were: economic considerations operating footprint cultural issues social impacts (odour and other nuisance issues) environmental impacts (carbon emissions and other discharges)

Comparisons were drawn between processing methods, i.e. composting versus anaerobic digestion, and between specific technologies within each category. Suitability for Aucklands Organic Wastes Food waste is successfully processed at both composting and anaerobic digestion facilities although large scale facilities are more numerous for composting technologies. This may change as greater value is placed on carbon reduction. Mechanical composting systems would only be suitable for processing Auckland domestic food waste if more, smaller facilities were created, with a maximum size of around 35,000 to 45,000 tonnes of biowaste per year. For larger facilities, static, tunnel or container based composting systems are more appropriate. Covered windrow systems are also an option if a suitable site is available (large and in a rural location). Composting technology suppliers have indicated that large tunnel, container or covered windrow operations are generally around 65,000 to 100,000 tonnes. Minimum facility sizes for anaerobic digestion are around 10,000 tonnes per year. Although there are some examples of anaerobic digestion facilities processing 70,000 to 150,000 tonnes per year of putrescible wastes, most large, established facilities appear to take around 40,000 to 60,000 tonnes per year. This is a similar scale to large municipal composting facilities, although it is noted that composting facilities tend to process a greater proportion of greenwaste, and correspondingly lower putrescible waste portion, than anaerobic digestion facilities. There have been a number of problems experienced with the EarthPower wet digestion facility. These problems resulted in commercial failure of the site prior to its sale to Veolia and Transpacific Industries (joint venture). Discussions with the facility designers and current operators have indicated that the problems are primarily due to difficulty in securing clean (low contamination) food wastes. These issues are less relevant to a municipal organic waste scenario being considered for Auckland. Other examples of successful food waste processing are to be found elsewhere, particularly in Europe and North America. Municipal wastes can be subject to variability, particularly when processing at a regional scale. If greenwaste is collected with food waste, peak season quantities

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

117

Page 126 of 470

could increase by up to 50 percent. Waste composition would also vary. Mechanical composting and anaerobic digestion systems are best suited to constant waste tonnages. Simpler systems such as covered windrows, composting tunnels or containers are most flexible for varying tonnages, however, have less ability to optimise material properties during processing (e.g. through agitation or air injection). Higher pathogen risk materials, such as sanitary wastes and biosolids, require a greater level of agitation and process control. Although not recommended, if such wastes were to be included, then agitated composting technologies, such as the IPS, agitated Wasteology system and the HotRot would be more appropriate than static tunnel, container or covered windrow systems. Anaerobic digestion systems may also be more suitable. However, regardless of the technology type, plastics within sanitary wastes would create a source of contamination. This would need to be allowed for within system design and would impact on the end product markets and value. The food and green waste processing facility in Christchurch (operated by Living Earth Limited) is an example of a tunnel composting facility that could be developed for the Auckland region. Although limited information is available on the processing technology intended for food waste composting at the Envirofert facility, the planned development at this site will provide a possible alternative for Council a privately owned, covered windrow operation that could accept domestic food waste at a negotiated gate rate without requiring capital investment by Council. Compatibility with Collection Method Dry anaerobic digestion systems are compatible with a commingled domestic food and greenwaste collection, while wet digestion facilities are best suited to food waste only collections. Composting systems can work with either a food waste only or a commingled collection. If a food waste only collection, a greenwaste/bulking agent source would be required for composting. Wet anaerobic digestion maximises energy production per incoming tonne of waste. If a wet anaerobic digestion facility includes composting of the digested solid, then the composting system could also be sized to process greenwaste (e.g. in open windrows). A composting facility developed initially could be upgraded to a digestion facility in the future with the composting process retained to treat the solid digestion product. This scenario may be attractive if energy generation benefits increase. Contaminant Issues Static composting tunnels and containers are less susceptible to equipment damage from contaminants than more automated anaerobic digestion or agitated/mechanical composting systems - plastic or stringy greenwaste can wrap around moving equipment, and larger, solid contaminants (e.g. metal) can damage processing equipment. Maximum contamination levels of around 2.5 - 3 percent are recommended for both composting and anaerobic digestion systems. Cost Considerations technology supply costs only Generally speaking, capital costs for anaerobic digestion technology are higher than for composting technology and mechanical composting systems are more expensive than

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

118

Page 127 of 470

static tunnel or container based systems. Indications are that the WTT tunnel system and the Naturtech container system require the lowest level of capital investment, starting at around $6M for 80,000 tonnes of mixed food and green waste per year, and up to around $13M for 200,000 tonnes per year. It could also be possible to reduce capital costs through local design and construction of tunnel or container composting systems, rather than the purchase of propriety technologies. This option could be included within a Request for Tender process. By comparison, a wet anaerobic digestion facility, modelled on the Sydney Earthpower operation, would have a capital cost of around $13M for 30,000 tonnes per year of food waste and around $21M for 75,000 tonnes per year of food waste. In all instances additional costs would apply for site development, buildings, decontamination facilities and ancillary equipment. Due to simpler operation, tunnel or container based systems should also be cheaper to operate, although land use requirements may be higher and process control ability lowered. Potential revenue from the acceptance of other wastes and from the sale of products also forms part of the overall operating cost for a facility. Anaerobic digestion products are also potentially of greater value than a straight composting product. Operating Footprint The VIVC (vertical in-vessel system) has the smallest footprint of the composting systems. Anaerobic Digestion technologies considered, particularly Kompogas, are considerably more economical in size than composting tunnel or bay systems. Estimated facility sizes are described below with composting requiring significantly larger land area than digestion. The digestion facility areas assume drying of solid byproducts. Land requirements would increase significantly (say by 2 4 Ha) if these products were to be composted (with greenwaste added for bulking). The estimates do not include buffer land, as required buffer would depend on the site specific factors, facility operations and layout.
Food Waste (T/yr) 30,000 Facility Size Anaerobic Digestion 4Ha 1.0Ha (for 80,000 T/yr including greenwaste) 7Ha (for 120,000 T/yr 1.1Ha including greenwaste) 9Ha (for 160,000 T/yr 1.2Ha including greenwaste) 11Ha (for 200,000 T/yr 1.3Ha including greenwaste) Composting Comments Site areas include 20% contingency to allow for vehicle movements, stormwater pond/s etc. Composting plant sizing based on total incoming tonnages of 80,000, 120,000, 160,000 and 200,000 T/yr (food + green wastes) Digestion facility size would increase if solid by-product was composted rather than dried say by 2 to 4 Ha

45,000 60,000 75,000

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

119

Page 128 of 470

Environmental, Cultural and Social Considerations Both composting and anaerobic digestion significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill disposal of organic wastes, with composting offering an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions and anaerobic digestion offering a 96 percent reduction. Comparing the two processes, CO2-e emitted from 1kg of organic waste is 8.4 times higher from composting than from anaerobic digestion. Digestion has the additional benefit of creating a renewable energy source. Other environmental impacts of composting or anaerobic digestion, such as discharges to air, land and water (surface and ground water) depend on how well the process is managed and what environmental protection measures are in place. These would be managed, at minimum, by resource consent requirements, and by site design and operational practices. By its nature, anaerobic digestion is a more enclosed processing method than composting and therefore, environmental impacts may be more closely managed than for composting. The risk of odour, leachate and vermin attraction is greatest when wastes first enter the processing facility, and within the following few weeks. Correct operation and control of the mix can significantly reduce the risk of odour and leachate. This is demonstrated by the low number, or in some cases nil, odour complaints received for the composting facilities currently operating in Auckland. It is also assumed that regardless of the processing option, food waste receival areas would be enclosed within a building (under negative extraction) and that processing within this higher risk period would also be undertaken in an enclosed manner. Cultural considerations would be considered on a case-by-case basis for any organic waste processing facility (as part of the consenting process), with site selection and the management of discharges to air, land and water likely to be the focus of any concerns. Cultural considerations formed an important part of resource consents for the Wellington biosolids composting plant. Although some concerns were raised due to the nature of the biosolids, all Maori groups eventually decided to not object on the basis that the proposal was a close approximation to natural processes and that health risks would be appropriately managed. Concerns about health risks are reduced if biosolids are not processed at the facility. Anaerobic digestion processes do not reflect natural processes as directly as composting. However, the core process itself remains a biological one, generating products that can be put back to land as natural fertilisers. Social considerations would primarily relate to nuisance issues, such as odour and dust, vehicle movements, visual impacts. There may be other concerns about less direct impacts such as affects on housing values etc. As with environmental impacts, social impacts would be managed through the resource consent process and operational practices. Due to the nature of the processes, composting may be preferable in a rural environment, whereas anaerobic digestion may be better suited to industrial settings.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

120

Page 129 of 470

Facility Scenarios and Total Costs A single processing facility option is not costed in this report as, due to the volume of material involved, it is considered impractical for a full regional solution. Considering the logistics of material handling, collection and transport, multiple facility options offer greater benefits. This is particularly true for waste collection and transport, as multiple facilities would reduce travel distances and times and therefore reduce the collection vehicle numbers and the impacts on traffic congestion. Two multiple facility options were considered to test the impacts on processing costs: (1) A single processing facility supported by two organic waste transfer facilities; and (2) Two processing facilities with no transfer stations. A single processing facility with transfer facilities offers the greatest flexibility and most efficient combination of collection, transport and processing. Additional benefits would be realised if wastes could be transported between transfer facilities and the main processing facility during off-peak periods. There are potential double handling considerations when using transfer facilities, however, these could be overcome if paired with a transportable container processing system that can be used for both bulk haulage and processing. Cost modelling for the transfer station option assumes of such a technology. The transfer station option has also been modelled for two collection bin options a large bin (e.g. 240L) which would result in more bulky greenwaste being collected (requiring shredding) and a small bin (e.g. 80L) which would reduce greenwaste size and shredding requirements. Collection costs are not modelled as the Stage 1 study is focussed on processing options. The transport of material between the transfer facilities and the processing facility are also not costed. However, it is assumed that these movements would be offset by the bulk haulage of material within containers. It is intended that collection, transport and processing costs be modelled together as part of Stage 2. This will require additional details as to where the facilities may be located and what collection regime/s would be followed. The following table summarises the results of the cost modelling taking into account a range of facility sizes, and comparing costs for composting and anaerobic digestion (for the two facility option). Composting technology costs are based on average supply costs obtained for tunnel and container systems. Anaerobic digestion technology costs are based on a wet digestion model similar to the Sydney Earthpower plant. Costs are presented not only for capital and operating expenditure, but also as a total cost operating per year that takes into account the processed tonnes - tonnes processed via composting are a mix of food and green wastes whereas the digestion costs are based on a wet process that treats food waste only. Potential revenue values are also provided for the sale of products. It is noted that these revenue values are indicative only and have not been subject to detailed analysis.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

121

Page 130 of 470

Summary of Facility Cost Modelling


Composting Total incoming Processing Costs (excl. contractor profit, land) Food waste Opex Capex + Opex Annual Operating Cost ($M) Facility scenario commingled wastes component (T/yr) $/T Opex x T/yr Capex ($M) ($/T) ($/T) (T/yr) OPTION 1: SINGLE REGIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITY WITH TRANSFER STATIONS (assumes transportable container technology, two transfer facilities) 80000 Option 1A: 240L commingled collection bins (shredder required at RTS & main facility) 120000 160000 200000 80000 Option 1B: 80L commingled collection bins (no shredder required at RTS, replaced with trommel screen & mixer) 120000 160000 200000 30000 45000 60000 75000 30000 45000 60000 75000 $16.4M $19.9M $25.1M $28.4M $15.5M $18.8M $23.9M $27.1M $59 $48 $43 $39 $55 $45 $42 $37 $60 $50 $49 $65 $53 $51 $80 $65 $60 $55 $75 $62 $58 $52 $80 $68 $65 $86 $72 $69 $4.7M $5.7M $7.0M $7.9M $4.4M $5.4M $6.7M $7.5M $6.1M $6.6M $8.1M $6.5M $7.0M $8.4M

OPTION 2: TWO REGIONAL COMPOSTING FACILITIES (no transfer stations) 80000** 30000 Option 2A: container 120000** 45000 $25.5M technology, no transfer stations 160000** 60000 $30.2M 200000** 75000 $33.9M 80000** 30000 120000** 45000 $27.2M Option 2B: tunnel technology 160000** 60000 $32.2M 200000** 75000 $37.2M

*Total incoming tonnages based on an assumed mix ratio of 5 parts greenwaste collected for each 3 parts of food waste **Stated tonnages are the total tonnage over the two facilities, assumed to be split equally amongst the sites

Potential Revenue: 3 It is assumed each 1T of mixed food and green waste produces 1-1.2m of compost (approx. 0.6T) 3 Product value of $30-$40/m of compost produced, equating to around $18-$24/T.

Anaerobic Digestion Total incoming Processing Costs (excl. contractor profit, land) Food waste Opex Capex + Opex Annual Operating Cost ($M) Facility scenario commingled wastes component (T/yr) $/T Opex x T/yr Capex ($M) ($/T) ($/T) (T/yr) OPTION 3: TWO REGIONAL ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES (no transfer stations) 30000* 30000 'wet' digestion process, food 45000* 45000 $40.0M $73 $156 $3.3M waste only collection 60000* 60000 $49.3M $63 $141 $3.8M 75000* 75000 $53.2M $58 $125 $4.4M
*Stated tonnages are the total tonnage over the two facilities, assumed to be split equally amongst the sites

Potential Revenue: 3 It is assumed each 1T of mixed food and green waste produces 111m of biogas, 50kg of solid product (for use as fertiliser or conversion to compost) and 40kg of liquid fertiliser 3 . Product value of 40-50 cents per m of biogas Markets for solid and liquid fertilisers would need to be developed, but could have a value of around $8/T for the solid product and around $4.50 for the liquid.

Anaerobic digestion operating costs will vary significantly depending on the scale of the facility, level of automation required and properties of incoming wastes. However, based on cost modelling undertaken as part of this study (modelling a system similar to the Sydney EarthPower facility), digestion processing costs would be around $58 to $73 per tonne for two facilities (excluding amortisation of capital). This compares to a per tonne composting cost of around $49 to $65 for the equivalent two processing facilities option, or $37 to $59 per tonne for a single facility plus transfer stations alternative. A wet digestion facility removes the need for greenwaste to be added to food waste. Therefore, although costs per tonne are higher, the lower tonnages would result in a lower annual cost than for composting. However, greenwaste diversion would not be

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

122

Page 131 of 470

addressed to any greater level than the current situation (unless it was to be composted in windrows at the digestion site or elsewhere, adding additional cost and land requirements). It is noted that operating costs discussed above do not include any operator margin or land costs. Indicative revenue values do not include income from the acceptance of other private waste tonnages. Due to the creation of biogas the revenue from an anaerobic digestion facility is expected to be higher than revenue from composting product sales, and this could potentially shift the balance between composting and digestion operations. However, without more detailed analysis of markets and product values a complete financial assessment of costs and revenues is difficult at this stage. 13.4 Products and Markets

The strength of the end market and value of the product affects the economic viability of an organics processing facility. Compost, mulch and various soil amendment blends are produced from a compost facility, whereas energy and a liquid and solid fertiliser product are created at an anaerobic digestion facility. Compost Products According to the 2007 State of the Environment Report (MfE, 2007),108 Seventeen percent of New Zealands gross domestic product depends on the top 15 centimetres of our soil (Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative, no date) and national soil health monitoring109 shows widespread moderate compaction of soils and a demonstrated loss of organic matter and soil structural stability as a result of cropping activities. Compost application offers a range of physical, chemical and biological benefits for soils that would overcome existing damage, improve plant growth, pathogen and weed suppression and increase the future ability of soils to retain moisture and nutrients. Soil structure improvements and improved moisture retention are of particular benefit to Auckland soils. The ability to increase and better retain soil nutrient levels is of increasing value as the cost of synthetic fertilisers rises. The strongest markets for compost generated from Aucklands food wastes would be the agricultural and horticultural markets. The bulk of these are located in Franklin District and further south of Auckland (including the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions). However, for both of these markets it is essential to understand their product requirements and design post curing processes accordingly. Use by Councils own Parks and Reserves unit would also be an option that could have a relatively large capacity, although may not provide the same income level (avoided cost rather than direct income). As with any compost product, appropriate land application methods would need to be followed to protect the health of workers handling the material and park/reserve users. A more detailed assessment of markets would need to be made to ascertain location, scale etc. Alternatively, the development of markets and associated risks could be

108 109

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07dec07/environmentnz07dec07.pdf Soilhealthmonitoringcarriedoutunderthe500SoilsProjectandsubsequentregionalcouncilprogrammes.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

123

Page 132 of 470

attributed to the contractor within any agreement they have with Council, although there would be a cost associated with this risk allocation. Two key parties involved in the sale of compost in the Auckland region (Living Earth and Envirofert) have indicated that the Auckland residential compost market is already near saturation, with limited potential for expansion. Around $30 to $40 per m3 could be considered an average value for compost and related soil amendment products in a developed market. However, this may be lower for some bulk markets and there may in fact be additional costs initially to develop those markets. The cost models created for this project have assumed a market development / product refinement cost of $5 per tonne of incoming waste. This would be over and above marketing staff costs. Vermicomposting is a means to increase the value of the end product. Perry Environmental product retail values determined during the previous OWWG composting study (URS, 2004) demonstrated standard compost prices of $35-39/m3 increasing to $208/m3 for vermicompost. Blends of standard compost and vermicompost can also increase sale price. If vermicomposting occurs after a precomposting phase, with the pre-composting phase already achieving a volume reduction in order of 50 percent, then each cubic metre of mixed food and greenwaste waste would produce around 0.2 m of vermicast. Digestion products Anaerobic Digestion produces: Biogas Liquid fertiliser Dry fertiliser (or compost)

Product generation rates are set out in the table below (assuming 80 percent moisture and 0.85 percent nitrogen), followed by a summary of product uses and potential value. Similar to compost products, there may be additional costs involved in establishing markets for the dry and liquid digestion products. Markets for such products would be fairly undeveloped for an Auckland scenario, however, they would offer similar (or potentially even higher) soil and plant growth benefits as compost.
Products out Dry Solid (kg) 50

Food waste in (T) 1

Biogas (m3) 111

Liquid (kg) 40

The estimated value of anaerobic digestion products is set out in the following table, although markets for dry and solid products will require development. The production of biogas, a renewable energy source, is clearly a key benefit of anaerobic digestion. This is particularly the case in much of Europe, parts of the United States and in developing countries where carbon reduction and renewable energy credits are available. This is not currently the case within New Zealand, however, this may change in the future as our national carbon reduction obligations and emission trading opportunities increase.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

124

Page 133 of 470

Product Use Replacement for: natural gas electricity (2.2kWh/m3 of gas) diesel (0.55L /m3 of gas) dry fertiliser liquid fertiliser

Products out - value Biogas Dry Solid Liquid ($/m3) (kg) (kg) $0.47 $0.40 $0.60 $8.00 $4.50

Cost

lowest cost for conversion however, approx. $1M for engine and H2S scrubber however, diesel cost of $2.20/L required for viability

13.5

Other Considerations

Comparisons between the cost of sending organic waste to landfill and the cost of processing it for beneficial reuse should add the following additional costs to current landfill gate fees: $10 per tonne landfill levy, potentially increasing with time, plus $14 per tonne carbon charge, expected to apply from 2013 onwards.

The WMA offers a potential opportunity to fund an organic waste diversion scheme, both through the 50 percent of landfill levy funds distributed back to Councils (on a per capita basis) and the additional contestable fund. Based on the tonnes of organic waste that could be diverted from landfill across the Auckland region, the contestable fund offers significant potential as a partial capital investment source. The ETS as it is currently designed does not offer the same potential for carbon credits / offsets as available under European schemes or through the Kyoto protocol (primarily aimed at carbon reduction projects within developing countries). 13.6 Next Steps

A total system approach, from kerbside through to market, is required in order to select the optimum organic waste collection and processing scenario for the Auckland region. Organic waste diversion priorities should also be reconfirmed that is, whether the priority is to divert food waste from landfill, or food waste and greenwaste, as should the basis on which costs be considered per tonne, per household (private and council services) or annual.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

125

Page 134 of 470

14. BIBLIOGRAPHY http://www.andar.co.nz/environmental/composting_treatments/products/rotocom_vessel_c onsistent_processing http://www.composter.com/composting/naturtech/ http://www.enpure.co.uk/ http://www.gore.com/en_xx/products/fabrics/swt/index.html http://www.hotrotsystems.com/NZAusPacific/nzauspachome/ http://www.kompogas.com/ http://www.noveraenergy.com/ http://www.sterecycle.com/index.htm http://tempico.gostrategic.com/dynamic.php?pg=About http://www.wasteology.com/ http://www.wtt.nl/news/news.php?action=showcat&catid=1 Enviros (2007) Advanced Thermal Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste, Report for Defra as part of the New Technologies Supporter Programme http://www.recoveredenergy.com/overview.html#flowdes http://www.techfaq.com/plasmagasification.shtml http://www.safewasteandpower.com/main.html http://www.geoplasma.com/ http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/ Eunomia Research & Consulting, EnviroCentre (2008) Greenhouse Gas Balances of Waste Management Scenarios. Report for the Greater London Authority Eunomia Research & Consulting (2007) Evaluation of Residual Waste Treatment Technologies. Report for Gloucestershire County Council http://www.oceta.on.ca/profiles/ewi/ewi_tech.html Friends of the Earth (2008) Briefing: Pyrolysis, Gasification, and Plasma. UK http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200811/ai_n31110238/pg_3/?tag=content;co l1 Policastro, Ellen Fussell "Cleaning up a dirty business". InTech. FindArticles.com. 09 Apr, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200811/ai_n31110238/ http://www.ewmc.com/technology/reversepolymerization.htm Pontin G., Daly M., Duggan C. (2002) Disposal of Organic Kitchen Food Waste in the Canterbury/Christchurch Region of New Zealand with an EM-Bokashi Composting System. Seventh International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming Proceedings. Christchurch, New Zealand, 15-18 January 2002

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

126

Page 135 of 470

MWH (2008). Food Waste Management in New Zealand (Main Report, Supplementary Report (by Dr T Evans) and Executive Summary report), Prepared for Parex Industries Limited, MWH, New Zealand, March 2008. Timaru District Council (2007) Waste Management Report for Waste Audit, June 2007 URS (2004) Regional Options for Food Waste Composting, prepared for the Manukau, North Shore & Auckland City Councils, June 2004 URS (2004) Regional Options for Food Waste Composting - Market Issues, prepared for the Manukau, North Shore & Auckland City Councils, June 2004 Waste Not Ltd. (2002) Assessment of Options for the Management of Organic Kitchen Waste. Report for the Manukau, North Shore, Waitakere & Auckland City Councils, August, 2002

Morrison Low

Ref: 1697 Regional Organic Waste Report for Organic Waste Working Group May 2009

127

Page 136 of 470

APPENDIX A

Waste Data Tables

Page 137 of 470

Table 14-1: Population by TLA Auckland Franklin 2006 428,300 2011 458,500 2016 490,600 2021 522,700 2026 553,600 2031 81,400 76,500 71,500 66,300 60,900

Manukau 328,968 382,000 417,800 453,800 490,100

North Shore 205,608 231,400 246,400 261,100 275,100

Papakura 46,900 50,200 53,500 56,700 59,900

Rodney 89,559 104,784 108,975 113,334 117,868

Waitakere 195,300 211,500 227,000 242,200 257,200

Total 1,355,535 1,504,684 1,615,775 1,726,334 1,835,168

582,600 86,200 526,400 288,500 63,100 136,200 271,900 1,954,900 Source: based on statistics NZ data from http://www.stats.govt.nz/datasets/population/population-projections.htm, and information supplied by TLAs.

Table 14-2: Organic Fraction of Kerbside Collected Waste Auckland Franklin Manukau North Shore Papakura Rodney Waitakere Dec-08 Feb-08 Oct-08 Aug-06 Oct-07 Dec-05 Sep-08 Kitchen waste 39.2% 34.7% 39.3% 43.6% 41.6% 32.0% 39.1% Greenwaste 11.6% 3.6% 13.2% 3.4% 3.3% 10.9% 5.0% Multimaterial/other 1.6% 2.4% 2.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 3.5% Subtotal organic Waste 52.5% 40.7% 54.9% 50.5% 48.2% 45.8% 47.6% Data supplied by Waste Not Consulting Ltd 19 Feb 2009. Note: All data are for council kerbside collections only, with the exception of Rodney District, which is of private kerbside collections Table 14-3: Food Waste Estimates Auckland Franklin Kerbside food (to landfill) Commercial food (to landfill) Total all food 34,502 11,860 46,362 2,607 1,686 4,294 Manukau 30,694 9,109 39,803 North Shore 16,362 6,970 23,333 Papakura 2,601 1,299 3,900 Rodney 5,278 2,480 7,758 Waitakere 12,722 5408 18,130 Total 104,767 38,813 143,579

Table 14-4: Separated Greenwaste Auckland Franklin Manukau Private Garden Waste collections Separated transfer station green waste Subtotal Separated Green

North Shore 2,539

Papakura 551

Rodney

Waitakere

Total 16,333

5,031

728

4,192

1,150 1,022

2,143 37,415.

9,331

1,327

7,167

12,362

1,951

4,255

1,573 14,362 2,054 11,359 15,362 3,101 6,398

53,748

Page 138 of 470

Table 14-5: Landfilled Greenwaste


Auckland Kerbside garden Franklin Manukau North Shore 1,292 Papakura 206 10,239 273 10,278 1,798 1,628 Rodney Waitakere Total 25,714

residential 279 8,051 garden to 2,544 362 1,954 1,221 532 1,160 landfill @ transfer station Commercial 1,236 5,148 36,947 Green(to 11,290 1,605 8,671 6,635 2,361 landfill) Subtotal 1,721 70,712 Landfilled 24,073 2,240 20,903 9,148 4,691 7,936 Green Landfilled green waste was derived by applying commercial waste composition and tonnage figures for a known facility across all TLAs on a per capita basis.

Table 14-6: Estimated food & green waste quantities for Auckland Auckland Franklin Manukau North Papakura Shore Total all food 46,362 Total Green 38,435 Total All organic 84,797 8,588 72,066 47,843 7,194 4,294 32,262 24,510 4,294 39,803 23,333 3,294 3,900

Rodney

Waitakere

Total 143,579

7,758 7,792 15,550

18,130 124,461 14,334 32,464 268,040

Page 139 of 470

APPENDIX B
Processing Facility Tonnage Estimates

Page 140 of 470

POPULATION - HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS, ORGANICS COLLECTION SERVICE Estimated population Estimated total food waste tonnage Average food waste - kg/h-h/wk Assumed captured food waste at 50% capture rate - kg/h-h/wk Assumed captured food waste at 60% capture rate - kg/h-h/wk Assumed captured food waste at 70% capture rate - kg/h-h/wk Estimated no. of households (Stats NZ, medium projections) Proportion of households receiving kerbside organics collection service - low Proportion of households receiving kerbside organics collection service - high Estimated no. of households receiving organics kerbside collection service - low Estimated no. of households receiving organics kerbside collection service - high 2006 1,355,535 100,000 4.1 2.0 2.4 2.9 471,200 60% 80% 282,720 376,960 2011 1,504,684 111,003 4.1 2.1 2.5 2.9 515,600 2016 2021 1,615,775 1,726,334 119,198 127,354 4.1 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.8 564,300 613,800

309,360 412,480

338,580 451,440

368,280 491,040

Indicative no. of households serviced - low estimate Indicative no. of households serviced - high estimate low 32,293 38,752 45,211 37,347 44,817 52,286 30,000 47,500 35,000 55,000

300000 420000 high 45,211 54,253 63,295 51,871 62,246 72,620 65,000 75,000

360000 500000

Estimated 2011 annual food waste tonnage collected from Estimated 2011 annual food waste tonnage collected from Estimated 2011 annual food waste tonnage collected from Estimated 2021 annual food waste tonnage collected from Estimated 2021 annual food waste tonnage collected from Estimated 2021 annual food waste tonnage collected from

kerbside, 50% capture kerbside, 60% capture kerbside, 70% capture kerbside, 50% capture kerbside, 60% capture kerbside, 70% capture

FW range for 2011, depending on capture rate and proportion of households serviced: Average for 2011 FW range for 2021, depending on capture rate and proportion of households serviced: Average for 2021

Page 141 of 470

APPENDIX C
Review of Emerging Technologies

Page 142 of 470

1.

Emerging Technologies

There are a number of emerging technologies for the treatment and beneficial reuse of organic wastes, including food wastes. Although these methods are potential options for the Auckland region in the future, as a result of their less proven nature, they are considered unlikely to be pursued within the shorter term. For this reason they are not assessed in great detail within this report. However, to increase awareness of the types of solutions that may become more viable within the medium to longer term, key emerging technologies are described below. 1.1 Bioreactor Landfills Most modern New Zealand landfills include landfill gas extraction systems. The greenhouse gases created by the anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes within the landfill are collected either for flaring or for conversion to energy. In a conventional landfill organic waste is dispersed through the refuse, contributing to the variable and unpredictable nature of landfill gas release. However, some landfills are now starting to develop landfill cells dedicated to organic waste referred to as Bioreactor Landfills. Bioreactor landfills may operate either as aerobic or anaerobic systems, or a combination of the two. The move towards bioreactor landfills appears to be driven by the desire to more efficiently reduce the release of greenhouse gases, whilst maximising opportunities to create renewable energy. To maximise landfill gas capture, bioreactor landfills typically recirculate leachate through the cell, maximising conditions for biological degradation and reducing leachate disposal costs. Aerobic bioreactor landfills also employ forced aeration, potentially requiring the cell to be covered with a textile cover. In a sense an aerobic bioreactor landfill operates in a similar way to a very large and aerated static compost pile, whereas an anaerobic landfill bioreactor is a large but less controlled AD system. An advantage of bioreactor landfills is that they can be constructed at existing landfills, using shared infrastructure and resources. However, bioreactor landfills require special design, operation and monitoring compared to conventional landfill cells. Due to the large volume of putrescible waste, it is important that the cell is appropriately designed and managed, as any failures could be significant. This means that upfront and operational costs are higher than for conventional landfills. There are a number of bioreactor landfills operating in Australia, including Veolia operated Bioreactors in Woodlawn (NSW) and Ti Tree Bioenergy, near Ipswich (Qld). Bioreactor landfills are somewhat contrary to the objective of recycling organic waste as, although gas is recovered, the solid material is buried rather than applied to land. Potentially, the remaining solid could be removed from bioreactor cells for use as a soil amendment. However, much of the calorific energy and nutritional value of a soil amendment may be lost at this stage. It is also expected that the food waste, a relatively low contamination waste, would be mixed with other more contaminated wastes (e.g. food processing sludges, biosolids etc.). This would reduce the potential for remaining solids to be dug out and beneficially applied to land. Taking the above drawbacks into account, this study does not consider bioreactors in any greater detail. However, this option could be considered further if composting or anaerobic digestion does not prove to be feasible for the Auckland region.

Page 143 of 470

1.2

Advanced Thermal Treatments (ATT)

There are a large number of proprietary technologies for thermal treatment of waste streams. Many of these technologies claim to be unique processes. However, while they may have unique characteristics, they are generally variations or combinations of principal technologies. Below is an analysis of the principal technologies, along with some typical variations/combinations. Typical Combinations Advanced thermal treatments, such as gasification, pyrolysis and plasma arc technology, require reasonably homogeneous input streams for the process to function effectively. This means that either the waste stream has to be homogenous to begin with (for example waste wood chippings) or some form of pre-treatment of the waste is required. To provide that pre-treatment, thermal technologies may be combined with autoclaving or Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). A pyrolysis reactor may often be combined with a subsequent gasification step or, indeed, either of these technologies may also be combined with plasma arc technology (plasma gasification or plasma pyrolysis) to further break down the solid (char), liquid (tar) and gaseous (synthesis gas) outputs into a valued combustible output gas. The gaseous outputs of these technologies will then invariably require cleaning before the synthesis gas (often referred to as syngas) can be put to use. It is possible to put the gas through a further thermal stage to enrich the hydrogen content before separating for potential use in fuel cell technology. The flue gas generated will require emissions scrubbing before it can be discharged to air. Further discussion of specific technology types is provided below. Autoclave Autoclaving (or Mechanical Heat Treatment) is a commercially proven sterilization technology utilized in the sterilization of quarantine wastes. There are two key variations which use either steam or direct heat to treat waste. As a result, the energy requirement to heat the waste is fundamental for autoclaving technologies, but varies according to the exact approach undertaken. Waste is most commonly loaded into an autoclave vessel (typically a rotating drum) which is sealed and the waste heated, using steam, to 150C for one hour under pressure. This causes plastics to soften and flatten, paper, food waste and other fibrous material to break down into a fibrous mass, and glass bottles and metal objects to be cleaned and labels removed. The waste is then separated for recyclable materials and to remove any contaminants leaving a sterilized celluosic biomass. Because the heat in the autoclave changes the physical characteristics of the waste, both recovery rates and the quality of recyclable materials are higher than for Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) technologies. This allows a greater tonnage of cleaner material to be available for processing into higher value applications. The potential for feedstock recycling (i.e. turning bottles back into bottles) typically delivers much greater GHG benefits than secondary applications for dense plastics, such as PET and HDPE. Plastic film however, forms into solid balls that trap putrescible

Page 144 of 470

contamination meaning they cannot be recycled into similar products. As a result, if not sent to landfill, autoclaved plastics films could be either manufactured into lower value applications such as plaswood or sent for manufacturing of synthetic diesel. The autoclave process allows recycling of some of the inputs and produces a fuel either with consistent characteristics or with a very high biomass content, which comprises the putrescible, cellulose and lignin elements of the waste stream. Despite this however, autoclaving MSW can still result in significant tonnages of biodegradable material being sent to landfill, due to the mechanical separation of an oversize, reject fraction, which removes both non-biodegradable waste and biodegradable materials. Autoclaving does not reduce the biodegradability of the waste to any great effect. After exiting the core plant, this reject stream could undergo a brief maturation phase, which would also allow for moisture loss prior to landfill. There are very few facilities operating commercially anywhere in the world for the 110 treatment of MSW, with North America being the main centre of this technology . No facilities are known of that process source separated organic wastes using autoclave based technology. Suppliers primarily focus on treatment of mixed municipal solid waste because it cleans and sterilises the material for closed loop recycling and it can produce a consistent output for ease of handling and subsequent processing. Suitability for treatment of organic waste Autoclave based processes do not appear to currently be used to exclusively treat source separated municipal food waste. It appears that there would be little value in doing so since the aim of the process is to produce a high biomass fuel from a mixed waste stream. Since segregated organics are assumed 100 percent biomass, no such processing can be deemed necessary. While such treatment is technically feasible, further processing steps would still be needed for either energy recovery (thermal or biological) or for the production of a soil conditioner. As such, this type of treatment is unlikely to demonstrate any significant advantages over more established and selfcontained processes such as Anaerobic Digestion. The exception may be for more difficult organic wastes. Autoclaving can be used to sterilise particular wastes such as high risk animal by-products to reduce pathogen and virus risks prior to subsequent disposal. Gasification and Pyrolysis Gasification and pyrolysis are advanced thermal treatment processes which, because they take place in an atmosphere which is relatively starved of oxygen, do not lead to complete combustion of waste as happens in the case of incineration. The key difference between the two is that pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of a substance in the absence of oxygen, whereas gasification involves the provision of a limited amount of oxygen to allow sufficient combustion to occur to maintain the operating temperature. The gases produced by pyrolysis and gasification processes, once cleaned, have significant fuel value; alternatively the gas, tar and char can be used for
110

There is one operational plant in the UK, a Sterecycle plant in Yorkshire that can process 100,000 tonnes per annum of MSW. In the last year however a number of such plants have been planned or had contracts awarded in the UK including: an Enpure plant in Derwenthaugh Ecoparc, in Newcastle, which will process 320,000 tonnes of solid waste, VT Group has plans for 3 plants in Glasgow processing 100 150,000 tonnes per annum, and a plant operated by Cleanaway, in Rainham, East London which will process up to 160,000 tonnes per annum.

Page 145 of 470

synthesis of chemicals. Some processes effectively combine pyrolysis and gasification phases in the treatment of waste. There are a growing number of processes available, which may well be suited to treating refuse derived fuel, though their records in treating mixed municipal waste are varied. Gasification Gasification is a relatively new technology in its application to the treatment or disposal 111 of waste. Gasification treats waste in the presence of limited oxygen, preventing combustion, and temperatures typically above 750C. The main product is a syngas, which contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, methane and longer chain hydrocarbons, water vapour, tar and other pollutants. The Calorific Value (CV) of this syngas will depend upon the composition of the input waste, temperature, residence time and configuration of the gasifier, as well as the subsequent gas refining stages. The other output produced by gasification is a solid, non-combustible char of which there are limited applications, such as, aggregate substitute. Syngas from gasification is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of the original solid fuel because it can be combusted through more efficient technology (gas engines or potentially gas turbines), used to produce methanol (which can be used as a vehicle fuel substitute), or even be refined for use in fuel cells. In addition, on a tonne-for tonne basis, gasification can be expected to produce a lower volume of exhaust gas than conventional combustion and, assuming the gas may be scrubbed to a similar standard, results in lower emissions overall. Accordingly however, a higher concentration of the corrosive elements such as chloride, mercury and potassium can be expected in the ash. Gasification of fossil fuels is widely used on industrial scales to generate electricity where the efficiency advantages of large gas turbines (typically around 40 percent) are used to good effect. For homogenous wood wastes there are a number of worldwide examples of gasifiers using gas engines (mid efficiency), but most all gasifiers operating on waste feedstocks use a lower efficiency boiler/steam turbines approach.112 However, almost any type of organic material can be used as the raw material for gasification, such as wood or plastic waste. Gasification has received significant recent attention in the municipal waste market as a potential alternative to incineration, but with only one demonstration facility operating 113 There are a handful of facilities in the UK on MSW or MSW-derived feedstocks. operating at commercial scale within the EU, along with many high-temperature facilities in Japan. In many cases, gasification technologies are planned to treat refuse114 from MBT or autoclave facilities, as is the case for the facility derived fuels (RDF) planned for the East London Waste Authority. Performance data and the operational track record of this technology are considered less reliable than that for incineration.
111 112

Systemhasbeenusedinthethermalconversionofwoodformanydecades. AnumberofThermoselectplantsinJapanoperatewastegasifierscoupledtogasengines,butthismayonlybepossibledueto lowerenvironmentalstandardsthanelsewhere.TheThermoselectplantpreviouslyoperatinginKarlsruheGermany,ceasedto operatein2004foranunpublicisedrangeoftechnicalandcommercialreasons. 113 TheEnergosfacilityontheIsleofWight. 114 Alsooftenknownassolidrecoveredfuels(SRF)

Page 146 of 470

Suitability for treatment of organic waste Gasification technology providers state an input specification for the fuel; typically 1216MJ/kg lower heating value and 10-15 percent moisture content. Wet food waste has a moisture content of approximately 70 percent and lower heating value of 5MJ/kg. Although theoretically possible to dry food waste to meet the input specification (such as by autoclave), the energy involved is likely to be highly prohibitive, and issues associated with odour likely to become problematic. No gasification plants have been 115 identified operating in the world on segregated organic waste. Assuming a supplier, the chemical energy in food waste could generate approximately 400 kWh per tonne using a gas engine, or 290 kWh per tonne using a steam cycle boiler. This compares favourably with Anaerobic Digestion which will only release approximately 50 percent of chemical energy in organic waste based on a 14 day cycle in a digestor (though higher residence times would release more) and which, when the 116 biogas is combusted through a gas engine at 37 percent efficiency, would yield 250 kWh per tonne. This figure is close to the energy that may be generated through a steam cycle gasification facility. The chemical characteristics of food and greenwaste are also less suitable for thermal treatment compared to wood fuels or fuels manufactured from mixed waste. Other things being equal, the lower carbon content of organic waste will reduce the potential syngas yield, and the higher nitrogen content will be likely to lead to increased oxides of nitrogen created from the fuel. High standards in the market on fuels would add risk to this option. The cost of thermal treatment technologies, compared with biological technologies like anaerobic digestion are typically between one half and one third more expensive. Pyrolysis Pyrolysis technologies are considered in the same camp as gasification. Pyrolysis is endothermic, requiring an external heat source to maintain operational temperature. Typically, temperatures of between 300C to 850C are used during pyrolysis of materials such as MSW. Again, the products of pyrolysis are a solid residue and a syngas, though more of the chemical energy will remain in the solid phase. This solid residue (sometimes described as a char) is a combination of non-combustible materials and carbon. The syngas may be used in the same manner as that from gasification, though it will contain a higher content of oils, waxes and tars. The syngas typically has a net calorific value (NCV) of between 10 and 20 MJ/Nm3 (higher than that from gasification due to a lower content of carbon dioxide and the avoidance of dilution from nitrogen in the air used in air blown gasifiers). If required, the condensable fraction can be collected by cooling the syngas, potentially for use as a liquid fuel.

115

Aplanningapplicationhasbeenmadeforanadvancedthermalconversiontechnologyforwastefromthefoodprocessing industryintheUK(EnCycleinImmingham,Lincolnshire)butreliesonpackagingwastesbeingcombinedwiththewastefoodin thefuelpreparationstage,aswellasshreddedplasticbeingaddedinthethermalstage.

Page 147 of 470

The char produced from a pyrolysis process contains significant amounts of carbon. This is a hazardous waste but could be used as coal replacement in certain combustion applications or as a gasifier feedstock. It may alternatively be further processed for production of particular chemicals (such as carbon black, used widely for printing). Only if the carbon content is fully reduced (typically through gasification or combustion) can the final residue be recycled as a secondary aggregate. Suitability for treatment of organic waste Pyrolysis is not a stand alone piece of technology; it requires fuel preparation to match the moisture and physical characteristics to specified standards, further thermal stages are needed and significant post treatment processing needs to occur (gas clean up etc). The suitability of this technology is much the same as the assessment given above for gasification. The conclusion has to remain that it may not be the most suitable approach to processing organic waste when other more proven, simple and low cost options exist. Plasma Technologies Plasma waste destruction concepts have been around for a number of years, primarily focused upon treatment of hazardous and clinical wastes. Integrating plasma technologies into systems for energy recovery, however, is a particularly recent development. Direct plasma treatment of solid wastes requires large amounts of energy and thus dual systems combining gasification for the solid waste, and refining of the syngas in a subsequent plasma chamber are now being marketed. These systems are referred to as Plasma Gasification or Plasma Pyrolysis. In such systems, extreme temperatures (between 6,000 and 10,000 Celsius) are created by a plasma arc between a graphite electrode and the anode base of the chamber. This both promotes thermal cracking of the condensable tars present in the syngas and alters its composition, whilst converting remaining combustible carbon in the char to syngas and reducing the ash to a hard vitrified slag. Although tars will be destroyed in the plasma furnace and do not require condensing out, the syngas will still contain metals and trace gas impurities which require a gas clean-up system. Plasma gasification technology suppliers are tending to promote oxygen blown gasifiers. If coupled with a H2 fuel cell, the greater amount of hydrogen produced by such systems means that more energy can be generated than if using a more 117 In contrast, when coupled with a gas engine for conventional air-blown gasifier. power generation, a conventional gasifier is likely to deliver a better net energy balance due to its lower energy use. It should be noted, however, that at least one plasma technology supplier is currently marketing a process for mixed waste which employs a gas engine for electricity production as well as recovering waste heat into steam turbines for co-generation of electricity. Suitability for treatment of organic waste Global market penetration for this technology use in mixed wastes remains particularly low, although it may be a more understandable technology to apply to particularly hazardous wastes (e.g. nuclear waste) where particular benefit can be gained through
117

Itshouldbenoted,however,thatconventionalgasifiersmayalsobeoxygenblownwithoutaplasmastage.

Page 148 of 470

the vitrification achieved. For any municipal waste however, the benefits (a higher 118 hydrogen content syngas ) is unlikely to be justified against cost. For segregated organic waste it is an even more unlikely competitor to the traditional biological processes (such as composting or digestion). Reverse Polymerisation Reverse polymerization is a patented technology developed by a Canadian company, Environmental Waste International (EWI). It is a microwave-based technology that works by applying the microwaves in a nitrogen atmosphere directly to any organic material that contains a hydrocarbon base. The microwave energy is able to excite the molecular bonds to the point they break apart. The process essentially takes a complex hydrocarbon molecule and breaks it down to simpler forms. The process involves four main steps: oxygen purging via nitrogen flush, microwave reduction, environmental control, and discharge material handling. Microwave energy is absorbed by the organic material, causing rotation of inter-molecular bonds, leading to the generation and emission of narrow band infrared energy. The narrow band infrared energy is re-absorbed by surrounding material, increasing the amount of energy in the bonds until the bonds break. The breaking of the bonds results in the conversion of complex organic compounds into simpler compounds of lower molecular weight without undergoing oxidation. The process has been principally applied to the processing of used tires. EWI claims that the process reduces the tyres to oil (55 percent), carbon black (35 percent) and the steel from the reinforcing (10 percent). EWI have also developed a microwave based process for dehydration and sterilisation of food wastes that has been used for navel shipboard applications. Suitability for treatment of organic waste While the technology suppliers claim the process can be applied to any organic material and have investigated a variety of applications there is no track record in respect of using the technology to treat food wastes, greenwastes or MSW. It should also be noted that as of late 2008 the technology has been confined to demonstration plants and there were no commercial facilities operating using the technology.

118

Althoughanyincreaseinnetcalorificvalueisnotcertain.

Page 149 of 470

APPENDIX D
Review of Proprietary Technologies and Processing Systems

Page 150 of 470

The following technologies addressed within this study are described in greater detail within the 2004 OWWG composting review119: Gore covered windrow composting system IPS agitated bay composting system HotRot, Rotocom and VCU mechanical composting systems Gicom static tunnel composting systems

A similar level of detail is provided within this appendix for composting and anaerobic systems that have been added to this current study. Gore Covered Windrow The Gore Cover composting system uses Gores proprietary water resistant but breathable fabric as a re-useable cover material for aerated static windrows. The GORE cover comprises of a micro-porous membrane between two UV resistant fabrics. Feedstock materials are shredded or macerated and mixed as required then formed into windrows using loaders. These initial windrows are laid on a flat surface above either aeration channels set into a concrete pad or lengths of aeration pipe laid on a concrete or hard stand surface. The GORE cover system is then spread over the windrow using a simple wheeled structure and secured. If winds are a potential issue for the site, the GORE cover may also be overlaid with netting. Aeration is controlled automatically in response to oxygen and temperature measurements obtained directly from the main body of the heap using stainless steel probes. The Gore system can be used for a greenwaste and range of putrescible wastes including kitchen waste, biosolids, post-treatment of solids from anaerobic digestion. The usual composting time under cover is four weeks, after which time the cover is removed and the windrow broken down and re-formed for a further four weeks open windrow composting prior to curing. While windrow covering creates a batch type process, there is some flexibility in that windrows can be extended over a period of days. The Gore system is very flexible in respect of input quantities, with facilities currently operating for quantities ranging from 3,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. The GORE cover fabric is permeable to water vapour and carbon dioxide, but impermeable to water. The manufacturer states that most odorous compounds are water soluble and dissolved in condensate on the underside of the fabric, thereby preventing their discharge into the air. The cover system reduces potential discharges of odours and bio-aerosols, prevents rainwater ingress, reduces leachate production and prevents access to vermin and vectors. The GORE system is being used successfully running for over 2 years.
120

in the Timaru District, where it has been

119

URS(2004)RegionalOptionsforFoodWasteComposting,preparedfortheManukau,NorthShore&AucklandCityCouncils, June2004 120 BypersonalcommunicationwithBrianGallagher,TimaruDistrictCouncilandbysiteoperatorduringsitevisitinJune2008.

Page 151 of 470

VIVC System Description The VIVC (which stands for vertical in-vessel composting) composting system was developed in New Zealand by Environment Sustaining Products (EPS) Ltd, as a refinement of the VCU system (see above). In many respects it is similar to the VCU system. The key differences are: forced rather than passive aeration, for improved process control the VIVC system has the option of a biofilter unit, with low volume active air extraction, installed at the top of each four VIVC chambers to further reduce potential odour emissions mechanical operation and components - fully electric (rather than hydraulically powered) feed and harvest systems - belted conveyors with full electronic control Panel construction - Chamber panels are 1 piece and have increased insulation (polyurethane), Stainless steel components are of increased thickness and outer skin is UV stabilized Glass reinforced polyester (rather than zincalume)

NaturTech Composting System (including 2nd Generation Biocontainer) The containerised in vessel composting system is a variant of an enclosed aerated static pile. The system is a series of airtight containers121 linked together with piping for aeration, odour control, and leachate collection as well as set up with automated monitoring equipment. Containers are essentially shipping containers with a corrosion resistant liner, perforated floor which is removable and through which aeration takes place. Containers are air and water sealed with drainage for leachate. They are designed to be mobile and transported by truck around the site, and can either be top or front loaded. They can also be tipped for unloading to windrows, reloading into curing containers, or further agitation. Variations include walking floors to assist with loading and a revised container design that allows material to be processed in-transit. These second generation bio containers were designed to allow processing during shipping, however, a similar approach could be used to transport pre-processed commingled food and greenwaste between transfer stations and a regional processing facility (container lifted and attached to leachate collection and aeration systems for processing, truck back loaded with empty container for transfer facility). NaturTech containers will produce between 1.2-3.3 tonnes of compost per day per container. 122 Systems claim to vary in volume capacity between four and 900 tonnes per day and can be manual, semi automated or fully automated as required. Wastes composted at existing facilities that utilise this system include raw primary wastewater solids, DAF (dissolved air flotation) solids, food residuals, forest products, poultry feathers, chicken manure and dairy manure. Pre-Processing
121

Therearefourcontainersizes:40cubicyardwith20toncapacity,50cubicyardwith15toncapacity,80cubicyardwith40ton capacityand110cubicyardwith55toncapacity. 122 Measurementsconvertedfromimperialtometricmeasurementsforcomparativeanalysis.

Page 152 of 470

The system requires a controlled batch mixer or a continuous flow mixer with a high degree of process control to provide uniform recipe management. The process requires a controlled blend of raw materials to achieve porosity, moisture, volatile solids and carbon to nitrogen ratio specifications established in the operating plan. The aerated system will only be sold if this controlled mixing component is available at the site of operation. A minimum of a 20 yd3 four auger batch mixer is recommended, with up to a 45 cubic foot five auger mixer available. 10-15 percent is required to be wood chips (or similar) to ensure porosity and even air flow through the composting mass. Feeding Following mixing, conveyors or front end loaders transfer the material into the open topped containers for composting. Composting units are then sealed, transported by truck to the final site location and connected up to the network feeding oxygen and removal of odours. Alternatively, if using a portable scale mixer, containers already connected to the piping network are loaded and sealed. Fans can be equipped to conveyors to allow even spread of material in containers. Automated filling trains can be established for bulk filling. Processing An aeration system is installed that operates using temperature probes in the composting material. When the temperature reaches a pre-determined point more air is delivered to the composting containers. The aeration system is a dual negative and positive system, using differential pressure sensing with actuated valves to allow air to flow into the base of the unit through a plastic aerated floor and be extracted removing odorous gases from the top of the unit, keeping the mixture aerated. This air acts as a heat exchanger to bring down the temperature, at which time regular air delivery restarts. Process monitoring is done either manually or with a timer and data logger. Leachate is removed via a system of pipes and can be drained into a holding tank for beneficial reuse or disposal into a sanitary sewer system. After 7-10 days, the unit is unloaded for re-mixing. For smaller containers, a conventional roll off truck will suffice, for larger containers, a stationary tipper or customized tipper trailer is required to unload bins. Surge bins or dumping pits receive the material before being conveyed back to the mixer. Critically, additional moisture is added to the mix to keep the process going. Where multiple bins are at the same stage, re-sorting material at this point can free up approximately 25 percent-33 percent of bins for re-filling. Once the retention time has been completed, tipping trailers can be used to transport material to curing containers, windrows or static pile.

Page 153 of 470

Odour Control Odour is controlled through proper mixing and aeration, coupled with a containerized biofilter. A positive and negative air pressure is maintained which draws the air through the units and to the biofilter. Automated processes and monitoring ensures that air flow is also used to adjust for temperature changes and velocity. Exhaust air is directed to the perforated drain tile at the base of the biofilter and the exhausts are made to filter through a medium of 50 percent wood chips and 50 percent finished compost. Harvesting The compost material that has completed its cycle in the enclosed bin is then disconnected and transported to a surge pit or dumping pit for transfer into a curing container or can be distributed into windrows or static piles using a tipping trailer. Each container harvests between 1.2 and 3.3 tonnes of compost per day depending on retention time and the size of container used. Post-Processing The system is initially used as the high temperature, high rate part of the composting phase and can be tailored to a number of possible curing options in the phase that follows. It is expected that the initial phase will mature for a minimum of 14 days with 15 days to 20 days expected for retention time. Following this, curing in aerobic containers for a one to three month period will result in a product that will be screened then sold in bulk or blended with other materials for potting mix and topsoil. Windrows and static piles are alternative options. Modularity The modular units are constructed from modified intermodal shipping containers using either a 20- or 40-foot long box. Aerated channels under plastic porous flooring allows for aeration of composting material. Linked pipes and collection points allow for air to be drawn from the top of the container and remove leachate. Each container will hold approximately 50 tonnes upon first filling, reduced to 66 -75 percent during composting. Remixing and re-filling will allow for this additional space to be utilised freeing up containers. Land Area Requirements Land area is dependent on the number of containers required. As a guide, approximately 6,000 2 2 m is needed for a mixer, storage, and initial 4 tonnes per day (TPD), adding up to 150m for 2 2 each additional tonne per day capacity. E.g. 60 TPD is 15,000m . Add 300m for an additional 60 days of curing in NaturTech Curing Bins, or 33,000 m2 per 60 TPD. Concrete pads under the containers and in the mixing are recommended by the manufacturer. An enclosure or cover for the mixing area is recommended over 20 tons per day or in sensitive areas. Equipment capable of stacking containers two-high can be bought which has the expected reduction in land requirements of 60 percent. Operational Issues Ease of Monitoring Process control is centralised through the Siemens programmable controller. Air delivery and removal cycles, air flow parameters, and temperature data management are all controlled by the system, and fed updates from the sensors in each of the containers. Various logs and data sets are generated and fed into database files in the system for monitoring purposes. Full time process monitoring is available via the internet and remote access can be included.

Page 154 of 470

Risk Contingency This section refers to the ease at which a suitable environment for composting is reinstated should the microbial processes fail. This failure could occur if material is added to the system with chemical and physical properties unsuitable for consumption by the aerobic microbes that are involved in the composting process. This biological failure of a composting system would most likely be indicated by a rapid reduction in the recorded temperatures. Due to the individual nature of bins, any contaminated material would have the effect of only impacting on one batch. The contaminating material (identified through lower temperatures) would be able to be removed as required. Leachate is handled with a patented quick couple drain and recirculation system to remove unwanted leachate. Air flow and temperature is regulated to adjust to information fed by the monitoring devices located in containers. Corrosion control is accomplished by making the containers with Cor-Ten Steel and epoxy coating, an abrasion resistant carbon steel designed for 15-year exposure to sea water. A replaceable insulation liner protects the container sidewalls; the plastic floor has an estimated life of 30 years. The plastic flooring has recently been included in containers which is more corrosion resistant than metal floorings in previous models. Ease of Maintenance The NaturTech System claims it can withstand exposure to seawater for 15 years, with a new plastic floor with an expected 30 year life. The most likely aspects requiring replacement and maintenance are the replaceable liners protecting the side walls. The systems expected to experience most faults will likely be the electronic and monitoring systems which will require more regular update and upgrade. Health and Safety Health and safety issues will arise around the use of heavy machinery and oversized vehicles for movement of containers as in any other industry operating in this way. Automated processing will reduce this to a large extent. Outside of transport and filling, the health and safety concerns will be mitigated by the enclosed nature of the system. Technical Support Training is provided when the NaturTech system is bought as well as operation manuals. As a patented system, any technical support relating to the system will have to be sought from the supplier. The supplier is based in the United States, although containers are constructed in China and vehicle unloading systems in Australia. Current Operating Facilities According to the supplier website, NatureTech composting systems are located at 11 sites in the United States of America, dealing with moderate loads of organic waste, the largest currently being utilised with a capacity of approx 90 tonnes per day. Advantages and Limitations Recent claims by NaturTech are that lower shipping costs, better corrosion resistance and the economic benefit of mass production in China will make in-vessel composting, biofuel production, air treatment and biofertiliser manufacturing more competitive with other biomass conversion technologies, particularly outdoor windrow composting. The dual use of containers as shipping containers can potentially reduce costs of shipping when ordering containers. The ability to double stack containers has the benefit of reducing land requirements over similar horizontal systems.

Page 155 of 470

The capital cost of machinery can be seen as a limitation of the system, with custom and oversized machinery required for maximum economies of scale. MIDAS (Milibank Integrated Drainage and Aeration System) The MIDAS aerated bunker system is a form of static-pile aerated-bunker composting system. The bunker system is a two-staged system, where material is mixed and placed into the first bunker system, then removed and placed into the second set of bunkers before removal for final curing. The bunkers are made of pre-cast hollow-core floor panels and pre-cast wall sections. These act as passages for air injection as well as leachate drainage. Alternative models allow for a cast-in-place concrete system with in-ground PVC ducting depending on relative cost and availability of pre-cast elements. Each bunker consists of a concrete floor, walls and roof nominally 6.0m wide, 18.0m long and 5.0m high. The two-bunker system is positioned in a series of banks with an additional area in between the two for waste reception and handling. Biofilters for odour control are located adjacent to bunkers or positioned on the roof to minimise the facility footprint. Information taken based on an 8 bunker system operating 6 days per week (composting process 7 days per week) and an expected 24,000 tonne per annum food and greenwaste composting facility. Pre-Processing Food and greenwaste is brought to the facility via independent vehicles and unloaded into the storage facility where it can sit up to 2 days prior to processing. Vehicles unload through a 2door airlock to reduce the level of odour released into the environment, and contain any potential vermin contained within transported materials. All materials in contact with waste material will be treated with additives to reduce corrosion from corrosive liquids and vapours released by decomposing materials. Feeding A front loader takes the material from the tipping floor and places this onto a feed apron connected to a sorting table (or alternatively directly into a shredder). Manual sorting is preferred to remove rocks, steel beams and other frequently found contaminants that damage shredding equipment. Automatic detection, it is claimed, often misses such items and trained personnel are preferred. Mixing and correct mixtures can be controlled through automatic feeders, and scales on mixing equipment. This process can be fully automated. Processing After sorting, the waste is passed through a shredder and placed into a temporary bunker for moisture sampling and structure. Material too high in moisture content will have wood chips added to improve porosity and reduce overall moisture content.
st Shredded waste that has been checked is then loaded into a 1 stage bunker via front loader and spread evenly (by the operator) over a two day filling process. Product is left for 7 days in the aerated bunker before being unloaded via front loader and transported into a second bunker for a further 7 days.

Turning of material is undertaken during this manual pick up and replacement of material into the 2nd bunker without ground dumping. This process is contained within the waste reception building located between the two banks of bunkers.

Page 156 of 470

Drainage of bunkers is provided through laterals in the flooring through with leachate can be directed to the sewer, treated as effluent or placed into a storage system. Odour Control Odour control is maintained through double air locking at the entry and exit of the tipping floor as well as through sealed bunkers with a contained air flow system. Air is pulsed through the containers through the flooring panels and extracted with a fan driven exhaust system. The exhaust fumes are channelled into biofilters located adjacent to bunkers or on the roof of bunkers to minimise the facility footprint. A manual fan boost system is utilized during all filling and unloading of bunkers to reduce any odour released into the environment. At all other times, this setting is returned to the regular automated settings. Bunkers are required to be sealed after the first day of loading and unloading as per facility protocol to keep odour contained until the second day of loading and unloading. All loading and unloading between the 1st and 2nd tier of bunkers is contained within the waste reception area so as to reduce any odour escaping into the environment. Harvesting Material completing its final 7 days is removed with a front loader and placed in storage piles. For some uses (such as broad acre agricultural application), this will result in pathogen kill and sufficient decomposition of material without further storage needed. In most cases, further storage and curing will be needed. Smaller piles for improved aeration are recommended followed by larger more permanent piles. Screening can take place any time following removal from the 2nd bunker. Post-Processing Inspection of bunkers is undertaken to ensure any blockages in the system (especially the air injection holes) can be cleared away prior to refilling. Curing stages are suggested as being in aerated piles, place by the front loader, either in a single placement or involving a second placement if preferred. No further processing is required following screening of material. Modularity The MIDAS aerated Bunker system is a semi-modular system. An 8 bunker system with biofilters, waste reception building and space for aerated pile storage is expected to suffice for approximately 25,000 tonnes of food and greenwaste per annum. Facilities designed to accommodate up to 125,000 tonnes per annum are available with the most efficient system dealing with 100,000 tonnes per annum requiring 20 bunkers. Future proofing would need to be built into the capital cost of the initial works to allow for further bunkers and a sufficient waste reception area for increased tonnages, ensuring the entire process is contained. Once this limit is set, a new or vastly adjusted facility would need to be built for further waste. The individual bunkers allow for the isolation of a bunker should temperature probes indicate inefficient mixing or contaminated material. This will be able to be isolated and remixed as required. The 18.0m length of the units and 2-day load and unload time will result in an inefficient turnaround for any contaminated material., requiring almost 4 days to correct for this. Land Area Requirements Land area required depends on the size of the facility. Indicative technology footprints for varying tonnages are provided in the following table.

Page 157 of 470

Food and Green Waste (t/pa) 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000

Units required (No. t/yr/unit) 8 x 3,125t 12 x 4,200t 16 x 4,700t 20 x 5,000t 30 x 4,200t

Footprint (m2) 1,530 2,900 4,200 5,600 7,000

Size of the facility varies from 1,530 m2 for a 25,000 tonne pa capacity (and additional 480m2 for biofiltration/odour control) up to 7,000m2 for a 125,000 tonne pa facility (and 2200m2 for biofiltration/odour control). Possible reduction in the biofilter land requirements will come from placing biofilters on top of bunkers. The most efficient system identified as 100,000 tonnes p.a. requires 5,600 m2 and 1,840 m2. Systems that deal with waste volumes greater than 40,000 50,000 tpa are expected to require additional shredding machinery, create greater impact on the surrounding environment, and have greater requirements on power, leachate/wastewater systems and water supplies. A number of smaller plants instead of a larger plant may increase the requirement for land. Operational Issues Ease of Monitoring Monitoring is provided through a PLC (Programmable Logic Computer) which records temperatures for each batch, and is downloaded to an on-site computer for integration into processing reports. Air injection and exhaust is controlled via a PLC using temperature feedback from probes inserted into the bunkers. Operation through the internet is available for highly automated systems. Risk Contingency Corrosion has been noted as a significant factor with additives included into the building of bunkers to reduce this. Scanning material by personnel is intended to limit damage to mixing and shredding equipment that is routinely damaged by contaminants in the incoming material. Airlocks and booster fans limit the odour release into the environments and act to contain all gases. Vermin control is also improved with a contained facility and air locking. The wear shoes fixed to the tines are the only mentioned factor which has shown wear and tear over the last 6 years at an operating facility dealing in the solids from wastewater treatment. The facility is seen as having a reliance on local on-site civil construction. Pre cast moulds significantly reduce construction time and costs rather than constructing from scratch at the site, and a certain dependency on companies with the ability to manufacture the panels with hollow cores and ducts has been created. This should be noted as a risk in start up construction, and for any additional works at a later stage, as without the ability to pre-cast these panels, the capital costs and time to establish the plant will be significantly higher. Ease of Maintenance Air injection and drainage holes are designed to be easily cleaned, and dual use reduces blockages. A header pipe outside the bunker for ease of access as well as flushing and cleanout improves maintenance of bunkers. Previous facilities note that little maintenance is required, with approximately 1 hour per month downtime for the composting units.

Page 158 of 470

Health and Safety This model requires significant use of front loading equipment and operating of machinery, which will have a high risk factor associated with it. Personnel also remove material as it is screened on entry prior to mixing and shredding, which has associated hazards. Vermin control is recommended throughout the facility to reduce associated risks with incoming material. Technical Support Feedback from existing clients notes that very good operator training is provided and operations manuals are also provided. Further support regarding advice and technical queries is forthcoming from the supplier. Advantages and Limitations Odour control is strictly controlled, with no complaints having been mentioned in the New Zealand setting, with back up biofilters appearing unnecessary except in the case of massive failure. Automation of systems at the mixing stage will limit potential for unmixed material and contamination. Manual sorting removes potential hold ups and costly repair of damaged mixing machinery. Air locking mechanisms have the added benefit of controlling vermin introduced by incoming waste. Process can be run independently of collections. Limited additional units can be included if not future proofed in construction.

Wet Anaerobic Digestion System (as installed for EarthPower, Sydney) Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the system as installed at the EarthPower site in Camellia, Paramatta. The system was designed by Waste Solutions to process commercial food waste and consists of a number of different unit operations chosen from a range of options to best suit the needs of the client. It is not a fixed off the shelf product. The heart of the system is the wet digestion tanks designed to accept a feed of approximately 8-10 percent Total Solids (TS) and up to 18 percent w/w fat. Features and operation of the system are discussed below. The overall facility was designed to handle 51,100 tonnes of waste per year. Major components were designed to handle 80,000 tones per year. An independent assessment of the plant was that capacity was 117,000 tonnes per year (72,000 T/yr solid waste and 45,000 T/yr liquid wastes). This installation was for a private company seeking to maximise their return on investment through the digestion of selected low contamination wastes. These wastes were classed as 123 pre-consumer wastes from supermarkets and food industries with average contamination at 1.2 percent and maximum contamination at 3.2 percent by weight.

123

plastic,glass,metals,rocks,woodandsimilar

Page 159 of 470

Figure 1: EarthPower Food Waste Digestion System Pre-Processing The waste pre-processing has two main aims: 1. Removal of contaminants that might damage or block down stream equipment or processes 2. Size reduction of the waste components to increase the accessibility and rate of degradation of the waste. The EarthPower site design followed the European model of minimising labour input and human contact with the waste. This gives a highly automated and relatively capital intensive pre-processing system. Wastes are dumped in to a waste reception bunker with a walking floor or live bottom. From here the wastes are normally conveyed to a trommel screen and/or a screw mill depending on expected contamination types. For wastes that will predominantly be delivered in plastic bags the screen would be fitted with bag openers. Due to an expected low level of contamination these normal coarse contamination removal steps were initially deleted by the client, but retrofitted once it was found that post consumer wastes being processed had contamination levels in the range of 5 65 percent. Operator intervention is only required to remove very large contaminants such as pallets, car doors, engine blocks etc. The waste is then conveyed to a BTA Pulper for size reduction and the removal of two contaminant fractions: 1. The Heavy fraction consisting of materials with a density well above that of water such as cans, glass, metals parts, rock and similar. 2. The Rake fraction consists of predominantly plastic and rag. Recycled process water is used to bring the waste to a solids content of 8-10 percent. The pulper action breaks open containers such as cans, bottles, plastic pottles, bags and jars and

Page 160 of 470

reduces the waste to a similar consistency to paper pulp. The resultant pulp is pumped through a 10mm aperture screen to a buffer tank that allows controlled feeding of the digesters. The buffer tank is mixed by pump recirculation. The pumped stream passes through a hydro cyclone for grit removal. The sludge is mixed with a recycle flow from the digesters to reduce the fouling potential and increase heat input. Feeding Optimal feeding for the digester is continuous. Practicalities of pumping and multiple digesters often result in discontinuous feeding, however the intent is for each reactor to be feed in a number of small batches per hour uniformly through the day. Adding large batches of feed occasionally during the day, or having little or no feeding during weekends, is acceptable but results in lower performance and requires a larger reactor volume. Waste reception bunkers and pulp buffer tanks are used to smooth the often peaky deliveries of wastes to a more even feeding pattern. The nature of the waste streams has a bearing on how rigorously uniform feeding rates are enforced. Feeding is by simple pumping using commonly available equipment. Pipe sizing and materials were chosen to minimise corrosion and erosion and to ensure that fluid velocities scour up any settled solids. Processing - Digesters Reactors are in concept Continuously Stirred Tank Reactors (CSTR). The reactors are fully mixed to the extent that there is little variation in the composition of the reactor contents through out the reactor at any one time. Mixing can be provided via mechanical mixing, gas mixing or hydraulic mixing. In some circumstances more than one form of mixing is required. Mechanical mixing is typically the lowest capital cost but is more problematic to access for maintenance purposes. The choice of mixing equipment depends on the reactor shape and size and on the characteristics of the waste and on the preferences of the operators and (often) the accountants. The digesters are operated at 37C. If desirable a temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) system can be used if pasteurisation of the waste is desired by having a small thermophilic tank operating at 55-65C with a retention time of 3-5 days. The disease risk of the wastes and the final use or disposal of solids and liquids need to be considered to determine if such a pasteurisation step is justified. Alternatively waste heat from elsewhere in the process could be used to provide a high temperature short retention time pasteurisation Adequate mixing is critical to goods reactor performance. A Solids Retention Time (SRT) of 30 days is required to ensure sufficient bacteria are present to perform the digestion. This can be provided by designing the reactors to have a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) of 30 days or by having smaller tanks followed by a solids capture device that returns solids to the digestion. The EarthPower site was designed in the latter option with the tanks having an HRT of approximately 10 - 15 days and an SRT of about 40 - 60 days. The digesters were then increased in size by 30 percent to allow for a future planned expansion. Processing - Biogas The biogas is collected from the top of the reactors via gas safety and cleaning equipment (removal of particulates and water droplets) and in the case of the EarthPower site sent to cogeneration engines to produce electricity. The low grade heat (cooling water circuit, 80-90C)

Page 161 of 470

from the engines is used to run the thermal ammonia stripper avoiding approximately $350,000 of chemical use per year. The high grade heat (engine exhaust, 525C) is used as the main heat source for the dryer. Any Biogas that cannot be used by the three 1.3MWe co-gen engines is sent to the flare. The flare is sized to handle the total gas production from the plant. The hydrogen sulphide ( H2S) content in the biogas is controlled through addition of ferric chloride to the reactor. Processing - Dewatering The digested liquor or digestate is removed from the reactors and dewatered to approximately 25 percent. A range of options are available for dewatering which offer final solids contents ranging from 20 35 percent. The higher solids contents typically require higher capital and operating costs. All options required the use of polyelectrolyte to allow effective dewatering. The water extracted from the digestate is recycled to the pulper or alterative solids reduction units to produce the desired reactor feed solids content. Excess water is sent to polishing treatment and disposal. See the liquid treatment section for a description. The dewatered solids or sludge can then be sent to drying, composting, land fill or direct soil application. At the EarthPower site the client opted for drying because: - Landfilling was not economically viable nor did it meet with their recycle/reuse philosophy. - Soil application was expensive given the large transport distances involved to get to suitable land outside of Sydney. - Compost was seen as a low value commodity with market saturation at that time. Bulking agent would need to be bought in and the selected site was too small. Processing Sludge drying For the EarthPower site the dewatered solids were dried using a drier designed and supplied by Flo-Dry Engineering Ltd. of Auckland. This is a drum dryer where the wet solids are mixed with dried recycle granules and dried in a tumbling drum. The sludge received sufficient heat treatment in the drying process to meet the unrestricted use category in the Australian Biosolids regulations. The drum dryer produces a regular oval granule of relatively uniform size. This product is sold to a large fertiliser manufacturer and marketer who sell the product as an organic fertiliser on its own or mixes it with other fertilisers to obtain the desired NPK analysis. There is a significant risk of dust explosion with drying and all equipment is enclosed and intrinsically safe or Ex rated. The drum dryer uses large volumes of air in direct contact with the product which required dust removal system and odour treatment systems. Other drying options are: - Trough dryers where the sludge is mixed in a U shaped trough, with the walls and agitator heated by steam or hot water or hot oil. This form of dryer has less dust explosion risk and produces a relative small flow of air reducing the size of odour treatment equipment. The fertiliser produced is an uneven and of variable size with some potential for breakage and dust generation on handling and packaging. It was not regarded as being as aesthetically pleasing as the drum dried product which was strongly preferred by the fertiliser customer. - Belt dryers where the sludge is spread on a moving belt and moved through a hot air stream. This equipment has a low dust explosion risk for a single pass system which is increased slightly by multiple pass units were the semi dried sludge drops from one belt to another. The sludge is uneven is size and shape and is not regarded as being attractive by the fertiliser customer. As an alternative form of post treatment, the sludge could be composted rather than dried. However, this would require bulking agent to be added and a secondary composting process

Page 162 of 470

established (e.g. open windrows). Depending on the sludge moisture content, some form of dewatering may be required (some drying can be provided by the addition of the bulking agent, sawdust etc.) Processing Liquid Treatment The digestate from a food waste digester will typically have an ammonia content of 1,500 to 2,500 mg/l ammonia nitrogen. It will also contain a reasonably high phosphorus and potassium content. The EarthPower site would produce about 250,000 litres a day when accepting 50,000 tonnes per year waste. One potential option is selling the digestate as a whole as a liquid/slurry organic fertiliser. This eliminates the requirement for dewatering, solids drying or composting and for liquid treatment. However there is not an established market for this material in Sydney and there is potential resistance to the product as the result of odour. For the EarthPower site the costs ands uncertainties of trying to develop a market for this product were seen as too risky given the short develop timescale planned. A further option which may be more applicable to Auckland is to co-compost the digestate with green waste in a windrow facility. The Sydney facility was designed with a thermal ammonia stripper to extract and capture the ammonia as ammonium phosphate or ammonium sulphate. The ammonia concentration is reduced to less than 50 mg/l. Ammonium Phosphate is preferred and has a price premium but the phosphoric acid required for that reaction is much more expensive than sulphuric acid. Typically ammonia stripping requires chemical dosing to a pH of 11.5 to drive the ammonia/ammonium equilibrium to the gaseous ammonia form to allow stripping. After stripping, the liquor must by dosed with acid to allow further treatment and disposal. The highly buffered liquor that results from food waste digestion means that large quantities of alkali and acid are required. The thermal ammonia stripper used waste heat from the co-gen engines to drive the ammonia/ammonium equilibrium without chemicals. After ammonia removal the liquor is treated with a small activated sludge wastewater treatment system to meet discharge standards. The waste activated sludge produced in this system is sent to the digesters for digestion. Modularity The design concept of the Waste Solutions Food Waste system lends its self to modularity but this will typically cause increased capital costs. Generally one big unit costs less to buy and install than two or more smaller units. Redundancy is provided for critical items on the path from waste reception to the digesters. The digesters form a major buffer zone and so equipment after the digestion is not provided with redundancy but is selected to be big enough that it can catch up with any back log in processing caused by breakdown or maintenance. There are significant economies of scale with most of the unit operations and equipment. If there is planned expansion in the short to medium term then it is recommended that major items such as digesters, dryer, dewatering be sized to cope with the expansion. Smaller items such as pumps and valves etc. can be added at the time or expansion. Land Area Requirements The EarthPower facility occupies a 1.2 hectare site as a stand alone facility. This includes space for a weigh bridge, parking, all truck turning circles, a large stormwater retention pond and bunding of all tanks as well as all the systems shown in Figure 1. There is also sufficient area on that site for a further 50 percent expansion in capacity lifting the plant capacity to approximately170,000 tonnes per year waste.

Page 163 of 470

The digesters themselves occupy a small proportion of the site - 344m2 of that total 12,000 m2 area.

Page 164 of 470

Operational Issues Ease of Monitoring The EarthPower facility is fully monitored. Representative sampling of the waste from waste reception until pulped and mixed in the buffer tank prior to digestion can be problematic because very large sample sizes and careful sampling methodologies are required. Once pulped and mixed sampling becomes simple and representative. Risk contingency This section considered the recovery from an event that would kill or critical levels of bacteria required for the process. The system is robust ,the digestion system can go for a significant period with no power without harming the process. The two main possible events that could result in loss of required bacterial activity are organic overload and toxic shock. Organic overload is unlikely in this situation because the digesters would require sustained loads of feed double or more that of design to create an overload. The nature and delivery mechanisms make such a circumstance unlikely and monitoring of gas production and reactor pH will give early warning signs allowing operators to halt or reduce feeding should such an overload occur. Provided the reactor pH has not crashed to around pH 4 recovery would be very rapid. Some ability to stock pile wastes and an emergency alternative waste disposal option such as landfill is recommended. However, organic overload is not expected to occur because it would require active assistance from the operators to occur. The other risk stems form the possible presence of a toxic or inhibitory substance in the waste. This is unlikely to occur from source segregated domestic food waste because such material are not normally held in the home and are required to be present in relatively high concentration. This would require that a significant fraction of homes in the catchment area decide to dispose of a specific and unusual chemical at the same time. This risk increases when industrial wastes are added to the process as one factories load could be a major fraction of the waste load on a particular day. Therefore it is possible that a factory could have a major spill of a process or cleaning chemical that could affect the reactors. However most food industries do not hold sufficiently large quantities of chemical to have an effect on say 10,000 tonnes of sludge in the reactors. Most of the problematic chemicals will react with the waste during storage and transport and their actions will be lost or reduced by the time such a spill hits a reactor. Having two reactors feed alternatively in parallel mode or feed in sequential mode means that it is likely that only one reactor would be significantly affected and the other reactor can be used to reseed the sick digester. The major realistic risk is long chain fatty acid toxicity resulting from sustained operation with very high fat content wastes. This is unlikely to occur with domestic food wastes. This toxicity did occur at the EarthPower site when high fat levels recorded for a number of weeks were not addressed. This eventually resulted in large loads of high ammonia waste slowing the natural de-toxification reactions of the digestion process allowing toxic long chain fatty acids to accumulate and kill of the acetoclastic methanogens in both tanks. Should only one reactor crash the other can be used to assist the recovery, typically resulting in 1 to 2 weeks of reduced capacity. A full crash in both reactors could take about 3 months to recover full activity if only a small volume of sludge was available. However, restarting the reactors can be rapid if enough active anaerobic biomass is available. This can be achieved 3 through adding a sludge innoculant of around one tenth of reactor volume (about 1,000m of sludge for the EarthPower site). The innoculant sludge would most likely be sourced from a wastewater treatment plant. A complete reactor failure is extremely unlikely in a plant with good operational practices.

Page 165 of 470

Ease of Maintenance During the initial operation of the EarthPower site a significant amount of repair work was required on the pre-treatment equipment, generally as a result of significantly higher contaminants than anticipated (average of 35 percent and peaks of 65 percent, compared to the clients design specification of 1.2 percent average and 3.2 percent maximum). The nature of the contaminants was also well outside of the design specification increasing the potential for damage. Apart from lubrication, most maintenance requirements are annual to 5 yearly requirements rather than frequent replacements. Predominantly these maintenance requirements have been the replacement of wear parts. The dryer has one day a week set aside for maintenance which predominantly involves cleaning of dust accumulations and removal of burnt or melted on plastics where the plastic content is high. At the EarthPower site a plastic removal screen was retrofitted after the digesters due to plastic being approximately 15-20 percent of the feed (by weight). Health and Safety The EarthPower system incorporates safety equipment on mechanical parts including guards, interlocks, emergency stop buttons and lanyards. Audible and/or visual alarms alert operators of potentially hazardous situations such as trucks backing or conveyors about to start or alarm conditions in the process. Multiple levels of protection are provided to prevent accidental, automatic or deliberate starting of equipment under maintenance or inspection As much of the process as possible is fully enclosed to minimise operators contact with potentially harmful environments. Operators are provided with personal safety monitors for flammable gas, carbon dioxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. All building are ventilated and low points where heavier than air gases such as CO2 and H2S could accumulate are avoided where possible. The dryer is fully sealed and operates at a monitored low oxygen content to suppress the risk of fire or dust explosion. Blast doors are fitted to direct any explosion to non-trafficked areas. A number of automatic fire fight systems are in place including the ability to flood the dryer with inert gas. The plant is designed to minimise blockages but where these are possible automated or remote controlled equipment is supplied to clear blockages and minimise operator contact with the waste Technical Support Waste Solutions, designers of the EarthPower system, are New Zealand based (Dunedin).

Kompogas The Kompogas process was developed in Switzerland in the 1990s by W.Schmid. The parent company - Kompogas AG - operates from Switzerland and has subsidiaries and licencees in several parts of the world (Scotland, Japan, Quatar, Germany, Austria, France etc.). The licencee for New Zealand is Evergreen Energy Corporation Pty Ltd, Australia In Switzerland Kompogas AG operates 12 plants and partially owns them. This own operation provides good testing facilities for the improvement of the process and the machinery, before they are installed for clients. Internationally plants are located in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France Spain Martinique, Quatar, Japan.

Page 166 of 470

The Kompogas system is a modular, scalable system for the anaerobic digestion of organic waste streams. The digestion takes place in a cylindrical or trough shaped horizontal plug flow reactor at high solids content and at thermophilic temperatures. Module sizes range in processing capacity from 4,000 t/yr to 20,000 t/yr. The features and operation of the Kompogas system are discussed in further detail below. Modularity and design The Kompogas process is based on the horizontal plug flow digester. Three digester sizes are standardised and can be set up as single or twin (or more) plants. The basic concept is the core-module, consisting of the digester plus the feeder unit, which is integrated into the facility. With this standardisation and modularity the Kompogas process can be adapted to a wide variety of requirements without major changes. The three digester sizes cover a wide range of input capacities, as set out below. Ton/yr m material 4,000 1 x 280 steel 8,000 2 x 280 steel 16,000 1 x 1,200 Steel/ concrete 20,000 1 x 1,600 Steel/ concrete 32,000 2 x 1,200 Steel/ concrete 40,000 2 x 1600 Steel/ concrete

The steel digesters are factory built and transported to site. The concrete digesters are cast in place and equipped with prefabricated steel liners and appurtenances. The digesters can be located outside a building (most common for the smallest size) or integrated in a common building with the pre-processing, the post-treatment and all other facilities. Pre-Processing The Kompogas process is a versatile process concerning the type of the input material. Preprocessing can be adapted to the type and properties of the input. The process was originally developed for the digestion of source sorted municipal organic wastes. Later developments adapted it to mixed solid wastes, food/kitchen waste and energy crops. There are a wide palette of pre-treatment methods available. For source separated municipal organic wastes the pre-processing consists of the flowing steps 1. Weighbridge and reception 2. Storage bunker - either be a flat bunker (operated with front-end loader) or a deep bunker (operated with an automated crane system). 3. First stage shredder, reduction to max. 100 mm 4. Removal of contaminants by various steps, depending on the nature of the waste and the contaminants. The steps are optional. a. b. c. d. Air classifier Magnetic separator Hand sorting (aerated sorting cabin with belt conveyor) Screening

5. Second stage shredder, e.g. four-shaft-shredder, reduction to 10 50 mm It is essential for the process that the material is mixed to accommodate the requirements of the digestion. Some degradable structure material is desirable, e.g. green waste, garden waste. The prepared material, with a maximum size of 50 mm, is conveyed to an intermediate bunker or directly via a solids feeder into the digester. The intermediate bunker serves as a buffer for the night and the weekend and additionally as a pre-hydrolysis step, where already some pre-

Page 167 of 470

heating by aerobic composting processes take place. If wet/liquid wastes or slurries form a part of the feed, reception tanks for this fraction are integrated and slurries are directly pumped to the mixing system. Feeding The intermediate bunker forms an integrated part of the building or a separate steel construction. It is equipped with chain conveyors or push floor. The feed material is dosed by cutting rollers at the end of the intermediate bunker into the mixer unit. In the mixer unit (dual screw mixer) the feed material is mixed with recycled process liquid and liquid wastes/slurries if applicable. The homogenous mass from the mixer requires a total solids content of approximately 28 percent in order to be pumpable. Processing (Anaerobic Digestion) The feed material is pumped to the digester with special single piston feed pumps. On its way to the digester the feed is heated to digestion temperature with the help of heat exchangers (water jacket around the pipes). Additional heat can be transferred to the process by partial water jackets on the digester walls, depending on their size. Digested sludge from the digesters back end is recycled with the same type of pump and mixed with the raw material before entering the digester tank. The digester itself consists of the cylindrical or trough shaped vessel, equipped with a horizontal agitator. The shaft of the agitator runs in the centre along the digester and for the small module is driven by one geared motor. For the larger modules the digestor is divided in two halves with a central bearing and both parts are driven separately. The older digesters have a hydraulic piston mechanism to drive the agitator. The slowly rotating agitator mixes the material gently and enhances the degassing and with this prevents the rising of the mass with the gas bubbles. It is thus a critical part of the equipment. The digester operates as a high solids plug flow digester. The phases of the anaerobic digestion are distributed along the digester with a clearly distinguished acid phase at the front end and the final methanisation phase at the back end. There is not much longitudinal mixing of the digester contents, the material is driven through the digester only by the feed and extraction of the material. The agitator has no directly conveying effect. The digestion temperature is 55 57C (thermophilic temperature range). The digester retention time is in the order of 12 to 15 day, the overall retention time in the digestion process including the sludge recycle is 20 days. The constantly high temperature in the digester pasteurises the material and kills weed seeds and pathogens. Compliance with local regulations concerning pasteurisation will normally be tested with samples in the digester. The biogas formed in the process is led through pipes to the gas utilisation. Dewatering The digestion residues are extracted from the digester back end with a reciprocating piston pump and directly pumped to the dewatering system. The main dewatering step consists of straining screw presses, which reduce the water content of the material from 76 -80 percent depending on the material to 60 -70 percent. A second liquid solid separation with decanter centrifuges to further clarify the liquid

Page 168 of 470

Post Processing Liquid part (process water): The liquid part, with a solids content of 10 20 percent, is normally treated further in a decanter centrifuge to remove more solids and is then partially recycled to the feed mixer. Depending on the requirements the remaining part can either be directed to a wastewater treatment plant or it can be treated on site or given directly to farmers as a liquid fertiliser. Solid Part: The solids from the screw press and the decanter centrifuge are conveyed to an indoor composting compartment normally integrated in the plant building or in a separate composting hall. The material is pressure aerated and aerobically stabilised within a time around 14 days. After this time the compost is extracted via front end loader. Normally further aeration in piles follows (on the ground or on slotted floor aeration pads), after which the material is prepared for sale. Screening and/or air classification may be required to remove lightweight residues like plastic. Odour Control The anaerobic digestion process takes place in closed vessels and therefore has no odour emissions. Main sources of malodorous air are the fresh feed materials in the reception area and in the intermediate bunker and to a far lesser extent the raw compost before maturation. All these processes are designed to take place in a closed building with forced air extraction to a biofilter. The ventilation also manages health and safety issues, odour, and particulate emissions. For a 20,000 ton/yr facility the biofilter is expected to have an active cross section area of 100 150 m. Biogas production and utilisation The biogas production given from source separated domestic organic waste is expected to be: Ton/yr kWel 4,000 100 8,000 200 16,000 430 20,000 540 32,000 860 40,000 1,080

Depending on the local requirements, the biogas can be utilized in different ways: on site in CHP engines - the heat produced is required as process heat to keep the digestion process at temperatures of 55 57C off site in CHP engines - in some plants the gas is sent to off site gas engines (e.g. at a WWTP). Heat needs to be sent back to the Kompogas plant via a hot water loop the gas can be upgraded to Biomethane and injected into the gas grid - process heat need either to be provided from burning a part of the gas in a boiler, from waste heat of the gas upgrading plant or from other external sources the gas can be upgraded and compressed to be used as vehicle fuel - Kompogas has experience in this way in Switzerland and promotes the use of the gas as vehicle fuel. Several of the Swiss Kompogas plants are equipped with gas filling stations.

Page 169 of 470

Land Area Requirements The land area requirements depend on the size of the plant. Example: A 20,000 ton/yr plant with one of the 1,600 m digesters (largest standard size) will require a building of approximately 42 m x 60 m, with some additional rooms for workshop, storage etc say around 3,000 m overall. The surrounding driveways, car and machinery park, small office etc. would need an additional 2,000 m, so the whole facility may require 5,000 m. The required area for the building is expected to be roughly proportional to the capacity, whereas the additionally required area remains more or less constant. Therefore a 40,000 m ton/yr plant would require approx. 8000 m and a small 800 ton/yr plant roughly 3,000 m. Operational issues The Kompogas system is generally a reliable system due to the long experience and continuous enhancement by Kompogas AG in their own plants. However, the mechanically mixed plug flow digester has some limitations due to the mechanical mixing and the plug low characteristic with recycle loop. The feed material should not contain vast amounts of sand and grit, as this settles in the digester and is able to block the agitator after some years. It is a cumbersome process to remove collected sand and grit and requires more manual work compared to a CSTR tank with a similar amount of mineral deposits. The digestibility and rate of degradation of the feed material is to be kept within certain limits by mixing of different feed materials, e.g. food waste with garden/shrub waste. The plug flow characteristic does not provide the same amount of back mixing and with this buffering of the acids formed in the first part of the digester. For a stable operation it is necessary that the acids are degraded when the material reaches the back end of the digester, otherwise they will be recycled to the front with the inoculation material. A rise in overall acid concentration may follow and upset the whole process. The recommended limits for the feed material are: Well degradable green matter, vegetable waste Food waste (slurry type, quick acidification) Sand, grit Particle size (after grinding) Length of particles C/N ratio >30% <30% <3% <40-50 mm <200 mm 15-25

Monitoring The Kompogas plants are fully automated plants equipped with sensors and measurement devices at all critical places. The PLC based control system with a SCADA system provides a good process overview, all data are saved for documentation purposes. The system is located together with the MCC in a closed room, in the smaller plants this is often a container. Regular analyses are required for a safe operation of the process. Required analyses include all standard measurements for anaerobic processes. Special care has to be given to VFA measurement from some sample ports along the digester to monitor the acidification. A laboratory equipped with the required instruments near the plant should be able to deliver results within 24 hours.

Page 170 of 470

The more experienced the operators will be, the less analyses will be required. The operators normally learn within a short period how to deal with the plant and how to make the best use of different feed materials to prepare a well digestable input material. Risk Contingency Like nearly all anaerobic digestion plants nowadays the process established in the Kompogas plants is a continuous process, different from most composting processes which are in fact batch processes. For continuous anaerobic digestion processes the start up phase normally takes a longer time in the order of weeks to months to reach the full performance. Thus it has to be avoided under all conditions, to set up the process and to be required to restart it from scratch. In general the complete digester should never require to be emptied except after several years of operation for the inspection of the internals and for the removal of accumulated grit. Operators require good training so that they can detect process imbalances early and avoid any kind of biological upset. Kompogas provides a good operator guidance service based on their experience with numerous plants with the different feed materials. Facilities with twin digesters are less prone to total breakdown. The digesters are normally fed one after the other, and at slightly different rates at least if in critical situations. The better performing digester can thus always be used to re-inoculate the other digester. The other parts of the machinery and equipment do not pose a special risk for breakdown. The earlier Kompogas plants with the totally building-integrated technology were less easy to operate in situations with unexpected defects, whereas the newer plants are built more open and contingency measures are easier to operate (e.g. front-end loader replaces belt conveyor temporarily etc.). Maintenance Maintenance issues are similar to that for the Sydney wet digestion plant. Shredding equipment and screw presses with the screens typically require the most of the maintenance/repair time. Health and Safety The Kompogas system is developed up to all current standards. It incorporates safety equipment on mechanical parts, including guards, interlocks and emergency stop buttons and lanyards. The biogas is enclosed in the system and where applicable the applicable explosion hazard zones are established and equipped with explosion rated instruments and machinery. The plant is equipped with an automated alarm system, which alerts the operators with visual and acoustic alarms if failures occur. During times when no operator is present (night, weekends), an alarm signal is sent to a standby operator e.g. via cellphone. Current Operating Facilities 16 plants in Switzerland 14 plants in Germany 2 plants in Austria 1 plant in France 2 plants in Spain 2 plants in Japan 1 plant in Martinique 1 plant in Emirate of Quatar

Page 171 of 470

APPENDIX E
Further Information on Anaerobic Digestion

Learnings for Auckland from the Sydney EarthPower Facility - Examples of anaerobic digestion food waste facilities

Page 172 of 470

Anaerobic Digestion - Learnings for Auckland


There are a number of operational issues and additional costs that were encountered with the Sydney EarthPower digestion facility. Differences between anticipated and actual waste inputs are noted as a key issue, contributing to reduced contaminant removal124. Key learnings for Auckland from the Sydney facility (and other plants around the world) are outlined below, as provided by Waste Solutions. Waste considerations: Nitrogen content of the waste will have a significant impact on operations and fertiliser outputs. Fat proportions exceeding 18 percent of solids will require a more expensive digestion system is required than that constructed for Sydney. Source segregated food waste from households tends to be relatively uniform in the short to medium term (although can vary seasonally). It tends not to contain large proportions of soluble easily digestible material and therefore can be batch fed without much risk. If sugary industrial wastes could be added in the future, more care and design allowance will be required to minimise the risk of reactor overload from a big batch of high sugar content waste. Pre-Processing options: A variety of options exist for pre-processing systems but generally these will all have three prime components of contaminant removal, size reduction and heating. A lower cost concept option takes a less automated, more manual approach, typically involving: - Delivery trucks dump the waste onto a concrete floor with a slight slope and side drains to collect leachate. - A quick visual search often with assistance by front end loader is made to remove large solids such as pallets. - Manual sorting conveyors. A more automated pre-processing/decontamination system would involve: - food waste emptied into a hopper that directs wastes via a moving conveyor, which may or may not include manual sorting. - Sorting conveyors would be replaced or followed by back up contaminant removal systems such as magnetic separation, air blower systems to remove film plastic, sediment tanks to separate high and low density materials for removal. The required level of automation depends on expected level of food waste contamination, OSH and other safety considerations, end product quality requirements and cost. After manual and/or automatic sorting, the waste is macerated, typically using slow speed breakers with a shearing action (producing 20 -50 mm particles). Commonly a second stage (and some times third) follows, where significant amounts of water are
124

PersonalcommunicationswithChrisHearnofWasteSolutionsandMaxSpeddingofVeolia

Page 173 of 470

added and a cutting system or grinding system reduces particle size to that desired for digestion. This would then be followed by a buffer tank and heating system similar to that described for the EarthPower site. Digestion Phase Typically the digestion takes place in concrete or steel tanks but an option exists to use sophisticated pond based digestion if sufficient land is available. More than one digester is preferred as it allows for parallel or sequential processing. Size and shape of the tanks can be selected to suit site constraints but a water depth of about 10m is preferred. Odour Control Unless odour sensitive locations were a long distance from the selected site/s, odour control would be required for the waste reception area, buffer tank, dewatering room, ammonia stripping air bleed and drying. The lowest cost option is likely to be a standard biofilter. Design work would need to account for the relatively high ammonia load in the foul air and a conservative low loading rate is recommended. The dryer is a significant odour source and so selection of the relatively low air volume trough dryer or use of an alternative solids disposal option would result in a reduced biofilter size. Green Waste Digestion Co-digesting green waste with food waste reduces the (already small) risk of fatty acid toxicity. It also enables the processing of material where food and garden waste has been co-collected. However it also has disadvantages as listed below: Pre-treatment equipment capacity needs to be much larger (for a given food waste input). The range of contaminants increases as may the overall quantity. Significant increases in grit and rocks, wire and netting can be expected. Wear on pre-treatment equipment increases. Very low methane yields form the green wastes are expected. The addition of the green waste tends to reduce the digestion of the food waste to a small amount. Increase mixing intensity is required. Larger digesters and solids processing equipment are required. The blockage risk increases resulting in increased costs to combat this risk. Energy use increases.

Worldwide the bulk of the waste to energy plants digesting food waste are also digesting green waste, although the quantities will vary, and most processes include a small amount (in the order of 10%) in order to moderate and temper the enzymatic activity in the digestor.. Most of the AD plants are in Europe and high disposal fees of up to NZD 500/tonne means such plants can be very capital intensive and still be financially viable.

Page 174 of 470

In New Zealand Australia (and in most places outside the EU) the gate fees at land fills make it difficult to justify large capital costs for a digestion plant. Food wastes are more problematic to deal with than the green waste in terms of odour and vermin and so it is better to build a smaller plant that just focuses on the food waste. This maximises the throughput of food waste and the output of energy and fertiliser nutrients per dollar spent.

Page 175 of 470

Anaerobic Digestion - Large Scale Facility Examples Technology Envital technology additional dry digestion plant 1-step wet system* additional pulper, fermenter Pinerolo, Toroino Province Location Weissenfels Capacity (T/a) 12,000 tpa (1999) plus 2,700 tpa (2004) 28,000 tpa (1995) Wastestreams biowaste - food + green biowaste - food + green biowaste + hospitality 12M (excl. land and 60-75/T^ development)^ energy sold at 0.10/kWh + cost incurred of 1-2/T for contractor to collect dewatered digestate, sell and spread^ Capital Cost 7.5M^ 2.7M^ Treatment Costs 77/T (after profit)^ reduced to 65/T (after profit)^ Products 2.3M kWh electricity x 0.11/kWh + compost, 95% of which is given away and 5% sold at 5-15/T^

Boden, Germany

increased to 57,000 biowaste tpa (2000) 90% food waste digested, greenwaste added to product for composting (50/50 blend)

semi dry AD + composting

55,000 tpa

10-12,000T/a of digestate reduced to around 5,000T of compost. Immature product sold at 5-8/T (80%), mature compost at 20/T (20%)^

Kompogas dry AD

Rumlang, Switzerland

9,000 tpa

50% domestic biowaste - food 7M Swiss Francs, + green - + 50% hospitality Around 140 Swiss Francs^ - 93/T incl. land^ - 4.6M (approx. 70% food overall)

100m /T of biogas, plus 350k/T of solid residue, plus 450L/T of liquid fertiliser - products are cost neutral once spread (no net revenue). Biogas used to power Migros trucks^ 10M kWh/yr produced + similar amount of heat energy - The plant's own power consumption amounts to approx. 8 % of the output. measured gas output was between 120 and 125 mN/tonInput. Each fermenter can produce up to 320 mN/h of biogas. The entire daily production of biogas hovers between 12,000 and 16,000 mN/d. According to the manufacturer, the generated biogas contains 55 % methane. Actual methane measurements, depending on the quality of the feedstock, range from 58 to 64 %. Compensation paid under the Renewable Energy Sources Act amounts to around 1M/yr.# Biogas - converted to electricity and heat for onsite use (NZ$350k/yr avoided cost), any additional gas sent to flare. Solid & by-product - dried for use as higher value fertiliser (size of market and product revenue unknown). (Source: Personal communication, C. Hearn, WSL) Around 5,000MWh/yr of electricity produced from the biogas 2MWh used on site and the rest sold to the local grid. Compost 60,000T/yr, most of which is bagged for residential market, with some lower quality product used for quarry/other land restoration projects.+

Kompogas dry AD + composting (existing plant)*

Passau Facility, Bavaria, Germany

40-50,000 tpa

mostly food, some green + other organics

10.6M#

920,000/yr, so around 20/T **Unclear if stated costs per year take compensation into account. If so, total costs would be in order of 1.1+0.9 = 2M/yr, or 44/T#

Earthpower system custom design by WSL, includes BTA BTA*

Sydney

51,000 tpa (design capacity)

solid and liquid organic wastes (commercial)

Treatment costs unknown, however, difficulties in securing 'clean' food waste (e.g. due to competition with animal feed producers) is comprising economic viability. (Source: Personal communication, M. Spedding, Veolia)

Newmarket Canada

150,000 tpa

Biowaste/commercial waste and organic sludge

Page 176 of 470

Technology BTA* Hasse Anlagenbrau* Hasse Anlagenbrau* Hese Umwelt* Hese Umwelt* Linde KCA

Location Ypres, Belgium Groeden Germany Schwanebeck Germany Brensbach Germany Zuplich Germany Western Isles (Isle of Lewis) England Lille, France Lisbon, Portugal Rome, Italy Brecht, Belgium Tilberg, The Netherlands

Capacity (T/a) 50,000 tpa 110,000 tpa 49,000 tpa 70,000 tpa 50,000 tpa 20,000 tpa

Wastestreams Biowaste Biowaste & manure Biowaste & manure Manure, food waste Catering and food waste Source segregated biowaste

Capital Cost 20M

Treatment Costs

Products

Linde KCA Linde KCA*

62,000 tpa 40,000 tpa

Biowaste, organic food waste, market waste Biowaste, organic food waste, market waste, industrial waste Biowaste Biowaste, waste paper Source separated biowaste (vegetable garden, fruit) 20M US$17.5M Operating costs, incl. cost of capital, est. at Gas yield 80-85 Nm3 per input ton, biogas treated (refined to US$2.52M/yr, or US$48/T.+ natural gas quality) & injected into the Tilberg City distribution network. Revenues: US$90/T gate fee average annual revenue of US$3.6M/yr. Gas revenues est. at US$80k/yr. Therefore, overall profit of around US$1.1-1.2M (mainly driven by gate fees).+ Gas yield 90Nm per input ton, converted to heat & electricity. Compost to landfill.+
3

OWS (Dranco process) OWS (Dranco process) Valgora

40,000 tpa 50,000 tpa 52,000 tpa

Valgora

Hannover, Germany WEDA (Weltec Biopower Bedford technology) England *denotes Wet AD process

100,000 tpa 42,000 tpa

Source separated biowaste Food waste, pig slurry

^ Information source: Eunomia, 2007. "Dealing with Food Waste in the UK", Report for: Richard Swannell, WRAP, Bristol, United Kingdom, March 2007. # Information source: SiUS (date unknown). "Integration of an Anaerobic Digestion Plant into the Passau Biogenous Waste Composting Facility". Weblink: http://www.climatechangecentral.com/files/attachments/PassauCaseConferenceVersion.pdf + Information source: Masters Thesis by S. Verma, 2002 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF BIODEGRADABLE ORGANICS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES Department of Earth & Environmental Engineering, Fu Foundation School of Engineering & Applied Science, Columbia University, May 2002

Page 177 of 470

APPENDIX F
Cost Modelling Further Details: Results and Assumptions

Page 178 of 470

COMPOSTING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - 2 PROCESSING FACILITIES, TUNNEL Tonnes/year/facility of commingled food and green waste Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year A. Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design (cost per site) Resource Consents Design & Supervision 2. Site Development (cost per site) Receival building, earthworks site roads, concrete paving, ashphalt, hardstand, stormwater treatment, covered compost storage area Conveyors (from drop-off to shredder & decontamination area + decontamination conveyor itself) 1,2. Subtotal - site planning, design & development - per site Contingency on site development & physical works (@20%) 3. Processing Technology Processing technology, incl. biofilter etc. TOTAL - site planning, design, development & technology (incl. contingency) 4. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge Shredder Loader/s (20T) - @$300k per loader Windrow turning equipment Screen 3. Subtotal - Ancillary Plant - per site Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR BOTH SITES (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) B. Site Costs - Operating Costs - In-vessel system (e.g. container, tunnel, aerated bay) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - including amortisation of capital (e.g. for JV facility) but excl. operator profit, revenue on product or any additional greenwaste gate fee Cost per tonne x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) Cost per tonne of incoming waste 60,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 120,000 tonnes 80,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 160,000 tonnes 100,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 200,000 tonnes

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 762,151 1,983,109 98,400 3,343,660 668,732 6,662,400 10,674,792 100,000 700,000 900,000 300,000 450,000 2,450,000 490,000 27,229,583

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 952,689 2,478,886 108,000 4,039,575 807,915 8,328,000 13,175,489 100,000 700,000 900,000 300,000 450,000 2,450,000 490,000 32,230,979

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 1,130,178 2,847,381 120,000 4,597,559 919,512 10,001,280 15,518,351 100,000 800,000 900,000 300,000 450,000 2,550,000 510,000 37,156,701

$ $

86 /T 10.3

$ $

72 /T 11.6

$ $

69 /T 13.9

- excluding amortisation of capital (e.g. for Council-funded Capex & operator under contract), operator profit, revenue on product or any additional greenwaste gate fee $ Cost per tonne x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) $

65 /T 7.8

$ $

53 /T 8.5

$ $

51 /T 10.3

Page 179 of 470

COMPOSTING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - 2 PROCESSING FACILITIES, CONTAINER TECHNOLOGY Tonnes/year/facility of commingled food and green waste Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year A. Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design (cost per site) Resource Consents Design & Supervision 2. Site Development (cost per site) Receival building, earthworks site roads, concrete paving, ashphalt, hardstand, stormwater treatment, covered compost storage area Conveyors (from drop-off to shredder / decontamination area / processing system etc.) 1,2. Subtotal - site planning, design & development - per site Contingency on site development & physical works (@20%) 3. Processing Technology Processing technology, incl. biofilter etc. TOTAL - site planning, design, development & technology (incl. contingency) 4. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge Shredder Loader/s (20T) - @$300k per loader Windrow turning equipment Screen 3. Subtotal - Ancillary Plant - per site Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR BOTH SITES (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) B. Site Costs - Operating Costs - In-vessel system (e.g. container, tunnel, aerated bay) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - amortised capex + opex Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - opex only Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) 60,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 120,000 tonnes 80,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 160,000 tonnes 100,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 200,000 tonnes

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 723,751 1,983,109 158,400 3,365,260 673,052 6,144,000 10,182,312 100,000 700,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 2,150,000 430,000 25,524,623 80 /T 9.5 60 /T 7.2

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 904,689 2,478,886 168,000 4,051,575 810,315 7,680,000 12,541,889 100,000 700,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 2,150,000 430,000 30,243,779 68 /T 10.8 50 /T 8.0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 1,034,566 2,865,664 180,000 4,580,231 916,046 8,760,000 14,256,277 100,000 800,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 2,250,000 450,000 33,912,554 65 /T 13.0 49 /T 9.8

Page 180 of 470

COMPOSTING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - 1 PROCESSING FACILITY + 2 ORGANICS TRANSFER STATIONS, CONTAINER TECHNOLOGY, 240L COLLECTION BIN Tonnes/year of commingled food and green waste Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year A. Main Processing Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design Resource Consents Design & Supervision 2. Site Development Earthworks, site roads, concrete paving, asphalt, hardstand, stormwater treatment, covered compost storage area Building - for food waste receival, decontamination, shredding, mixing and loading into processing system - assume 40% reduction in size due to use of 2 transfer facilities Conveyors (from drop-off to shredder / decontamination area / processing system etc.) 1,2. Subtotal - site planning, design & development Contingency on site development & physical works (@20%) 3. Processing Technology Processing technology, incl. biofilter etc. TOTAL - site planning, design, development & technology (incl. contingency) 4. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge Shredder Loader/s (20T) - @$300k per loader Windrow turning equipment Screen 4. Subtotal - Main Processing Site - Ancillary Plant Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) 80,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 80,000 tonnes 120,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 120,000 tonnes 160,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 160,000 tonnes 200,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 200,000 tonnes

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 904,689 1,267,615 726,763 144,000 3,543,066 708,613 7,680,000 11,931,679 100,000 550,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 2,000,000 400,000 14,331,679

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 1,164,444 1,720,528 919,149 156,000 4,460,121 892,024 9,840,000 15,192,145 100,000 650,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 2,100,000 420,000 17,712,145

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 1,498,277 2,244,037 1,333,640 168,000 5,743,954 1,148,791 12,360,000 19,252,745 100,000 700,000 900,000 300,000 900,000 2,900,000 580,000 22,732,745

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 1,739,639 2,567,546 1,493,305 180,000 6,480,490 1,296,098 14,520,000 22,296,588 100,000 800,000 900,000 300,000 900,000 3,000,000 600,000 25,896,588

ORGANICS TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - receival, decontamination & shredding of commingled food and green wastes Tonnes/year/facility of commingled food and green waste (assumes 2 transfer facilities for North/West and East, with central and southern organics collection direct to facility) Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year, incl. 'clean' greenwaste composted in outdoor windrows = total diversion from landfill A. Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design Resource Consents $ Design & Supervision $ 2. Site Development - negligible, as assumes use of existing facilities + proportion of processing facility costs Conveyors (from drop-off to shredder / decontamination area / processing system etc.) 1,2. Subtotal - Organics Transfer Facility - planning, design & development Contingency on site development & physical works (@20%) 3. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge - assumes use existing Shredder Loader/s (20T) - @$300k per loader 3. Subtotal - Ancillary Plant Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR BOTH ORGANICS TRANSFER FACILITIES (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) COMBINED COSTS - TRANSFER & PROCESSING FACILITIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) B. Site Costs - Operating Costs - In-vessel system (e.g. container, tunnel, aerated bay) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - amortised capex + opex Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - opex only Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

20,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 20,000 tonnes

30,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 30,000 tonnes

40,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 40,000 tonnes

50,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 50,000 tonnes

10,000 132,000 142,000 28,400 400,000 300,000 700,000 140,000 2,020,800

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000 138,000 148,000 29,600 450,000 300,000 750,000 150,000 2,155,200

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000 144,000 154,000 30,800 550,000 300,000 850,000 170,000 2,409,600

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000 150,000 160,000 32,000 600,000 300,000 900,000 180,000 2,544,000

16,352,479 80 /T 6.4 59 /T 4.7

$ $ $ $ $

19,867,345 65 /T 7.8 48 /T 5.7

$ $ $ $ $

25,142,345 60 /T 9.6 43 /T 7.0

$ $ $ $ $

28,440,588 55 /T 10.9 39 /T 7.9

Page 181 of 470

COMPOSTING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - 1 PROCESSING FACILITY + 2 ORGANICS TRANSFER STATIONS, CONTAINER TECHNOLOGY, 80L COLLECTION BIN Tonnes/year of commingled food and green waste Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year A. Main Processing Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design Resource Consents Design & Supervision 2. Site Development Earthworks, site roads, concrete paving, asphalt, hardstand, stormwater treatment, covered compost storage area Building - for food waste receival, decontamination, shredding, mixing and loading into processing system - assume 40% reduction in size due to use of 2 transfer facilities Conveyors (from drop-off to shredder / decontamination area / processing system etc.) 1,2. Subtotal - Main processing site - planning, design & development Contingency on site development & physical works (@20%) 3. Processing Technology Processing technology, incl. biofilter etc. TOTAL - site planning, design, development & technology (incl. contingency) 3. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge Shredder - assumes limited shredding required for kerbside wastes Loader/s (20T) - @$300k per loader Windrow turning equipment Screen 3. Subtotal - Main Processing Site - Ancillary Plant Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) 80,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 80,000 tonnes 120,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 120,000 tonnes 160,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 160,000 tonnes 200,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 200,000 tonnes

$ $

500,000 904,689

$ $

500,000 1,164,444

$ $

500,000 1,498,277

$ $

500,000 1,739,639

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,267,615 726,763 144,000 3,543,066 708,613 7,680,000 11,931,679 100,000 500,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 1,950,000 390,000 14,271,679

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,720,528 919,149 156,000 4,460,121 892,024 9,840,000 15,192,145 100,000 550,000 600,000 300,000 450,000 2,000,000 400,000 17,592,145

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,244,037 1,333,640 168,000 5,743,954 1,148,791 12,360,000 19,252,745 100,000 600,000 900,000 300,000 900,000 2,800,000 560,000 22,612,745

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,567,546 1,493,305 180,000 6,480,490 1,296,098 14,520,000 22,296,588 100,000 700,000 900,000 300,000 900,000 2,900,000 580,000 25,776,588

ORGANICS TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - receival, decontamination & shredding of commingled food and green wastes Tonnes/year/facility of commingled food and green waste (assumes 2 transfer facilities for North/West and East, with central and southern organics collection direct to facility) Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year, incl. 'clean' greenwaste composted in outdoor windrows = total diversion from landfill A. Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design Resource Consents $ Design & Supervision $ 2. Site Development - negligible, as assumes use of existing facilities + proportion of processing facility costs Conveyors (from drop-off to shredder / decontamination area / processing system etc.) 1,2. Subtotal - Organics Transfer Facility - planning, design & development Contingency on site development & physical works (@20%) 3. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge - assumes use existing Trommel + Mixer Loader/s (20T) - @$300k per loader 3. Subtotal - Ancillary Plant Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR BOTH ORGANICS TRANSFER FACILITIES (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) COMBINED COSTS - TRANSFER & PROCESSING FACILITIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (excl. cost of capital, land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) B. Site Costs - Operating Costs - In-vessel system (e.g. container, tunnel, aerated bay) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - amortised capex + opex Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - opex only Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

20,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 20,000 tonnes

30,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 30,000 tonnes

40,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 40,000 tonnes

50,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 50,000 tonnes

10,000 126,000 136,000 27,200 75,000 300,000 375,000 75,000 1,226,400

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000 126,000 136,000 27,200 75,000 300,000 375,000 75,000 1,226,400

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000 132,000 142,000 28,400 100,000 300,000 400,000 80,000 1,300,800

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000 132,000 142,000 28,400 125,000 300,000 425,000 85,000 1,360,800

15,498,079 75 /T 6.0 55 /T 4.4

$ $ $ $ $

18,818,545 62 /T 7.4 45 /T 5.4

$ $ $ $ $

23,913,545 58 /T 9.3 42 /T 6.7

$ $ $ $ $

27,137,388 52 /T 10.5 37 /T 7.5

Page 182 of 470

AD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS - 2 PROCESSING FACILITIES Tonnes/year/facility of commingled food and green waste Additional Tonnes/year of greenwaste from private collections / drop-offs Total tonnes per year, incl. 'clean' greenwaste composted in outdoor windrows = total diversion from landfill A. Site Costs - Capital 1. Site Planning & Design (cost per site) Resource Consents Design, PM & Margins 2. Site Development (cost per site) Earthworks, site roads, concrete paving, ashphalt, hardstand, stormwater treatment, covered compost storage area 1,2. Subtotal - site planning, design & development - per site Contingency on site planning, design & development (@20%) 3. Processing Technology (cost per site) Processing technology, incl. all pre and post treatment equipment, conveyors, digestor/s, biofilter, buildings etc. Subtotal - site development & physical works, incl. technology 4. Ancillary Plant Weighbridge "Manatou" Forklift/loader Additional loader/s 4. Subtotal - Ancillary Plant - per site Contingency on ancillary plant (@20%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR BOTH SITES (excl. cost of land, contractor's margin, any int. council costs) B. Site Costs - Operating Costs Cost per tonne of incoming waste - amortised capex + opex Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) Cost per tonne of incoming waste - opex only Annual cost - $/T x No. of tonnes ($1000,000s) 22,500 tonnes 0 tonnes 45,000 tonnes 30,000 tonnes 0 tonnes 60,000 tonnes 37,500 tonnes 0 tonnes 75,000 tonnes

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 3,689,544 1,160,000 5,349,544 1,069,909 12,783,444 19,202,896 100,000 250,000 300,000 650,000 130,000 39,965,792 156 /T 7.0 73 /T 3.3

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 4,611,930 1,450,000 6,561,930 1,312,386 15,979,304 23,853,620 100,000 250,000 300,000 650,000 130,000 49,267,240 141 /T 8.4 63 /T 3.8

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500,000 4,908,695 1,500,000 6,908,695 1,381,739 17,519,560 25,809,994 100,000 250,000 300,000 650,000 130,000 53,179,988 125 /T 9.3 58 /T 4.3

Page 183 of 470

Cost Model - Key Assumptions - Tunnel Composting TUNNEL COMPOSTING FACILITY Plant Composting Technology Biofilter Weighbridge 60,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 6,240,000 1 $ 422,400 1 $ 100,000 80,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 7,800,000 1 $ 528,000 1 $ 100,000 100,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 9,360,000 1 $ 641,280 1 $ 100,000 120,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 10,920,000 1 $ 754,560 1 $ 100,000 160,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 14,460,000 1 $ 1,006,080 1 $ 100,000 200,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 17,100,000 1 $ 1,257,600 1 $ 100,000

Comment

Greenwaste Shredder Food waste Macerator Blender / Mixer Front End Loader/s (20T) Windrow Turning Equipment Product Screen 0.6m wide belt conveyor - directing material to shredder & decontamination area

1 3 1 1 10

$ $ $ $ $

700,000

1 3 1 1 10

$ $ $ $ $

700,000

1 3 1 1 10 5x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 9 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $

700,000

1 3 1 1 10 6x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 10 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $

800,000

1 4 1 1 10 8x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 13 6.25 1.5 0.75 1 1

1,000,000 -

1 4 1 1 10 10 x 2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 16 6.25 1.5 0.75 1 1

300,000 300,000 450,000 6,000

300,000 300,000 450,000 6,000

300,000 300,000 450,000 6,000 6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

300,000 300,000 450,000 6,000 6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

$ $ $ $ $

300,000 300,000 450,000 6,000 6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

For larger facilities, assume shredder 1,000,000 can work double shift if required Assumes foodwaste shredded with greenwaste Assumes mixed with loader and/or via shredding 300,000 300,000 Scarab turner or additional loader etc. 450,000 6,000 Quantity is in metres As above, assumes 1 row of workers 6,000 per conveyor $/hr** Comment 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

0.6m wide belt conveyor for decontamination line (2 conveyors installed in parallel) 3.2 x 2 $ 6,000 4x2 $ 6,000 Labour FTE allocation* $/hr** FTE allocation* $/hr** Site manager 1.25 $ 45 1.25 $ 45 Leading hand 1.25 $ 30 1.25 $ 30 Admin/accounts staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 Admin/compliance staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 Educational staff 0.5 $ 35 0.5 $ 35 Weighbridge operator 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Decontamination staff 7 $ 20 6 $ 20 Operators 5 $ 20 5 $ 20 Front end inspection person 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Tradesman 0.75 $ 30 0.75 $ 30 Marketing manager 1 $ 45 1 $ 45 Marketing support 1 $ 30 1 $ 30 * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs Water - monthly cost Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge - Processing and Ancillary equipment - Building Leachate disposal- annual charge 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 800 250,000 40,000 800 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 900 300,000 50,000 1,000

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

1,250 375,000 55,000 1,500

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

1,500 450,000 60,000 2,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

2,000 550,000 70,000 3,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

Mainly water addition to windrows + 2,500 washdown 675,000 80,000 4,000

Page 184 of 470

Cost Model - Key Assumptions, Container Composting CONTAINER COMPOSTING FACILITY Plant Composting Technology Biofilter Weighbridge Greenwaste Shredder Food waste Macerator Blender / Mixer Front End Loader/s (20T) Windrow Turning Equipment Product Screen 0.6m wide belt conveyor - directing material to shredder & decontamination area 60,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 6,144,000 1 1 2 1 1 100,000 700,000 300,000 300,000 450,000 80,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 7,680,000 1 1 2 1 1 100,000 700,000 300,000 300,000 450,000 100,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 8,760,000 1 1 2 1 1 100,000 700,000 300,000 300,000 450,000 120,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 9,840,000 1 1 2 1 1 100,000 800,000 300,000 300,000 450,000 160,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 12,360,000 1 1 3 1 1 100,000 1,000,000 300,000 300,000 450,000 200,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 14,520,000 1 1 3 1 1 100,000

Comment Biofilter included in technology cost (additional container/s used)

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

For larger facilities, assume shredder can 1,000,000 work double shift if required Assumes foodwaste shredded with greenwaste Assumes mixed with loader and/or via shredding 300,000 300,000 Scarab turner or additional loader etc. 450,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000 Quantity is in metres As above, assumes 1 row of workers per 6,000 conveyor $/hr** Comment 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

0.6m wide belt conveyor for decontamination line (2 conveyors installed in parallel) 3.2 x 2 $ 6,000 4x2 $ 6,000 5x2 Labour FTE allocation* $/hr** FTE allocation* $/hr** FTE allocation* Site manager 1.25 $ 45 1.25 $ 45 1.25 Leading hand 1.25 $ 30 1.25 $ 30 1.25 Admin/accounts staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 1 Admin/compliance staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 1 Educational staff 0.5 $ 35 0.5 $ 35 0.5 Weighbridge operator 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 1.5 Decontamination staff 6 $ 20 7 $ 20 9 Operators 3.75 $ 20 3.75 $ 20 3.75 Front end inspection person 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 1.5 Tradesman 0.75 $ 30 0.75 $ 30 0.75 Marketing manager 1 $ 45 1 $ 45 1 Marketing support 1 $ 30 1 $ 30 1 * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs Water - monthly cost Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge - Processing and Ancillary equipment - Building Leachate disposal- annual charge 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 800 200,000 40,000 800 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 900 250,000 50,000 1,000

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

6x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 10 3.75 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

8x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 13 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

10 x 2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 16 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

1,250 325,000 55,000 1,500

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

1,500 400,000 60,000 2,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

2,000 500,000 70,000 3,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

Mainly water addition to windrows + 2,500 washdown 625,000 80,000 4,000

Page 185 of 470

Cost Model - Key Assumptions, Container Composting with Transfer Facilities, 240L collection bins CONTAINER COMPOSTING FACILITY, front-end processes for 50% of tonnage only+25% each at 2xRTS 80,000 Tpa 120,000 Tpa Plant Quantity Unit Price Quantity Unit Price Composting Technology 1 $ 9,840,000 1 $ 7,680,000 Biofilter Weighbridge Greenwaste Shredder Food waste Macerator Blender / Mixer Front End Loader/s (20T) Windrow Turning Equipment Product Screen 0.6m wide belt conveyor - directing material to shredder & decontamination area 1 1 2 1 1 100,000 550,000 300,000 300,000 450,000 1 1 2 1 1 100,000 650,000 300,000 300,000 450,000

160,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 12,360,000 1 1 3 1 1 100,000 700,000 300,000 300,000 450,000

200,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 14,520,000 1 1 3 1 1

Comment

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

Biofilter included in technology cost (additional container/s used) 100,000 For larger facilities, assume shredder can 800,000 work double shift if required Assumes foodwaste shredded with greenwaste Assumes mixed with loader and/or via shredding 300,000 300,000 Scarab turner or additional loader etc. 450,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000 Quantity is in metres As above, assumes 1 row of workers per 6,000 conveyor $/hr** Comment 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

0.6m wide belt conveyor for decontamination line (2 conveyors installed in parallel) 2x2 $ 6,000 3x2 $ 6,000 Labour FTE allocation* $/hr** FTE allocation* $/hr** Site manager 1.25 $ 45 1.25 $ 45 Leading hand 1.25 $ 30 1.25 $ 30 Admin/accounts staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 Admin/compliance staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 Educational staff 0.5 $ 35 0.5 $ 35 Weighbridge operator 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Decontamination staff 4 $ 20 5 $ 20 Operators 3.75 $ 20 3.75 $ 20 Front end inspection person 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Tradesman 0.75 $ 30 0.75 $ 30 Marketing manager 1 $ 45 1 $ 45 Marketing support 1 $ 30 1 $ 30 * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs Water - monthly cost Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge - Processing and Ancillary equipment - Building Leachate disposal- annual charge 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 900 200,000 40,000 1,000 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1,500 350,000 50,000 2,000

4x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 7 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

6,000 $/hr** 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

5x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 8 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

2,000 450,000 60,000 3,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

Mainly water addition to windrows + 2,500 washdown 575,000 70,000 4,000

Page 186 of 470

ORGANIC WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY, front-end processes for 25% of tonnage (allocations for each of 2 RTSs) 20,000 Tpa 30,000 Tpa Plant Quantity Unit Price Quantity Unit Price Weighbridge Greenwaste Shredder Food waste Macerator Blender / Mixer Front End Loader/s (20T) 0.6m wide belt conveyor - directing material to shredder & decontamination area 1 1 $ 400,000 300,000 1 1 $ 450,000 300,000

40,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 1 $ 550,000 300,000

50,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 1 $

Comment Assumes use of existing plant For larger facilities, assume shredder can 600,000 work double shift if required Assumes foodwaste shredded with greenwaste Assumes mixed with loader and/or via shredding 300,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000 Quantity is in metres As above, assumes 1 row of workers per conveyor Comment Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff

0.6m wide belt conveyor for decontamination line (2 conveyors installed in parallel) 1x2 $ Labour FTE allocation* Site manager Leading hand 1.25 $ Admin/accounts staff Admin/compliance staff Educational staff Weighbridge operator Decontamination staff 3 $

6,000 $/hr** 30 20

1.5 x 2 $ FTE allocation* 1.25 $ 3 $

6,000 $/hr** 30 20

2x2 $ FTE allocation* 1.25 $ 4 $ 1.25 1.5 $ $

6,000 $/hr** 30 20 20 20 -

2.5 x 2 $ FTE allocation* 1.25 $ 4 $ 1.25 1.5 $ $

6,000 $/hr** 30 20

Operators 1.25 $ 20 1.25 $ 20 Front end inspection person 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Tradesman * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs Water - monthly cost 12 $ 12 $ 80 100 Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge - Processing and Ancillary equipment - Building Leachate disposal- annual charge 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 50,000 5,000 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 50,000 6,000 -

20 Assumes use of existing RTS staff if required 20 Assumes use of existing RTS staff

12 $

120

12 $

150

1 $ 1 $ 1 $

50,000 8,000 -

1 $ 1 $ 1 $

50,000 10,000 -

Page 187 of 470

Cost Model - Key Assumptions, Container Composting with Transfer Facilities, 80L collection bins CONTAINER COMPOSTING FACILITY, front-end processes for 50% of tonnage only+25% each at 2xRTS 80,000 Tpa 120,000 Tpa Plant Quantity Unit Price Quantity Unit Price Composting Technology 1 $ 9,840,000 1 $ 7,680,000 Biofilter Weighbridge 1 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000

160,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 12,360,000 1 $ 100,000

200,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 14,520,000 1 $ 100,000

Comment Biofilter included in technology cost (additional container/s used)

Greenwaste Shredder Food waste Macerator Blender / Mixer Front End Loader/s (20T) Windrow Turning Equipment Product Screen 0.6m wide belt conveyor - directing material to shredder & decontamination area

1 2 1 1

$ $ $ $

500,000

1 2 1 1

$ $ $ $

550,000

1 3 1 1

$ $ $ $

600,000

1 3 1 1

300,000 300,000 450,000

300,000 300,000 450,000

300,000 300,000 450,000

$ $ $

Assumes small bin size limits bulky greenwaste. For larger facilities, assume 700,000 shredder can work double shift if required Assumes foodwaste shredded with greenwaste Assumes mixed with loader and/or via shredding 300,000 300,000 Scarab turner or additional loader etc. 450,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000 Quantity is in metres As above, assumes 1 row of workers per 6,000 conveyor $/hr** Comment 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

0.6m wide belt conveyor for decontamination line (2 conveyors installed in parallel) 2x2 $ 6,000 3x2 $ 6,000 FTE allocation* $/hr** FTE allocation* $/hr** Labour Site manager 1.25 $ 45 1.25 $ 45 Leading hand 1.25 $ 30 1.25 $ 30 Admin/accounts staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 Admin/compliance staff 1 $ 35 1 $ 35 Educational staff 0.5 $ 35 0.5 $ 35 Weighbridge operator 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Decontamination staff 4 $ 20 5 $ 20 Operators 3.75 $ 20 3.75 $ 20 Front end inspection person 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Tradesman 0.75 $ 30 0.75 $ 30 Marketing manager 1 $ 45 1 $ 45 Marketing support 1 $ 30 1 $ 30 * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs Water - monthly cost Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge - Processing and Ancillary equipment - Building Leachate disposal- annual charge 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 900 200,000 40,000 1,000 12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1,500 350,000 50,000 2,000

4x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 7 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $/hr** $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

6,000 45 30 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 30 45 30

5x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 1.25 1 1 0.5 1.5 8 5 1.5 0.75 1 1

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

2,000 450,000 60,000 3,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

Mainly water addition to windrows + 2,500 washdown 575,000 70,000 4,000

Page 188 of 470

ORGANIC WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY, front-end processes for 25% of tonnage (allocations for each of 2 RTSs) 20,000 Tpa 30,000 Tpa Plant Quantity Unit Price Quantity Unit Price Weighbridge Greenwaste Shredder 1 $ 400,000 1 $ 450,000

40,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $ 550,000

50,000 Tpa Quantity Unit Price 1 $

Trommel Screen + Blender / Mixer Front End Loader/s (20T) 0.6m wide belt conveyor - directing material to shredder & decontamination area 0.6m wide belt conveyor for decontamination line (2 conveyors installed in parallel) Labour Site manager Leading hand Admin/accounts staff Admin/compliance staff Educational staff Weighbridge operator Decontamination staff

$ 300,000

$ 300,000

$ 300,000

Comment Assumes use of existing plant Assume not required due to small bin 600,000 limiting large greenwaste In absence of shredder, Trommel removes larger material (for transport to main facility for shredding) & mixer evenly blends food and green 300,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000

20

6,000 Quantity is in metres As above, assumes 1 row of workers per 6,000 conveyor $/hr** Comment Assumes use of existing RTS staff 30 Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff Assumes use of existing RTS staff 20 Assumes use of existing RTS staff if 20 required 20 Assumes use of existing RTS staff -

1x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 3

$ $/hr** $ $

6,000

30

20

1.5 x 2 FTE allocation* 1.25 3

$ $/hr** $ $

6,000

30

20

2x2 FTE allocation* 1.25 4 1.25 1.5 -

$ $/hr** $ $ $ $ -

6,000

30

20 20 20

2.5 x 2 FTE allocation* 1.25 4 1.25 1.5 -

$ $ $

Operators 1.25 $ 20 1.25 $ 20 Front end inspection person 1.5 $ 20 1.5 $ 20 Tradesman * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs 12 $ Water - monthly cost 12 $ 80 100 Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge 1 $ 1 $ - Processing and Ancillary equipment 20,000 20,000 1 $ 1 $ 6,000 - Building 5,000 1 $ 1 $ Leachate disposal- annual charge

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

120 20,000 8,000 -

12 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $

150 20,000 10,000 -

Page 189 of 470

Cost Model - Key Assumptions, Anaerobic Digestion facility ('wet' processing) WET ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY Plant AD Technology Biofilter Weighbridge Greenwaste Shredder Food waste Macerator Blender / Mixer "Manatou" forklift/loader/access Front End Loader/s (20T) Windrow Turning Equipment Product Screen Conveyors 22,500 Tpa Unit Price $ 12,783,444 $ 100,000 $ $ 250,000 300,000 30,000 Tpa Unit Price $ 15,979,304 $ 100,000 $ $ 250,000 300,000 37,500 Tpa Unit Price $ 17,519,560 $ 100,000 $ $ 250,000 300,000 45,000 Tpa Unit Price $ 19,059,816 $ 100,000 $ $ 250,000 300,000 60,000 Tpa Unit Price $ 21,808,061 $ 100,000 $ $ 250,000 300,000 75,000 Tpa Comment Unit Price $ 25,844,201 Included in technology cost $ 100,000 Not required as assumed food waste collected independent of greenwaste All pre-treatment of wastes included in technology cost $ 250,000 $ 300,000 Costings assume solid digestate dried for fertiliser rather than composted, therefore not required Included in technology cost Manual sorting line not required, instead mechanical pretreatment (equipment incl. in technology cost) Comment 20 20 30 20 35 45

Quantity 1 1 1 1 -

Quantity 1 1 1 1 -

Quantity 1 1 1 1 -

Quantity 1 1 1 1 -

Quantity 1 1 1 1 -

Quantity 1 1 1 1 -

Decontamination conveyors Labour FTE allocation* $/hr** FTE allocation* $/hr** Operators 2.5 $ 2.5 $ 20 Tradesmen 1.2 $ 1.2 $ 20 Other staff 0.5 $ 30 0.5 $ Weighbridge operator 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 20 Admin/compliance/educational staff 2.5 $ 35 2.5 $ Marketing staff 1.5 $ 45 1.5 $ * One FTE is 40hrs/wk but, for some roles, staff are likely to work longer e.g. 6d/wk and/or more than 8hrs/d ** Hourly rate allows for staff pay + additional costs to site owner/operator, e.g. ACC, annual, sick & statutory leave costs etc. Other Operating Costs

20 20 30 20 35 45

FTE allocation* 2.5 1.2 0.5 1.5 2.5 1.5

$/hr** $ $ $ $ $ $ 20 20 30 20 35 45

FTE allocation* 2.5 1.2 0.5 1.5 2.5 1.5

$/hr** $ $ $ $ $ $ 20 20 30 20 35 45

FTE allocation* 2.5 1.2 1 1.5 2.5 1.5

$/hr** $ $ $ $ $ $ 20 20 30 20 35 45

FTE allocation* 3.75 1.2 1 1.5 2.5 1.5

$/hr** $ $ $ $ $ $

Water - monthly cost Energy/fuel Cost - annual charge, over & above energy utilised from AD process Leachate disposal- annual charge

12 $ 1 $ 1 $

40 32,000 6,400

12 $ 1 $ 1 $

50 40,000 8,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $

55 50,000 10,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $

60 60,000 12,000

12 $ 1 $ 1 $

70 80,000 16,000

12 $ $ 1 $

Negligible water use as closed loop process, 80 recycles water through process 100,000 20,000

Page 190 of 470

INVESTIGATION INTO PREFERRED OPTIONS FOR FOODWASTE / ORGANICS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING STAGE 2

Page 191 of 470

Auckland Region Organic Waste Working Group:

Final Report - CONFIDENTIAL Investigation into Preferred Options for Food Waste / Organics Collection and Processing Stage 2

January 2011

achieving

results
in the public sector
AUCKLAND SYDNEY BRISBANE PERTH

Page 192 of 470

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................10 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. 3. Project background .......................................................................................10 Project aim and objectives ............................................................................11 Project principles ...........................................................................................12

REVIEW OF STAGE 1 FINDINGS .............................................................................14 UPDATED INFORMATION ........................................................................................17 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Auckland waste data .....................................................................................17 Organic waste collections .............................................................................18 Organic waste processing .............................................................................23 Dry Anaerobic Digestion (dry AD) .................................................................25

4.

PRIVATE GREENWASTE COLLECTIONS ...............................................................26 4.1 4.2 Tonnage collected .........................................................................................26 Costs of private collection .............................................................................27

5.

MANAGEMENT OF SANITARY WASTES ................................................................28 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Sanitary waste overview ...............................................................................28 Implications for processing ............................................................................29 Fortnightly collection .....................................................................................29 Conclusions ...................................................................................................30

6.

STAGE 2 COST ASSESSMENT ................................................................................31 6.1 6.2 6.3 Organic waste collection ...............................................................................31 Transport .......................................................................................................36 Processing ....................................................................................................38

7.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ....................................................40 7.1 7.2 7.3 Product revenue ............................................................................................40 Avoided disposal costs ..................................................................................46 Reduced greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................48

8. 9.

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .............................................................49 OTHER TOOLS FOR WASTE DIVERSION ...............................................................53

10. RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................53 11. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................59

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 193 of 470

11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

Toolbox of options .........................................................................................59 Processing options and costs .......................................................................59 Economic and environmental benefits ..........................................................60 Collection methods ........................................................................................61 Final Conclusions ..........................................................................................65 Sanitary Waste Research ..........................................................................68 Operating Anaerobic Digestion Facilities ..................................................70

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 4-1 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 6-3 Table 6-4 Table 7-1 Table 7-2 Table 7-3 Table 8-1 Table 10-1 Table 11-1 Benefits and limitations for collection options .................................................... 5 Summary of Auckland food and greenwaste data ........................................... 17 Food and garden waste collected from kerbside in Christchurch .................... 19 2007/08 private greenwaste - Northern Alliance waste licensing data ............ 26 Scenarios for kerbside organic waste collection service ................................. 31 Estimated costs for organic waste collection ................................................... 34 Estimated organic waste transfer costs ........................................................... 37 Estimated processing costs ............................................................................. 39 Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies (2006)............... 43 Estimated revenue from product sales ............................................................ 45 Estimated avoided disposal costs .................................................................... 47 Summary collection, transport, processing, revenue and avoided costs ...... 51 Risk assessment .......................................................................................... 54 Benefits and limitations for collection options .............................................. 64

Morrison Low & Associates PO Box 9126 Newmarket Auckland 1149 Tel: 09 523 0122 Fax: 09 523 0133 www.morrisonlow.com

Document Status
Approving Director: Author: Ewen Skinner Andrew Walters/Joanne McGregor/Ewen Skinner Date: 24 January 2011 05 October 2010 Final

Morrison Low Except for all client data and factual information contained herein, this document is the copyright of Morrison Low & Associates Ltd. All or any part of it may only be used, copied or reproduced for the purpose for which it was originally intended, except where the prior permission to do otherwise has been sought from and granted by Morrison Low & Associates Ltd. Prospective users are invited to make enquiries of Morrison Low & Associates Ltd concerning using all or part of this copyright document for purposes other than that for which it was intended.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

ii

Page 194 of 470

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study benefited from the input of a number of other consultants, local authorities, and the waste industry. The following individuals are acknowledged and thanked for their input.

Contributing Authors / Subconsultants Joanne McGregor, Transvalue Consultants Duncan Wilson, Eunomia Research & Consulting

Auckland Organic Waste Working Group: Jon Roscoe, Waitakere City Council Parul Sood, Waitakere City Council Stuart Gane, Manukau City Council (Project Manager) Patricia Facenfield, Manukau City Council Warwick Jaine, North Shore City Council Lindsey du Preez, Auckland City Council Sue Martin, Papakura District Council Marcus Braithwaite, Rodney District Council Sandi Murray, Auckland Regional Council Auckland Council Solid Waste Business Unit council officers

Other Territorial Authorities for sharing their experiences in establishing municipal organic waste collection and processing: Tim Joyce and Tammara McKernan, Christchurch City Council Ruth Clarke and Briony Woodnorth, Timaru District Council

Waste Industry George Fietje, Living Earth Ltd Graham Jones and Carl King, Envirowaste Services Ltd

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 195 of 470

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background


This report sets out the findings from the second stage of an Auckland regional investigation into options for diverting organic waste from landfill disposal. The first stage involved a high level review of potential food waste tonnage available for beneficial reuse, generic kerbside collection options, technology options available for centralised processing, markets for end products and implications of the current and proposed legislation. Also considered was the full range of options currently available to manage organic waste. This second stage takes a total system approach, from kerbside through to market, to select the optimum organic waste collection and processing scenario for the Auckland region. This considers not only the combined cost of collection and processing, but also potential revenue streams and risks associated with an organic waste collection and processing scheme. Taking into account the proportion of greenwaste currently being disposed of to landfill, this second stage study considers both waste streams (greenwaste and food waste) rather than food waste only. The need for a high level assessment of collection and processing opportunities for nappies and other sanitary wastes is also recognised, based on the relatively high proportion of those wastes within the residential refuse stream. As with previous investigations, regional solutions for Auckland are a priority. Furthermore, the formation of the single Auckland Council makes the regional approach a necessity, with the reduction of organic wastes to landfill expected to be a key component of the future Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The overall aim of this project (both stages 1 and 2) is to provide sufficient information for the Auckland Council to make an informed decision on the future management and minimisation of organic waste across the region, such that council obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act, 2008 WMA), can be met. There is a range of existing options available to manage Aucklands organic wastes, including home composting, worm composting, bokashi and in sink food waste disposal systems. However, these options are a question of personal preference and the amount of food waste still being disposed of to landfill indicates that they are not being used by a significant portion of the community. The use of domestic food waste as stock feed has some potential for growth in Auckland. However, this is best suited to commercial rather than domestic food wastes. It is expected that these existing diversion methods will continue to play a role in the spectrum of organic waste reuse and recycling options. Based on the quantities of organic materials continuing to be disposed of to landfill, it is considered that a combined kerbside organics collection service and centralised processing is still required in order for the Auckland Council to meet its obligations under the WMA, and meet targets present in waste plans of the former councils of the Auckland region, which became the targets in the WMMP of the Auckland Council as a result of s84 of Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 196 of 470

Collection and processing options that have been considered under Stage 2 are:

Collection: mixed food and greenwaste; Processing: container or tunnel composting Collection: food only; Processing: anaerobic digestion (modelled as a wet AD system dry AD was eliminated by the Stage 1 study as a result of significantly higher costs) Collection: food only; Processing: anaerobic digestion container or tunnel composting

It is noted that the combination of food waste only collection with composting assumes that sufficient greenwaste would be available to the compost operator to allow processing of the food waste portion1.

Assumptions
It is assumed that organic waste collected from kerbside will be transported to a single processing facility via two transfer stations, one organics transfer point potentially located in west Auckland (catering to waste collected from west and northern parts of the region) and the other transfer station in a relatively central area such as East Tamaki. It is assumed that existing transfer facilities would be used; upgraded to allow handling and transfer of organic waste. Based on the availability of suitably zoned land and proximity to end product markets, it is assumed that a regional processing facility would most likely be located in south Auckland, or potentially even south of Auckland in the Waikato region. It is assumed that organic waste collected from southern parts of Auckland would be delivered directly to the processing facility.

Project Findings
Food waste only vs. mixed food and greenwaste collection Overseas data suggests that weekly food waste only collections can capture higher quantities of food waste than mixed food and garden waste collections, with the cost of collection, transport and processing also reduced due to significantly lower waste quantities collected (compared to an equivalent mixed food and greenwaste collection). However, there are a number of potential limitations associated with a food waste only collection. These are noted below. Those households that currently pay for a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at around 10 to 15 percent of households) are likely to currently pay significantly more than would apply to a proposed council mixed food and greenwaste collection (around $144 per year for a monthly 240L bin collection). Therefore, for some ratepayers who currently pay for greenwaste collection, the combined cost for disposing of separate food and greenwaste would be higher than the cost of a council mixed food and greenwaste collection. A food waste only collection service lacks the ability to divert all greenwaste from landfill unless a separate greenwaste collection service is also provided. It is understood that a 4th bin for greenwaste is unlikely to be politically acceptable. Therefore the amount of
1

A suitable bulking agent needs to be added to food waste to optimise conditions for composting. This is typically greenwaste, with an optimised mix ratio of 1 tonne of greenwaste for each tonne of food waste.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 197 of 470

greenwaste to landfill would be likely to continue at its current levels (28,000 tonnes per year from household refuse. There are other means to promote further greenwaste diversion, such as education programmes, disincentive pricing mechanisms or a bylaw banning greenwaste from domestic refuse collections. A regulated approach would require ongoing communication, monitoring and enforcement to be effective. Results of existing educational programmes are hard to quantify in terms of impacts on greenwaste landfill disposal tonnage. With composting appearing to be the most overall cost effective option for the Auckland region, the security of greenwaste for processing of the food waste would potentially be an issue if food waste was to be collected on its own. With expected annual food waste tonnage in the order of 50,000 to 65,000 tonnes per year (assuming kitchen caddies are also provided, with or without liners), it is possible that the composting operator would need to compete with other greenwaste composters to secure the required tonnage. It would be likely also to restrict possible composting operators to those two parties currently having access to large quantities of greenwaste, Living Earth and Envirofert. Both companies currently process around 50,000 tonnes per year. These composters also have established markets for their greenwaste compost and may not wish to redistribute all of their current greenwaste tonnage into a food waste processing facility. Taking into account the amount of greenwaste that would be required to process the food waste under a composting option (1 to 1.5 parts greenwaste to each part food waste) and existing greenwaste compost markets, these two composting operators would likely both have a shortfall of greenwaste. This would incentivise the further diversion of greenwaste currently going to landfill; however, it could also potentially create distortions in the market as greenwaste changes from a waste product to a required resource. Commercial issues associated with the need to secure greenwaste tonnage are difficult to accurately gauge without discussion with industry, with that level of discussion expected to require the sharing of commercially sensitive information. It is unlikely that industry would provide such information without a formalised process such as an REOI or RFT2. Potentially an REOI or RFT process could be used to explore the commercial aspects of the two options i.e. processing organic waste sourced via a food waste only collection versus a mixed food and garden waste collection. The combined collection of food and greenwaste would eliminate any issues with securing greenwaste for processing (composting) and would provide a clear means of further reducing greenwaste to landfill. However, it would have significant adverse impacts for the private greenwaste collection industry and would increase the cost of collection and size of processing facility required (due to increased tonnage collected). These impacts will have to be considered in reference to s32 (2) of the WMA if waste levy funding is intended to be used as the council is legally bound to consider the effects that any decision will have on existing waste minimisation services, facilities (whether provided by council or otherwise). Manual vs. automated collection On principle, a manual organic waste collection system may not be supported by the Auckland Council. To overcome possible health and safety concerns there is the option of running a food waste only collection using automated collection vehicles. However, this would require the size of the collection bin to be increased to 60L (deemed to be minimum
2

REOI: Request for Expression of Interest; REF: Request for Tender

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 198 of 470

bin size suitable for use with bin lifter arms3). This capacity would be well in excess of required household levels and may carry a potential risk of increased contamination. It is expected that a 60L automated system would be more expensive than the manual food waste only option modelled (based on more expensive bins and collection vehicles). However, due to lower tonnage it would still be cheaper than an 80L bin mixed food and greenwaste collection service. There is limited data available on the likely success of a 60L bin automated food waste collection. Therefore, if a system that does not target greenwaste is deemed acceptable, a local trial may be needed to help determine logistical, food capture, and contamination issues. Collection bin system A weekly 240L bin greenwaste collection, such as that used in Timaru, is unnecessarily large and expensive compared to an 80L collection bin option. Therefore, should a mixed collection option be preferred, an 80L bin size is recommended. Based upon feedback from Christchurch City Council the dimensions of the 80L bin used in Christchurch can be improved upon to reduce stability concerns and the risk of greenwaste becoming wedged. Due to the large number of bins required to service the Auckland region it is assumed that standard 80L bins could be reconfigured as shorter, squatter bins. Combining kerbside bins with kitchen caddies and biodegradable bin liners is likely to maximise the amount of food waste captured, regardless of whether the kerbside bin also contains greenwaste or not. Although this increases the cost of the service, those additional costs are offset by increased food waste diversion, giving a lower cost per diverted tonne compared to systems employing an outside bin only. The selection of biodegradable bags needs to be carefully managed and considered alongside processing requirements. This is particularly the case for in-vessel composting systems that seek to reduce the overall composting time. Assurances should be sought from liner suppliers to ensure that degradation properties match processing practices. Biodegradable bags also need to be clearly differentiable from other plastic bags and an effective, and ongoing, education programme is needed to minimise the risk of contamination from other non-acceptable bags being introduced into the system. If there are concerns from the processors about the use of biodegradable bags then a local trial could be undertaken with and without their use. This would test the level at which liners do indeed increase food waste capture, and may provide some assurances to the operators about ways of reducing contamination risk. The table below summarises key benefits and limitations of collection options.
Table 1
Collection Method Mixed food and garden waste 80L bin Captures both food and garden waste diversion from landfill benefits Captures both food and garden waste avoids greenwaste security of supply risks for composting Increased annual collection, transport and processing costs due to captured greenwaste tonnage (at a higher ratio of greenwaste to food waste than required for composting)

Benefits and limitations for collection options


Benefits Limitations

Based upon personal communication with Karen Murray of Sulo Talbot, New Zealand Business Development Manager.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 199 of 470

Collection Method

Benefits 80L bin expected to provide adequate capacity for most households Automated collection, eliminating health and safety risks associated with manual collection Increased annual revenue due to higher processed tonnage Expected to capture greenwaste that is currently used on-site but potentially not processed correctly (turning anaerobic, releasing odour and leachate, attracting vermin etc.) Facility can be increased in capacity to also process commercial food and garden wastes Reduced overall cost to those households currently using a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at 15% of households across the region)

Limitations Higher cost per household for those not currently using a private greenwaste collection service (potential savings to those who dispose of greenwaste at transfer stations not determined) Loss of business for private greenwaste collectors (potentially significant) Diversion of greenwaste from current beneficial reuse activities (composting of privately collected tonnage, home composting where done correctly)

240L bin

Captures both food and garden waste diversion from landfill benefits Captures both food and garden waste avoids greenwaste security of supply risks for composting 240L bin expected to provide adequate capacity for all households Automated collection, eliminating health and safety risks associated with manual collection Increased annual revenue due to higher processed tonnage Expected to capture greenwaste that is currently used on-site but potentially not processed correctly (turning anaerobic, releasing odour and leachate, attracting vermin etc.) Facility can be increased in capacity to also process commercial food and garden wastes Reduced overall cost to those households currently using a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at 15% of households across the region) Potentially captures higher food waste quantities than co-collected food and garden waste collection methods Significantly reduces collection, transport and processing costs compared to cocollected food and garden waste collection methods Lower cost per household for those not currently using a private greenwaste collection service (majority of households cost impacts on those who dispose of greenwaste at transfer stations not determined) 23L bin expected to provide adequate

Significantly increased collection, transport and processing costs due to captured greenwaste tonnage (at a higher ratio of greenwaste to food waste than required for composting) Higher cost per household for those not currently using a private greenwaste collection service (potential savings to those who dispose of greenwaste at transfer stations not determined) Potentially provides excess capacity for most users Loss of business for private greenwaste collectors (potentially significant) Diversion of greenwaste from current beneficial reuse activities (composting of privately collected tonnage, home composting where done correctly)

Food waste only 23L bin No capture of greenwaste does not address greenwaste currently going to landfill No capture of greenwaste - greenwaste security of supply risks for composting (severe consequences if inadequate greenwaste available) Manual collection increases health and safety risks for runners if risks are not managed (hidden cost) Higher overall cost to those household s currently using a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at 15% of households across the region)

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 200 of 470

Collection Method

Benefits capacity for all households Protects existing private greenwaste collectors

Limitations

Processing and Products Anaerobic digestion costs are optimised through a wet process meaning that food waste is processed without the need for greenwaste. This limits the suitability of anaerobic digestion to a food waste only collection. By comparison, composting can be combined with either a mixed food and greenwaste collection or with a food waste only collection, so long as greenwaste is available from other sources. This creates additional flexibility of composting compared to anaerobic digestion. There is an option to digest part of the regions domestic food waste stream via Watercare Services Limited (Watercare). This option could offer dual benefits by providing Watercare with a relatively consistent feedstock source to generate energy from whilst reducing transport and processing costs to the council (for a portion of the collected material). Based on waste collection, tonnage and composition data arising from this Auckland Council study, Watercare are carrying out a high level feasibility assessment to determine if direct injection of food waste into their digesters is viable. Results will be presented to the Auckland Council for further consideration; however, this option is only relevant to a food waste only collection service and would not address greenwaste currently disposed of to landfill. It would also only provide a partial solution with an alternative centralised processing facility (e.g. composting facility) still required to treat kerbside wastes collected from much of the region. Watercare has indicated that trials would be for in the order of 1,000 tonnes food waste per annum with a strong preference for commercial food waste meaning any potential application for the household sector is limited. Composting requires more tonnes of material to be processed each year but has a lower capital cost, lower processing cost per tonne and higher revenue potential from product sales than anaerobic digestion. There may be some time delay in realising full product sales revenue as compost markets are developed. Revenue from compost is estimated to be around $80/m3 (bulk residential sale price, GST exclusive). The assumed revenue from sales of electricity created from biogas for the comparable amount of organic waste is $62/MWh. The difference in product values between composting and anaerobic digestion is a reflection of: New Zealands low energy costs, with wholesale electricity prices of only $82/MWh or $7.80/GJ for natural gas New Zealands relatively high proportion of renewable energy removing opportunities to earn green energy credits from biowaste to energy conversion projects the increased value of compost products driven by increases in the international price of synthetic fertilisers increased awareness of composts soil improvement benefits over and above fertiliser value (improvements to soil structure, water retention etc.).

There are also potential cost savings from avoided collection and disposal of organic waste tonnage currently going to landfill (via refuse collections). The avoided cost of disposal to landfill (to the council) is assumed to be in the order of $68 per tonne. Avoided collection

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 201 of 470

costs have not been modelled due to the additional complexity involved in assessing avoided collection costs (this depends on the type of receptacle used, frequency of collection etc.). However, these costs would be recognised as part of an overall assessment of kerbside waste collection and processing costs for the Auckland region, i.e. with organic wastes considered alongside recyclables and residual wastes. Key environmental benefits include the diversion of waste from landfill and creation of a product available for beneficial reuse. This benefit would be realised for either composting or anaerobic digestion. Diverting organic wastes from landfill for composting reduces emissions by 69 percent. Anaerobic digestion improves upon this further, achieving a 96 percent emissions reduction in comparison to landfill. If recycling practices such as composting and anaerobic digestion remain excluded from the New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) in its final form, then each tonne of organic waste diverted from landfill will save 0.559 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from being emitted from the landfill. At a carbon price of $15 per tonne this would equate to a disposal cost savings of around $8 per tonne, or around $14 per tonne if a higher carbon price of $25 per tonne was applied. Scientific analysis and subsequent greenhouse gas accounting for composting in comparison to landfill shows municipal composting actually sequesters carbon making it a favourable option. The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS)4 centres on two key goals reducing the harm from waste and improving the efficiency of resource use. Both of these goals favour a composting approach rather than landfill. As the WMA requires the council to have regard of the New Zealand Waste Strategy this is an important consideration. The environmental benefits of minimising harm by reducing the greenhouse gas arising from organic waste disposal ensure that anaerobic digestion delivers the best possible environmental outcome, followed by composting. This delivers reduced harm from waste and improved efficiency in resource use which is aligned with the intent of the NZWS. When cost impacts of infrastructure are considered then composting presents the best practicable environmental outcome as far as the councils ability to develop and provide an organic waste facility and provide processing in the most cost effective manner. Final Conclusions The following key points bring together main conclusions from Stages 1 and 2 of this investigation, taking into account the best way forward in terms of collecting and processing domestic food waste and greenwaste. This takes into account not only costs and potential revenues but also the ability of the various options to meet Councils objectives and obligations to maximise the diversion of wastes from landfill whilst balancing out other considerations such as costs to ratepayers and minimisation of environmental and other forms of harm (health and safety etc.). Collection Composting is best suited to a commingled food and greenwaste collection service, whereas anaerobic digestion is best suited to a food waste only collection. However, so long as adequate greenwaste can be sourced by the operator, food

The New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010, Reducing Harm, Improving Efficiency, Ministry for the Environment

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 202 of 470

waste only collection paired with composting could provide the most cost effective option for the Auckland region. A commingled collection service is more expensive but will divert both food and greenwaste from landfill. It will also divert greenwaste from existing practices such as private greenwaste collections, home composting, greenwaste piles etc. A food waste only collection will be cheaper due to lower tonnages collected but will not divert any greenwaste from landfill. A food waste only collection potentially captures higher food waste quantities than co-collected food and greenwaste collection methods. A commingled collection service is lower on a cost per tonnage basis and would be significantly cheaper for households that also have private greenwaste collections. The 10-15 percent of households currently using a private greenwaste collection service will pay a lower annual cost for organic wastes with a commingled collection than a food waste only collection while the remaining 85-90 percent of households will pay a lower annual rate for a food waste only service. A commingled collection service would be automated, reducing health and safety risks, whereas a food waste only collection would most likely be a manual collection. If a commingled collection was to be introduced, a weekly 240L bin greenwaste collection is unnecessarily large and expensive and an 80L collection bin option is expected to provide adequate capacity for most households. A commingled collection would most likely lead to loss of business for private greenwaste collectors (potentially significant) whereas a food waste collection service would not.

Processing Composting is a proven and widely used processing technique for the scale and type of wastes being considered, with relevant examples operating in both New Zealand and internationally (primarily Europe and North America) There are no successful examples of anaerobic digestion (AD) within Australasia and the only large scale example the EarthPower Plant in Sydney experienced a number of problems leading to its commercial failure. However, AD is more widely used within EU and North American countries. Should AD be deemed a viable option for Auckland it is recommended that some of these overseas sites be visited refer to Appendix B for further details of facility examples Composting offers flexibility for varying waste tonnages and composition, and contaminants, particularly when tunnel or container based technologies are selected (as modelled). AD processes are more sensitive than composting to changes in waste quantity and composition, requiring a higher level of feedstock and operating control. Equipment is potentially also more susceptible to damage from contaminants (as evidenced by failure of the Sydney EarthPower facility). Composting facilities can be more easily increased in capacity than wet AD plants particularly if tunnel based systems are used. This creates more future opportunity to also process commercial food and greenwaste. There are dry AD plants that offer similar modularity to composting technologies (e.g. Kompogas), however, Stage 1 assessments concluded that such options would carry higher capital and annual operating costs that a wet AD system.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 203 of 470

Composting facilities and their parts, particularly tunnel based systems, could potentially be onsold for alternative uses, creating greater flexibility for Council when ultimately disposing of its assets. AD facilities offer less flexibility in this respect, as are in-vessel composting systems (not recommended for Auckland). Capital costs for AD technology are typically higher than for composting tunnel/container composting systems expected to have a technology supply cost of around $6M for 80,000 T/yr of mixed food and greenwaste and up to $13M for 200,000 T/yr. By comparison, a (wet) AD facility may have a capital cost of around $13M for 30,000 T/yr of food waste and around $21M for 75,000 T/yr. Additional costs would apply for site development, buildings, decontamination facilities and ancillary equipment. Processing costs per tonne for AD is substantially higher than for composting. However, as processed tonnes are lower the annual costs of AD are expected to be less than for composting. Anaerobic digestion (AD) systems often include composting to further treat byproducts, therefore, a composting facility could be upgraded to a dry digestion facility in the future If adequate greenwaste is available to contractor, composting can be combined with food waste only collection. This is potentially the most cost effective option for the Auckland region.

Markets / Revenue
Composting offers increased revenue opportunities than AD due to higher processed tonnage and a potentially higher value product Compost products are well understood by users, although markets would require further development for adsorption of large quantities produced There are risks around the capacity of compost markets and time and costs that would be incurred to develop them to adequate levels. There is also a risk that increased production of compost within the Auckland region would reduce product values below current levels (due to increased supply, potentially greater than demand). These likelihood and potential costs of these risks would need to be assessed by the operator as part of a formal Tendering process (e.g. via a marketing plan and contingency measures) Biogas product revenue is expected to carry lower market capacity risk than compost due to high energy usage within the Auckland region. However, its value would need to be further discussed with the energy industry AD produces solid and liquid products as well as biogas, however, solid products require further processing prior to use as a soil amendment (e.g. composting or drying) Markets for solid and liquid products would need to be developed and biogas likely to be higher cost renewable energy source than other options (e.g. hydro)

Although this report includes a summary of findings from Stage 1, for complete information, both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 report should be read together.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

Page 204 of 470

1.

INTRODUCTION

This report sets out the findings from the second stage of an Auckland regional investigation into options for diverting organic waste from landfill disposal. The Stage 1 work was completed in 2009 by Morrison Low & Associates, in association with Eunomia Research & Consulting. This first stage involved a high level review of potential food waste tonnage available for beneficial reuse, generic kerbside collection options, technology options available for centralised processing, markets for end products and implications of the current and proposed legislation. Also considered were the full range of options currently available to manage organic waste, including home composting, worm composting, bokashi fermentation systems, in-sink food waste disposal units, and conversion of food waste to stock feed. Recommendations from the Stage 1 project included the need for a total system approach, from kerbside through to market, to select the optimum organic waste collection and processing scenario for the Auckland region. This should consider not only the combined cost of collection and processing, and implications of each component on the other, but also potential revenue streams and an assessment of risks associated with an organic waste collection and processing scheme. This Stage 2 project addresses those factors and also reconfirms organic waste diversion priorities for the Auckland region. This includes discussion on what focus should be placed on diverting greenwaste and sanitary wastes (the two next most significant household organic waste streams after food waste). The full spectrum of management options are considered including at-home solutions, centralised processing options and complementary council initiatives such as education programmes and regulatory measures. An additional aspect of the Stage 2 project has been to review the regional investigation having regard to the recently released New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS). The Strategys two goals provide direction to local government, businesses (including the waste industry), and communities on where to focus their efforts in order to deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to all New Zealanders. The goals are:

reducing the harmful effects of waste improving the efficiency of resource use.

The Strategys flexible approach will ensure waste management and minimisation activities are appropriate for local situations this is a notable difference as national targets for diversion of organic waste have been removed. However the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) still contains directions regarding effective and efficient waste management and minimisation and a clear imperative to reduce waste to landfill. Organic waste still makes up the largest proportion of residential waste disposed of to landfill. Although this report includes a summary of findings from Stage 1, for complete information, both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 report should be read together. 1.1 Project background

In line with the previous New Zealand Waste Strategy published at the time, the WMA and council Waste Management Plans (WMPs), the eight Auckland councils were committed to reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. The former councils endeavoured to provide
Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

10

Page 205 of 470

opportunities to avoid waste creation and to divert materials away from landfill for beneficial reuse or recycling. As part of that aim, this two-part study was undertaken to identify options for the beneficial reuse of domestic food waste generated from across the greater Auckland area. As with previous investigations, regional solutions for Auckland are a priority. Furthermore, the transition to a single Auckland Council made a regional approach a necessity, with the reduction of organic wastes to landfill expected to be a key component of the future Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. Many of the factors relating to organic waste processing have changed since previous studies were undertaken, with further technology developments and increased examples of food waste collection and processing undertaken in New Zealand and overseas, with or without greenwaste. The economics have also changed since earlier investigations. Key influences for this economic shift are: increased product demand and value, particularly for compost and other soil amendment / fertiliser products the enactment of the WMA providing the introduction of a landfill levy intended to drive resource recovery and diversion from landfill, designed to increase over time the prospect of those landfill levies providing a new funding source, split between dedicated local government funds (population based allocation) and a contestable fund available for public, private and joint waste diversion initiatives additional, future landfill charges for methane emissions as a result of ETS.

Growing concerns about climate change and renewable energy supplies have also altered the organic waste processing environment, leading to a greater interest in anaerobic digestion and other waste to energy based solutions. Should composting be the selected processing method, then food waste would need to be combined with greenwaste. The required greenwaste could either be co-collected with the food waste or would need to be otherwise sourced for mixing at the processing facility. Bearing this processing requirement in mind, and taking into account the proportion of greenwaste currently being disposed of to landfill, this study has been expanded to consider both waste streams rather than food waste only. The need for a high level assessment of collection and processing opportunities for nappies and other sanitary wastes is also recognised, based on the relatively high proportion of those wastes within the residential refuse stream. 1.2 Project aim and objectives

The overall aim of project stages 1 and 2 is to provide sufficient information for the Auckland Council to make an informed decision on the future management and minimisation of organic waste across the region, such that the council obligations under the WMA can be met. The aim of Stage 2 is to complete any information gaps identified under Stage 1 and to guide the Auckland Council on how they should best proceed in a manner that is most cost effective for Auckland ratepayers. The objectives for Stage 2 are to provide the Auckland Council with a good understanding of the following:

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

11

Page 206 of 470

anticipated volume of material diverted from landfill for each option (food waste and potentially also greenwaste, depending on selected option) identification of the full range of solutions available to manage the regions organic waste, presented as a toolbox of options to reduce waste to landfill total estimated costs of options shortlisted under Stage 1, including capital and operating costs, considered from kerbside through to end product sales other environmental benefits of the options overall impacts for household organic waste (food waste and greenwaste) to address issues such as: What proportion of the organic waste stream should the council be managing? What is the overall impact of each option on residents? risks in collection, processing and for end markets reducing harm from waste and increasing efficiency in resource use an appreciation of the councils current waste plan targets for diversion of organic (food and green) (from the former councils waste management plans.

It is recognised that the Auckland Council will need to make decisions as to the overall strategic direction for waste management and minimisation, and the role that the council will pay in reducing organic waste to landfill (versus the role of industry and the individual). Therefore, the project methodology has been developed to allow sufficient flexibility and breadth of scope such that options presented will inform a range of strategic directions. As such, collection and processing options considered include those suitable for mixed food and greenwaste as well as for food waste only. 1.3 Project principles

There are a number of key principles that underpin this Stage 2 project:

The WMA provides the overarching legislative drivers for reducing waste to landfill and gives weighting to the waste reduction targets established under the previous New Zealand Waste Strategy: Towards zero waste and a sustainable New Zealand (NZWS 2002) (MfE, 2002). The revised New Zealand Waste Strategy: Reducing harm, improving efficiency (NZWS 2010) does not contain national targets but recommends regionally appropriate targets based on two goals of reducing the harm from waste and improving the efficiency of resource use. Therefore, it is assumed that future actions undertaken by the Auckland Council will be in accordance with both the WMA and the revised New Zealand Waste Strategy. The former Auckland councils adopted waste reduction targets ranging between 20% to 100%, by 2020. Pursuant to LG (ATP) Act 2010 s84 (2) these are now the formal targets of the Auckland Council. Consequently the previous targets of the NZWS 2002 are still relevant. The previous targets for organic waste in the NZWS 2002 were: By December 2010 the diversion of greenwaste from landfill to beneficial reuse will have exceeded 95 percent By December 2007 a clear qualitative understanding of other organic wastes (such as kitchen wastes) will be achieved, established via a local measurement programme that monitors waste quantities and sets targets for reduction By December 2010 the diversion of commercial organic wastes from landfill to beneficial reuse will have exceeded 95 percent.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

12

Page 207 of 470

The NZWS 2010 contains no targets but the WMA still applies so the council will need to retain a focus on an overall reduction of waste to landfill. As the previous waste plans of the former councils of the Auckland region all had targets for organics reduction and these targets are no considered to be those of the Auckland Council as a result of the s84 LG (ATP) Act. Based upon the relatively high proportion of kitchen waste within the domestic, landfilled waste stream, the diversion of kitchen waste is therefore considered to be a key focus area to achieve an overall high rate of reduction A council provided four-bin waste collection system is unlikely to be politically acceptable. Therefore, if food waste was to be collected on its own it is likely that any greenwaste collections would continue to be provided by private operators only Organic waste collection and processing would be provided across the Auckland region but restricted to kerbside collection from urban areas only Due to the logistical issues in collecting organic waste from across the region (urban areas), the use of transfer facilities would be required Continued use of at-home solutions such as home composting and in-sink waste disposal units would not be discouraged and associated council-led educational/promotional programmes would continue

Collection and processing options that have been considered under Stage 2 are:

Collection: mixed food and greenwaste; Processing: container or tunnel composting Collection: food only; Processing: anaerobic digestion (modelled as a wet AD system dry AD was eliminated by the Stage 1 study as a result of significantly higher costs)

Collection: food only; Processing: anaerobic digestion container or tunnel composting It is noted that the combination of food waste only collection with composting assumes that sufficient greenwaste would be available to the compost operator to allow processing of the food waste portion5. The proportions of food waste to green waste for processing is 1:1. Based upon the findings from Stage 1, it is assumed that organic waste collected from kerbside will be transported to a single processing facility via two transfer stations. It is further assumed that existing transfer facilities would be used, but upgraded to allow handling and transfer of organic waste. Specific facilities used would be subject to negotiation, however, it is assumed that one facility would be located in west Auckland (catering to waste collected from west and northern parts of the region) and the other facility would be located in a relatively central area, such as East Tamaki. This approximate location would transfer waste collected from central and eastern parts of the region. Based upon the availability of suitably zoned land and proximity to end product markets, it is assumed that a regional processing facility would most likely be located in south Auckland, or potentially even south of Auckland. Therefore it is also assumed that organic waste collected from southern parts of Auckland would be delivered directly to the processing facility

A suitable bulking agent needs to be added to food waste to optimise conditions for composting. This is typically greenwaste, with an optimised mix ratio of 1 tonne of greenwaste for each tonne of food waste.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

13

Page 208 of 470

2.

REVIEW OF STAGE 1 FINDINGS

Home composting, worm composting, bokashi and in sink food waste disposal systems are all options that are currently used to divert food waste from landfill at the household level, and in many cases were actively promoted by the former Auckland councils. However, these options are a question of personal preference and the amount of food waste still being disposed of to landfill indicates that they are not being used by a significant portion of the community. However it is hard to quantify the direct or indirect contribution that these initiatives make to diversion of waste from landfill. Estimates are that around 34 percent6 of the total housing stock and close to 50 percent7 of new homes are fitted out with food waste disposal systems. In-sink disposal units offer potential benefits over kerbside collection of food waste in terms of reduced vehicle movements, avoided fossil fuel use (and the associated carbon benefits) and reduced labour costs. However, these benefits are partially offset by increased water use and power consumption (to deliver food wastes to the wastewater treatment plant). The use of existing digestion systems (at the Watercare and Rosedale wastewater treatment plants) offers potential cost benefits compared to creating a new centralised facility for food waste. However, contamination of the domestic food waste with industrial waste products does occur, effectively down-cycling food waste and its potential range of benefits as a soil amendment product. The choice to install an in-sink disposal unit is also an option with limited potential for those that rent rather than own their home. The use of domestic food waste as stock feed has some potential for growth in Auckland. However, the variability of domestic food wastes and the inclusion of meat products may raise processing costs and decrease product values to a point that is uneconomic. It is likely that conversion to stock feed is an application that is best suited to commercial food wastes, where waste quantities and properties are likely to be more consistent. It is expected that these existing diversion methods will continue to play a role in the spectrum of organic waste reuse and recycling options. However, based on the quantities of organic materials continuing to be disposed of to landfill, it is considered that a combined kerbside organics collection service and centralised processing is still required in order for the Auckland Council to meet its obligations under the WMA. There is in the order of 150,000 tonnes of food waste in the Auckland region that could be diverted from landfill and instead be put to beneficial use. This includes around 100,000 tonnes per year of domestic food waste and the rest from commercial sources. In addition to the greenwaste that is already being diverted and composted, estimated at between 75,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year, there is in the order of 70,000 tonnes of greenwaste per year (Stage 1 figures) that is still being disposed of to landfill. The quantities of food waste obtained from households is likely to be less than 100,000 tonnes per year. Quantities of greenwaste may be greater if free collections are provided which pull material away from on-site treatments or current diversion practices. In Aucklands case, a mixed greenwaste collection would pull a significant amount of greenwaste away from existing private greenwaste collection and composting services, as well as home composting or mulching, spreading of grass clippings over lawns or gardens
6 7

MWH, 2008. Food Waste Management in New Zealand, prepared for Parex Industries, March 2008. Estimate provided by Andrew Higgs, General Manager of Parex Industries Limited

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

14

Page 209 of 470

and other practices such as leaving greenwaste to decompose in piles. Whilst not in the Stage 1 report, it should be noted that international studies confirm large increases in garden waste collected in areas where garden waste collections are offered by councils free of charge (included in rates). This would suggest that a combined food and greenwaste system in Auckland would divert the most waste away from landfill and other disposal practices into beneficial re use. Other potentially recoverable organic wastes include sanitary wastes and biosolids. However, handling requirements, contamination risks and product markets differ for these waste streams compared to food and greenwaste. Based on international experience, high performing food waste collection systems will generally have a high (weekly) and more frequent collection than refuse. The material will tend to be separately collected, and householders will be supplied with ventilated kitchen caddies with biodegradable liners. Often a user pays bag based refuse collection will operate alongside and collections will be performed by single operatives in small tipper vehicles. This type of system is capable of achieving up to around 80 percent capture of food waste and contamination is low due to close monitoring by collection crews. Medium performing systems will commonly have a similar level of frequency of food waste collection and residual collection (e.g. weekly) and food waste may be separately collected or co-mingled with greenwaste. Householders are supplied with solid sided caddies, with or without liners. A user pays and/or bag based refuse collection service may be in place. These mid level systems tend to be the most common as they attempt to provide a compromise in terms of cost and service provision. Typically 40 to 55 percent of food waste will be captured, with acceptable levels of contamination. Based upon overseas data, the most ineffective collection systems provide householders with large, frequently collected refuse bins, co-collect food waste with greenwaste, collect at less frequent intervals than the rubbish, and provide no form of in-home containment for the food waste. These systems may deliver only around 10 to 15 percent capture of food waste, with a risk of unacceptable contamination levels. Capital costs for anaerobic digestion technology are higher than for composting technology and mechanical composting systems are more expensive than static tunnel or container based systems. Tunnel or container based technologies are recommended for urban composting at the scale required for the Auckland region. Covered windrow composting would also be a viable option if a large and most likely rural site was available. Based on Stage 1 modelling, the total capital cost for a composting facility was estimated at $15.5 to $16.4 million for an 80,000 tonnes per year facility through to $27.1 to $28.4 million for a 200,000 tonnes per year facility. These estimates assume the use of two existing transfer stations to aid in the collection of organic waste from across the region. A scenario including two transfer stations and an anaerobic digestion processing facility was not modelled in Stage 1. Rather, anaerobic digestion options assumed the creation of two smaller facilities to service the region. The estimated capital cost for two anaerobic digestion facilities ranged from $40.0 million to process 45,000 tonnes per year of food waste through to $53.2 million to process 75,000 tonnes. Composting was found to be the lowest cost per tonne processing option, with operating costs of between $37 and $59 per tonne depending on the total tonnes processed and whether or not shredding was required at the transfer facilities. The equivalent annual
Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

15

Page 210 of 470

operating cost was assessed at $4.4 to $7.9 million (to process tonnage of between 80,000 and 200,000 mixed food waste and greenwaste per year). By comparison, operating costs for two wet anaerobic digestion facilities were estimated at between $58 and $73 per tonne or $3.3 to $4.4 million per year (ranging from total processed tonnages of 45,000 to 75,000 food waste per year).8 Capital costs stated above exclude the cost of land and are based on the council developing the facility (i.e. no allowance for profit margin for a third party developer). Operating costs exclude any amortisation of capital costs. This is on the basis that capital development could be potentially funded using a combination of council and contestable waste levy funds rather than funding via rates. Operating costs (per tonne or per year) also exclude any allowance for the operators profit margin or site lease costs. Stage 1 processing costs were developed on the basis of streamlined operations at both the main processing site and associated transfer stations. Opportunities for streamlining site operations were developed in conjunction with members of the OWWG who themselves have significant operational experience. Processing costs were developed based on an assumed, theoretical facility type and configuration. Actual costs will vary with the selected site and facility specific factors such as operator set-up, equipment selection & staffing numbers. Although the cost of anaerobic digestion is higher on a per tonne basis, wet anaerobic digestion systems can be operated without the need for greenwaste. Therefore, although processing costs per tonne are higher, the lower tonnage collected would result in a lower annual cost to council than for composting. Separately collected greenwaste could continue to be composted in windrows elsewhere at a lower cost per tonne than in-vessel composting. Dry anaerobic digestion was concluded as not being a viable option as it would incur high capital costs combined with a high cost per tonne and processing of both food and greenwaste tonnages (i.e. higher cost per tonne than composting but with similar annual tonnage).

Stated operating costs exclude any amortisation of capital expenditure, costs of finance, operators margin and any costs related to land lease or purchase.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

16

Page 211 of 470

3.

UPDATED INFORMATION

3.1

Auckland waste data

Table 3-1 summarises the most recent data available on Aucklands food and greenwaste streams. The Stage 2 assessment has used the most recent Solid Waste Analysis Protocol audit data (October 2010) which is rounded to the nearest 1,000 tonnes. The number of households in the Auckland region has been taken to be 453,000 based upon actual numbers which differs from the Stage 1 report which used Statistics NZ figures.
Table 3-1 Summary of Auckland food and greenwaste data Tonnes / year
88,000 181,000 93,000

Type of Organic Waste


Domestic food waste to landfill Total food waste to landfill Commercial food waste to landfill

Data Source
Kerbside SWAP audits9 Landfill SWAP audits Difference between tonnage measured at landfill and kerbside

Domestic greenwaste to landfill Total greenwaste to landfill Commercial greenwaste to landfill

28,000 88,000 60,000

Kerbside SWAP audits Landfill SWAP audits Difference between tonnages measured at landfill and kerbside

Greenwaste currently diverted

75,000 to 100,000

Based on 2009 industry estimated of 50,000 T/yr to Living Earth Limited and a further 2550,000 T/yr to Envirofert

From this assessment it is estimated that around half of greenwaste is still going to landfill. This is still significantly short of the December 2010 target found in the NZWS 2002 and the former councils waste management plans of more than 95 percent diversion10. However, only around one quarter of this landfilled greenwaste is delivered via kerbside refuse bags/bins (approximately 28,000 tonnes per year). The remaining greenwaste is delivered to the landfill via transfer stations or direct from commercial waste haulers (e.g. from large site clearance projects, the forestry sector etc.). No data is available to indicate what proportion of the remaining 60,000 tonnes per year of greenwaste is initially sourced from residential properties (via lawn mowing and garden maintenance contractors etc.), although data does indicate that around 20,000 tonnes per year is non-compostable. Estimates provided by Waste Not Consulting are that around half of the 60,000 tonnes of non-kerbside greenwaste could be expected to have originated from residential properties. However, most of that domestic material is delivered to landfill by gardeners, landscapers etc. in relatively large loads that also contain flax, cabbage tree
9 10

Kerbside SWAP Waste Not (Oct 2010) Organic waste target 2: By December 2005, 60 percent of garden wastes will be diverted from landfill and beneficially used and by December 2010 the diversion of garden wastes from landfill to beneficial use will have exceeded 95% (New Zealand Waste Strategy, 2002)

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

17

Page 212 of 470

leaves, rocks and soil, and rubbish. Although there is potential that a kerbside food and greenwaste collection service could divert some of the additional 60,000 tonnes per year of greenwaste it is expected to only be a very small amount. Food waste currently going to landfill is more than twice that of greenwaste, with a fairly even split between domestic and commercial sources. The recent Food and Beverage Sector Environmental Waste Project, undertaken by Enterprising Manukau and the Food and Beverage Sector Group, concluded that very little of this commercial food waste is generated from the food and beverage sector. More recent findings from the second stage of that study, which focuses on the hospitality sector, will be discussed in the Auckland Council Waste Assessment report. This may provide further clarity on sources of the commercial food waste stream. Regardless, it is clear from the landfill audit data that there is benefit in any domestic food waste collection and processing scheme having some flexibility to also accept commercial wastes (subject to availability and acceptable commercial arrangements). 3.2 3.2.1 Organic waste collections Christchurch

The Christchurch City Council (CCC) organic waste collection service has been fully operational since April 2009. The service is a weekly combined food and garden waste collection using 80L mobile bins. Residents also have an option of upsizing to a 240L organic waste bin, at an additional cost. A small number of 360L and 660L bins have also been provided to apartment blocks. The weekly organics collection is part of a three bin system that also includes fortnightly refuse and recyclables collections. The standard size of the recyclables and refuse bins are 240L and 140L respectively. However, applications can be made to reduce recyclables bins to 140L or increase refuse bins to 240L. Differential charging may apply, subject to individual applications. CCC staff11 have provided a range of information on the performance of their organic waste collection service in its first year. Table 3-2 sets out monthly collected tonnage. Seasonal variation is evident, driven by the greenwaste portion. Further information provided by CCC include the total number of organics bins allocated 154,565 and bin set-out rates 50 to 60 percent. Based on the information provided by CCC it is estimated that the average kilograms of mixed food and garden waste per household per week is around 5.7 kg, or just over 10 kilogram per set-out bin per week. Data is not available on the tonnage split between food and garden waste. However, CCC intends to audit the refuse wastestream in the next financial year.12 This will help to estimate the amount of food waste diverted.

11

12

Personal communications with Tim Selwyn and Tammara McKernan - CCC Contracts Management Manager and Contracts Manger Solid Waste, respectively. Financial year starting 1 July 2010

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

18

Page 213 of 470

Table 3-2 Month

Food and garden waste collected from kerbside in Christchurch Organics Collected 08/09 (T) Organics Collected 09/10 (T)
2,715 3,108 4,106 4,717 4,902 4,988 4,407 4,213 1,612 3,014 3,070 2,650 10,347

July August September October November December January February March partial service only April May June Subtotals Total*

33,157 10347 43,504

Full years tonnage but first year of service - target for following year is 50,000 tonnes.

Some issues are understood to have been experienced with the 80L bin, due to the bin dimensions (450 mm wide by 455 mm deep). Problems have been experienced with bin instability and greenwaste becoming wedged or freezing in the winter. None of these issues have been experienced with the 240L organic bins. Based on concerns with the 80L bin used in Christchurch, CCC staff would recommend that other councils select a bin with a larger footprint. As a result of the council organic waste collection service much of the private greenwaste collection industry operating in Christchurch has collapsed. There has been little interest shown by private industry to provide organic waste collections for the commercial sector. Therefore the potential expansion of the composting facility to also process commercial wastes is yet to be realised. The organic waste collection fleet comprises of the following: 12 x 23 m3 trucks (6 x 4) 4 x 21.5 m3 trucks (4 x 2) 2 x 21.5 m3 trucks (6 x 2)

A further four 23 m3 trucks and one 28 m3 truck is shared between the refuse, recycling and organics collection, providing for variability in set-out quantities (including seasonal variability of greenwaste). CCC intends to audit the kerbside refuse bins from February 2011 (audits were delayed as a result of the Christchurch earthquake experienced in September 2010). The results of this audit will provide insight into how much of the household food waste and greenwaste is now being diverted for beneficial reuse via the organics collection service. There are no plans for CCC to audit the organics bins themselves.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

19

Page 214 of 470

3.2.2

Timaru

Timaru District Council (TDC) has been operating a mixed food and garden waste collection service for a number of years, with captured material composted via a GoreTM covered window system. Food and garden waste is collected weekly in 240L bins. Based on 2008/09 data, the average monthly tonnage collected is around 50 kg per household and the average set-out rate is around 63 percent. The 2007 waste audit results gave an average figure of 2.86 kg of food waste collected per participating household per week. Taking into account the 63 percent set-out rate this equates to an average of 2.1 kg per household per week across all households who received an organics collection bin. Comparing this to the average 2.3 kg of food waste per household per week disposed of within refuse bins, TDC are achieving a food waste capture rate of over 40 percent. These estimates of set-out rates and overall food waste capture rates are significantly higher than United Kingdom (UK) data would suggest for similar collection systems. TDC waste officers have indicated that the quantity of greenwaste collected is around 9 kg per household per week during winter periods (as measured by the June 2007 waste audit), increasing to around 12 kg per household per week during peak season (spring summer months). 3.2.3 Recent UK research on food waste collections

Since completion of the Stage 1 study, further research has been released in the UK in relation to food waste collection systems. It updates information from earlier trial evaluations and is the most detailed and reliable data currently available on food waste collection performance. This information is drawn largely from a report by WRAP: Evaluation of the WRAP Separate Food Waste Collection Trials: Final report updated June 2009. The services in the trial all involved weekly collections of food waste only (separate from garden waste) using kitchen caddies with liners and 25L kerbside bins for collection. The refuse collection service they were matched with varied and included weekly services in either bags or bins or fortnightly collections in wheeled bins. 3.2.4 Capture rates

Average yields for households served were 1.5 kg/wk for household with a fortnightly residual collection service and 1.3 kg/wk where they had a weekly residual service. The average yield of collected food waste per participating household across all the trials was 2.3 kg/wk. Trials taking place alongside fortnightly refuse collections generally have achieved higher weekly yields per participating household (average of 2.5 kg/wk) in comparison with trials taking place alongside weekly refuse collections (average of 2.3 kg/wk). Collections from multi-occupancy properties achieved average yields per participating household of 1.7 kg/wk. The average yield of collected food waste per household setting out across all the trials was 3.2 kg/wk. Trials taking place alongside fortnightly refuse collections generally achieved higher weekly yields per household setting out (average of 3.4 kg/wk), in comparison with trials taking place alongside weekly refuse collections (average of 3.2 kg/wk). Collections

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

20

Page 215 of 470

from multi-occupancy properties achieved on average yields per household setting out of 2.2 kg/wk. The distinctions between the amount per participating household and per household setting out, is an important one when making comparisons with other data. Analyses may report kg/hh13 figures but it needs to be clear whether this is per household served, per participating household or per set out. Data from composition analysis will generally refer to quantities per set out. Overall the services in the trials captured an average of 59% of the food waste in the system. The food waste yields achieved by WRAP supported trials were found to be strongly affected by three factors: 1. refuse collection frequency, with weekly food waste collections running alongside fortnightly refuse collections generally achieving relatively higher yields in comparison to trials running alongside weekly refuse collections 2. for trials with weekly refuse collections, those trials where refuse is collected in sacks achieved higher yields than trials where refuse is collected in wheeled bins 3. level of deprivation, with trials in more affluent areas achieving higher yields in comparison to trials in less affluent areas. 3.2.5 Participation rates

Participation rates were found to vary from 44% to 73%. Half of the trial areas achieved participation rates over 70%, with the average level of participation across all the trials (excluding flats) 62%. 3.2.6 Reduction in food waste

There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that the introduction of food waste collection services raises awareness among householders about the amount of food they waste, and that as a result they start to change some of their purchasing and food management habits. This may lead to a reduction in the amount of food wasted overall meaning the weights of material captured are not indicative of the total reduction in food waste in the residual. There are no reliable data around this at present but the data available suggests this effect could be as large as 40kg per household per year (equal to approximately 20% of the food waste stream). This is a beneficial effect of food waste collection services. However, it is also an area that requires further study. 3.2.7 Attitudinal surveys

Attitudinal surveys carried out by WRAP found high levels of satisfaction for the containers, caddies and liners, as well as for the publicity materials which were produced using WRAP designed templates. The most common reasons given by respondents for not participating in the food waste collections were related to concerns about potential hygiene, odour or vermin issues (24% of non-participants combined). However these issues were considered less important by residents who actually participated in the collections (6% of participants), indicating that these are often perceived issues rather than problems experienced in reality.

13

Kilograms per household

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

21

Page 216 of 470

The single main reason stated for non-participation was not producing enough food waste (21% of nonparticipants). For most households this is also likely to be an issue of perception rather than reality; WRAP has shown in The Food We Waste study that even households that claim to generate no food waste at all produce on average 2.9kg per week. 3.2.8 Research on household organic waste cost benefit analysis

Further research has also been undertaken by Eunomia Research and Consulting: Household Organic Waste Cost Benefit Analysis.- report to Green Fingers Garden Bags/ Earthcare Environmental and Envirofert ltd 04/11/2010. It should be noted that this study was commissioned by commercial players with an interest in organic food waste collection and processing. While a summary of the report findings have been made available via two workshop presentations and a release of an executive summary, to date the full report and supporting data has not been released despite requests by the council and on behalf of the council. This has made it difficult to confirm what assumptions have been made and the accuracy of the results. The conclusions and main findings apparent from the executive summary and the workshop presentations point to best practice internationally and have been summarised below. In addition the relevance to this Stage 2 report and councils waste assessment has been noted. The main findings of the household organic waste (CBA report) include: Incentives or encouragement such as user pays and less frequent refuse collections play an important role in success of a green or food waste scheme - this concurs with proposals for a polluter pays refuse collection service across the Auckland region Where garden waste collections are offered free of charge there is a significant increase in quantity of garden waste collected - this is of particular relevance to the Auckland Council proposals where the main objective is to maximise diversion from landfill of both green and food waste to meet targets in its existing waste plan. User friendly waste collection services are critical there is agreement that this is a critical component of any successful scheme. In seeking to optimise costs, collection and treatment have to be considered as an integrated whole. Based upon this the CBA report identifies a food waste only service as being the most cost effective option. The report however has a limited scope and considers the cost to the council rather than wider cost to households who would also have to pay for a separate private greenwaste collection. This outcome is at odds with the OWWG stage 2 report which looks at the overall cost to ratepayers. Council have looked at options that maximise diversion of all organics from landfill which includes both food and green waste. While a separate food waste collection may appear cheaper it deals with significantly less tonnages and therefore will not fulfil the requirements of the council in meeting its targets. This is illustrated by the fact that a significant proportion of green waste is still present in the residual waste stream as evidenced by a recent SWAP analysis In environmental terms, systems that process organic material through anaerobic digestion (AD) are likely to be preferable to in-vessel or windrow, aerobic composting processes - the main advantage of AD is possible energy recovery and associated carbon benefits, however given the unique make up of New Zealand energy generation a significant proportion of energy is from renewable sources

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

22

Page 217 of 470

which means any benefits are minimal. Furthermore composting and substitution of oil based fertilisers provide a significant benefit in both environmental and economic terms through the use of compost in raising agricultural yields. Overall whilst the CAB report concurs with the OWWG stage 2 report in many areas the conclusions differ due to the councils wider brief and scope to influence the entire organics waste stream both the greenwaste and food waste. 3.3 3.3.1 Organic waste processing Christchurch

Since Stage 1 of this project there have been some changes made to the Christchurch composting operation, particularly with respect to the shredding of incoming waste. At the time of preparing the Stage 1 report much of the commingled food and garden waste was being placed within the composting tunnels without shredding. It was understood by the OWWG and project team that this was due to relatively small material being collected in the 80L bins with limited shredding therefore required. This observation led to the Stage 1 assumption that material collected in 80L bins and delivered to transfer facilities could potentially be screened to remove oversized greenwaste then loaded into composting containers without the need for shredding (oversize transported to the main facility for shredding). However, recommendations arising from the Christchurch operation14 are now that all commingled food and garden waste should be shredded regardless of how small the collection bin is. This is on the basis that although large greenwaste may be limited, shredding is still required to create a uniformly sized and well blended input material. The recent shift in focus to increased front-end processing is intended to not only optimise processing rates but also to optimise the quality of the end product. Previously the final screening stage was being relied upon to remove the larger greenwaste; however, this approach increased the amount of lower value overs or tailings being created whilst reducing the quality and proportion of composted product. It is also understood that the front-end decontamination of incoming wastes is no longer carried out. Instead kerbside organic wastes are mixed with recycled tailings (or overs) soon after entering the facility, then conveyed directly to the shredder. Once shredded the mixed kerbside wastes and tailings are loaded into tunnels for initial processing. Some decontamination takes place when the material is transferred outdoors for curing. At this stage decontamination staff manually remove visible contaminants (e.g. plastic) from the windrows. It is understood that contamination rates for the Christchurch kerbside organics have been maintained at a low rate (<2%). A full-scale trial commenced at the facility in late July 2010 to assess the viability of reducing minimum tunnel composting times from 14 days to 7 days. The objective behind this change in operating procedure is to increase capacity of the tunnel system by increasing throughput rates. This increase in capacity is required to process peak season quantities without the need for additional tunnels. Incoming kerbside organics (mixed food waste and greenwaste) has a lower density than expected. This has created additional
14

Personal communication with George Fietje, General Manager, Living Earth Limited (CCC composting facility operators)

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

23

Page 218 of 470

pressure on the tunnel based system as incoming material volumes are therefore higher than expected. It is thought that this lower density could be the result of lower proportions of food waste compared to greenwaste, although no waste audits have been carried out to measure the food waste proportion. The 7 day tunnel composting trial appears successful with Living Earth Limited (facility operators) currently in the process of applying to amend resource consent conditions to allow for this shorter in-vessel processing time (original regional and local council consents specifying a minimum of 14 days within the tunnels, before transferring the material outdoors for windrow composting). This reduction in in-vessel processing time offers cost benefits for new facilities, particularly in terms of capital costs (with less composting units required compared to a 14 day processing regime). 3.3.2 Timaru

At the time of the Stage 1 study compost created from organics waste collected from Timaru households during winter months was found to be contaminated with arsenic, arising from the inclusion of household wood burner ash with the food and garden waste. Extended processing time was then required to try and eliminate, or acceptably reduce, arsenic levels within the compost product. A targeted community awareness campaign has successfully addressed this issue and compost sale prices are reported at $5 for 20L bags, $10 for 40L bags or $25 per trailer load (0.3 m3 loader bucket scoop).15 3.3.3 Waste-to-Energy Options

Since completion of the first stage of this project there has been some further consideration of waste-to-energy processing options. This has been driven by recent policy changes including the revised New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010. Several waste-to-energy options can be successfully argued as meeting both of the Strategys key goals. However, not all waste-to-energy options will be able to be successfully argued as meeting the intent of the WMA, in particular, the councils obligation to consider the waste hierarchy in its regard to the NZWS. As addressed within the first part of this study, waste-to-energy plants are expensive to commission and are likely to face fierce public opposition in terms of location. One option that exists would be to make use of existing infrastructure, such as retrofitting of the Huntly power station to burn waste as opposed to fossil fuels. This option would make best use of existing transport infrastructure to sites and existing grid connections for exporting the power gained from the waste to energy process. Kerbside organic wastes collected from the Auckland region would be able to provide a relatively consistent and guaranteed feedstock (although subject to seasonal variability if greenwaste is included). It is noted that this option is mentioned in principle only, with no discussion having been undertaken to date with Genesis. Rather, it has been looked at as an example of what could be achieved at some stage in the future if conversion of existing infrastructure in proximity to Auckland could prove to be more cost effective than developing a new centralised facility.

15

Personal communication with Ruth Clarke, Senior Waste Management Officer, Timaru District Council

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

24

Page 219 of 470

Another option that would make use of existing waste-to-energy infrastructure is a coordinated approach between the Auckland Council and one of its CCOs16 Watercare Services Limited (Watercare). As noted in Section 2 of this report Watercares Rosedale and Mangere wastewater treatment plants are already digesting a portion of the household food waste stream collected via the wastewater network and in-sink waste disposal units. Watercare is currently reviewing options to become as energy efficient as possible, with kerbside collected food waste viewed as a potential feedstock to help achieve this aim (i.e. with additional food waste added directly to Watercare digesters rather than via the wastewater network). If the council were to introduce a food waste only kerbside collection service then there may be limited opportunity to divert some of that material to Watercare for processing this would be of more interest from a commercial organic waste component where contamination and uniformity of feedstock can be guaranteed. A this really only possible for commercial waste it is an option to be considered by the council in a facilitation role with commercial food waste producers consequently would not result in any real direct benefits to the council unless food waste from the household sector could be accommodated in which case both organisations (and ultimately to the ratepayer) benefit by providing Watercare with a relatively consistent feedstock source and reducing transport and processing costs for the council (for a portion of the collected organic material). The Rosedale facility in particular offers potential for this option, as the facilities digesters will require upgrade works within the short to medium term. This facility could potentially be upgraded to include digestion of food wastes collected from northern and western parts of the Auckland region. Watercare are in the process of carrying out a high level feasibility assessment to determine if direct injection of food waste for digestion purposes is viable. This initial assessment is based on waste collection, tonnage and composition data arising from this Auckland Council organic waste study and results will be presented to the Auckland Council17. It is noted that this Watercare option is only relevant to a food waste only collection service and would not address greenwaste currently disposed of to landfill. It would also only provide a partial solution for Aucklands organic waste stream, with an alternative centralised processing facility still required to treat kerbside wastes collected from other parts of the region. Early indications from Watercare are that they would be willing to embark on a trial of 1,000 tonnes per annum and would prefer commercial organic waste for a number of reasons. These include less contamination and the uniform nature of the waste. 3.4 Dry Anaerobic Digestion (dry AD)

Dry AD was covered in depth in the Stage 1 report Investigation into Options for Beneficial Processing of Food Waste. Research suggests that dry AD technology is well developed particularly in European markets where the diversion of organics is incentivised due to legislation banning organics from landfill. It is however largely untested in the Australasian market. Dry AD options were eliminated during the Stage 1 assessment due to significantly higher capital costs and higher annual operating costs.

16 17

CCO Council Controlled Organisation Personal correspondence with Jim Hodges, Watercare Services Limited (October 2010)

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

25

Page 220 of 470

4.

PRIVATE GREENWASTE COLLECTIONS

4.1

Tonnage collected

Data on monthly private greenwaste tonnage is available for North Shore (NSCC) and Waitakere (WCC) cities and the Rodney District (RDC), collected under the Northern Alliance waste bylaw and licensing system. Table 4-1 presents data collected between July 2007 and March 2010. The data from these three councils has been converted to an average tonnage per household and extrapolated across the Auckland region. On this basis the total private greenwaste tonnage collected from Auckland residents could be in order of 45,000 to 50,000 tonnes per year. The Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 200918 report states that two operators Sunshine and Greenfingers dominate the market, with Greenfingers estimating that they have a 45% market share. The report further notes that Greenfingers are willing to provide regional tonnage data.
Table 4-1 2007/08 private greenwaste - Northern Alliance waste licensing data NSCC
459 423 424 491 395 1,048 973 1,269 1,105 1,133 1,174 1,008 9,902 1,071 1,047 1,169 1,258 1,229 1,161 1,209 1,200 1,130 848 896 529 12,747 662 483 980 972

Month / Year
July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 2007/08 Total July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 2008/09 Total July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009
18

RDC
217 207 203 209 185 129 211 149 92 89 108 90 1,889 90 88 102 106 99 102 104 96 88 86 84 6 1,051 79 43 103 82

WCC
399 432 435 457 454 456 454 467 461 459 438 611 5,523 662 625 774 755 771 787 359 699 598 1,405 491 307 8,233 465 356 568 515

Auckland Regional Council Technical Report No. 107 October 2009

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

26

Page 221 of 470

Month / Year
November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 2009/10 Subtotal 9 mths Estimated 2009/10 Total*

NSCC
1,007 1,042 927 850 582 7,505 10,207

RDC
101 85 94 87 8 682 812

WCC
566 637 659 643 377 4,786 6,560

*12 month 2009/10 tonnage estimates are based upon actual tonnage recorded for the first 9 months factored by the ratio of 12 to 9 month totals recorded for the previous two financial years.

4.2

Costs of private collection

When comparing collection and processing costs for a food waste only collection against co-collected food and greenwaste it is necessary to also take into account the cost of private greenwaste collection services. This is on the basis that although a food waste only collection may appear less expensive to the ratepayer a number of households would continue to pay for a private greenwaste collection service, at a combined annual cost that may be considerably more than the cost of a co-collected organic waste service. The difficulty in considering this combination of private and council-led collection (and processing) services is the fact that only some households elect to use a private service. Based upon waste registration and licensing data collected for NSCC, RDC and WCC it is estimated that around 15 percent of households currently use a private greenwaste collection service. Extrapolating this household proportion across the Auckland region and assuming that a 240L bin collected monthly is a typical type of service selected, around 65 to 70,000 households may currently be paying around $144 per year19 for removal of their greenwaste (removal fee also covers the cost of transport and processing). This equates to an annual cost to those Auckland households of around $9 to $10 million. It is noted that the NSCC, RDC and WCC data is based on total tonnage collected from kerbside, which may include other property types rather than just households. Therefore, should the average calculated figure of 15 percent of households be high, an annual cost estimate has also been considered assuming 10 percent of households currently use a private greenwaste collection service. This would equate to an average annual cost to the Auckland region of around $6.5 million.

19

Based upon Greenfingers quoted service charge of $12 per collection for a 240L bin collected from kerbside (increases to $13 per collection for collection from private property).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

27

Page 222 of 470

5.

MANAGEMENT OF SANITARY WASTES

This section outlines the outcomes of a brief investigation into the potential feasibility of collecting and processing sanitary wastes collected alongside food and/or greenwaste. The need for this investigation is based on two key considerations: 1. The relatively high proportion of sanitary wastes currently disposed of to Auckland 20 landfills (9 - 16 percent of Aucklands domestic refuse stream ) 2. The possibility that a weekly kerbside organics collection would be accompanied by a fortnightly refuse collection this may lead to issues for families with young children (or families using adult nappies) if sanitary wastes are to remain collected as part of the refuse stream 5.1 Sanitary waste overview

This waste stream is largely composed of nappies designed for single-use and then disposed of to landfill and similar products such as incontinence pads, collectively known as absorbent hygiene products. Manufacturers of disposable nappies have been investing in research to establish the feasibility of processing these by composting, such as the Envirocomp facility located near Christchurch and supported by Huggies21, using a HotRot system. Proctor & Gamble in the United States are also reported to be investigating the potential for composting nappies. This waste stream is generally made up of three main materials: polypropylene-based plastics, wood pulp, and a super-absorbent polymer (usually sodium polyacrylate or similar). By dry weight, approximately 30-40% of a nappy is plastic, with the remainder largely wood fibre. Sodium polyacrylate can absorb up to 200-300 times its own weight in liquids but weighs little when dry. In comparison, a used nappy is comprised of 10% plastic, 24% wood fibre, 5% sodium polyacrylate, 6% sludge and 55% moisture22. The implications for incorporating this waste stream and these three materials in particular, into an in-vessel or anaerobic digestion based organic waste processing facility are summarised below. A complete discussion paper on the topic is provided in Appendix A (as prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting).

20 21 22

SWAP data: ACC 11.4%, MCC 12.2%, WCC 15.6%, NSCC 10.9%, FDC 9.1%, PDC 11.1%, RDC 8.6% www.envirocomp.co.nz C Morawski (2003), Diaper Recycling, Solid Waste & Recycling available on www.solidwastemag.com

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

28

Page 223 of 470

5.2 5.2.1

Implications for processing Sodium Polyacrylate (PAC)

PAC is a super-absorbent polymer commonly found in disposable nappies23 and other absorbent hygiene products. It is a stable chemical and not easily degradable. When wet, it forms a gel-type substance and can absorb 200-300 times its own weight in liquids. The presence of PACs in the end product will increase the water retention of the product, or the soil to which the product is applied. In some situations this may be a desirable quality; in others, less so. This would have implications for the end market as the PACs cannot be removed from the product. The extent to which PACs retain pathogens from human waste, or whether these pathogens are destroyed during processing, is not clear and this is a key area that would require more investigation. There do not appear to be any major issues in respect of the impact of PACs on aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion processes, although there are questions over the process of degradation of the material in these processes. 5.2.2 Plastic and wood pulp

Wood pulps will not present any issues in aerobic processes but may be an issue in some anaerobic processes. Plastics are essentially a contaminant and would require removal through screening, however as they are essentially inert in the process will have little other impact on the process. 5.2.3 Pre-processing requirements

As outlined above, it is essential that a thorough shredding process is incorporated at the beginning, to ensure that the plastic layers are breached. This could cause problems where other contaminants (such as batteries and metals) are shredded to the point where screening at the end of the process is no longer effective in capturing these contaminants. 5.2.4 Management of pathogens

As long as the composting or digestion processes are strictly controlled and sufficient temperatures are attained for pathogen kill this is likely to be a manageable issue in respect of processing. It may require some additional attention to transfer and bulking processes particularly if these involve shredding of materials. 5.3 Fortnightly collection

With the introduction of a weekly organic waste collection service both Timaru District Council and Christchurch City Council have reduced refuse collections to a fortnightly service. The introduction of refuse bins have also reduced capacity compared to the

23

City of Vancouver (2007) Study of the Treatability of gDiaper Disposable Diapers and their Impact on Sewer and Wastewater Systems

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

29

Page 224 of 470

previous weekly bagged refuse system. The resulting impacts for those households with significant quantities of sanitary wastes have been discussed with both councils24. Experience in both Timaru and Christchurch has shown that although there have been some complaints about increased odour from fortnightly collection of sanitary wastes, these complaints are few and most concerns raised have been about reduced capacity within the refuse bins25. These capacity concerns have been addressed through the provision of larger refuse bins (needs assessed on a case-by-case basis). For both councils the refuse bins are able to be upsized to 240L bins. It is assumed that larger bin size options would similarly be made available in Auckland should a fortnightly refuse bin collection be introduced. 5.4 Conclusions

The main potential drawbacks of processing sanitary wastes with food waste (or commingled food and greenwaste) are: higher front-end processing costs potential additional processing step for anaerobic digestion to destroy pathogens, again increasing costs higher risk of contamination of end product, resulting in additional screening requirements (e.g. to remove plastics) and implications for end product use (due to actual or perceived risks from product users) addition of PAC to compost or other soil amendment products resulting water retention properties may be desirable for some markets or end users, but less desirable for others potential additional handling and transfer requirements, to address health and safety issues associated with potentially infectious materials.

Although many of these issues could be managed through selected plant and operating practices, the possible exception being limitations created for product use and markets, the experiences from Christchurch and Timaru suggest that fortnightly collection of sanitary wastes can be adequately managed with the option of larger refuse bins. Although it is recognised that sanitary wastes make up a fairly significant portion of organic wastes to landfill it remains a much smaller component than the food and garden waste streams. Therefore, it would be undesirable to compromise food or food and greenwaste collection and processing options through the inclusion of sanitary wastes. Potentially this is a waste stream than can be addressed in the future as processing options increase and become more widely applied.

24

25

Personal communication with Ruth Clarke, Senior Waste Management Officer, Timaru District Council and Tim Selwyn Contracts Management Manager Odour and capacity concerns are both associated primarily with used nappies.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

30

Page 225 of 470

6.

STAGE 2 COST ASSESSMENT

This section sets out the findings from the Stage 2 cost modelling and further consideration of economic benefits from the processing of Aucklands organic waste. Modelled collection costs are presented alongside processing costs determined in Stage 1, as are transport costs between transfer facilities and a single processing site. The results of further assessment of end product values are also presented, determined for products of both the composting process and wet anaerobic digestion. Where possible other environmental benefits of collection and processing are also considered in economic terms for example, carbon emission reductions are equated in dollar terms, as are avoided disposal costs of diverted organic wastes. Costs and financial benefits cannot be considered in isolation from the rate at which diversion of wastes from landfill is achieved. Therefore costs for each option are presented along with estimated organic wastes tonnes diverted from landfill each year. 6.1 Organic waste collection

Table 6-1 describes the various collection scenarios that were modelled for a new council kerbside organic waste collection service. Set out rates and estimated weekly bin contents are based upon reviewed international data combined with findings from the Timaru and Christchurch council organic waste collection services. It was assumed that 80L and 240L bins would be collected using automated 23 m3 trucks whereas the 23L food waste only bins would be manually collected using 8 m3 trucks. It was also assumed that instability issues with the CCC 80L bin would be overcome by the development of an alternative 80L bin with a larger footprint. This option has been discussed with the CCC bin suppliers in principle (Sulo Talbot) and appears viable. It is also understood that the cost of developing a new bin mould would be justified for the Auckland region based on the large number of bins that would be required.
Table 6-1 Scenarios for kerbside organic waste collection service Scenario
Mixed food and greenwaste collection 80L bin high performing system i.e. with kitchen caddy and liner 80L bin medium performing system i.e. with kitchen caddy 80L bin low performing system i.e. 80L bin only 240L bin high performing system i.e. with kitchen caddy and liner 240L bin medium performing system i.e. with kitchen caddy 240L bin low performing system i.e. 240L bin only 75% 72% 70% 75% 70% 65% Food 3.1 Greenwaste 5.0 Food 2.5 Greenwaste - 5.0 Food 2.0 Greenwaste - 5.0 Food 3.1 Greenwaste 9.0 Food 2.3 Greenwaste - 9.0 Food 2.0 Greenwaste - 9.0

Bin set-out rate

Collected quantities (kg/ bin/wk)

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

31

Page 226 of 470

Scenario
Food waste only collection 23L bin high performing system i.e. with kitchen caddy and liner 23L bin medium performing system i.e. with kitchen caddy 23L bin low performing system i.e. 23L bin only

Bin set-out rate


85% 65% 50%

Collected quantities (kg/ bin/wk)


Food 3.1 Food 3.0 Food 2.9

Table 6-2 presents the results from the collection cost modelling, based on average bin weights per week. Costs are presented on an annual basis, as a cost per serviced property, cost per tonne collected and cost per tonne diverted. Tonnage is shown in terms of total tonnes collected as well as tonnes diverted from landfill. Total tonnage is calculated based on the estimated average kilograms of organic waste placed in bins per participating household per week. Kilograms of food waste collected per household are based on international data and resulting performance estimates for high, medium and low performing systems. Kilograms of greenwaste collected per household are based on an analysis of Christchurch City and Timaru District waste collection data. Diverted greenwaste tonnage is based on the assumption that 95 percent (26,600 tonnes per year) of greenwaste contained within refuse bins / bags would be diverted through the organics collection service. It is also assumed that a small portion of the 30,000 tonnes per year of residential greenwaste going to landfill by means other than refuse bags would be captured by the residential kerbside collection service. It is difficult to accurately assess the potential diversion of this stream; however an arbitrary 1,500 tonnes per year26 has been included. The total diverted tonnes of greenwaste is therefore modelled at 28,100 tonnes per year. Annual costs include internal council costs as well as the amortised capital and operating costs of the collection service itself. This includes council contract management staff, waste policy and education officers and marketing and customer support costs to accompany the rollout of the new system. For all scenarios considered $525,000 per year is allocated for such services. Although annual costs increase for the high performance version of each collection bin size, due to the cost of also supplying kitchen caddies and biodegradable bags, it is expected that these systems will maximise the amount of tonnes diverted into the organics collection service. Therefore the cost per tonne and cost per tonne diverted both reduce for these high performance options. Annual costs for the 80L and 240L co-collected food and greenwaste options are similar, although slightly higher for the 240L option (due to additional greenwaste collected and higher bin costs). The food waste only collection options are significantly less expensive than mixed food and greenwaste options due to lower tonnage collected, and smaller, cheaper bins and trucks. It is noted that the food waste only collection is based upon a manual collection method, as typically used in the United Kingdom and Europe. Health and safety concerns associated
26

Estimates from WasteNot Consulting are that around half of the 60,000 T/yr of greenwaste would be generated from residential properties but that only around 40,000 of the 60,000 T/yr is compostable. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that 5 percent of the 30,000 residential T/yr would be diverted into the kerbside collection service. This conservative figure is based on the understanding that much of the greenwaste is delivered in large contaminated loads.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

32

Page 227 of 470

with manual collection may eliminate this option depending on the position taken by the Auckland Council. Alternative automated options are available for a food waste only collection. However, this would require the use of a larger kerbside bin (e.g. 60L bin). Bin stability would need to be considered as would any risk of increased contamination due to excess bin capacity used for other wastes. Vehicle fleet size is calculated based on a combination of the quantity of material collected (limited by truck capacity) and the time taken to complete each collection run. The model assumes that each vehicle completes two collection runs per day, therefore, depending on how much material is collected per household, vehicles may make the trip to the transfer station or processing facility before reaching volume capacity. If peak quantities were higher than modelled and additional collection vehicles were required over those times it is expected that increased capacity requirements would be met through the sharing of collection vehicles with other services. This may be through the sharing of vehicles across organics, refuse and recyclables collections (as per the Christchurch City example of shared, general use vehicles) or through the collection operator bringing in additional vehicles as required from other private collection services. These contingency issues would be dealt with through the tendering process.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

33

Page 228 of 470

Table 6-2

Estimated costs for organic waste collection


Annual Costs ($000) Waste Collected (T) Food Waste
Greenwaste
,2 1

Option

Cost per h-h

Waste Diverted from Landfill (T) Total Food Waste


Greenwaste

Total

Cost per Tonne Collected

Cost per Tonne Diverted

High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection, rates funded

$16,359,051

$36

61,600

88,335

149,935

61,600

28,100

89,700

$109

$182

Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection, rates funded

$15,121,768

$33

48,400

84,802

133,202

48,400

28,100

76,500

$114

$198

Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection, rates funded

$14,459,470

$32

36,960

82,446

119,406

36,960

28,100

65,060

$121

$222

High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection, rates funded

$17,267,113

$38

61,600

159,003

220,603

61,600

28,100

89,700

$78

$192

Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection, rates funded

$15,804,101

$35

44,000

148,403

192,403

44,000

28,100

72,100

$82

$219

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

34

Page 229 of 470

Option

Annual Costs

Cost per h-h

Waste Collected (T) Food Waste


Greenwaste

Waste Diverted from Landfill (T) Total Food Waste


Greenwaste

Total

Cost per Tonne Collected

Cost per Tonne Diverted

Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection, rates funded

$14,690,342

$32

35,200

137,803

173,003

35,200

28,100

63,300

$85

$232

High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection, rates funded3

$11,095,522

$24

70,400

70,400

70,400

70,400

$158

$155

Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection, rates funded3

$8,370,041

$18

52,800

52,800

52,800

52,800

$159

$159

Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection, rates funded3
1

$6,575,712

$15

39,600

39,600

39,600

39,600

$166

$166

Tonnes of greenwaste collected are based on an analysis of organic waste collection data provided by Christchurch City and Timaru District Councils, whereas tonnes of greenwaste diverted from landfill are based on the results of Auckland kerbside waste audits. Table 6-2 shows higher collected than diverted greenwaste tonnage for all 240L bin scenarios and some 80L bin scenarios. This indicates that council kerbside collection systems could draw out greenwaste from a number of sources, including council refuse bins/bags, private greenwaste collections, home compost bins and other on-site applications (e.g. mulch piles, lawn spreadings etc.). Timaru District Council data in particular shows high greenwaste collection tonnage associated with the large 240L bin size. For the food waste only collection scenarios it is assumed that those householders currently using a private greenwaste collection service would continue to do so. It is estimated that this is the case for 10 - 15% of households which, if using a 240L bin collected each month, would pay an additional $144 per year for their greenwaste to be collected and processed or disposed of. Collection costs for the food waste only service are primarily cheaper than co-collected food and garden waste options due to the lower tonnage collected. However, the manual collection method does carry a wider cost to the community than automated methods due to an increased risk of injury (minor and severe). These costs are difficult to quantify but should be noted.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

35

Page 230 of 470

6.2

Transport

Estimated transport costs are based upon the following assumptions: Travel distances One third of collected organic wastes would be delivered to a transfer facility in Henderson, a further third to a transfer facility around the East Tamaki area and the final third is delivered directly to a processing facility Based upon the availability of suitably zoned land and location of end markets potential locations considered for a regional organics facility include medium to heavy industrial areas in Wiri and Mangere as well as more southern locations in the Waikato region (e.g. around Hampton Downs or Envirofert) Transport between a Henderson transfer facility and Wiri or Mangere locations are modelled based on 30 km travel distances, increasing to 80 km if the processing facility was located south of Auckland Transport between an East Tamaki transfer facility and Wiri or Mangere locations are modelled based on 10 km travel distances, increasing to 55 km if the processing facility was located south of Auckland

Transfer method Based upon advice from local industry combined with project team knowledge of overseas bulk transfer methods it is assumed that both co-collected food and greenwaste and food waste only would be transferred in 30 m3 hook bins, with two bins transported per load via truck and trailer units. Total tonnage transported across the two bins is assumed to be 20 T27 Co-collected food and greenwaste would be loaded into the bins using either an excavator or front end loader. Some compaction would be achieved, with an estimated bulk density in the bins of around 0.45 T/m3 for the 240L bin mix and 0.55 T/m3 for the 80L bin mix Food waste would either be tipped into the bins, requiring bins to be set at a lower level than unloading collection vehicles, or may be emptied onto the ground and pushed by a dozer into the hook bin (again set at a lower level than the food waste stockpile). No compaction would be attempted, however, the settled bulk density in the bins is estimated at around 0.65 T/m3. It is expected that the hook bins would have lids fitted for transport of the putrescible material. Depending on the collection method used the food waste may also be contained within biodegradable bags (optimum method for transport).

Table 6-3 presents estimated transport costs between each of the two transfer facilities and main processing site. Due to the much lower quantities of material collected, annual transfer costs for the food waste only options are significantly lower than for the cocollected food and garden waste options. Similarly, due to the higher proportion of greenwaste expected to be captured within the 240L bins, the annual transfer costs for the 240L collection options are significantly higher than the equivalent 80L bin options.

27

Based on advice from Envirowaste Services Limited

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

36

Page 231 of 470

The increase in transport costs between transfer facilities and a processing site south of Auckland would potentially be offset by cheaper land costs. This type of trade-off between proximity and land cost would need to be considered in more detail when selecting a processing site.
Table 6-3 Estimated organic waste transfer costs Transfer Facility Location
Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki Concourse East Tamaki

Collection Option
High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Transfer Trips per year


1,249 1,249 1,110 1,110 995 995 1,838 1,838 1,603 1,603 1,442 1,442 587 587 440 440 330 330

Transfer Trips per day (rounded)


5.0

Annual Costs - low*

Annual Costs high**

$562,256 5.0 5.0 $499,506 5.0 4.0 $447,773 4.0 8.0 $827,261 8.0 7.0 $721,511 7.0 6.0 $648,760 6.0 3.0 $264,000 3.0 2.0 $198,000 2.0 2.0 $148,500 2.0

$1,149,502

$1,021,212

$915,446

$1,691,290

$1,475,088

$1,326,353

$539,733

$404,800

$303,600

* **

Based on travel distances to a processing site in the south Auckland area Based on travel distances to a processing site in the Waikato region

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

37

Page 232 of 470

6.3

Processing

Table 6-4 provides an overview of expected capital and operating costs for the various processing options and annual tonnage associated with each collection scenario. Processing costs are based on those estimates derived as part of the Stage 1 project but extrapolated to suit the annual processing tonnage determined for each of the high, medium and low performing collection systems. Stage 1 costings for 80L bins made provision for loading of wastes into composting containers at the transfer facilities, following screening and mixing. This was on the basis that much of the material collected in Christchurch Citys 80L bins did not require shredding. Since that time processing methods at the Christchurch composting facility have altered and all incoming loads are now shredded. Therefore, Stage 2 processing costs for composting assume that transfer facilities are used only for unloading of collection vehicles and loading of hook bins for bulk haulage, with all bulked loads then shredded at the main processing facility. To allow for this change in operation the screen and blender costs have been removed from transfer facility scenarios and shredders at the main processing site have been upsized (also assume they can be operated on a double shift if required). No provision has been made for a back-up shredder. It is assumed that container or tunnel composting technology would be used at the main processing site, expected supply costs being similar for both options. Although the combined transport and processing benefit of the container composting system may no longer be realised (or would require costly shredders to be purchased for each transfer station as well as the main processing site), it does still offer benefits over the tunnel system in terms of flexibility and ease of adding further containers compared to extending the building to add further tunnels. Stage 1 costings for anaerobic digestion did not include the option of a single facility supported by two transfer facilities. For the purposes of this Stage 2 study capital and operating costs for a single anaerobic digestion facility supported by two transfer stations have been estimated based on the transfer station costs determined for the composting scenario. Stage 1 processing costs were developed on the basis of streamlined operations at both the main processing site and associated transfer stations. Opportunities for streamlining site operations were developed in conjunction with members of the OWWG who themselves have significant operational experience.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

38

Page 233 of 470

Table 6-4

Estimated processing costs Capital Cost (processing facility + 2 transfer station upgrades)2
$22.8M

Collection Option

Processing Option1

Annual Processed Tonnage

Annual Cost3

Cost per T3

High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection
1 2

Composting

149,935

$6.5M

$43

Composting

133,202

$19.2M

$5.9M

$44

Composting

119,406

$18.6M

$5.4M

$45

Composting

220,603

$29.1M

$7.8M

$35

Composting

192,403

$26.1M

$7.2M

$37

Composting Anaerobic Digestion (wet) Anaerobic Digestion (wet) Anaerobic Digestion (wet) Composting

173,003

$25.1M

$6.8M

$39

70,400

$35.0M

$3.4M

$48

52,800

$28.5M

$3.0M

$57

39,600

$25.5M

$2.7M

$68

140,800

$21.9M

$6.1M

$43

Composting

105,600

$18.2M

$5.3M

$53

Composting

79,200

$15.4M

$4.4M

$55

Assumes single processing facility supported by two transfer facilities. Estimated capital costs exclude cost of land and are based on streamlined operation with use of existing RTSs (and therefore minimal development costs and sharing of resources with other RTS activities). Capital costs are based on the facilities being developed by Council and were modelled assuming a 14 day in-vessel processing time. Estimated annual costs and costs per tonne are for direct operating costs only, i.e. excluding any amortisation of capital expenditure or interest charged on any borrowings. Operator's margin is also excluded as are any costs related to land lease.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

39

Page 234 of 470

Assumes a ratio of 1:1 for food waste collection only with composting as processing option. Private greenwaste (non council collected) would need to be mixed with food waste, so processing tonnage is doubled. However it is anticipated that the council/operator would benefit from a gate fee for green waste.

7.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

7.1

Product revenue

Compost, mulch and various soil amendment blends are produced from a compost facility, whereas energy and a liquid and solid fertiliser product are created at an anaerobic digestion facility. Key markets for composting and anaerobic digestion products are discussed below, along with the relative value of end products. 7.1.1 Compost markets

Compost application offers a range of physical, chemical and biological benefits for soil, leading to improved plant growth, pathogen and weed suppression and increased ability of soil to retain moisture and nutrients. Soil structure improvements and improved moisture retention are of particular benefit to Auckland soils. The ability to increase and better retain soil nutrient levels is of increasing value as the cost of synthetic fertilisers rise28. According to the 2007 State of the Environment Report (MfE, 2007),29 Seventeen percent of New Zealands gross domestic product depends on the top 15 centimetres of our soil (Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative, no date). Furthermore, national soil health monitoring30 shows widespread moderate compaction of soils utilised for agricultural and some horticultural uses, and a demonstrated loss of organic matter and soil structural stability as a result of cropping activities. The application of compost to soils can help to overcome these issues, thereby maintaining the health and economic value of our soils. Intensive cropping applications around the Auckland region, particularly in the Pukekohe area, are therefore likely to see environmental and economic benefits of ongoing compost use. There are a number of ways to increase the value of compost products through further processing. Lower cost secondary processing include bagging of compost or blending with other materials such as sand. Higher cost secondary processing includes the development of products for specialty markets, such as horticultural applications growing specific crops. This creation of a specialty product would require a good understanding of specific market requirements and proven results for each market sector. It would likely also require unique product labelling and directions of use. These additional requirements add both cost and

28

The cost of superphosphate in June 2009 was $392 a tonne, compared to $261 per tonne in April 2008. (Source: Nick Smith, June 2009. Will fertilizer scarcity harm farm economy? Article published in The Independent, 18th June 2009, pg. 17.) 29 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/environment-nz07-dec07.pdf 30 Soil health monitoring carried out under the 500 Soils Project and subsequent regional council programmes.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

40

Page 235 of 470

market development time, and therefore costs versus benefits would need to be considered on a case by case basis. Vermicomposting is also a means to increase the value of the end product. This is the method followed by Envirofert who have put considerable focus into developing higher value horticultural and agricultural markets. The added value of vermicompost is partly offset by additional land and processing time requirements as well as a significant reduction in product quantities31. Therefore, vermicompost opportunities and related costs and benefits would also need to be considered on a case by case basis. Blends of standard compost and vermicompost may also provide added value. The strongest potential markets for compost generated from Aucklands food wastes are expected to be the agricultural and horticultural markets. These markets have the potential for not only high volume applications but also high value markets for specialty products (particularly for horticultural applications). The bulk of these markets are located in Franklin and further south of Auckland (including the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions). Viticulture sites in western and northern parts of Auckland may also offer similar opportunities, potentially for mulch products as well as compost. Use by the Auckland Councils own Parks and Reserves unit would also be an option with a relatively large capacity, although this is likely to be a lower value market (for bulk applications of compost and mulch). Council product specifications would need to be aligned with processing methods and quality controls. However this should not be an issue as a composting facility for the Auckland regions wastes should operate in compliance with the New Zealand Compost Standards. Discussions on this option should continue between Solid Waste and Parks and Reserves managerial staff. Further information should be sought from the Parks and Reserves manager on how much compost and mulch is purchased on an annual basis and at what cost. Information should also be sought on greenwaste quantities produced, as a potential feedstock source that can be utilised to process food waste (if it is to be composted). Based on the number of sporting facilities in the Auckland area (including schools), turf applications may also provide market opportunities. The turf market may provide a good balance between higher volume and higher value markets, although specific product requirements would need to be explored. Bagged compost for residential applications is understood to be a potential market for compost created at the Christchurch composting facility, with product branding to be based on the CCC Love Christchurch, Love Your Rubbish logo to encourage residents to use the product they have helped create. However, two key parties involved in the sale of compost in the Auckland region (Living Earth and Envirofert) have indicated that the Auckland residential compost market is already near saturation, with limited potential for expansion. The Living Earth brand is also well established in Auckland, particularly for residential applications. It is therefore expected that any competition against this brand would be challenging and offer limited opportunity. Both Living Earth and Envirofert have stated their belief that organic waste collected from kerbside across the Auckland region could be sold as a beneficial product, be it across a
31

The Recycled Organics Unit (New South Wales) estimates that a vermicomposting facility processing 28,000 m of waste will produce around 7,000 m of vermicast weblink: http://www.worms.com/wormpdfs/whats%20vermicomposting.pdf.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

41

Page 236 of 470

number of markets, some of which will require development. This view is taken at face value and would need to be demonstrated at the tendering process through a sound marketing plan. This plan should address the risk of markets not having sufficient capacity to absorb all product and/or increased product quantities reducing the value of compost from current levels. A large-scale research project is currently underway in Canterbury to assess how compost affects soil health and the establishment, yield and quality of various crop types. This study was commissioned by the Canterbury councils in collaboration with Transpacific Industries (TPI). Following positive results obtained from the original study the scope was expanded to include additional sites, increasing from two initial trial sites at Karina Downs to five sites including locations in Lincoln, Bankside and North Canterbury. The expanded project is funded by the MAF Sustainable Farming Fund, TPI, Canterbury Waste Joint Committee, Environment Canterbury, Balance Agri-Nutrients and the Foundation for Arable Research. Compost is sourced from the Living Earth/CCC composting facility and further assistance is provided for the project by Plant & Food Research, Ministry for the Environment and field trial host farmers. Preliminary results show that compost has improved soil quality and fertility, boosted crop yields and has enabled plants to better utilise nitrogen within the soil. Further details on the Canterbury trial are available within the October-November 2010 issue of Waste Awareness (WasteMINZ magazine, Issue 131, page 16). There will be some differences between Christchurch and Auckland market opportunities due to differing environmental conditions and resulting differences in the type and dominance of specific crops. 7.1.2 Anaerobic digestion markets

Anaerobic digestion produces biogas, liquid fertiliser and solid fertiliser which has either been dried and palletised or composted. The biogas can be used as a substitute for natural gas or further processed to create electricity. It is assumed that biogas would be sold as an energy product into the wholesale market, as otherwise the facility would need to compete against existing retail energy providers. This is a key difference compared to compost products, which would be sold at retail (or bulk) rates. Quantities available for sale into energy markets would be those available after meeting the facilities own energy needs. On-site use of energy produced is a limited market in size but does carry the highest value, in that it avoids retail energy supply costs rather than being sold as a product with a wholesale value. The key drawback with the solid fertiliser developed from the anaerobic digestion process is its need for further processing. Drying and pelletising adds additional capital and operating costs for the plant while composting adds land requirements and further processing time and cost. Assuming that the solid digestion product is not overly odorous, composting could take place in outdoor windrows. This will reduce additional processing costs compared to in-vessel composting however does still require the addition of a greenwaste source. This could be from the council run transfer stations or from private greenwaste collectors. Similar to compost products, there will be additional upfront costs to establish markets for the solid and liquid digestion products. Such markets are completely undeveloped for Auckland, and indeed across New Zealand. Therefore although these fertiliser products

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

42

Page 237 of 470

can be expected to offer similar, and potentially higher, soil and plant growth benefits as compost the acceptance of such products by potential markets may take some time. The capacity of the Auckland energy market is large and it is expected that all energy generated from a food waste digestion facility could be on-sold. The marketing benefit of purchasing energy created from waste may also appeal to a number of retail electricity suppliers who promote themselves as environmentally friendly organisations. However, Table 7-1 presents the relative costs of generating electricity from a number of sources, including from organic waste (biomass)3233. Based on these results the production of energy from biomass is a relatively expensive option and considerably more expensive than most common energy production methods applied in New Zealand (hydro and coal). Costs for biomass energy production are slightly more but similar to costs for wind power generation. These findings indicate that anaerobic digestion of food waste to produce energy may not be the best option compared to generating energy from a number of other sources.
Table 7-1 Levelised energy costs34 for different generation technologies (2006) Cost (AUD/MWh)
4070 75105 2838 5398 64106 101 89 3754 5393 55 75 85 88 120

Technology
Nuclear (to COTS plan) Nuclear (to suit site; typical) Coal Coal: IGCC + CCS Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS Open-cycle Gas Turbine Hot fractured rocks Gas: combined cycle Gas: combined cycle + CCS Small Hydro power Wind power: high capacity factor Solar thermal Biomass Photovoltaics

Cost (NZD/MWh)35
51-89 96-134 36-49 68-125 82-135 129 114 47-69 68-119 70 96 109 113 153

7.1.3

Potential revenue from product sales

The Stage 1 study provided some discussion of the type of products generated from both composting and anaerobic digestion, together with their potential value. As part of this
32

33 34

35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources#cite_note-clavertonenergy.com-4 The stated costs exclude any costs for greenhouse gas emissions associated with the various technologies. Levelised energy cost (LEC) is the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even. It is an economic assessment of the cost of the energy-generating system including all the costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital, and is very useful in calculating the costs of generation from different sources. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources#cite_note-clavertonenergy.com-4 Conversion from Australian to New Zealand dollars is based on an exchange rate of 1 AUD = 1.27804 NZD (15/09/10). Converted values are rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

43

Page 238 of 470

second stage further investigation has been carried out and estimates made of revenue that could be generated from composting or wet anaerobic digestion facilities. The results of this further assessment are presented in Table 7-2. Estimates of revenue from end products are based upon core products for which developed markets are available. This equates to compost from compost facilities and energy (natural gas or electricity) from anaerobic digestion plants. Both composting and anaerobic digestion products can be further processed to produce a range of soil amendment products. Similarly both processes produce a liquid that could potentially be marketed as a liquid fertiliser product. However these secondary products require both additional production costs and the development of local markets. Taking a conservative approach no additional revenue is allowed from the sale of secondary products, nor is any costs allocated for their disposal. It is thereby assumed that secondary products are cost neutral in terms of further processing requirements and final sale price. Compost revenue was modelled on a domestic but bulk sales option rather than bagged compost or higher value products such as vermicompost. The assumed GST exclusive product value for compost is $78/m3 which is based on the average bulk sale price of Compost NZ compost (from the Wellington region), Living Earth compost (from the Auckland region) and Timaru District Council compost created from domestic food and greenwaste. Although compost is typically sold on a volume basis, at an assumed bulk density of 0.5 T/m3 this would equate to a value of around $40/T. Compost revenue does not include potential income from oversized material screened out from the compost in the final stage. This oversize can be sold as a bark product or recycled back through the process to further degrade and aid in increasing porosity of the mix, as well as ultimately increasing the amount of product produced. The assumed product value for electricity created from biogas is $62/MWh. This figure is based on the MED wholesale price of $82/MWh minus engine operating costs of $0.02 per kWh (or $20 per MWh). A 1MW engine to convert the biogas to electricity would also carry an additional capital cost of around $800,000 (installed) plus site specific costs for grid connection. A hydrogen sulphide scrubber would also be required, at a cost of around $180,000. A potentially more economic option is to use biogas as a replacement for natural gas, thereby requiring no further capital investment and operating costs. The nominated product value for natural gas of $7.80/GJ is based on the MED wholesale pricing. It is assumed that all energy and compost products would be able to be sold. This is based on the large Auckland energy market and the assurances from both Living Earth Limited and Envirofert that they would be able to sell all products generated from an Auckland kerbside organics collection. It is assumed that compost would be sold not only across the Auckland region but also into the Waikato and Bay of Plenty. However, it is noted that there are risks around market capacity, market development cost and time requirements and the potential for composting values to fall from current levels due to higher annual quantities being produced in the region. These risks are discussed further in Section 10 and would need to be addressed as part of any formal tendering process. Based on Table 7-2 the annual revenue potential from composting is significantly higher than from anaerobic digestion. This is a result of both higher product output and a higher value product.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

44

Page 239 of 470

Table 7-2 Collection Option

Estimated revenue from product sales Processing Option Annual Tonnage In Annual Product Out Annual Revenue*

High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated Collection

Composting

149,935

89,961

m3

$7,014,459

Composting

133,202

79,921

$6,231,615

Composting

119,406

71,644

$5,586,211

Composting

220,603

132,362

$10,320,544

Composting

192,403

115,442

$9,001,244

Composting

173,003

103,802

m3

$8,093,638

High performing system, food waste Composting only, 23L bin, manual collection Medium performing system, food waste Composting only, 23L bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste Composting only, 23L bin, manual collection EITHER: AD Option 1 High performing system, food Wet Anaerobic waste only, 23L Digestion bin, manual collection Medium Wet Anaerobic performing Digestion system, food waste only, 23L

140,800

84,480

$6,587,093

105,600

63,360

m3

$4,940,320

79,200

47,520

m3

$3,705,240

70,400

17,192

MWh

$1,065,884

52,800

12,894

MWh

$799,413

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

45

Page 240 of 470

Collection Option
bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection OR: AD Option 2 High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Processing Option

Annual Tonnage In

Annual Product Out

Annual Revenue*

Wet Anaerobic Digestion

39,600

9,670

MWh

$599,560

Wet Anaerobic Digestion

70,400

185,201

GJ

$1,444,570

Wet Anaerobic Digestion

52,800

138,901

GJ

$1,083,427

Wet Anaerobic Digestion

39,600

104,176

GJ

$812,571

* Stated annual revenue is based on the assumption that all product is able to be sold at the nominated average
product value (domestic bulk sales pricing). It may take some time to achieve this level of product sales, particularly for compost products. Sales prices may also be lower for bulk supply of compost products into the agricultural market, depending on the specialty level of the product. However, lower pricing would be offset by larger orders and potentially lower product refinement and marketing costs compared to that required for the domestic market. Risks around market capacity, market development and the potential for composting values to fall from current levels would need to be addressed as part of any formal Tendering process.

7.2

Avoided disposal costs

In addition to the product revenue stream, there are other potential cost savings from the collection and processing of organics wastes. These include avoided disposal costs for organic waste tonnage currently going to landfill within the residual waste stream, as well as the avoided residual collection costs. Avoided collection costs have not been modelled due to the additional complexity involved in assessing avoided collection costs (depends on type of receptacle used, frequency of collection etc.). However, they would be recognised as part of an overall assessment of kerbside waste collection and processing costs for the Auckland region, i.e. with organic wastes considered alongside recyclables and residual wastes. Key environmental benefits include the diversion of waste from landfill and creation of a product available for beneficial reuse. This benefit would be realised for either composting or anaerobic digestion. The avoided cost of disposal has been assessed based on an assumed average landfill disposal cost (to the council) of $68 per tonne. Table 7-3 summarises the expected value of avoided disposal costs.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

46

Page 241 of 470

Although the option of a food waste only collection processed via composting also diverts greenwaste from landfill, it is assumed that the composted greenwaste would be sourced from private collection services. Therefore current levels of greenwaste within refuse bags or bins is expected to remain constant. This greenwaste will continue to be disposed of to landfill. These assumptions are made on the basis that Council would not be providing a fourth separate greenwaste collection service and that greenwaste disposal options would therefore continue as per the current situation. There is potential to divert some additional greenwaste through other means such as a greenwaste-to-landfill ban, introduction of a council wide polluter pays refuse system or via financial incentives from private collectors who wish to increase security of greenwaste supply. Whilst, these scenarios are more complex and difficult to model with any degree of certainty, it has been noted from recent SWAP analysis data that green waste tonnage in council collected kerbside waste is significantly lower in council areas with polluter pays refuse bags rather than rates funded bins.
Table 7-3 Estimated avoided disposal costs Processing Option
Composting

Collection Option
High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 80L bin, automated collection High performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food and greenwaste, 240L bin, automated collection High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Waste Diverted (T/yr)


89,700

Avoided Annual Disposal Cost


$6,099,600

Composting

76,500

$5,202,000

Composting

65,060

$4,424,080

Composting

89,700

$6,099,600

Composting

72,100

$4,902,800

Composting Wet Anaerobic Digestion or Composting Wet Anaerobic Digestion or Composting Wet Anaerobic Digestion or Composting

63,300

$4,304,400

70,400

$4,787,200

52,800

$3,590,400

39,600

$2,692,800

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

47

Page 242 of 470

7.3

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

An environmental benefit and future economic benefit is the reduction of greenhouse gases generated from the landfill. This is particularly related to the diversion of food waste from landfill due to its higher calorific value. IPCC36 Tier 1 (default) emission factors for greenhouse gases from composting and anaerobic digestion are shown below: Composting: - 4g of methane produced per kg of (wet) organic waste composted - 0.3g of nitrous oxide produced per kg of (wet) organic waste composted Anaerobic Digestion: - 1g of methane produced per kg of (wet) organic waste digested - negligible nitrous oxide produced. The global warming potential (GWP) of methane is 21 and the GWP of nitrous oxide is 310. Carbon dioxide equivalent units for emissions from each kilogram of processed organic waste are therefore: Composting: 4 x 21 + 0.3 x 310 = 177g of CO2-e Anaerobic Digestion: 1 x 21 + 0.0 x 310 = 21g of CO2-e.

According to Ministry for the Environment (MfE) guidelines,37 0.559 kg of CO2-e is emitted for each kilogram of mixed food and greenwaste disposed of to New Zealand landfills (default MfE factor rather than landfill specific, takes into account landfill gas extraction). This is significantly higher than the 0.177kg of CO2-e calculated for composting and considerably higher than the 0.021kg calculated for anaerobic digestion. In emission reduction terms, diverting organic wastes from landfill for composting therefore reduces emissions by 69 percent. Anaerobic digestion improves upon this further, achieving a 96 percent emissions reduction. It is unclear at this stage how and when the cost of carbon will be incorporated into landfill disposal charges within New Zealand. However, if recycling practices such as composting and anaerobic digestion remain excluded from the New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) in its final form, then each tonne of organic waste diverted from landfill will save 0.559 tonnes of carbon from being emitted from the landfill (with no differentiation currently made between composting and anaerobic digestion within the ETS calculation methodology). At a carbon price of $15 per tonne this would equate to a disposal cost savings of around $8 per tonne, or around $14 per tonne if a higher carbon price of $25 per tonne was applied.

36 37

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidance for Voluntary, Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Data and methods for the 2007 calendar year September 2008, Ref ME 904 - http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/guidance-greenhouse-gas-reporting-200809/index.html

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

48

Page 243 of 470

8.

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Table 8-1 presents the combined collection, transport and processing costs for each organic waste option considered under this study. There are a number of risks associated with each option. Therefore Table 8-1 should be read alongside Table 10-1. The following points should also be kept in mind when considering total system costs: High performing collection systems include kerbside bins and kitchen caddies with biodegradable liners. Medium performing collection systems include kerbside bins and kitchen caddies but no liners. Low performing collection systems include the kerbside bin only. Co-collected food and greenwaste options are based on an automated bin collection, whereas the food waste only collection is modelled assuming a manual collection service (considered in the United Kingdom and Europe to be the most efficient method). It is noted that there are potential health and safety issues associated with manual collection practices. Both parts of this study have been driven by processing methods in the first instance, with a food waste only collection required in order for anaerobic digestion to be economically viable. It is for this reason that the pairing is made between food waste only collection options and wet anaerobic digestion. Dry anaerobic digestion (AD) could theoretically also be paired with a food waste only collection system (with greenwaste added) or a co-collected food and greenwaste option (with a maximum of 70% greenwaste). However, dry AD options were eliminated during the Stage 1 assessment due to significantly higher capital costs and higher annual operating costs. Collection costs include capital and operating costs. To allow for the collection of material during seasonal peaks it is assumed that additional trucks would be made available during spring/summer months as required (shared with other council or private waste services). These seasonal peaks apply to co-collected food and greenwaste only, as food waste itself is assumed to remain in fairly consistent quantities throughout the year. These issues would be addressed through the Tendering process. Transport costs are based upon a maximum travel distance of 80km between the Henderson transfer facility and a processing facility (located south of Auckland) and 55km between an East Tamaki transfer facility and southern processing site. Processing costs were developed on the basis of streamlined operations at both the main processing site and associated transfer stations. Opportunities for streamlining site operations were developed in conjunction with members of the OWWG who themselves have significant operational experience. Capital costs stated in Table 8-1 for processing facilities exclude the cost of land and are based on development by Council. Operating costs for processing exclude any amortisation or financing of capital costs. This is on the basis that capital development could be potentially funded using a combination of council and contestable waste levy funds rather than funding via rates. Composting facilities are sized based on a 14 day in-vessel processing time.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

49

Page 244 of 470

Operating costs (per tonne or per year) stated in Table 8-1 for processing facilities exclude any allowance for the operators profit margin or site lease costs (if relevant) Minor capital costs were allowed for the modification of existing transfer stations to allow for receipt of organic wastes collected from kerbside. The magnitude of these development costs were agreed with OWWG members The cost per household is based upon total annual costs divided by the number of residential users expected to be offered an organics collection service (estimated at 453,000) The potential annual revenue is based on bulk sales of compost from composting facilities and wholesale income from the sale of biogas generated at an anaerobic digestion facility (sold as a substitute for natural gas expected to be more profitable than generation and sale of electricity from biogas) It is assumed that all energy and compost products would be able to be sold. This is based on the large Auckland energy market and the assurances from both Living Earth Limited and Envirofert that they would be able to sell all products generated from an Auckland kerbside organics collection. It is assumed that compost would be sold not only across the Auckland region but also into the Waikato and Bay of Plenty The avoided disposal costs are based upon estimated diverted organic waste tonnages multiplied by an assumed Auckland Council landfill disposal rate of $68 per tonne

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

50

Page 245 of 470

Table 8-1

Summary collection, transport, processing, revenue and avoided costs

*Table 8-1 should be read bearing in mind the notes presented on the following page and read alongside Table 10-1 (risk assessment)*
Processing Option Waste Collected (T/yr) Waste Diverted (T/yr) Capital Cost (processing facility + 2 transfer station upgrades) ANNUAL COSTS (excl. amortisation of processing facility capex.) ANNUAL COMMERCIAL BENEFITS Potential Annual Revenue Avoided Disposal Costs NET ANNUAL COSTS (excl. amortisation of processing facility capex.) Annual Costs Cost per Tonne Collected Cost per Tonne Diverted Equivalent Cost per Household COMMENTS

Collection Option

Collection

Transport

Processing

TOTAL

Total Benefits

High performing system, mixed food & garden waste, 80L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food & garden waste, 80L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food & garden waste, 80L bin, automated collection High performing system, mixed food & garden waste, 240L bin, automated collection Medium performing system, mixed food & garden waste, 240L bin, automated collection Low performing system, mixed food & garden waste, 240L bin, automated collection

Composting

149,935

89,700

$22.8M

$16.4M

$1.1M

$6.5M

$24.0M

$7.0M

$6.1M

$13.1M

$10.9M

$73

$122

$24

Composting

133,202

76,500

$19.2M

$15.1M

$1.0M

$5.9M

$22.0M

$6.2M

$5.2M

$11.4M

$10.6M

$80

$139

$23

Composting

119,406

65,060

$18.6M

$14.5M

$0.9M

$5.4M

$20.8M

$5.6M

$4.4M

$10.0M

$10.8M

$90

$166

$24

Composting

220,603

89,700

$29.1M

$17.3M

$1.7M

$7.8M

$26.8M

$10.3M

$6.1M

$16.4M

$10.4M

$47

$116

$23

compostingisaprovenandwidelyusedprocessingtechnique(withinNZ&internationally) compostingoffersflexibilityforvaryingwastetonnagesandcomposition,andcontaminants,particularly whentunnelorcontainerbasedtechnologiesareselected(asmodelled) facilitycanbeincreasedincapacitytoalsoprocesscommercialfoodandgreenwaste ADsystemsoftenincludecompostingtofurthertreatbyproducts,therefore,acompostingfacilitycould beupgradedtoadrydigestionfacilityinthefuture ifadequategreenwasteisavailabletocontractor,compostingcanbecombinedwithfoodwasteonly collection aweekly240Lbingreenwastecollectionisunnecessarilylargeandexpensive,an80Lcollectionbin optionisexpectedtoprovideadequatecapacityformosthouseholds amixedcollectioncapturesbothfoodandgreenwastediversionfromlandfillbenefits&avoids greenwastesecurityofsupplyrisksforcomposting automatedcollectioneliminateshealthandsafetyrisksassociatedwithmanualcollection expectedtocapturegreenwastethatiscurrentlyusedonsitebutpotentiallynotprocessedcorrectly (turninganaerobic,releasingodourandleachate,attractingverminetc.) reducedoverallcosttohouseholdscurrentlyusingaprivategreenwastecollectionservice(estimatedat 15%ofhouseholdsacrosstheregion,payingonaverage$144/yr) lossofbusinessforprivategreenwastecollectors(potentiallysignificant) somediversionofgreenwastefromcurrentbeneficialreuseactivities(compostingofprivatelycollected tonnage,homecompostingwheredonecorrectly) increasedannualrevenueduetohigherprocessedtonnage compostproductsarewellunderstoodbyusers,althoughmarketswouldrequirefurtherdevelopment foradsorptionoflargequantitiesproduce

Composting

192,403

72,100

$26.1M

$15.8M

$1.5M

$7.2M

$24.5M

$9.0M

$4.9M

$13.9M

$10.6M

$55

$147

$23

Composting

173,003

63,300

$25.1M

$14.7M

$1.3M

$6.8M

$22.8M

$8.1M

$4.3M

$12.4M

$10.4M

$60

$164

$23

High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Anaerobic Digestion (wet)

70,400

70,400

$35.0M

$11.1M

$0.5M

$3.4M

$15.0M

$1.4M

$4.8M

$6.2M

$8.8M

$125

$125

$19

Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Anaerobic Digestion (wet)

52,800

52,800

$28.5M

$8.4M

$0.4M

$3.0M

$11.8M

$1.1M

$3.6M

$4.7M

$7.1M

$134

$134

$16

Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Anaerobic Digestion (wet)

39,600

39,600

$25.5M

$6.6M

$0.3M

$2.7M

$9.6M

$0.8M

$2.7M

$3.5M

$6.1M

$154

$154

$13

ADismorewidelyusedwithinEUandNorthAmericancountries,however,therearenosuccessfullarge scaleexamplesoperatingwithinAustralasia problemsexperiencedwiththeEarthPowerfoodwastedigestionfacilityinSydney,resultingin commercialfailureprior.Discussionswiththefacilitydesignersandcurrentoperatorsindicatedthat problemswereprimarilyduetothedifficultyinsecuringlowcontaminationfoodwastes. ADprocessismoresensitivethancompostingtochangesinwastequantityandcomposition,requiringa higherleveloffeedstockandoperatingcontrol.Equipmentissusceptibletodamagefromcontaminants (asevidencedbyfailureoftheSydneyEarthPowerfacility) capitalcostsforADtechnologytypicallyhigherthanforcompostingtunnel/containercomposting systemsexpectedtohaveatechnologysupplycostofaround$6Mfor80,000T/yrofmixedfoodand greenwasteandupto$13Mfor200,000T/yr.Bycomparison,anADfacilitymayhaveacapitalcostof around$13Mfor30,000T/yroffoodwasteandaround$21Mfor75,000T/yr.Additionalcostswould applyforsitedevelopment,buildings,decontaminationfacilitiesandancillaryequipment. ADproducessolidandliquidproductsaswellasbiogas,however,solidproductsrequirefurther processingpriortouseasasoilamendment(e.g.compostingordrying) marketsforsolidandliquidproductswouldneedtobedevelopedandbiogaslikelytobehighercost renewableenergysourcethanotheroptions(e.g.hydro) foodwasteonlycollectionpotentiallycaptureshigherfoodwastequantitiesthancocollectedfoodand greenwastecollectionmethods,however,itdoesnotaddressgreenwastecurrentlygoingtolandfilland wouldcarrysecurityofsupplyrisksforgreenwasteifwasteistobecomposted manualcollectionincreaseshealthandsafetyrisksforrunnersifrisksarenotmanaged(hiddencost) higheroverallcosttothosehouseholdsneedingtouseaprivategreenwastecollectionservice (estimatedat15%ofhouseholdsacrosstheregion)

High performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Refer above to comments on composting and food waste only collection systems

Composting

140800

70400

$21.9M

$11.1M

$0.5M

$6.1M

$17.7M

$6.5M

$4.8M

$11.4M

$6.3M

$45

$89

$14

Additional comments with respect to food waste only collection combined with composting: thiscombinationofcollectionandprocessingmethodallowsamatchbetweenalowercostcollection methodandaprocessingtechnologythatiswellestablishedwithinAustralasia forfoodwastetobesuccessfullycompostedanadequatesupplyofgreenwasteisrequired,creating securityofsupplyrisksforthegreenwasteportion indicationsfromindustryarethattheycansourceenoughgreenwastetoprocesstheentireregions householdfoodwaste,however,contingencymeasureswouldneedtobediscussed thisscenarioallowstheprocessorstocontroltheratiooffoodwastetogreenwaste,withanexpected mixratioof1Tofgreenwasteforeachtonneoffoodwaste optimisedratiooffoodandgreenwaste(1:1byweight)reducestherequiredfacilitysize(comparedto commingledcollectionsystemswhichhavemorethan50%greenwasteand,asaresult,higherannual processedtonnages).

Medium performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Composting

105600

52800

$18.2M

$8.4M

$0.4M

$5.3M

$14.1M

$4.9M

$3.6M

$8.5M

$5.6M

$53

$106

$12

Low performing system, food waste only, 23L bin, manual collection

Composting

79200

39600

$15.4M

$6.6M

$0.3M

$4.4M

$11.3M

$3.7M

$2.7M

$6.4M

$4.9M

$62

$124

$11

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

51

Page 246 of 470

Table 8-1 Notes Tonnages: Collected food and greenwaste tonnages are estimated based on New Zealand and overseas experiences with organic collection service capture and participation rates, combined with available data of food and greenwaste tonnages currently disposed of to landfill within kerbside bags/bins. Diverted greenwaste tonnes assumes 95% diversion of greenwaste currently within refuse bins/bags plus a small portion of the 30,000 tonnes per year of residential greenwaste going to landfill by other means (contractor etc.). Collection and transport: Collection, transport and processing costs are based on a single processing facility supported by two (existing) transfer facilities. Food waste only collection does not assist in reducing greenwaste to landfill. It is assumed that existing practices of greenwaste in refuse and/or use of private greenwaste collection services would continue. Estimated transport costs assume that wastes would be delivered to transfer facilities in West and Central/East or direct to a processing facility to the South. All costs are based on best available data and can only be confirmed by formally going out to market. Processing: Composting costs are based on a tunnel or container based technology, with significant economies of scale achieved through high tonnages. Anaerobic digestion costs are based on a 'wet' process (i.e. high moisture content feedstock, in this case food waste) and customised (conceptual) system as configured by NZ based AD specialists Waste Solutions Ltd. Processing costs were developed based on an assumed, theoretical facility type and configuration. Actual costs will vary with the selected site, operator set-up, equipment selection and staffing numbers etc. Estimated capital costs for processing exclude cost of land and are based on streamlined operation with use of existing RTSs (and therefore minimal development costs and sharing of resources with other RTS activities). Estimated annual costs for processing are for direct operating costs only, i.e. excluding any amortisation or interest charged on capital investment. Operator's margin is also excluded as are any costs related to land lease. Modelling of food waste only collection and composting scenario assumes that adequate greenwaste is available, mixed at a 1:1 ratio with food waste. It also assumes that greenwaste is supplied at zero cost (gate fee may be earned for the greenwaste, however, due to security of supply risks no gate fee revenue is allowed for within annual income). All costs are based on best available data and can only be confirmed by formally going out to market. Products and other benefits: Compost revenue was modelled on a bulk sales option with an assumed product value of $78/m3 (GST exclusive, average bulk sale price of compost sold in Auckland, Wellington and Timaru). It excludes potential income from sale of oversized material screened out during final processing. Avoided disposal costs are based on a landfill rate of $68/T. It is assumed that all compost product could be sold. This is based on assurances from existing Auckland compost producers, although there may be a lag time for markets to be adequately developed, Market capacity, market development and end product value all carry a degree of risk for regional composting. Although it is expected that these risks would be carried by the operator, they would need to be carefully considered as part of a formal tendering process (e.g. via evaluation of a marketing plan and contingency measures). It is assumed that all biogas would be used as a renewable energy source, however, this has not been discussed with energy suppliers. The assumed value for electricity created from biogas is $62/MWh, based on MED wholesale price of $82/MWh minus engine operating costs. A potentially more economic option (as modelled in Table 8-1) is to use biogas as a replacement for natural gas, with a value of $7.80/GJ. The value of compost products is expected to be driven upwards by increases in the international price of synthetic fertilizers. It is unclear how and if the value of biogas will increase as a renewable energy source based on global and national climate change legislation and agreements. Compost production offers other benefits that are difficult to quantify, such as nutritional and structural soil improvements, improved water retention etc. Energy production also offers environmental benefits, however, due to NZs already high proportion of renewable energy these are less prominent and energy production from biogas is a more expensive option than other renewable energy production methods. The avoided disposal costs are based upon estimated diverted organic waste tonnages multiplied by an assumed Auckland Council landfill disposal rate of $68 per tonne.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

52

Page 247 of 470

9.

OTHER TOOLS FOR WASTE DIVERSION

It is recognised that there are tools available to the Auckland Council to seek to reduce organic waste to landfill, including the use of bylaws, to force behaviour change and promote waste minimisation and the beneficial use of resources, and behaviour change programmes. These tools can either be used to support an organic waste collection and processing service or could be used as a deterrent to disposing organic waste to landfill. There is the ability to amend the waste bylaw so that it restricts the type of waste accepted within the refuse collection service. Bans could therefore be placed on greenwaste, or even food waste from being placed in refuse collections. The advantage of using regulation is that it can be an effective means to limit organic waste from being disposed to landfill, particularly where there are suitable alternatives available to enable the recovery of organic waste. However, the challenge associated with this type of action is enforcement of the regulation. There are significant practical and logistical difficulties associated with enforcement which, in order to be overcome, would be at a cost to the council and rate payers. Community engagement and education programmes to encourage waste diversion and organic waste specific initiatives such as home composting are already in place across the Auckland region. An advantage of these programmes is that they are relatively low cost and low risk and can lead to positive engagement with the community. They are, however, challenging to design and can be more difficult to measure in terms of effectiveness in changing behaviour or in measuring the specific waste reduction outcome. Although there is value in these programmes they can only cause waste reduction at a limited level. This is evidenced by the amount of reusable and recycling material continuing to be disposed of to landfill. However, these types of educational and promotional initiatives will still be crucial to the success of any new organic waste service.

10. RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 10-1 is a high level assessment of the various risks associated with all aspects of an organic waste diversion scheme collection, transport, processing and product markets, sales and use. The risk assessment focuses on those options considered most likely for the Auckland region, that is, kerbside collection of either food waste only or co-collected food and garden waste combined with composting.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

53

Page 248 of 470

Table 10-1
No. A. Tonnage Data

Risk assessment
Name Impact Consequence Description Likelihood Description Combined Score Treatment Actions

Application of overseas data to the New Zealand situation / lack of New Zealand data

Leads to uncertainty in waste data estimates refer to risk 2 below

Medium

Quite Common

Explore wide range of international data, compare against NZ data as it becomes available, in particular, continue to keep abreast of TDC and CCC collection analyses

Uncertainty in estimating food and garden waste capture rates

Collection fleet sizing Processing facility sizing Resulting cost implications

Medium

Likely

12

Continue to consider a range of tonnage bands, amend estimates as further NZ data becomes available, discuss with industry when developing collection and processing RFTs, place some or all risk of fleet processing facility sizing on operators, ensure that selected options allow flexibility (e.g. addition of processing units etc.)

B. Collection Underuse of collection and processing plant, leading to higher processing costs per tonne Reduced material density (for co-collected food and greenwaste with high greenwaste portion/low food waste portion) reducing plant capacity Reduced end product quantities and resulting revenue Sourcing bins in sufficient numbers Sourcing collection vehicles in sufficient numbers Ensure selected system is as user-friendly as possible. Accompany system rollout (and preparation) with a promotional service to explain and encourage use. Provide economic incentives for organic collection, such as higher cost / user pays charging for residual and/or use of bylaw powers to ban food and or greenwaste from residual. Carry out ongoing monitoring to ensure that as much food waste as possible is being collected, and support with ongoing promotion and education as required.

Lack of participation in organics service, i.e. set-out rates less than expected levels of 60 85% and/or food waste portion less than expected levels

Major

Quite Common

12

Scale of regional collection service roll-out

Major

Likely

16

Ensure adequate lead-in time provided, discuss with industry ahead of formal processes as a 'heads-up'

Bin footprint issues - as experienced by CCC with standard 80L bin

Instability issues (at kerbside and upon lifting) wedging of branches within relatively narrow bin, increasing instability risk

Major

Likely

16

If an 80L bin for co-collected food and garden waste is selected, bin dimensions should be altered to provide a larger footprint. So long as lifting is not compromised a shorter, squatter bin could be developed, otherwise a larger bin (e.g. 120L) with a false bottom may be an option. Extra lead-up time may therefore be required to allow bin manufacturer to develop and test a new product.

Manual collection - Health and Safety

Increased risk of injury to collection runner from lifting bins and working on the road - risk addresses minor and severe injury as well as death

Major

Quite Common

12

Auckland Council to establish their position on whether or not manual waste collection is acceptable to the City. If not, options for automated collection of food waste only to potentially be considered.

Contamination

Increased processing cost to remove contaminants Lower quality product

Medium

Unlikely

Minimise bin size as much as possible to reduce risk of it being used for other purposes, carry out a clear education / promotion programme to stress the need for correct use of the organics bin, provide clear labelling on bin (or stickers etc.) to show what wastes are and are not acceptable, ensure processing facility includes adequate provision for decontamination of wastes prior to processing. Inspect loads upon collection (use of cameras, visual inspections etc.) and have a process in place to address unacceptable contamination at source.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

54

Page 249 of 470

No.

Name

Impact

Consequence Description

Likelihood Description

Combined Score

Treatment Actions

Specific risk of contamination if biodegradable bin liner used

Risk of biodegradable liners not fully breaking down during processing The public using plastic bags other than approved biodegradable liners

Major

Unlikely

Discuss use of liners with potential processing operators before signing off on their use, consider undertaking a local trial to test that liners do in fact increase food waste capture. If liners are to be used ensure compatibility between processing system and liner degradation conditions, seek assurances from both liner supplier and processor and carry out comprehensive testing of liners before approving their use, ensure approved liners are easily recognisable, council to supply liner distribution to limit use of other types of liners, carry out comprehensive and ongoing public education programme.

Space requirements for additional organics bin

Reduced kerbside space, particularly in areas of intensive housing

Medium

Quite Common

Consider ability to reduce residual collection to a fortnightly service, on alternate weeks to recycling, thereby maintaining a two bin system. For multi-unit dwellings consider providing large, shared bin options

10

Delayed collection vehicles

Inability to carry out complete collection run

Medium

Quite Common

Contingency arrangements allowed for if collection delays encountered - e.g. as per CCC fleet with additional vehicles acting as a 'float' across organics, recycling and residual collections. Contingency measures to be addressed through RFT process and contractual arrangements

11

Provision for seasonal variations - applies to greenwaste only

Risk of collection fleet not being adequate to collect material during peak periods (peak being around 1.5 x average tonnage)

Major

Quite Common

12

Size collection fleet to suit peak, or have contingency vehicles available - refer above

12

Fortnightly residual collection - impacts for nappies and sanitary wastes

Insufficient capacity within residual bin for fortnight's worth of sanitary wastes Odour from storage of wastes over fortnight, particularly for disposable nappies

Medium

Unlikely

Provide options for larger residual bin sizes where adequate need is demonstrated, continue existing programmes to encourage other options e.g. cloth nappies

C. Bulk Transport / Transfer of wastes

13

Use of existing transfer facilities

Risk of suitable agreements not being able to be reached, particularly for East Tamaki location Impacts on other transfer station operations Extent of upgrade works required being greater than envisaged

Medium

Quite Common

Dependent to some extent on what is happening with the wider transfer station network increased control of RTS network by the Auckland Council would be highly advantageous Further consideration of upgrade works and any additional plant requirements would be required prior to selection of RTS locations (preliminary design and costings required)

14

Handling and transfer of food waste

Odour

Leachate

Major

Likely

16

Unloading of collection vehicles / loading of bulk transfer bins to take place within a building complete with trade waste collection and disposal system, for food waste only collection may also need to consider installation of an odour extraction system, minimise time food waste is left on the floor, use of bin liners will provide some containment, co-collection of food and garden waste will provide some adsorption of leachate and odours. Bins used for food waste only transfer will most likely require lids to be fitted. Can be reduced significantly with effective bylaw, planning controls and enforcement.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

55

Page 250 of 470

No. D. Processing

Name

Impact

Consequence Description

Likelihood Description

Combined Score

Treatment Actions

15a

Robustness and reliability of processing technology - composting

Risk of processing technology failing to operate as required, thereby increasing operating and maintenance costs, requiring further capital investment to retrofit technical solutions or even complete process failure

Substantial

Unlikely

10

Ensure chosen technology is well-proven at the scale of operation required for the Auckland region. Visit existing plants to ensure that successful examples are in operation and that lessons learned from those operations can be transferred to the Auckland region. Ensure selected operators have sufficient experience with the technology, waste materials and largescale operation. Ensure that sufficient technical support and contingency planning is in place (e.g. through contractual arrangements between Council and the operator, and between the operator and technical supplier). Ensure that technical and mechanical back-up is available locally or that responses and any remedial action can be addressed on a short turnaround time. Large scale biowaste composting facilities are relatively common within Australasia increasing local knowledge of technologies robustness and reliability. Large scale examples are also prevalent within parts of Europe and North America, some of which have been in operation for a long period of time.

15b

Robustness and reliability of processing technology anaerobic digestion (AD)

Risk of processing technology failing to operate as required, thereby increasing operating and maintenance costs, requiring further capital investment to retrofit technical solutions or even complete process failure

Ensure chosen technology is well-proven at the scale of operation required for the Auckland region. Visit existing plants to ensure that successful examples are in operation and that lessons learned from those operations can be transferred to the Auckland region. Ensure selected operators have sufficient experience with the technology, waste materials and largescale operation. Ensure that sufficient technical support and contingency planning is in place (e.g. through contractual arrangements between Council and the operator, and between the operator and technical supplier). Ensure that technical and mechanical back-up is available locally or that responses and any remedial action can be addressed on a short turnaround time. Substantial Quite Common 15 The only large-scale example of AD within Australasia is the EarthPower facility that operated in Sydney. Due to a combination of lack of security of supply of food waste, poor operating practices and unsuitable design for the types of wastes processed this plant was a commercial failure. Other examples of large scale AD technology can be found in Europe and North America (refer Appendix B) these are supposedly successful although that premise should be further tested if AD was to be selected for Auckland. The Quite Common likelihood rating is based on the limited and negative experience of AD within Australasia.

16

Cost exceeds budget available capital expenditure - composting

Processing facility construction delayed while adequate funds are sourced Processing facility is not affordable, removing ability for organic waste collection service Scale of facility may need to be reduced and waste reduction benefits reduced accordingly Other waste related services may need to be reduced to enable organic waste facility to proceed

Composting facilities require a lower capital investment than AD facilities Substantial Unlikely 10 Modular composting technologies are available, enabling staging of treatment facility to match available funding over time

17

Effect of varying tonnages and changes in waste composition on treatment process and equipment

Process disruption and/or failure (more likely for AD than for composting) Inadequate capacity available Changes to product characteristics

Major

Likely

16

Composting technologies, particularly container and tunnel based systems, are expected to have greater flexibility for varying waste composition than AD. Processing technology needs to be sized to allow for varying tonnages, especially when greenwaste is involved (seasonal variability). Incoming waste properties and quantities need to be carefully monitored to give advance warning of any process or product impacts.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

56

Page 251 of 470

No.

Name

Impact

Consequence Description

Likelihood Description

Combined Score

Treatment Actions

18a

Effect of waste contamination on treatment process and equipment - composting

Equipment damage from contaminants (e.g. metal, glass, plastic etc.) Contamination of end products (compost etc.)

Major

Unlikely

Ensure that facility design allows for some contamination (contingency planning) and has suitable equipment included to remove contaminants from final product Educate the public and monitor kerbside bins to try and reduce contamination at source as much as possible.

18b

Effect of waste contamination on treatment process and equipment anaerobic digestion (AD)

Equipment damage from contaminants (e.g. metal, glass, plastic etc.) Contamination of end product ( solid and liquid products) Loss of processing capacity due to build-up of contaminants (e.g. as was experienced Sydney EarthPower plant also a result of operating and maintenance practices)

Major

Likely

16

Ensure that facility design allows for some contamination (contingency planning) and has suitable equipment included to remove contaminants from final product Educate the public and monitor kerbside bins to try and reduce contamination at source as much as possible. Likely rating based on EarthPower plant experiences

19

Lack of adequate greenwaste to process food if collected separately

Inability to process food waste

Substantial

Likely

20

Key risk that is most difficult to control - limited ability to guarantee greenwaste security as supply is market driven and open to competition and undercutting. Best available options to the council to ensure security of supply are provision of a separate council greenwaste collection service (or subsidised private schemes) and/or ban greenwaste from residual collections and landfill (requires enforcement). Risk is eliminated by co-collection of food and garden waste.

20

Locating and permitting a suitable site

Site location Site size and cost Time to consent

Substantial

Likely

20

Locating a suitable site could be undertaken as a joint exercise between the Auckland Council and the selected processing operator. The Auckland Council should take a key role in either obtaining resource consents or facilitating the consent process. The need for zoning changes may also require consideration. Adequate lead in time should be provided to ensure that consents are obtained before site detailed design and development is underway. It is noted that Envirofert has and existing site that is large and well located. Consents for food waste composting are said to be in place but not confirmed.

21

Incomplete costings

Cost of land, finance and Operator's margin not currently included within processing cost estimates (due to uncertainty on how those components will be addressed) - impact is an incomplete picture of processing costs (total and comparative)

Substantial

Likely

20

Undertake a formal EOI or tendering process to allow markets to establish costs, work with suitably qualified submitters in a manner than involves open book discussion of processing costs. Use this market tested financial information to form the basis of any costs publicly released.

22

Limited options for processing operators

Reduced market competition Greenwaste controlled by a limited number of players (a key issue for composting if a food waste only collection is undertaken)

Substantial

Likely

20

Undertake a formal EOI or tendering process to seek detailed feedback from industry on how existing control of greenwaste could impact on commercial implications, particularly for composting of food waste collected alone, consider opening EOI or Tendering process up to overseas operators, e.g. Australian based

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

57

Page 252 of 470

No.

Name

Impact

Consequence Description

Likelihood Description

Combined Score

Treatment Actions

23

Failure of key plant - e.g. shredder or screen

Incoming material unable to be processed and/or product unable to be refined and removed - both of which reduce available operating space and build-up of unprocessed material can lead to increased odour, leachate etc.

Substantial

Quite Common

15

Have contingency plans in place, e.g. to repair / replace equipment quickly, store material within an enclosed space until able to be processed, divert elsewhere (ideally for reuse or landfill as final resort)

24

Provision for seasonal variations - applies to greenwaste only

Undersized facility

Major

Quite Common

12

Size processing facility to suit peak quantities - alternatively have provision to reduce processing time during peak periods (need to ensure product quality control requirements still met)

E. Markets / Product Sales

25

Poor quality product

Low return sales Low market infiltration

Major

Unlikely

Optimise end product quality through reducing contamination at source - refer risks 6 and 7, create feedback loop between collectors and processors with the council acting as facilitator and regulator, manage collection and processing contacts within the same team to optimise communication and awareness of cross-contract issues

26

Poor sales performance

Low return sales Low market infiltration and/or limited market size Market competition

Major

Quite Common

12

Place market risk primarily on Operator, as they carry the greatest expertise and control over sales, ensure adequate cost is allocated to market development, quality assurance etc., monitor sales performance and assist where appropriate (e.g. use of compost product by the council parks department etc.), ensure processor understands market drivers and needs as well as technical processing aspects. Limit size of collection bin for a commingled collection bin so that quantity of greenwaste collected and processed will not swamp product market 240L bin size carries greater risk, 80L bin size expected to be much more manageable in terms of market capacity required for compost product.

Impact Rating 5 = Substantial 4 = Major 3 = Medium 2 = Minor 1 = Insignificant

Likelihood Rating 5 = Almost Certain 4 = Likely 3 = Quite Common 2 = Unlikely 1 = Rare

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

58

Page 253 of 470

11.

CONCLUSIONS

11.1

Toolbox of options

There are a range of options available to manage Aucklands organic wastes, including existing methods such as home composting, worm composting, bokashi and in sink food waste disposal systems. However, these options are a question of personal preference and the amount of food waste still being disposed of to landfill indicates that they are not being used by a significant portion of the community. The use of domestic food waste as stock feed has some potential for growth in Auckland. However, the variability of domestic food wastes and the inclusion of meat products may raise processing costs and decrease product values to a point that is uneconomic. It is likely that conversion to stock feed is an application that is best suited to commercial food wastes, where waste quantities and properties are likely to be more consistent. It is expected that these existing diversion methods will continue to play a role in the spectrum of organic waste reuse and recycling options. However, based on the quantities of organic materials continuing to be disposed of to landfill, it is considered that a combined kerbside organics collection service and centralised processing is still required in order for the Auckland Council to meet its obligations under the WMA. 11.2 Processing options and costs

Anaerobic digestion (AD) costs are optimised through a wet process meaning that food waste is processed without the need for greenwaste (Stage 1 assessment concluding that dry AD would be significantly higher cost than wet AD). This limits the suitability of anaerobic digestion to a food waste only collection. By comparison, composting can be combined with either a mixed food and greenwaste collection or with a food waste only collection, so long as greenwaste is available from other sources. This creates additional flexibility of composting compared to anaerobic digestion. Based on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 modelling of costs and potential revenues, composting has a lower capital cost, lower processing cost per tonne and higher revenue potential from product sales than anaerobic digestion. There may be some time delay in realising full product sales revenue as compost markets are developed. There is a limited option to digest part of the regions food waste stream via Watercare Services Limited (Watercare). This option could offer dual benefits by providing Watercare with a relatively consistent feedstock source to generate energy from whilst reducing transport and processing costs to the council (for a portion of the collected material). Based on waste collection, tonnage and composition data arising from this Auckland Council study, Watercare are carrying out a high level feasibility assessment to determine if direct injection of food waste into their digesters is viable. Results will be presented to the Auckland Council for further consideration, however, this option is

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

59

Page 254 of 470

relevant to a commercial food waste only collection service and would not address greenwaste currently disposed of to landfill. It would also only provide a partial solution with an alternative centralised processing facility (e.g. composting facility) still required to treat kerbside wastes collected from much of the region. 11.3 Economic and environmental benefits

Compost revenue is estimated at around $80/m3 (bulk residential sale price, GST exclusive) At an assumed bulk density of 0.5 T/m3 this would equate to a value of around $40/T. The assumed product value for electricity created from biogas is $62/MWh. This figure is based on the MED wholesale price of $82/MWh minus engine operating costs of $0.02 per kWh (or $20 per MWh). A 1MW engine to convert the biogas to electricity would also carry an additional capital cost of around $800,000 (installed) plus site specific costs for grid connection. A hydrogen sulphide scrubber would also be required, at a cost of around $180,000. A potentially more economic option is to use biogas as a replacement for natural gas, thereby requiring no further capital investment and operating costs. The nominated product value for natural gas of $7.80/GJ is based on the MED wholesale pricing. The difference in product values between composting and anaerobic digestion is a reflection of: New Zealands low energy costs, with wholesale electricity prices of only $82/MWh or $7.80/GJ for natural gas New Zealands relatively high proportion of renewable energy removing opportunities to earn green energy credits from biowaste to energy conversion projects increased value of compost products driven by increases in the international price of synthetic fertilisers increased awareness of composts soil improvement benefits over and above fertiliser value (improvements to soil structure, water retention etc.).

In addition to the product revenue stream, there are other potential cost savings including avoided disposal costs for organic waste tonnage currently going to landfill and avoided residual collection costs. The avoided cost of disposal to landfill (to the council) is assumed to be in order of $68 per tonne. Avoided collection costs have not been modelled due to the additional complexity involved in assessing avoided collection costs (depends on type of receptacle used, frequency of collection etc.). However, they would be recognised as part of an overall assessment of kerbside waste collection and processing costs for the Auckland region, i.e. with organic wastes considered alongside recyclables and residual wastes. Key environmental benefits include the diversion of waste from landfill and creation of a product available for beneficial reuse. This benefit would be realised for either composting or anaerobic digestion.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

60

Page 255 of 470

Diverting organic wastes from landfill for composting reduces emissions by 69 percent. Anaerobic digestion improves upon this further, achieving a 96 percent emissions reduction. If recycling practices such as composting and anaerobic digestion remain excluded from the New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) in its final form, then each tonne of organic waste diverted from landfill will save 0.559 tonnes of carbon from being emitted from the landfill. At a carbon price of $15 per tonne this would equate to a disposal cost savings of around $8 per tonne, or around $14 per tonne if a higher carbon price of $25 per tonne was applied. Scientific analysis and subsequent greenhouse gas accounting for composting in comparison to landfill shows municipal composting actually sequesters carbon making it a favourable option. The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS)38 centres on two key goals reducing the harm form waste and improving the efficiency of resource use. Both of these goals favour a composting approach rather than landfill. As the WMA 08 requires councils to have regard of the New Zealand Waste Strategy this is an important consideration. The environmental benefits of minimising harm by reducing the greenhouse gas arising from organic waste disposal ensure that anaerobic digestion delivers the best possible outcome, followed by composting, in terms of the NZWS delivering reduced harm from waste and improved efficiency in resource use. However in consideration of cost impacts of infrastructure then composting presents the best practicable environmental outcome as far as the councils ability to develop a facility for organic waste. 11.4 11.4.1 Collection methods Food waste only vs. mixed food and garden wastes

Overseas data suggests that weekly food waste only collections, combined with the use of kitchen caddies and liners, can capture higher quantities of food waste than mixed food and garden waste collections. Clearly the cost of collection would also be reduced due to the significantly lower waste quantities. Cost savings from the reduced quantities also flow through into lower transport costs (between transfer and processing facilities) and smaller processing plants. The size of the processing facility can be reduced regardless of whether composting or anaerobic digestion is employed (greenwaste still required to be added for composting, but at lower quantities than required for a mixed collection service).39 This cost savings is evidenced by the outcome of the modelling undertaken as part of this project, with a potential savings of around $13 million per year compared to a mixed collection service (equating to a per household savings of around $20 per year). The following comments are noted with respect to cost savings associated with a food waste only collection:

38 39

The New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010, Reducing Harm,Improving Efficiency, Ministry for the Environment The maximum ratio of food waste to greenwaste for composting is approximately 1:1 (by weight). However, mixed food and garden waste collections typically collect closer to, or even more than, 2 parts greenwaste to each part food waste. This thereby increases the required capacity of a composting facility.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

61

Page 256 of 470

The level of cost savings determined is based on a food waste collection service that employs manual collection. Wider costs to the community due to increased risk of injury to collection workers are not taken into account and New Zealand best practice supports mechanical collection. Those households that pay for a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at around 15 percent of households in the region) are likely to pay at a rate that is significantly higher than what would apply to a council mixed food and greenwaste collection ($144 per year based on a 240L bin collected monthly). Therefore, for some ratepayers the combined cost for disposing of their separate food and greenwaste would be higher than the cost of a council mixed food and greenwaste collection

The clear disadvantage of a food waste only collection service is the lack of ability to divert greenwaste from landfill without also providing a separate greenwaste collection service. It is understood that a separate council greenwaste collection service (4th bin) is unlikely to be politically acceptable. Therefore the amount of greenwaste to landfill would be likely to continue at its current levels (28,000 tonnes per year from household refuse plus an additional 60,000 tonnes per year from commercial disposers). There are other means to promote further greenwaste diversion, such as education and promotional programmes or a bylaw banning greenwaste from domestic refuse collections. However, educational programmes are currently in place without shifting the greenwaste landfill disposal rates, and a regulated approach would also require an effective means of communicating, monitoring and enforcing such a ban. With composting appearing to be the most overall cost effective option for addressing maximum diversion of organic waste in the Auckland region, the security of greenwaste for processing of the food waste would potentially be an issue if food waste was to be collected on its own. With expected annual food waste tonnages in order of 50,000 to 65,000 tonnes per year (assuming kitchen caddies also provided, with or without liners), it is possible that the composting operator would need to compete with other greenwaste composters to secure the required tonnage. It would likely also restrict possible composting operators to those two parties currently having access to large quantities of greenwaste, Living Earth and Envirofert, both currently processing around 50,000 tonnes per year. These composters also have established markets for their greenwaste compost and may not wish to redistribute all of their current greenwaste tonnage into a food waste processing facility. Taking into account the amount of greenwaste that would be required to process the food waste (1 to 1.5 parts greenwaste to each part food waste) and existing greenwaste compost markets, these two composting operators would likely both have a shortfall of greenwaste. This would incentivise the further diversion of greenwaste currently going to landfill, however, it could also potentially create distortions in the market as greenwaste changes from a waste product to a required resource. Commercial issues associated with the need to secure greenwaste tonnage are difficult to accurately gauge without discussion with industry, with that level of discussion expected to require the sharing of commercially sensitive information. It is unlikely that industry would provide such information without a formalised process such as an REOI

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

62

Page 257 of 470

or RFT40. Potentially an REOI or RFT process could be used to explore the commercial aspects of the two options i.e. processing organic waste sourced via a food waste only collection versus a mixed food and garden waste collection. Should a food waste only collection service be introduced, it is a political decision whether greenwaste collection and disposal should remain under the current privately led user pays scheme or introduced as a council service to optimise cost efficiencies in collection. The provision of a separate council greenwaste collection is an option, and can be administered to all or on an opt-in basis. However, an underlying principle of this study is that it would likely be politically unacceptable to offer a four bin collection service. Should this principle remain in place then the choice either becomes to pay more for a mixed food and greenwaste collection that meets the requirements set out in previous councils waste plans for a 95 per cent diversion of greenwaste or to focus upon food waste collection only and leave greenwaste diversion activities to the private sector. The combined collection of food and greenwaste would eliminate any issues with securing greenwaste for processing (composting) and would provide a clear means of further reducing greenwaste to landfill. However, it would have significant adverse impacts for the private greenwaste collection industry and would increase the cost of collection and size of processing facility required (due to increased tonnage collected). 11.4.2 Manual vs. automated collection

On principle, a manual organic waste collection system may not be supported by the Auckland Council. To overcome health and safety concerns there is the option of running a food waste only collection using automated collection vehicles. However, this would require the size of the collection bin to be increased to 60L (deemed to be minimum bin size suitable for use with bin lifter arms41). This capacity would be well in excess of required household levels and may carry a potential risk of increased contamination. It is expected that a 60L automated system would be more expensive than the manual food waste only option modelled (based on more expensive bins and collection vehicles). However, due to lower tonnages it would still be cheaper than an 80L bin mixed food and greenwaste collection service. There is limited data available on the likely success of a 60L bin automated food waste collection. Therefore, if a system that does not target greenwaste is deemed acceptable, a local trial may be needed to help determine logistical, food capture, and contamination issues. 11.4.3 Collection bin system

A weekly 240L greenwaste collection, such as that used in Timaru, is unnecessarily large and expensive compared to an 80L collection bin option. Therefore, should a mixed collection option be preferred, an 80L bin size is recommended. Based upon feedback from Christchurch City Council the dimensions of the 80L bin used in Christchurch can be improved upon to reduce stability concerns and the risk of
40 41

REOI: Request for Expression of Interest; REF: Request for Tender Based upon personal communication with Karen Murray of Sulo Talbot, New Zealand Business Development Manager.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

63

Page 258 of 470

greenwaste becoming wedged. Based on the large number of bins required to service the Auckland region it is assumed that standard 80L bins could be reconfigured as shorter, squatter bins. Combining kerbside bins with kitchen caddies and biodegradable bin liners is likely to maximise the amount of food waste captured, regardless of whether the kerbside bin also contains greenwaste or not. Although this increases the cost of the service, those additional costs are offset by increased food waste diversion, giving a lower cost per diverted tonne compared to systems employing an outside bin only. The selection of biodegradable bags needs to be carefully managed and considered alongside processing requirements. This is particularly the case for in-vessel composting systems that seek to reduce the overall composting time. Assurances should be sought from liner suppliers to ensure that degradation properties match processing practices. Biodegradable bags also need to be clearly differentiable from other plastic bags and an effective, and ongoing, education programme is needed to minimise the risk of contamination from other non-acceptable bags being introduced into the system. If there are concerns from the processors about the use of biodegradable bags then a local trial could be undertaken with and without their use. This would test the level at which liners do indeed increase food waste capture, and may provide some assurances to the operators about ways of reducing contamination risk. Table 11-1 summarises the key benefits and limitations of the automated co-collected food and garden waste options compared to manually collected food waste only.
Table 11-1 Benefits and limitations for collection options
Limitations Increased annual collection, transport and processing costs due to additional captured greenwaste tonnages (at a higher ratio of greenwaste to food waste than required for composting) Higher cost per household for those not currently using a private greenwaste collection service (potential savings to those who dispose of greenwaste at transfer stations not determined) Loss of business for private greenwaste collectors (potentially significant) (WMA s32 (2) implications) Diversion of greenwaste from current beneficial reuse activities (composting of private collected tonnages, home composting where done correctly)

Collection Benefits Method Mixed food and garden waste 80L bin* Captures both food and garden waste diversion from landfill benefits Captures both food and garden waste avoids greenwaste security of supply risks for composting 80L bin expected to provide adequate capacity for most households Automated collection, eliminating health and safety risks associated with manual collection Increased annual revenue due to higher processed tonnages Expected to capture greenwaste that is currently used on-site but potentially not processed correctly (turning anaerobic, releasing odour and leachate, attracting vermin etc.) Facility can be increased in capacity to also process commercial food and garden wastes Reduced overall cost to those household currently using a private greenwaste

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

64

Page 259 of 470

Collection Method

Benefits collection service (estimated at 15% of households across the region) Captures both food and garden waste diversion from landfill benefits Captures both food and garden waste avoids greenwaste security of supply risks for composting 240L bin expected to provide adequate capacity for all households Automated collection, eliminating health and safety risks associated with manual collection Increased annual revenue due to higher processed tonnages Expected to capture greenwaste that is currently used on-site but potentially not processed correctly (turning anaerobic, releasing odour and leachate, attracting vermin etc.) Facility can be increased in capacity to also process commercial food and garden wastes Reduced overall cost to those household currently using a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at 15% of households across the region)

Limitations

240L bin

Significantly increased collection, transport and processing costs due to captured additional greenwaste tonnages (at a higher ratio of greenwaste to food waste than required for composting) Higher cost per household for those not currently using a private greenwaste collection service (potential savings to those who dispose of greenwaste at transfer stations not determined) Potentially provides excess capacity for most users Loss of business for private greenwaste collectors (potentially significant) (WMA s32 (2) implications) Diversion of greenwaste from current beneficial reuse activities (composting of private collected tonnages, home composting where done correctly)

Food waste only 23L bin Potentially captures higher food waste quantities than co-collected food and garden waste collection methods Significantly reduces collection, transport and processing costs compared to cocollected food and garden waste collection methods Lower cost per household for those not currently using a private greenwaste collection service (majority of households - cost impacts on those who dispose of greenwaste at transfer stations not determined) 23L bin expected to provide adequate capacity for all households Protects existing private greenwaste collectors

No capture of greenwaste does not address greenwaste currently going to landfill No capture of greenwaste - greenwaste security of supply risks for composting (severe consequences if inadequate greenwaste available) Manual collection increases health and safety risks for runners (hidden cost) Higher overall cost to those household currently using a private greenwaste collection service (estimated at 15% of households across the region) Reduced(WMA s32 (2) implications)

Assumes dimensions altered from standard CCC bin footprint to increase stability at kerbside

11.5

Final Conclusions

The following key points bring together main conclusions from Stages 1 and 2 of this investigation, taking into account the best way forward in terms of collecting and processing domestic food waste and greenwaste. This takes into account not only costs and potential revenues but also the ability of the various options to meet

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

65

Page 260 of 470

Councils objectives and obligations to maximise the diversion of wastes from landfill whilst balancing out other considerations such as costs to ratepayers and minimisation of environmental and other forms of harm (health and safety etc.). Key findings: Collection Composting is best suited to a commingled food and greenwaste collection service, whereas anaerobic digestion is best suited to a food waste only collection. However, so long as adequate greenwaste can be sourced by the operator, food waste only collection paired with composting could provide the most cost effective option for the Auckland region. A commingled collection service is more expensive but will divert both food and greenwaste from landfill. It will also divert greenwaste from existing practices such as private greenwaste collections, home composting, greenwaste piles etc. A food waste only collection will be cheaper due to lower tonnages collected but will not divert any greenwaste from landfill. A food waste only collection potentially captures higher food waste quantities than co-collected food and greenwaste collection methods. A commingled collection service is lower on a cost per tonnage basis and would be significantly cheaper for households that also have private greenwaste collections. The 10-15 percent of households currently using a private greenwaste collection service will pay a lower annual cost for organic wastes with a commingled collection than a food waste only collection while the remaining 8590 percent of households will pay a lower annual rate for a food waste only service. A commingled collection service would be automated, reducing health and safety risks, whereas a food waste only collection would most likely be a manual collection. If a commingled collection was to be introduced, a weekly 240L bin greenwaste collection is unnecessarily large and expensive and an 80L collection bin option is expected to provide adequate capacity for most households. A commingled collection would most likely lead to loss of business for private greenwaste collectors (potentially significant) whereas a food waste collection service would not.

Processing Composting is a proven and widely used processing technique for the scale and type of wastes being considered, with relevant examples operating in both New Zealand and internationally (primarily Europe and North America) There are no successful examples of anaerobic digestion (AD) within Australasia and the only large scale example the EarthPower Plant in Sydney

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

66

Page 261 of 470

experienced a number of problems leading to its commercial failure. However, AD is more widely used within EU and North American countries. Should AD be deemed a viable option for Auckland it is recommended that some of these overseas sites be visited refer to Appendix B for further details of facility examples Composting offers flexibility for varying waste tonnages and composition, and contaminants, particularly when tunnel or container based technologies are selected (as modelled). AD processes are more sensitive than composting to changes in waste quantity and composition, requiring a higher level of feedstock and operating control. Equipment is potentially also more susceptible to damage from contaminants (as evidenced by failure of the Sydney EarthPower facility). Composting facilities can be more easily increased in capacity than wet AD plants particularly if tunnel based systems are used. This creates more future opportunity to also process commercial food and greenwaste. There are dry AD plants that offer similar modularity to composting technologies (e.g. Kompogas), however, Stage 1 assessments concluded that such options would carry higher capital and annual operating costs that a wet AD system. Composting facilities and their parts, particularly tunnel based systems, could potentially be onsold for alternative uses, creating greater flexibility for Council when ultimately disposing of its assets. AD facilities offer less flexibility in this respect, as are in-vessel composting systems (not recommended for Auckland). Capital costs for AD technology are typically higher than for composting tunnel/container composting systems expected to have a technology supply cost of around $6M for 80,000 T/yr of mixed food and greenwaste and up to $13M for 200,000 T/yr. By comparison, an AD facility may have a capital cost of around $13M for 30,000 T/yr of food waste and around $21M for 75,000 T/yr. Additional costs would apply for site development, buildings, decontamination facilities and ancillary equipment. Processing costs per tonne for AD is substantially higher than for composting. However, as processed tonnes are lower the annual costs of AD are expected to be less than for composting. Anaerobic digestion (AD) systems often include composting to further treat byproducts, therefore, a composting facility could be upgraded to a dry digestion facility in the future If adequate greenwaste is available to contractor, composting can be combined with food waste only collection

Markets / Revenue Composting offers increased revenue opportunities than AD due to higher processed tonnage and a potentially higher value product. Compost products are well understood by users, although markets would require further development for adsorption of large quantities produced.

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

67

Page 262 of 470

There are risks around the capacity of compost markets and time and costs that would be incurred to develop them to adequate levels. There is also a risk that increased production of compost within the Auckland region would reduce product values below current levels (due to increased supply, potentially greater than demand). These likelihood and potential costs of these risks would need to be assessed by the operator as part of a formal Tendering process (e.g. via a marketing plan and contingency measures). Biogas product revenue is expected to carry lower market capacity risk than compost due to high energy usage within the Auckland region. However, its value would need to be further discussed with the energy industry. AD produces solid and liquid products as well as biogas, however, solid products require further processing prior to use as a soil amendment (e.g. composting or drying). Markets for solid and liquid products would need to be developed and biogas likely to be higher cost renewable energy source than other options (e.g. hydro).

Morrison Low

Ref: 1765 Organic Paper (Stage 2) for the Auckland Council January 2011

68

Page 263 of 470

APPENDIX A

Sanitary Waste Research

Page 264 of 470

1.0

Composting and Anaerobic Digestion of Sanitary Wastes Investigation of Issues


Sanitary Waste Overview

This paper outlines the outcomes of a brief investigation into the potential feasibility of processing sanitary wastes collected alongside food and/or garden wastes.

1.1

This waste stream is largely composed of nappies designed for single-use and then disposed of to landfill and similar products such as incontinence pads, collectively known as absorbent hygiene products. Manufacturers of disposable nappies have been investing in research to establish the feasibility of processing these by composting, such as the Envirocomp facility located near Christchurch and supported by Huggies1, using a HotRot system. Proctor & Gamble in the United States are also reported to be investigating the potential for composting nappies. This waste stream is generally made up of three main materials: polypropylene-based plastics, wood pulp, and a super-absorbent polymer (usually sodium polyacrylate or similar). By dry weight, approximately 30-40% of a nappy is plastic, with the remainder largely wood fibre. Sodium polyacrylate can absorb up to 200-300 times its own weight in liquids but weighs little when dry. In comparison, a used nappy is comprised of 10% plastic, 24% wood fibre, 5% Sodium polyacrylate, 6% sludge and 55% moisture2. The implications for incorporating this waste stream, and these three materials in particular, into an in-vessel or anaerobic digestion based organic waste processing facility are discussed below.

1.2

Polypropylene-based Plastics

Plastics will not break down in a facility designed to process organic waste. Including a screening stage at the beginning or end of the process will remove a large proportion of plastic contamination the proportion removed depends on the complexity and sophistication of the screening process3. The most appropriate screening option will depend on the processing technology chosen. In one anaerobic digestion facility where disposable nappies are accepted, the organic waste is hydro-pulped and contamination then removed through a combination of screening and settling4. Incorporating absorbent hygiene products would also make an initial thorough shredding stage essential5. This is particularly the case as nappies and other similar products are usually folded and sealed before disposal, making the contents hard to access.

1 2 3 4 5

www.envirocomp.co.nz C Morawski (2003), Diaper Recycling, Solid Waste & Recycling available on www.solidwastemag.com BioCycle September 2005 Plastics separation in compost Vol. 46, No. 9. Toronto City www.toronto.ca

M A Line (1998) The decomposition of putatively degradable nappy pads in three systems, Waste management & Research, Vol 16

Research into Processing of Household Sanitary Wastes 1

Page 265 of 470

1.3

Wood Fibre

The wood fibre content of a disposable nappy largely presents the same issues as any wood fibre/pulp waste stream. The material is typically high in cellulose and can pose some challenges to technologies such as anaerobic digestion, as cellulose takes longer for anaerobic microorganisms to break down than sugars and carbohydrates. The extent to which this is an issue would depend on the quantities of cellulose in the waste stream and the residence time of the process.

1.4

Sodium Polyacrylate (PAC)

PAC is a super-absorbent polymer commonly found in disposable nappies6 and other absorbent hygiene products. It is a stable chemical and not easily degradable. When wet, it forms a gel-type substance and can absorb 200-300 times its own weight in liquids. PAC is not considered biodegradable, although some research has noted evidence of some photo- and mechano-chemical degradation7. Little research has been carried out on the impact PAC can have on microbial activity or on its toxicology, although one study noted that there was no measurable difference in a laboratory situation when the PAC filler was applied to test plates8. The same study noted no apparent impact on earthworms when nappies were processed by vermicomposting. Some research indicates that PAC polymers appear to break down to some extent in an alkaline solution, particularly the shorter chains of this polymer material9, with other researchers stating that this material is immobile and does not break down10. This would suggest that in an alkaline soil, under sufficiently moist conditions, some of the PAC material might break down; however this is not widely reported in soil research and there appears to be no impact on the amount of sodium available to plant growth11. PAC does however measurably increase the water retention capacity of soils, when applied at levels around three tonnes per hectare to a 30cm soil. This suggests that PAC could potentially be a useful addition to soil improvement products, if used in situations where additional water retention capacity was desired. It would not be possible to screen PAC out of end products, therefore restricting potential uses. It is worth noting that PAC will degrade in the presence of a saline solution and lose its water absorbing capabilities, although the research indicates that the chemical structures are still

City of Vancouver (2007) Study of the Treatability of gDiaper Disposable Diapers and their Impact on Sewer and Wastewater Systems

Takao Saita (1980) Degradation of Sodium-Polyacrylate in dilute Aqueous Solution, The Japan Journal of Applied Physics, Vol 19
7 8

M A Line (1998) The Decomposition of Putatively Degradable Nappy Pads in Three Systems, Waste Management & Research, Vol 16 Finch, 2007 Professor Sutton from University of Sydney quoted by Darren Goodsir, 2004 Childs play turning nappies in to compost available on www.smh.com.au.

10

D Geesing and U Schmidhalter (2004), Influence of Sodium Polyacrylate on the water-holding capacity of three different soils and effects on growth of wheat, Soil Use and Management Vol 20
11

Eunomia Research & Consulting 2

Page 266 of 470

largely intact12. This raises the question of whether it might degrade or be dispersed in an anaerobic digestion process that contains a high proportion of food waste. Food waste contains relatively high levels of salt (which can present issues in use of the digestate), and it is possible that the resulting saline levels might be sufficient to affect the degradation of the PAC in the process, enabling it to be subsequently extracted through a dewatering process. Further investigation is needed to determine this. A further question that is raised is the impact on the management of an aerobic composting process. As PAC absorbs water it may affect the available moisture content in the compost pile and could mean that greater quantities of moisture need to be added to the process to achieve the correct moisture levels. Finally because the process by which PAC and other super absorbent products break down is unclear the length of time which it remains in the product or in soil to which it has been applied is also unclear. This raises questions around whether it would accumulate in soils, as well as the useful life it might have in specialist soil amendment products.

1.5

Health Implications

One general issue with incorporating nappies and other absorbent hygiene products into an organic waste processing facility is the presence of human waste. The Department of Health in New Zealand does not have a clear policy on the correct disposal of nappies, and obviously the majority currently are disposed of through domestic waste collection systems and sent to landfill. Some regional offices have varying levels of policies regarding nappy use, but these do not mention disposal. Little research has been carried out in this area; however one study found little or no indication of enteric pathogens in composted waste containing nappies13. Although the PAC from a used disposable nappy could be assumed to hold some absorbed liquid human waste (urine in particular), the compost process in this case appeared to successfully destroy the pathogens, or reduce them to levels below those that could be detected through the testing. There was insufficient information to identify or assess the type of composting process used. As long as the process achieves sufficient temperature to effect pasteurisation (55o for at least 3 days) this should not be an issue. In anaerobic digestion it would be necessary to have either a pasteurisation stage or to utilise a higher temperature thermophilic process to achieve sufficient pathogen reduction.

1.6

Existing Processing Facilities

Disposable nappies are also currently included in processing facilities in two locations in Canada, with no reported issues regarding the end product (although the product is reportedly used on farm land and parks it could be assumed, not in food production). In Toronto, the material is processed using anaerobic digestion at one of four facilities around the city. The solid digestate end product is certified for unrestricted use and is composted with green waste to produce a compost product that is given away to local residents. This

12 13

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1b1rug7qltfpc6ry/

Charles Gerba et al (1995), Occurrence of Enteric Pathogens in Composted Domestic Solid Waste Containing Disposal Diapers Waste Management & Research, Vol 13.

Research into Processing of Household Sanitary Wastes 3

Page 267 of 470

would tend to suggest that despite certification for unrestricted use the product does not currently have sufficient market value to enable it to be sold. There is no mention in any research, or reports on existing facilities, regarding any issues with handling the waste. However the two collection systems currently operating in Canada use wheeled bins and automated collection. To our knowledge there are no systems processing source separated organic waste in the UK or mainland Europe that include nappies or sanitary products. MBT systems that process general residual waste will include nappies and sanitary products as a proportion of their throughput. We are not aware of nappies causing any specific issues with these systems14.

1.7

Market Risks

In processing terms it would appear that there are no significant technical barriers to processing of nappies, although to do so will add to the cost and complexity of the systems particularly in terms of pre- and post-processing. The principle risk therefore with respect to the introduction of nappies and other absorbent hygiene products to a collected organic waste stream, is in respect of its impact on the quality of the final product and its suitability for key markets PAC is in fact used in commercially available potting mixes and soil amendment products, and is marketed through garden centres as crystal rain or water crystals. The product is promoted as improving the water retention of soils and reducing the need to water plants. Plants are claimed to extract the water from the gel directly through their root systems. Discussions with compost operators selling into commercial agriculture markets suggest that the presence of PAC in a soil amendment product has the potential to be a positive feature in instances where moisture retention is seen as an issue15, but could also be regarded as a negative feature if this is not desired. The concentrations of PAC are an issue that could require further investigation. If the PAC is at relatively low levels it is unlikely to be seen as a positive benefit but may be viewed as an unwanted contaminant. Conversely very high concentrations could restrict markets. If it is desired to process absorbent hygiene products, operators consider the best way to manage these risks would be to confine them to a limited stream. Product from this stream could then be blended with other materials or compost outputs to create products for specific markets.

14

One exception may be the Arrow-bio process which mixes input residual waste with water. This is intended to aid in cleaning the recyclables which are extracted and dissolving the paper and other organic matter for input into an AD process. Anecdotal reports however suggest that nappies, which can expand to many times their size, can cause problems in this type of process.

Envircomp report that some of their product is used in the production of seed raising mixes. The majority however is given away for use on local parks and reserves. (personal communication 7/04/10)
15

Eunomia Research & Consulting 4

Page 268 of 470

1.8

Summary of Implications

1.8.1 PACs The presence of PACs in the end product will increase the water retention of the product, or the soil to which the product is applied. In some situations this may be a desirable quality; in others, less so. This would have implications for the end market as the PACs cannot be removed from the product. The extent to which PACs retain pathogens from human waste, or whether these pathogens are destroyed during processing, is not clear and this is a key area that would require more investigation. There do not appear to be any major issues in respect of the impact of PACs on aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion processes, although there are questions over the process of degradation of the material in these processes. 1.8.2 Plastic and wood pulp Wood pulps will not present any issues in aerobic processes but may be an issue in some anaerobic processes. Plastics are essentially a contaminant and would require removal through screening, however as they are essentially inert in the process will have little other impact on the process. 1.8.3 Pre-processing requirements As outlined above, it is essential that a thorough shredding process is incorporated at the beginning, to ensure that the plastic layers are breached. This could cause problems where other contaminants (such as batteries and metals) are shredded to the point where screening at the end of the process is no longer effective in capturing these contaminants. 1.8.4 Management of pathogens As long as the composting or digestion processes are strictly controlled and sufficient temperatures are attained for pathogen kill this is likely to be a manageable issue in respect of processing. It may require some additional attention to transfer and bulking processes particularly if these involve shredding of materials.

Research into Processing of Household Sanitary Wastes 5

Page 269 of 470

APPENDIX B

Operating Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Page 270 of 470

Anaerobic Digestion - Large Scale Facility Examples Technology Envital technology additional dry digestion plant 1-step wet system* additional pulper, fermenter Pinerolo, Toroino Province Location Weissenfels Capacity (T/a) 12,000 tpa (1999) plus 2,700 tpa (2004) 28,000 tpa (1995) Wastestreams biowaste - food + green biowaste - food + green biowaste + hospitality 12M (excl. land and 60-75/T^ development)^ energy sold at 0.10/kWh + cost incurred of 1-2/T for contractor to collect dewatered digestate, sell and spread^ Capital Cost 7.5M^ 2.7M^ Treatment Costs 77/T (after profit)^ reduced to 65/T (after profit)^ Products 2.3M kWh electricity x 0.11/kWh + compost, 95% of which is given away and 5% sold at 5-15/T^

Boden, Germany

increased to 57,000 biowaste tpa (2000) 90% food waste digested, greenwaste added to product for composting (50/50 blend)

semi dry AD + composting

55,000 tpa

10-12,000T/a of digestate reduced to around 5,000T of compost. Immature product sold at 5-8/T (80%), mature compost at 20/T (20%)^

Kompogas dry AD

Rumlang, Switzerland

9,000 tpa

50% domestic biowaste - food 7M Swiss Francs, + green - + 50% hospitality Around 140 Swiss Francs^ - 93/T incl. land^ - 4.6M (approx. 70% food overall)

100m /T of biogas, plus 350k/T of solid residue, plus 450L/T of liquid fertiliser - products are cost neutral once spread (no net revenue). Biogas used to power Migros trucks^ 10M kWh/yr produced + similar amount of heat energy - The plant's own power consumption amounts to approx. 8 % of the output. measured gas output was between 120 and 125 mN/tonInput. Each fermenter can produce up to 320 mN/h of biogas. The entire daily production of biogas hovers between 12,000 and 16,000 mN/d. According to the manufacturer, the generated biogas contains 55 % methane. Actual methane measurements, depending on the quality of the feedstock, range from 58 to 64 %. Compensation paid under the Renewable Energy Sources Act amounts to around 1M/yr.# Biogas - converted to electricity and heat for onsite use (NZ$350k/yr avoided cost), any additional gas sent to flare. Solid & by-product - dried for use as higher value fertiliser (size of market and product revenue unknown). (Source: Personal communication, C. Hearn, WSL) Around 5,000MWh/yr of electricity produced from the biogas 2MWh used on site and the rest sold to the local grid. Compost 60,000T/yr, most of which is bagged for residential market, with some lower quality product used for quarry/other land restoration projects.+

Kompogas dry AD + composting (existing plant)*

Passau Facility, Bavaria, Germany

40-50,000 tpa

mostly food, some green + other organics

10.6M#

920,000/yr, so around 20/T **Unclear if stated costs per year take compensation into account. If so, total costs would be in order of 1.1+0.9 = 2M/yr, or 44/T#

Earthpower system custom design by WSL, includes BTA BTA*

Sydney

51,000 tpa (design capacity)

solid and liquid organic wastes (commercial)

Treatment costs unknown, however, difficulties in securing 'clean' food waste (e.g. due to competition with animal feed producers) is comprising economic viability. (Source: Personal communication, M. Spedding, Veolia)

Newmarket Canada

150,000 tpa

Biowaste/commercial waste and organic sludge

Page 271 of 470

Technology BTA* Hasse Anlagenbrau* Hasse Anlagenbrau* Hese Umwelt* Hese Umwelt* Linde KCA

Location Ypres, Belgium Groeden Germany Schwanebeck Germany Brensbach Germany Zuplich Germany Western Isles (Isle of Lewis) England Lille, France Lisbon, Portugal Rome, Italy Brecht, Belgium Tilberg, The Netherlands

Capacity (T/a) 50,000 tpa 110,000 tpa 49,000 tpa 70,000 tpa 50,000 tpa 20,000 tpa

Wastestreams Biowaste Biowaste & manure Biowaste & manure Manure, food waste Catering and food waste Source segregated biowaste

Capital Cost 20M

Treatment Costs

Products

Linde KCA Linde KCA*

62,000 tpa 40,000 tpa

Biowaste, organic food waste, market waste Biowaste, organic food waste, market waste, industrial waste Biowaste Biowaste, waste paper Source separated biowaste (vegetable garden, fruit) 20M US$17.5M Operating costs, incl. cost of capital, est. at Gas yield 80-85 Nm3 per input ton, biogas treated (refined to US$2.52M/yr, or US$48/T.+ natural gas quality) & injected into the Tilberg City distribution network. Revenues: US$90/T gate fee average annual revenue of US$3.6M/yr. Gas revenues est. at US$80k/yr. Therefore, overall profit of around US$1.1-1.2M (mainly driven by gate fees).+ Gas yield 90Nm3 per input ton, converted to heat & electricity. Compost to landfill.+

OWS (Dranco process) OWS (Dranco process) Valgora

40,000 tpa 50,000 tpa 52,000 tpa

Valgora

Hannover, Germany WEDA (Weltec Biopower Bedford technology) England *denotes Wet AD process

100,000 tpa 42,000 tpa

Source separated biowaste Food waste, pig slurry

^ Information source: Eunomia, 2007. "Dealing with Food Waste in the UK", Report for: Richard Swannell, WRAP, Bristol, United Kingdom, March 2007. # Information source: SiUS (date unknown). "Integration of an Anaerobic Digestion Plant into the Passau Biogenous Waste Composting Facility". Weblink: http://www.climatechangecentral.com/files/attachments/PassauCaseConferenceVersion.pdf + Information source: Masters Thesis by S. Verma, 2002 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF BIODEGRADABLE ORGANICS IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES Department of Earth & Environmental Engineering, Fu Foundation School of Engineering & Applied Science, Columbia University, May 2002

Page 272 of 470

AUCKLAND WASTE STOCKTAKE AND STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

Page 273 of 470

Page 274 of 470

Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment


September TR 2009/107

Auckland Regional Council Technical Report No.107 September 2009 ISSN 1179-0504 (Print) ISSN 1179-0512 (Online) ISBN 978-1-877540-22-6

Page 275 of 470

Reviewed by:

Approved for ARC Publication by:

Name: Jon Roscoe Position: Solid Waste Manager Organisation: Waitakere City Council Date: 26 September 2009

Name: Alastair Smaill Position: Group Manager land and Water Policy Organisation: Auckland Regional Council Date: 2 October 2009

Recommended Citation:

Wilson, D., Middleton, B., Purchas, C. and Crowcroft, G. (2009). Prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Waste Not Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2009-107.

2009 Auckland Regional Council This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Regional Council's (ARC) copyright and other intellectual property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication, in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This publication must not be used in any way for any commercial purpose without the prior written consent of ARC. ARC does not give any warranty whatsoever, including without limitation, as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information or data (including third party data) made available via the publication and expressly disclaim (to the maximum extent permitted in law) all liability for any damage or loss resulting from your use of, or reliance on the publication or the information and data provided via the publication. The publication and information and data contained within it are provided on an "as is" basis.

Page 276 of 470

Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment 2009


Duncan Wilson Bruce Middleton Chris Purchas Gillian Crowcroft

Prepared for Auckland Regional Council

Page 277 of 470

Contents
Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment Auckland Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment 2009 Acknowledgments 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2 2.1 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Introduction Background National waste policy National Waste - Related Legislation Waste management in the Auckland Region Regional Waste Priorities Waste Data Key Terminology Methodology Sources of key data presented in this report Inventory of waste and recovery services and facilities The waste management industry in the Auckland Region Role of local government in regional waste market Inventory of waste facilities Diverted materials Inventory of territorial authority waste and recovery service contracts Evaluation of current waste and diverted materials generation Council-controlled waste and recycling streams Tonnage and composition of waste to landfill Tonnage and composition of waste to cleanfills and managed fills Tonnage and composition of diverted materials Summary of waste disposal Correlation with Data to be collected by MfE 1 3 6 8 8 9 9 12 13 14 14 17 18 19 19 32 37 39 43 45 45 48 52 53 56 59

Page 278 of 470

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 7

Evaluation of waste data Introduction Waste data issues Uses of waste data Analysis of data required to monitor and measure waste effectively Priorities and targets and associated data requirements Assessment of available waste data Analysis of available waste data by waste stream Gaps and barriers Towards a regional waste data strategy Tools for Improving waste data Regional Waste Data Strategy Outline Recommended actions Issues and Opportunities Introduction Analysis 81 Discussion and Conclusions References

60 60 60 62 63 64 70 73 75 76 77 79 80 81 81

91 92 95 95 109 130

Appendix A: Detailed assessment of data availability Key to Data Availability Symbols Appendix B: Council refuse and recycling services Appendix C: Analysis of data quality

Page 279 of 470

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following people and organisations for their time and input into the information gathered for this project. Marty Forsman (Air New Zealand) Emma Steeds (Tegal Foods Ltd) Jim Laughton (JJ Laughton Ltd) Wayne Binney (Inghams Enterprises Ltd) Jason Howarth/Craig Woolford (Cavalier Bremworth Ltd) George Grey (Fisher & Paykel Ltd) Mark Jury (Winstone Wallboard Ltd) Tom Coup ((DB Breweries Ltd) Ted Edwards (Reharvest Ltd) Jane McLaren (Pacific Steel Ltd) Debbie Bryson (NZ Steel Ltd) Bill Bourke (SteelServ) Chris Orbell (AffCo Meats Ltd) Ken Evans (Graeme Lowe Corporation Ltd) Tim Hurndell/Ross Neil (Laminex) Brendon Redmond (NuFarm) Des Heard (DM Heard Ltd) Ben Fraser (Hubbards) Peter Williams (Wiri Oil Services Ltd) Gary McGuire/Robert Lind (Envirofert) Wayne Oswald (Ward Recycling) Michael Burgess (Tasman Insulation) Daniel Chapman and Angus Barratt (SIMS) George Fietje and Steve Wilson (Living Earth) James Flexman (Full Circle) Penny Garland, Aaron Ballard, Russell Chambers (Owens Illinois) Peter Thorne (Paper/Glass Reclaim) Gary Saunders (Envirowaste) Kim Ellis (Envirowaste) Mike Jones (Greenfingers) Peter and Simon Ward (Ward Demolition) Michael Stil (Nikau Contractors) Mary Brown (Visy) Shaun Singleton (Smart Environmental) Craig Forman (Transpacific Industries)

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 280 of 470

Bruce Horide (Transpacific Industries) Marcus Braithwaite (RDC) Warwick Jaine (NSCC) Tal Tsabari (NSCC) Ben Somaratne (WCC) Robert Menzies (WCC) Jon Roscoe (WCC) (for peer review) Malcolm Currie (MCC) Sue Martin (PDC) Nigel Birse (FDC) Stuart Timmis (ARC) Rennae Corner (ACC) Siona Tauasosi (ACC)

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 281 of 470

Introduction
Background
Auckland Regional Council engaged Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd (Eunomia), Sinclair Knight Merz Limited (SKM) and Waste Not Consulting Ltd (Waste Not) to undertake a stocktake of waste and recovered materials flows and facilities in the Auckland Region. As part of this stocktake, Auckland Regional Council requested an assessment of strategic opportunities to reduce waste and an evaluation of existing waste data. A key context to this report is that from November 2010, regional governance in Auckland will change from 1 regional council and 7 territorial authorities to a single Auckland Council. The single Auckland Council will be a Unitary Authority which will combine the roles of the Regional Council and the Territorial Authorities (TAs). This will see the amalgamation of the local authorities role in respect of waste into a single entity1. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) requires council to complete a review of its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) by July 2012. Section 51 of the WMA prescribes the requirements for a Waste Assessment which must be completed before a waste management and minimisation plan is reviewed. The incoming Auckland Council will need to undertake a Waste Assessment and produce a WMMP. One of the intentions of this report is to provide an up to date knowledge of waste generation, movement, diversion and disposal within the region. This is considered a necessary baseline to support any regional initiatives and future Waste Assessments. The objective of the project is to provide a comprehensive picture of waste management in the region. This will provide a snapshot of the current situation for the new council and highlight key gaps and opportunities for improvements both now and as the transition to the single Auckland council takes place. Key questions include: How much waste is going to landfill from the Auckland Region and what is the composition of that waste?

1.1

What quantities and types of waste are being diverted and what are the diversion routes currently available? What waste streams could be relatively easily diverted and what role could local authorities play to facilitate this? Are there opportunities for local authorities to work with the waste sector and other businesses in the region to improve service availability and outcomes? Are there opportunities to better integrate the waste management planning framework with broader policy and law2 at a regional and national level? What data is available on each of the waste streams? Is the data adequate for management and policy purposes? What additional data should be collected?

It is important to note that, with the significant role that commercial waste management companies play in providing waste and recycling collection services, particularly for business, the policy framework becomes very important in achieving key waste reduction outcomes. In the context of this report, a key question is how the new Auckland Council can work together with industry to improve waste minimisation. The role of local authorities generally involves providing or contracting services, developing and implementing policy, setting standards through licensing and bylaws and monitoring
The Royal Commission On Auckland Governance report (March 2009) specifically noted waste as an area in which there was potential for greater regional working and efficiencies.
2
1

For example the Local Government Act 2002 including LTCCP, Waste Minimisation Bill, government policy on waste and sustainability and the NZ Waste Strategy.
Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 282 of 470

and enforcement. The Auckland Council will have the challenge of integrating waste management approaches across the region in a manner that enhances efficiency of service delivery while maintaining and improving service quality and contributing to national and regional waste minimisation and environmental objectives.

1.2

National waste policy


The New Zealand Waste Strategy released by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) in 2002 provided policy guidance to better manage waste in New Zealand. The action programmes outlined in the Strategy included:

Institutions and legislation - ensuring we have a sound legal framework for waste minimisation and management, with clear roles for central, regional and local government; ensuring good planning, and compliance with international conventions. Waste reduction and materials efficiency - developing tools and techniques to reduce waste and maximise reuse, recycling and recovery; removing obstacles to the use of recovered materials, and developing economic incentives to change wasteful behaviour. Information and communication - collecting the right information on waste minimisation and management; enhancing community understanding of waste issues and encouraging individual efforts to reduce waste. Standards and guidelines - setting consistently high environmental performance standards for waste treatment and disposal, transport and storage; having all waste facilities account for the full cost of their operation and charge accordingly.

The strategy set targets for dealing with various waste streams. Some key targets relate to:

Re-using and recycling high-volume wastes (e.g., garden wastes, sewage sludge, and building and demolition wastes); Minimising and managing hazardous wastes (e.g., organochlorines1, contaminated sites, and hazardous components in business waste); Upgrading waste disposal facilities (e.g., closing or upgrading substandard landfills and wastewater treatment plants); Charging waste generators the true environmental cost of treatment and disposal (e.g., charging full cost at landfills).

The MfE published a discussion document proposing revised targets in March 2009. This proposed significant changes to the original targets with a short term focus on establishing a base for total waste quantity, waste composition and quantities of key waste streams. For example the proposed Target 1 in the discussion document was to By 2015, reduce the quantity of waste (tonnes) disposed to landfill per person per year by 20 per cent relative to an established 2010 baseline. While it is likely that revised targets will be adopted these have yet to be published by MfE.

1.3

National Waste - Related Legislation


There are a number of important pieces of legislation that impact on the management of waste in the Auckland region. These are discussed briefly below.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 283 of 470

1.3.1 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008


The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) provides a regulatory framework to waste minimisation that has previously been based on largely voluntary initiatives and the involvement of territorial authorities under previous legislation, including Local Government Act 1974, Local Government Amendment Act (No 4) 1996, and Local Government Act 2002. The purpose of the WMA is to encourage a reduction in the amount of waste disposed of in New Zealand. In summary, the WMA:

puts a levy on all waste disposed of in a landfill, initially at $10 per tonne effective as of 1st July 2009; 50% of the funds collected will be provided to Territorial Authorities (including the new Auckland Council) to be spent on the implementation of their Waste Minimisation and Management Plans. The remainder, less any administration costs, will go into a contestable fund for waste minimisation initiatives, facilitates or enforces producers, brand owners, importers, retailers, consumers and other parties to take responsibility for the environmental effects of their products from cradle-to-grave through voluntary and mandatory product stewardship schemes. There may be implications for local authorities which currently deal with these products in their waste streams or who are party to voluntary programmes, allows for regulations to be made making it mandatory for certain groups (for example, landfill operators) to report on waste to improve information on waste minimisation. This will impact councils owning or operating landfills, clarifies the roles and responsibilities of territorial authorities with respect to waste minimisation e.g. updating Waste Minimisation Plans and collecting/administering levy funding for waste minimisation projects, and introduces a new Waste Advisory Board to give independent advice to the Minister for the Environment on waste minimisation issues.

1.3.2 Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)


It is noted that the Climate Change (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 is currently under review by the new Government. Significant changes to the waste elements are not anticipated however. In its current form it will require landfill owners to surrender emission units to cover methane emissions generated from the landfill. Should any future solid waste incineration plants be constructed, the Act would also require emission units to be surrendered to cover carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the incineration of household wastes. The waste sector will not formally enter the ETS until 1 January 2011, at which time voluntary reporting can occur. Mandatory reporting requirements will apply from January 2012 and emission units will need to be surrendered as of 2013. The method for calculating emissions from landfills and incinerators is yet to be regulated3. This means it is not yet possible to calculate the impacts although the net impact of the ETS on the waste sector is likely to be to increase the cost of landfilling. If no methane capture systems are in place in a landfill this would have the effect of increasing landfill costs by approximately $25-$30 per tonne (roughly equivalent to the price of per tonne of carbon). The landfills serving the Auckland Region all do capture methane and so this cost increase is likely to be lower for Auckland. Nevertheless the impact from the ETS (particularly if combined with the impacts of the landfill levy) is likely to be to encourage more businesses to find alternatives to landfilling their waste, with a likely impact of increasing demand for the various recycling services that exist in Auckland.

The expectation is that Government will work with industry to do so during 2009 and 2010 10

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 284 of 470

1.3.3 Local Government Act 2002


Key requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA) relate to the decision making process territorial authorities must follow; considering present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well being. The implications of a decision regarding waste management should be assessed according to this requirement. The LGA also sets out the consultative process that must be followed when a Waste Management Plan, and now a WMMP, is reviewed. Minor amendments are possible through the annual or other planning processes, but a significant review requires that a special consultative process is carried out.

1.3.4 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)


The RMA provides guidelines and regulations for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Although it does not specifically define waste, the Act addresses waste management and minimisation activity through controls on the environmental effects of waste management and minimisation activities and facilities through national, regional and local policy, standards, plans and consent procedures. In this role, the RMA exercises considerable influence over facilities for waste disposal and recycling, recovery, treatment and others in terms of the potential impacts of these facilities on the environment. Under section 30 of the RMA, regional councils are responsible for controlling the discharge of contaminants into or onto land, air or water. These responsibilities are addressed through regional planning and discharge consent requirements. Other regional council responsibilities that may be relevant to waste and recoverable materials facilities include managing the adverse effects of storing, using, disposing of and transporting hazardous wastes; the dumping of wastes from ships, aircraft and offshore installations into the coastal marine area; and the allocation and use of water. Under the RMA, TA responsibility includes controlling the effects of land-use activities that have the potential to create adverse effects on the natural and physical resources of their district. Facilities involved in the disposal, treatment or use of waste or recoverable materials may carry this potential. Permitted, controlled, discretionary, non-complying and prohibited activities and their controls are specified within district planning documents, thereby defining further land-userelated resource consent requirements for waste-related facilities. In addition, the RMA provides for the development of national policy statements and for the setting of national environmental standards (NES). There is currently one enacted NES that directly influences the management of waste in New Zealand the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) Regulations 2004 (the NES for Air Quality). This NES requires certain landfills (e.g., those with a capacity of more than 1 million tonnes of waste) to collect landfill gases and either flare them or use them as fuel for generating electricity. The result is increased infrastructure and operational costs for qualifying landfills, although with costs potentially offset by the harnessing of captured emissions for energy generation. Unless exemption criteria are met, the NES for Air Quality also prohibits the lighting of fires and burning of wastes at landfills, the burning of tyres, bitumen burning for road maintenance, burning coated wire or oil, and the operation of hightemperature hazardous waste incinerators. These prohibitions limit the range of waste treatment/disposal options available within New Zealand with the aim of protecting air quality.4

4 Taken from: Ministry for the Environment (2009) Waste Minimisation in Waste Management and Minimisation Planning - Guidance for Territorial Authorities, Wellington

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

11

Page 285 of 470

1.3.5 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the HSNO

Act)
The HSNO Act addresses the management of substances that pose a significant risk to the environment and/or human health, from manufacture to disposal. The Act relates to waste management primarily through controls on the import or manufacture of new hazardous materials and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances. Hazardous substances may be explosive, flammable, have the capacity to oxidise, toxic to humans and/or the environment, corrosive, or have the ability to develop any of these properties when in contact with air or water. Depending on the amount of a hazardous substance on site, the HSNO Act sets out requirements for material storage, staff training and certification. These requirements would need to be addressed within operational and health and safety plans for waste facilities. Hazardous substances commonly managed by TAs include used oil, asbestos, agrichemicals, LPG and batteries. The HSNO Act provides minimum national standards that may apply to the disposal of a hazardous substance. However, under the RMA a regional council or TA may set more stringent controls relating to the use of land for storing, using, disposing of or transporting hazardous substances.5

1.4

Waste management in the Auckland Region


The management, diversion, and disposal of waste in the Auckland Region involves local authorities (Auckland Regional Council, City and District Councils) and the private sector. While organisations in each of these categories undertake discrete activities, there is also collaboration on specific issues and in some cases in providing services. Territorial authorities (City and District Councils) have responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Local Government Act 2002 to provide for the management of waste in their city/district. This includes the responsibility to have a Waste Minimisation and Management Plan and the ability to provide services and/or regulate waste management through by-laws. The majority of household waste is collected on behalf of city/district councils around the region. Waitakere City Council operate the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Transfer Station for both commercial and household waste. Territorial authorities also issue land use consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 for waste transfer, processing and/or disposal facilities The Auckland Regional Council sets policy on a wide range of environmental issues through the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (currently being reviewed). The Auckland Regional Policy Statement provides policy on issues including impacts of urban growth on the environment, which includes waste generation, disposal and processing in the Auckland Region. Auckland Regional Council also monitors and enforces resource consent conditions that apply to the operation of waste facilities. Environment Waikato (the trading name of the Waikato Regional Council) sets policy for the Waikato Region through the Regional Policy Statement. This is of relevance to the Auckland Region due to the disposal and processing of materials from the Auckland Region in facilities such as North Waikato Regional Landfill (commonly referred to as Hampton Downs landfill) near Meremere, and Envirofert Limited (south of Tuakau). Data collected by Environment Waikato through consent conditions will be of use in developing estimates of waste generation and disposal for the Auckland Region. The private sector plays a major role in the collection, processing and disposal of waste from the Auckland Region. With the exception of household waste collections provided by city/district councils, materials passing through the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Transfer Station, Whitford Landfill and a small number of other minor facilities, most materials are

ibid

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

12

Page 286 of 470

collected and disposed/processed by commercial operators. An overview of the Auckland waste management market is provided in Section 3.1. The current re-organisation of local government structure in the Auckland Region will have an impact on the development of policy and management of waste. The structure of the new Auckland Council has yet to be clearly articulated, but it is likely that it will have some similarity to Unitary Authorities operating in other parts of New Zealand. This will mean that there will be:

A part of the new council assuming the responsibility of a territorial authority under the Local Government Act 2002, Resource Management Act 1991, and Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Over time this part of the council will need to amalgamate policies, by-laws, and develop an Auckland Waste Minimisation and Management Plan. There may also be some efficiencies to be gained from amalgamation of waste management contracts and services (collection, processing and disposal). A part of the council assuming the responsibility of a Regional Council under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991. This will include setting regional policy through a Regional Policy Statement and regulating discharges from disposal and processing facilities.

1.5

Regional Waste Priorities


In 2006 the Auckland Waste Officers Forum appointed a team to develop a policy framework for a regional approach to waste minimisation. This included the appointment of a Working Group comprising a representative from each of the seven territorial authorities in the region to develop and manage a regional waste management strategy. There was regional agreement in principle at the CEO/Mayoral Forum level to pursue these efforts to develop a regional strategy. In 2007, the Working Group commissioned Morrison Low & Associates Ltd to prepare a report setting out regional priority waste streams at a regional level and recommending regional projects that would reduce waste to landfill6. The methodology for developing the report included reviewing the seven councils waste management plans to identify common priorities regarding waste reduction activity. Using a set of criteria developed by the Working Group, the priority areas were ranked, with priority actions being identified. These priority actions were then costed, using known or estimated costing data. We note that this report currently remains as a draft. It is our understanding that whilst many of the participating councils were seeking to finalise the regional strategic priorities work and move to the next stage of developing a regional strategy and WMMP, agreement was not unanimous, and so the project was put on hold. From the August 2007 draft copy of the report that was available, the five priority waste streams and their associated action plans are summarised in the following table:
Table 1 Priority waste streams in Auckland Region (Morrison Low report)

Priority waste stream


Organic waste

Rank
1

Action points
Feasibility study of a compost/treated organics market Development of organics composting operation Implementation of household organics collection Investigation of commercial organics collection service Educational programme for encouraging home composting

(Morrison Low 2007 Regional Strategic Priorities for Waste - Draft) 13

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 287 of 470

Priority waste stream


Hazardous waste (e.g. used oil, paint)

Rank
2

Action points
Continue to provide hazardous waste collection and reuse/recycling schemes Enhance collection services Research and development of hazardous waste collection/recycling market Marketing/behavioural change campaign

Recyclables and packaging

Feasibility study into alternative markets for recyclables Enhanced collection services for some areas Development of drop-off facilities and MRFs for some areas Public place recycling bins Public event recycling facilities Marketing/behavioural change campaign

Inorganic/special wastes (e.g. tyres, end of life vehicles, e-waste, timber, asbestos)

Investigate options for alternative collection mechanisms Market development for reuse/recycle of recovered wastes Resource recovery parks with facilities and shops for wastes Marketing/behavioural change campaign

Illegal dumping and litter C&D waste

3 N/A

No action plan Market development for reuse/recycle of recovered C&D wastes Resource recovery parks with facilities for C&D waste Investigate options to encourage separation of C&D wastes onsite Investigate options to reduce C&D waste through design Leading by example

While it is acknowledged that this document will have not have any official status under the new council structure, it does represent the perceived combined priorities of all of the Auckland councils, and any new set of priorities that emerges is likely to reflect, in broad terms, what has been set out in this document.

1.6

Waste Data
An important area of focus in the report is an assessment of the quality and availability of waste data in the Auckland region. Waste data are necessary for the setting and monitoring of policies, strategies, and targets, as well as the management of waste and recovery services and facilities. As is discussed in this document, waste management and planning has historically been the focus of Territorial Authorities and central government and there has been relatively limited strategic direction at a regional level. This has been reflected in the gathering and analysis of waste data with data tending to be generated and managed at the local rather than regional level. With the impending transition to a single Unitary Authority, there will be a need to gather and evaluate waste data on an Auckland region-wide basis. It is therefore an opportune time to assess what data are available, what might be needed for policy and strategic purposes, and how to address any gaps or barriers to establishing a useful waste data programme. Section 5 examines these issues further.

1.7

Key Terminology
Non-household waste. This is predominantly waste generated by private sector business or commercial enterprises but may also include waste from government offices, schools, community organisations etc.

Business/Commercial Waste

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

14

Page 288 of 470

C&D Waste Cleanfill

Waste materials from the construction or demolition of a building, including the preparation and / or clearance of the property or site. (From the MfE Guide to the Management of Cleanfills, MfE, 2002) Material that when buried will have no adverse effect on people or the environment. Cleanfill material includes virgin natural materials such as clay, soil and rock, and other inert materials such as concrete or brick that are free of: combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components hazardous substances products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, hazardous waste stabilisation or hazardous waste disposal practices materials that may present a risk to human or animal health such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos or radioactive substances liquid waste. A cleanfill is any landfill that accepts only cleanfill material as defined above.

Commodities

Recyclable materials for which there are recognised commercial markets. The general use of the terms includes paper, cardboard, glass bottles, cans, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and plastics. These materials are often traded internationally in commodities markets means any thing that is no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded Waste from households. Kerbside refuse collections offered by councils or private waste operators to householders and small businesses The most common types of hazardous wastes include: Organic liquids, such as those removed from septic tanks and industrial cesspits Solvents and oils, particularly those containing volatile organic compounds Hydrocarbon-containing wastes, such as inks, glues, and greases Contaminated soils (lightly contaminated soils may not require treatment prior to landfill disposal) Chemical wastes, such as pesticides and agricultural chemicals Medical and quarantine wastes Wastes containing heavy metals, such as timber preservatives Contaminated packaging associated with these wastes.

Diverted materials Domestic Waste Domestic Kerbside Refuse Collections Hazardous Wastes

Inorganic Landfill Local Authority Managed fill

This term is generally well defined. It is commonly used to refer to bulky household items such as furniture, whiteware, electronic goods and other similar consumer items A disposal facility as defined in s7 of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008), excluding incineration A regional council or territorial authority A disposal site requiring consent from the Auckland Regional Council to accept well defined types of non municipal wastes. These are generally cleanfills that are consented to accept low-level contaminated soils. The deposition on land of cleanfill type material of a single uniform composition. Monofills are commonly the outputs of an industrial process. Waste disposed of to landfill comprising domestic waste and council collected waste from commercial activities.

Monofill Municipal Solid Waste

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

15

Page 289 of 470

Organic waste

The term organic waste in the context of this report refers to the putrescible waste category used in the Solid Waste Analysis Protocol7 (SWAP). This includes garden waste (more commonly known as green waste), food scraps and commercial organic wastes such as food-processing waste. Some other wastes may biodegrade in landfill but are identified separately in SWAP audits. This includes paper, cardboard and untreated wood. (a) means extraction of materials or energy from waste or diverted material for further use or processing; and (b) includes making waste or diverted material into compost means the reprocessing of waste or diverted material to produce new materials The term special waste is used in a number of different ways. In this document we have adopted the definition used in the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2002. Under this definition Special wastes include used oil, tyres, end of life vehicles, batteries and electronic goods A city council or a district council A general term for a facility where waste is consolidated, possibly processed to some degree, and transported to another facility for disposal, recovery or reuse. A territorial authority that has the responsibilities, duties, and powers of a regional council conferred on it Waste means: (a) means any thing disposed of or discarded; and (b) includes a type of waste that is defined by its composition or source (for example, organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste) ; and (c) to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded

Recovery

Recycling Special Waste

Territorial Authority Transfer station Unitary Authority Waste

Waste Assessment Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)

As defined in s51 of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). A waste assessment must be completed whenever a WMMP is reviewed As defined in s43 of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). It is a statutory requirement for all territorial authorities to have a WMMP that meets the requirements of the Act in place by July 2012

Ministry for the Environment Solid Waste Analysis Protocol, 2002


16

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 290 of 470

Methodology
The collection of waste and recycling data is a challenging task. There are a wide range of organisations involved and much data is commercial sensitive. Issues with the definition of waste (when considering what recovered or diverted materials should be included) and the ease of movement of waste across local and regional boundaries makes the task of collating meaningful data more difficult. The intent of this project has been to assess readily available information in order to determine the movement of waste and diverted materials into, around and out of the Auckland Region. The focus has been on waste disposed of to landfill, cleanfill, recycling commodities (glass bottles/jars, metal cans, paper/cardboard and plastics code 1 & 2), scrap metal and organic waste composted or processed for other beneficial use such as biofuel. Other collection and processing of by-products has been identified where possible but not necessarily quantified due to the lack of meaningful data. Examples include the use of wood waste for biofuel within a single operation and the diversion of food processing waste for use as stock food. Organic waste processed via home composting and waste disposed of to on-farm sites has not been quantified. Information regarding waste flows and quantities has been aggregated at a regional level and was collected from a wide range of sources including:

existing reports on waste management in the Auckland Region searching web databases such as Yellow Pages, UBD and Finda for listings for waste and recycling companies reviewing overview information on industry and services in the Auckland Region EECA Heat Plant Database, Local Authority websites, websites for major waste and recycling companies and websites for ; and telephone calls and/or site visits with local authorities, key waste sector organisations and a selection of major businesses operating in the Auckland region.

It is important to note that while some data is accurate, other parts of the dataset are by necessity based on estimates. Good data was collected regarding:

the quantity of waste disposed of to municipal waste landfill (via weighbridge records) the quantity of commodities recycled (via trading/weighbridge records) The composition of waste disposed of to municipal waste landfills; and The quantity of organic waste composted at commercial operations

Quantities for the following waste streams were estimated based on the information sources above: the quantity of wood waste utilised for boiler fuel (based on published data from EECA and discussions with boiler fuel suppliers and operators) the quantity of commercially sourced scrap metal recycled (based on estimates from the Scrap Metal Recycling Association of NZ and published for the key recycling facilities) and the quantity of waste disposed of to cleanfills (based on consent quantity and composition limits)

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

17

Page 291 of 470

2.1

Sources of key data presented in this report


Quantity of waste disposed of to landfill Quantity of waste from the Auckland Region to landfill:

Auckland Regional Council (for Redvale and Whitford Landfills) Envirowaste (waste from the Auckland Region disposed of at Hampton Downs Landfill) Environment Waikato (total waste disposed of at Hampton Downs Landfill); and Project team - waste entering the Auckland Region from Northland deducted from the analysis

Quantity of waste from the Auckland Region to cleanfills and managed fills:

Estimate based on per capita basis and figures from other parts of New Zealand; and Estimate based on consented limits for major disposal sites; and Published data for Watercare (Pond 2 monofill) and NZ Steel (Glenbrook).

Composition of waste disposed of to landfill:

Composition of waste from the Auckland Region to landfill Remove sludge/contaminated soil disposed of to landfill Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) Survey results for general waste Composition of waste from the Auckland Region to cleanfills and managed fills: Cleanfills assume 2% green waste, 30% Construction and Demolition waste, remainder inert soil/rock. Managed fills information from the ARC and site operators regarding materials disposed.

Quantity of materials recycled Discussions with key materials aggregators/processors with all key organisations providing indicative quantities.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

18

Page 292 of 470

Inventory of waste and recovery services and facilities


This section provides an overview of the waste management sector in the Auckland Region. Section 3.1 provides an overview of the market. Section 3.2 notes the role of local government in waste management in the Auckland Region. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 provide a listing of all main waste and recovery services and facilities in the Auckland Region and, where relevant, the interactions between them. The comments cover both publicly and privately owned facilities. There are many small private operators, in both the waste and recycling industries, and it is not considered practical, or necessary, to include all of these separately in such an inventory. Second-hand businesses (e.g. antique dealers, secondhand car yards etc) have not been included. Section 3.5 provides an inventory of current (July 2009) local authority waste collection, processing, and disposal contracts.

3.1

The waste management industry in the Auckland Region


The Auckland region waste and recovered materials market differs from others in New Zealand in terms of its size, complexity, the geographic scope it serves, and ownership of the infrastructure (transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, and landfills). Many New Zealand waste markets feature strong local authority involvement in infrastructure ownership, generally with single landfills serving geographically distinct waste catchments. The Auckland waste disposal market on the other hand is largely served by privately-owned landfills that receive most of the waste from Far North District in the north to Waipa District in the south, a distance of 400 kilometres. This distinct market has developed primarily over the last ten years, with two main factors resulting in most of the changes the privatisation of publicly-owned assets and the closures of small landfills, largely due to the introduction of the Resource Management Act 1991. The waste management industry in the region, including landfills, is currently dominated by two private sector companies Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd (TPI) and EnviroWaste Services Ltd (EnviroWaste). Organisational charts for the two companies are presented below. These charts show only the major relevant assets owned by the two companies that operate in the Auckland region.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

19

Page 293 of 470

Figure 1 TPI in the Auckland region

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

20

Page 294 of 470

Figure 2 EnviroWaste Services Ltd in the Auckland Region

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

21

Page 295 of 470

3.1.1 Municipal landfill market


Up until the early 1990s, the Auckland waste market comprised publicly-owned landfills, a mix of public-and privatelyowned transfer stations, and a largely privately-controlled waste collection market. At that time, with the Pikes Point landfill in Onehunga having closed in the previous decade and the Kay Road Balefill in Swanson approaching closure, there were three major landfills serving the region Rosedale, in North Shore City, Greenmount in East Tamaki, and Whitford in Manukau City and two smaller facilities in Lawries Road, Rodney District, and Hunua Gorge, Papakura, that had a very limited lifespan. All of the operating landfills at the time were at least partly in public ownership. Whitford Landfill was owned and operated by Waste Disposal Services, a joint venture between Manukau City Council and Waste Care Ltd (now part of TPI), and Rosedale and Greenmount landfills were owned by EnviroWaste. At that time, EnviroWaste was a joint venture company owned by Northern Disposal Services and Fulton Hogan Ltd. Northern Disposal Services in turn was wholly-owned by the Auckland Regional Services Trust (later to become Infrastructure Auckland). The first major step towards privatisation of the waste market was the opening in 1993 of Redvale Landfill, by Waste Management N.Z. Ltd (now part of TPI), in Albany, north of Auckland. The second step towards privatisation was the sale, in November 2001, by Infrastructure Auckland, of its 50% shareholding in EnviroWaste to Fulton Hogan Ltd. By 2005, there were only three major landfills serving the Auckland market, with Rosedale and Greenmount (which still operates as a managed fill site) having closed, and EnviroWaste having opened the Hampton Downs Landfill, in the Waikato. Of the three major facilities, the only local government involvement is Manukau City Councils joint venture with Waste Management (a division of TPI) in Waste Disposal Services, which owns and operates Whitford Landfill and the East Tamaki Transfer Station. Claris Landfill, on Great Barrier Island, a very small facility, is owned by Auckland City Council. As the tonnage figures for the individual landfills are considered commercially-sensitive by the operators, individual figures cannot be made public. Based on data provided by landfill operators to Auckland Regional Council for this project, an estimate has been made of 1.4 million tonnes of waste from the Auckland Region being landfilled for the year to July 2009. This figure does not include material being disposed of at cleanfills or waste from outside the Region that is disposed of at the landfills serving the Auckland Region. This estimate is presented and explained further in Section 4.2. The barriers to entry into the landfill market are significant, with substantial capital investment being required for site testing, land purchase, and the resource consent process. The outcomes of the consent process are far from certain, putting at risk the initial capital investment. Due to these barriers, it is unlikely that there will be any further entries into the Auckland landfill market until required by the closure of Redvale, expected to be within twenty years. To sustain the high fixed costs associated with operating sanitary landfills to the standard required by the Resource Management Act, and to provide an acceptable return on the original capital investment, it is essential for landfill operators to maintain control of an economic volume of waste by establishing ownership of that waste as close as possible to its point of generation. In the waste industry, this is referred to as flow control, and competition for flow control between the two landfill operators, EnviroWaste and TPI, is one of the formative features of the current Auckland region waste market. The third major landfill, Whitford Landfill, is less involved in the competitive market. The facility is limited by the terms of its resource consents to receiving 200,000 tonnes of waste per year. The two joint venture partners, Manukau City Council and Waste Management, between them control a sizable proportion of this volume. In addition, as Whitford Landfill has been operating since the 1970s, the sunk capital requiring a high rate of return is likely to be markedly lower than for the more recently-established facilities.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

22

Page 296 of 470

To improve their position in the competition for flow control and maintain ownership of the waste stream, both of the major landfill operators are vertically integrated entities, operating waste collection services, transfer stations for accepting waste from the public and third-party waste operators prior to consolidation, bulk haulers, and landfills.

3.1.2 Transfer stations and bulk haulage market


When the landfills serving Auckland were within the urban areas of the region, waste was delivered directly to the facilities. Now that the major landfills are considerable distance from the urban areas, it has become necessary to establish transfer stations for the aggregation of waste, which is then bulk hauled to the landfills. Although the figures are commercially sensitive and have not been made available for this study, bulk waste from transfer stations is likely to comprise the largest component of waste being disposed of at the landfills serving the region, estimated to be in the region 40%. Entry into the transfer station market is much less costly than the landfill market, with capital costs and operating costs being much lower and resource consents being significantly easier to obtain. Between them, the two major landfill operators in the Auckland region control the operation of nine8 of the seventeen main transfer stations throughout the region9. These transfer stations are, for the most part, situated in the central core of the region, with territorial authorities and smaller waste operators operating transfer stations in some smaller centres. While most of the transfer stations are open to the public, some accept only waste from commercial operators. To facilitate the economically-viable collection of waste in all areas of the region and so protect their market share, both EnviroWaste and TPI operate region-wide networks of transfer stations, even though this results, in some instances, in competing transfer stations being situated in close proximity. Examples of this are EnviroWastes Constellation Drive transfer station and TPIs Rosedale Road depot, on the North Shore. The locations and ownership of transfer stations are shown in the map included as Figure 3. To the north of the region, Mason Contractors Ltd and Metropolitan Waste Ltd operate transfer stations in the Wellsford, Warkworth, and Silverdale areas. In the west, Waitakere City Council owns and operates the only major council-owned transfer station in the region, the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station, and in the east is the public-private joint venture owned East Tamaki Transfer Station. In total, three of the transfer stations are in joint ownership. Pikes Point is owned by Pikes Point Transfer Station Ltd, a joint venture between TPI and EnviroWaste. Wiri transfer station is owned by Northern Waste Handling Ltd, a joint venture between EnviroWaste and JJ Richards. More detailed information on transfer stations is presented in Section 3.3.1. With TPIs Redvale Landfill being to the north of the metropolitan Auckland area, and EnviroWastes Hampton Downs Landfill being to the south, the operation by each company of a region-wide network of transfer stations potentially creates transport inefficiencies, with each operator needing to bulk haul waste from one end of the region to the other. This issue has been addressed, to an extent that is uncertain due to the commercial sensitivity of the information, by the landfill operators swapping waste from transfer stations. Under this arrangement, both of the landfills are understood to accept quantities of waste from the other companys transfer stations. The waste swapping ameliorates some of the trans-region hauling that would otherwise eventuate and, to an extent undisclosed by the operators, rationalises bulk hauling in the region. For example, some (if not most or all) of the waste from EnviroWastes Constellation Drive transfer station on the North Shore is transported to TPIs Redvale Landfill. Similarly, some (if not most or all) waste from TPIs Papakura transfer station is transported to EnviroWastes Hampton Downs Landfill.
TPI also operate two transfer stations on contract to council Devonport and Waiheke bringing the total to 11 if these are included. There is no specific definition of what constitutes a transfer station. Many smaller operators will run their own transfer facilities to bulk and process waste they collect. For the purposes of this report these have not been quantified.
9 8

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

23

Page 297 of 470

Balance is reportedly maintained in the swapping arrangement by the landfill operators monitoring the swap tonnages and, when necessary, diverting bulk hauling from an individual transfer station to the other landfill. Pikes Point transfer station, which is operated as a joint venture by both landfill operators, is centrally-located and waste from the facility could, if required, be directed to either Redvale Landfill or Hampton Downs Landfill to maintain the balance. The swapping arrangement between TPI and Envirowaste has, until recently, been based on contracts entered into every eighteen months. At present, there is no formal contract in place for the swapping arrangement. Although it is a private arrangement between two commercial entities, the waste swapping arrangement is clearly of strategic importance to the efficient operation of waste flows in the region. If this arrangement were to break down for any reason it could result in increases in waste costs, increased bulk haulage movements and resulting congestion and associated negative environmental impacts. The issue of transportation of waste is particularly pertinent in the Auckland Region as Auckland has significant transportation / congestion problems which create inefficiencies, not only in the waste transportation industry but to the wider Auckland and New Zealand economy. The existing rail network, with the main trunk lines location near key RTS and the Hampton Downs Landfill does provide opportunities for transportation with associated efficiency gains. As long as waste (and diverted materials) is required to be moved significant distances there will be transportation issues and this means that long term solutions to haulage will be important.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

24

Page 298 of 470

Figure 3 Transfer station and landfill locations

Transpacific EnviroWaste Council Metropolitan Waste Mason Contractors

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

25

Page 299 of 470

3.1.3 Waste collection market


The barriers to entry into the waste collection market are much lower than into the landfill and transfer station market, and this is reflected by the substantial number of waste collectors active in the Auckland region. There is a high degree of operator turnover in the waste collection market, with a high attrition rate amongst the small operators and numerous acquisitions of smaller operators by TPI and EnviroWaste. Other than each other, the main competition to TPI and EnviroWaste in the waste collection market comes from overseas entities attempting to gain a foothold in the Auckland market. Recent Australian entrants to the Auckland collection market include J.J. Richards, which operates in the commercial collections market and is, with EnviroWaste, a joint owner of the Wiri transfer station. Cleanaway Australia, which entered the New Zealand market with local authority collection contracts as EnviroWay Ltd, was a joint venture with EnviroWaste. Cleanaway Australia was purchased by TPI in 2007, and EnviroWay is now totally owned by EnviroWaste. Another Australian company has also entered the recycling collection market, with Thiess Services Pty Ltd wholly-owned subsidiary Thiess Services New Zealand Ltd now having the Auckland City kerbside recycling collection contract. Entry into the New Zealand markets by overseas interests is not always long-lived, and frequent change of ownership is a feature of the marketplace. Waste Management NZ Ltd was, in the late 1990s, owned 60% by WMX Technologies of the United States, then was largely New Zealand-owned through its New Zealand Stock Exchange listing, and then, after merging with Australian-owned TPI, is now totally Australian-owned. In another change of ownership involving foreigncontrolled companies, in 1999, Waste Management NZ Ltd received Commerce Commission approval to acquire Waste Care Ltd, from its French owners, Sita S.A, at the time owned 63% by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux of France. More recently, Onyx Group Limited (owned by the French Veolia Proprete), which entered the New Zealand market in 1995, had declined in the scope of its activities, and is now limited to North Shore and Waitakere Citys kerbside refuse and recycling contracts. Its commercial collection assets were sold to J.J. Richards. New entrants to the Auckland collection market may be disadvantaged by the need to make disposal arrangements at a transfer station or landfill that is operated by either TPI or EnviroWaste, organisations against which they might be competing in the collection market. The vertical integration of TPI and EnviroWaste has the potential to allow them to price their services competitively compared to companies operating only in the collection market. Whereas the swapping arrangement that exists between TPI and EnviroWaste has, to an unknown extent, rationalised the bulk hauling of waste in the region, there is little such rationalising in the waste collection market, which generates a much greater number of vehicle movements. There may be some swapping of waste loads that are disposed of directly to landfill, but, for the most part, waste collected by either TPI or EnviroWaste that does not go directly to landfill will be disposed of at one of that companys transfer stations, rather than at the nearest facility. It is likely that the competition in the waste collection and disposal markets results in lower collection and disposal costs to waste generators than would otherwise be the case. While this may have immediate economic benefits to waste generators in terms of reduced costs, it works against national and local governments waste reduction efforts, as increased cost is widely considered to be an important driver for waste reduction. This is recognised in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) s. 25 (b), which explains the introduction of the waste levy is to increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society, and the economy

3.1.4 Cleanfill and managed fill disposal market


In the MfEs 2002 A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills, cleanfill is defined as:

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

26

Page 300 of 470

Material that when buried will have no adverse effect on people or the environment. Cleanfill material includes virgin natural materials such as clay, soil and rock, and other inert materials such as concrete or brick that are free of:

combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components hazardous substances products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, hazardous waste stabilisation or hazardous waste disposal practices materials that may present a risk to human or animal health such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos or radioactive substances liquid waste.

In terms of the Auckland Air, Land and Water Plan, the deposition on land of materials that comply with the MfEs definition of cleanfill is generally a permitted activity. Managed fill sites, that accept soil with low levels of contamination, are more rigorously controlled through the resource consent process. There are a large number of cleanfills in the Auckland Region, but as a result of cleanfillings status as a permitted activity, the exact number is impossible to determine. A 2005 survey by SKM identified at least 30 cleanfill sites in the region,10 based on information provided by the ARC. The survey also noted six managed fill sites, where low level contaminants could be discharged. Two of these sites were disposing of waste generated on-site from their own operations. An analysis conducted for this report estimates that approximately 1,770,000 tonnes of material are disposed of annually at cleanfills and managed fills in the Auckland region. This estimate is presented and explained in Section 4.3. Ownership in the cleanfill market is much more fragmented than in the waste market, with quarry owners, transport operators, and private developers all featuring in the data made available by Auckland Regional Council (although cleanfilling itself is a permitted activity, resource consents may be required for earthworks and sediment control). The only known involvement of the major waste operators in the cleanfill/managed fill is EnviroWastes operations at the closed Greenmount and Rosedale landfill sites. The cleanfill operations in the Auckland Region are in direct competition with the municipal landfills and resource recovery operators for disposal of the portion of the waste stream that complies with the MfEs definition of cleanfil11l. A substantial proportion of this material is generated by construction and demolition activity. The SKM survey estimated the quantity of cleanfill disposed of in the Auckland region to be over two million tonnes per annum, greater than the quantity of waste being disposed of to the municipal landfills. The SKM estimate is based on per capita cleanfill disposal data collected by Christchurch City Council, as no data are collated on cleanfill tonnages in the Auckland Region. The cost of entry into the cleanfill market is substantially lower than into the municipal landfill market. Cleanfills require much lower levels of engineering investment to prevent discharges into the environment and have very low, or negligible, compliance costs. Because of these differing cost structures, cleanfills charge markedly less for disposal than municipal landfills, often on the order of 10% of landfills advertised gate charges. Despite the differences in cost structures, municipal landfills often compete with cleanfills on the basis of price to retain flow control, as cleanfill tonnages are so large. As the marginal cost per tonne of landfilling is very low, a landfill could potentially still make a profit accepting cleanfill material at a price competitive with cleanfills gate charges. This is particularly the case for the disposal of clean soil, which landfills can use for cover material or for site engineering purposes.
10 11

SKM (2008) Waste Facilities Survey Methodology and Summary of Results, unpublished, prepared for the Ministry for the Environment In addition cleanfills are known to sometimes accept material that is outside the MfE definition of cleanfill and so may compete for material that should technically be disposed of to a consented landfill. The extent of this activity is virtually impossible to quantify. 27

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 301 of 470

All of the landfills in the Auckland Region are required to cover exposed refuse each day to reduce odour and vermin problems and to reduce rainwater infiltration. The landfills are also required to cover cells that are not in use with thicker layers of soil than required for daily cover. For the most part, the landfills excavate cover material on-site. There is, however, a cost involved in on-site excavation of cover material, and any soil that can be sourced from off the site can be used to replace on-site cover material. For this reason, municipal landfills are often prepared to accept cleanfill at a much lower cost than municipal refuse. Cleanfills also compete with resource recovery operators for materials such as, for example, waste concrete. Resource recovery operators that process waste concrete into aggregate compete against the cost of cleanfill disposal to maintain flow control over their supply of material. In environmental terms, the most important aspect of the competition between cleanfills and municipal landfills for flow control relates to the disposal of contaminated soils. Landfills are not able to use contaminated soils for engineering purposes as readily as they can clean soils, and gate charges for contaminated soils at landfills may be higher than for cleanfill materials. As there are no rigorous regulatory systems in place for the identification and tracking of materials from contaminated sites in the Auckland Region, the possibility exists for cleanfills to be used illegally for the disposal of contaminated soils as a cost-saving measure by the waste generator. The July 2009 introduction of the waste levy has the potential to exacerbate this problem. Section 3 of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) provides for a waste levy of $10/tonne to be imposed on all wastes deposited in disposal facilities. This levy will only apply to waste disposed of at landfills accepting household waste, and not to waste disposed of at cleanfills. At the time of writing (July 2009), the Ministry for the Environment is still considering the types of materials to which the levy will ultimately apply. The 2009 MfE document, Calculation and Payment of the Waste Disposal Levy Guidance for Waste Disposal Facility Operators, states:

The situation regarding the use of discarded material for daily cover is complex, and the Ministry will provide a more complete assessment once policy work is complete. The levy applies to material or waste that is disposed of or discarded at the facility. If soil or other material brought to a facility is not reused at the facility, for instance as cover material, it may in fact be disposed of at the facility, in which case it may be subject to the levy.
If the levy is applied to contaminated soils and materials suitable for use as engineering materials or cover materials by landfills, this will increase considerably the cost of landfill disposal of these materials, and provide a greater incentive for their improper disposal at cleanfills.

3.1.5 Recovered materials market


The recovered materials market is much more fragmented than the waste market. Unlike the waste market, in which the important divisions are horizontal (collection, bulking, and disposal), the recycling industry is divided into distinct markets according to material types paper/cardboard, glass, metal, and plastics. The major local processors of the different material types tend to have a dominant position in each marketplace. Also unlike the waste market, the recovered materials market is integrated with an international market. As virtually all waste generated in the Auckland region is disposed of locally, the only competition for disposal is between the landfill operators. Many local collectors and processors of recovered materials are, on the other hand, able to enter the international secondary materials market for sale of their materials. While low-volume, high-value materials such as metals and plastics have been exported for many years, the increase in the secondary materials market (up until the global financial crisis of August 2008) resulted more recently in high-volume, lower-value materials such as paper and glass being exported as well.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

28

Page 302 of 470

Although much of the data relating to recovered materials is considered commercially sensitive by the organisations involved, data gathered for this project indicate that approximately 247,000 tonnes of recyclable commodities are recovered annually. These data are presented in Section 4.4. Glass is the clearest example of this, with Owens-Illinois (NZ) Ltd (O-I) being the only significant local processor of glass. O-I (formerly ACI Glass Packaging), at its plant in Penrose is the only manufacturer of glass bottles and jars in New Zealand. The manufacturing process uses a proportion of culled (recycled glass) along with virgin material, and this process is the major user of recovered glass in the country. O-I does not collect glass from the consumer, but rather relies on a network of suppliers, most of which source post-consumer glass from domestic and commercial recycling services. Prior to manufacturing, the recovered glass is processed by Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd at a plant adjacent to the OI plant. O-Is dominance in the market lessened somewhat in the last decade when it substantially reduced the price paid for cullet. Whereas previously it had been economically viable for glass to be shipped to Auckland from throughout the country, the price reduction has resulted in glass being stockpiled, or alternative uses for it sought, in many parts of the country. It is understood that some cullet is now being exported to Australia. Recovered glass is also used in the manufacture of glasswool insulation by Tasman Insulation NZ Ltd at its Penrose factory. The glass used is pre-consumer pane rather than bottle glass. Although its market position is not as dominant as O-Is, Carter Holt Harvey (CHH) is the only company manufacturing paper and cardboard packaging from recovered materials in New Zealand. CHH has two plants using recovered materials in New Zealand, at Te Papapa, Auckland and in Kinleith. Source material for the plants is recovered from both pre-and post-consumer sources. CHH is more vertically-integrated than O-I, with its Fullcircle Recycling division being one of the major players in the commercial paper recycling collection market, partially under the Paper Chain and Paperchase brands. However, because there are offshore markets for recovered paper and cardboard, other collectors have become established without needing to rely totally on CHH for product sales. Paper Reclaim Ltd is one of the major independent collectors and processors in the Auckland region, and while some of its recovered product is on-sold to CHH, a significant quantity is exported. Both of the major landfill operators, TPI and EnviroWaste, are also active in the collection and processing of paper products. The recovered metals industry is more fragmented again than the paper recycling industry. The major participant in the recovered ferrous metal industry is Sims Pacific Metals Ltd, a joint venture between Sims Metal Industries, a subsidiary of Sims Group, one of the largest metal recyclers in the world, and Fletcher Building. A significant proportion of the ferrous metal collected and processed by Sims Pacific is used at Fletchers Pacific Steel plant in Otahuhu. Both pre- and post-consumer metals are significant sources of material for the scrap metal industry. Because of the relatively high value and low volume of metals, particularly non-ferrous metals, there are a large number of small participants in the scrap metal industry. These small scrap metal collectors and processors collect from industry or operate scrap metal yards open to the public. While some may on sell to larger local organisations, others bale and export their processed product. The plastics recycling industry is perhaps the least well-established of the commodity recycling industries. The low cost of plastics was a major economic disincentive to the industry until the rise in the cost of petrochemicals in the last decades. A significant proportion of the industry is business to business recycling of pre-consumer materials, in which the recycler will re-granulate off-specification product and return it to the manufacturer for re-use (tolling). Recycling of this kind is relatively expensive to set up, requiring sophisticated technology to maintain quality standards. Astron Plastics is one of the more prominent of many participants in this marketplace.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

29

Page 303 of 470

As recycled plastics processing is less tolerant of contamination than the other materials, post-consumer recycling has been one of the more difficult markets to become established. Much of the industry resulted from the introduction of kerbside recycling by local councils, which created a supply of materials that had not previously been collected. The collection of other post-consumer plastics, often commingled with other materials, became more common after kerbside recycling became entrenched. All of the major waste companies as well as many other smaller participants now collect and process post-consumer plastics and other materials. As sophisticated processing technology is not required for small operations, there are a number of small sorting lines in the Auckland region separating plastics and other materials. These include facilities owned by Rubbish Direct, Paper Reclaim, and TPI Allbrite. The market for commingled recyclables, however, is dominated by Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd at its Onehunga plant, operated under contract to Auckland and Manukau City Councils, which are also financial partners. While most of the recovered materials market is structured around individual commodities, the construction and demolition recovery market is based around collecting and processing all wastes from a single industry. The C&D waste processing industry is relatively new, and has entered the marketplace as a direct response to rises in landfill charges. A C&D processing site is able to divert about 80%, by weight, of all incoming waste by separating cleanfill-type materials for cleanfill disposal and recoverable materials, such as concrete, for processing. TPI has operated two of its transfer stations (Rosedale and Hobill Avenue) as C&D sorting facilities for a number of years. Two major C&D sorting operations have also been opened recently, by Nikau Contractors Ltd and Ward Resource Recovery Ltd. Other recovery options for materials associated with construction and demolition include Envirofert Ltds land storage of plasterboard at its Tuakau facility, and Reharvested Timber Products Ltd timber processing facility. The timber processing facility produces various grades of mulch from both treated and untreated timber for a variety of purposes. Wood waste is also used for fuel by several timber processors in the region, including Fletcher Buildings Laminex plant in Kumeu and Pinepacs sawmills in Kumeu and Whenuapai. Post-consumer wood waste is used for fuel by Waste Energy Burners Ltd in Onehunga.

3.1.6 Organic waste collection and processing market


Some segments of the organic waste collection and processing market are very well developed, while others are just beginning to emerge. An estimate made for this report concludes that 192,000 tonnes of organic waste are diverted from landfill disposal annually. This estimate is presented in Section 4.4. The most developed segment of the market is the collection and rendering of pre-consumer meat and seafood waste. Most of the waste is sourced from pre-consumer activity, such as supermarkets and processing operations. The main participant in this market is Waikato By Products Ltd, a subsidiary of Lowe Corporation Ltd. The collection of pre-consumer food waste for use as stock feed is well-established, but until recently has most commonly been done by the farmers, particularly pig farmers, themselves. Most of this market is sourced from supermarkets and food manufacturers. In recent years, this market has become more centralised, with Eco Stock Supplies Ltd now controlling a substantial segment of the market. The collection and processing of post-consumer food waste, such as that generated by households, restaurants, and hotels, is in the early development stage. The main barrier to this has been the lack of a consented facility in the Auckland region. While obtaining the necessary resource consents for processing pre-consumer food waste has been relatively straightforward, the consent process for processing post-consumer food waste has proven difficult.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

30

Page 304 of 470

As of writing (July 2009), only a single processor serving the region, Envirofert Ltd near Tuakau, has the necessary consents, and these are only for a trial at the companys greenwaste processing operation. It is understood that commercial food waste collections have recently begun to provide material for the operation. An organic processing operation in Northland, Sustainable Waste Management Ltd near Ruakaka, is also consented to compost food wastes, but mostly processes noxious wastes, such as septage, from the Auckland region, and under existing consents would not have sufficient capacity to process the quantities of food wastes likely to be involved. The territorial authorities in the Auckland region are, as a group, currently investigating the feasibility of establishing kerbside food waste collections for residents. Compared to the food waste market, the collection and processing of greenwaste is very well developed. There is an extensive infrastructure of collection facilities at most transfer stations in the Region, and commercial collections are available for households and businesses. The barriers to establishing greenwaste processing operations include the relatively low cost of landfill disposal, against which greenwaste recovery competes, the difficulties in establishing markets for the compost products, and the resource consent process. Currently, the greenwaste processing market is dominated by Living Earth Ltd, which is half-owned by TPI. Living Earths main processing facility, which uses open windrowing technology, recently moved from Pikes Point in Onehunga to Puketutu Island, in Manukau City. A large-scale vertical composting unit system at Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station, which opened in 2001, closed in 2008. Several smaller operators also process greenwaste, including Heards in Papakura, which shreds and composts greenwaste and other organic materials on-site, and Silverdale and Warkworth transfer stations, which shred greenwaste. Commercial-scale vermi-composting units are also available, and have had limited uptake by businesses. A significant proportion of the greenwaste market does not involve established disposal or processing facilities. Some large generators of greenwaste, such as arborists, mulch waste on-site and dispose of it immediately as mulch. Large-scale composting of biosolids and other noxious wastes does not yet occur in the Auckland region. As a result, significant waste streams, such as the biosolids produced by the North Shore wastewater treatment plant are disposed of to landfill. A Hot Rot horizontal composting unit that had been processing biosolids from the Army Bay wastewater treatment plant in Rodney District ceased operation in 2007. Sustainable Waste Managements Ruakaka facility composts some noxious wastes from the Auckland region, such as septage from Waitakere City. Other smaller-scale operations are likely to be in operation also, processing waste from individual industries.

3.1.7 Hazardous waste collection and processing market


The hazardous waste market comprises both liquid and solid wastes that, in general, require further treatment before conventional disposal methods can be used. The most common types of hazardous wastes include:

Organic liquids, such as those removed from septic tanks and industrial cesspits Solvents and oils, particularly those containing volatile organic compounds Hydrocarbon-containing wastes, such as inks, glues, and greases Contaminated soils (lightly contaminated soils may not require treatment prior to landfill disposal) Chemical wastes, such as pesticides and agricultural chemicals Medical and quarantine wastes

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

31

Page 305 of 470

Wastes containing heavy metals, such as timber preservatives Contaminated packaging associated with these wastes.

A range of treatment processes are used before hazardous wastes can be safely disposed of. Most disposal is either to landfill or through the trade waste system. Some of these treatments result in trans-media effects, with liquid wastes being disposed of as solids after treatment. A very small proportion of hazardous wastes are intractable, and need exporting for treatment. These include polychlorinated byphenyls, pesticides, and persistent organic pollutants. The number of participants in the hazardous waste market is relatively small. In recent years, both TPI and EnviroWaste have acquired existing businesses to establish a greater presence in the market. EnviroWaste purchased Chemwaste Industries Ltd in 2007, and now operates it as a division of its Technical Services subsidiary. In 2005, TPI purchased Nuplex Industries Ltd Environmental Services group and then purchased Medismart Ltd in 2007. Also in 2007, TPI purchased the non-medical waste business of Medi-Chem Waste Services Ltd. The other major participant is Medi-Chem Waste Services Ltd. An associated company, International Waste Ltd, operates the steam sterilisation unit at Auckland airport, which treats much of the quarantine and medical sharps waste from the region.

3.2

Role of local government in regional waste market

3.2.1 Territorial authorities


Although territorial authorities (TAs) in the Auckland region do not control strategic waste infrastructure assets to the same extent as councils elsewhere in New Zealand, the councils still play a major role in the regional waste market. This role is due largely to the magnitude of the waste and recycling contracts controlled by local government, the councils role as a regulator, and the statutory obligations placed upon the councils by the Waste Minimisation Act. The combined waste streams controlled by the TAs of the Auckland region comprise approximately 20% of the overall waste disposed of to landfill, making TAs by far the single largest generator of waste. The individual contracts let by TAs for kerbside refuse collection and disposal are amongst the largest individual waste contracts in the region, with the Manukau City Council kerbside refuse contract, totalling 64,000 tonnes per annum likely to be the largest single contract in the region (the Auckland City kerbside refuse collection is split into separate contracts). The terms of these contracts has grown longer over time, with seven to ten year contract periods becoming the norm. Longer contracts allow the contractor to pay off the expensive capital equipment required over a longer period of time, in theory resulting in lower costs to council. TA refuse and recycling contracts are, as a result, of great importance to many of the major private waste operators. For new entrants to the Auckland market, these contracts are often sought as an entry point into the market, allowing a company to establish in the region with a single, substantial contract and to then increase their market share from that point. Some operators are totally reliant upon council business, and these operators would not be able to operate if these contracts were lost. For the major waste operators that own landfills, TPI and EnviroWaste, the TA collection contracts are not essential, although they still tender competitively for them. These large operators rely primarily on their commercial collections and landfill operations to remain profitable.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

32

Page 306 of 470

The regulatory role of the Auckland TAs has increased significantly in the last decade. Most of the councils now have bylaws in place to regulate and control the setting out, collection, transportation, and disposal of refuse. The bylaws aim to protect public health and amenities, minimise traffic disruption, and encourage waste minimisation. The more recent waste bylaws include provision for the licensing of waste collectors, and the three TAs to the north of the region, Rodney District, North Shore City, and Waitakere City have adopted a common bylaw that requires licensed collectors to report regularly on the quantities and types of waste collected from each region. In August 2009 Franklin District Council also adopted a solid waste bylaw that is very similar to the North Shore, Rodney and Waitakere bylaws, although under the new Franklin bylaw licensing will not be required until February 2010. The statutory obligations placed on TAs by the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) and its predecessor, the Local Government Amendment (1996) Act require TAs to become actively involved in the waste market by planning and implementing waste reduction initiatives. Through major initiatives such as kerbside recycling, TAs have developed significant services and infrastructure assets that would otherwise not have been commercially viable. These initiatives have, in turn, also strengthened the overall recycling industry, by providing a critical mass of recovered materials that otherwise might not have been available. The other main type of initiative for waste reduction undertaken by TAs is in the education and promotional area. The larger TAs employ staff directly in this field. In the smaller councils, the educational role is generally included in that of the relevant council officer.

3.2.2 TA joint initiatives


There has been a trend over the last decade for the Auckland region TAs to work as a group on waste issues, rather than as individual councils. Some of the initiatives undertaken as partnerships between the TAs include:

Shared kerbside refuse and recycling contracts between North Shore City and Waitakere City Council Manukau and Auckland Citys joint venture with Visy Recycling to establish the materials recovery facility in Onehunga for the processing of kerbside recyclables from both cities. Rodney, Waitakere, and North Shore adopting a standardised waste bylaw, including operator licensing and waste data gathering All of the TAs meet regularly through the Auckland Waste Officers Forum. The Forum has initiated many regionwide projects, including investigations into the feasibility of councils providing kerbside food waste collection and processing and the development of a regional waste strategy. The HazMobile is a mobile hazardous waste collection service. The Auckland HazMobile is co-ordinated by Auckland Regional Council, and provided in conjunction with Auckland City Council, North Shore City Council, Manukau City Council, Franklin District Council, Papakura District Council, and Rodney District Council. Be a Tidy Kiwi anti-litter campaign. All of the TAs ran a three-year campaign to encourage residents to take personal responsibility for littering. Create your own Eden All of the TAs (except Waitakere) participated in this programme to promote home composting. WasteWise Schools is an Education for Sustainability programme that assists schools to reduce their waste. WasteWise Schools is supported by all of the TAs and the ARC.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

33

Page 307 of 470

All of the TAs and ARC sponsored the EnviroSmart programme in the Auckland region, a nationwide programme that provided businesses with the tools to adopt an accredited environmental management system. The Auckland Sustainability Framework project is a partnership between all of the TAs and the ARC. The project is also in collaboration with central government agencies coordinated through the Government Urban and Economic Development Office (GUEDO). The Framework has identified climate change, natural resource use, global economic change, population growth and demographic and social change as the sustainability challenges for the region and set eight goals to address these challenges. These goals have informed the content and direction of Aucklands Sustainability Plan: Keeping Aucklands Future Bright.

3.2.3 Role of regional council in regional waste market


Historical legislative environment and Regional Council role In New Zealand, the modern era of waste management legislation began with the Health Act 1956, which ascribes to local authorities the duty to promote and conserve the public health within its district. As part of this duty, local authorities were required to provide sanitary works, including sewerage works, waterworks, swimming baths, cemeteries, sanitary conveniences for the use of the public, and works for the collection and disposal of refuse, nightsoil, and other offensive matter. The Auckland Regional Authority Act 1963 gave the ARA the right to undertake and operate new regional services in competition to other territorial local authorities, but not against private enterprise. At that time, the region was served by a large number of small, poor quality landfills owned by local councils, and there was legal doubt as to whether the regional services described in the Act related to refuse disposal.12 The government moved in the mid-1970s to shift the responsibility for refuse disposal in the Auckland region from local to regional level. A 1976 Order in Council transferred to the Auckland Regional Authority the refuse disposal function of every local council within the Auckland regional district.13 The Order in Council specifically excluded the Regional Authority from undertaking refuse collection, with that responsibility to remain with the constituent local authorities within the region.14 The collection of solid wastes remained a discretionary function for councils, but the requirements of the Health Act resulted in all eleven local authorities in the Auckland region providing a regular refuse collection. In the same year, the ARA produced its Refuse Disposal Bylaw, which further increased its involvement in the waste disposal field. This Bylaw prohibited the provision or operation of any facility for the disposal of refuse without the consent of the Authority. As well, the Bylaw prohibited any person from disposing of any refuse other than clean fill except in a facility provided or authorised by the Authority. The ARAs most important involvement in waste disposal came in 1978, when the Authority opened the Rosedale Rd Landfill in the North Shore, and in 1980, when it opened Greenmount Landfill, in East Tamaki. The role of local councils remained constant during this period, until the Local Government Amendment Act 1979 inserted provisions relating to refuse collection and disposal that had been absent in the original Local Government Act 1974. Territorial authorities were now permitted, but not required, to provide for the collection and disposal of refuse, with the work being executed either by contract or by the territorial authority. The territorial authorities were permitted to construct and operate refuse disposal works and to enact bylaws regulating the collection and disposal of refuse. Suitable methods for refuse disposal were deemed to be by deposit on land, by composting, incineration, pulverisation,
12 Auckland Regional Council (1990) Report of the Refuse Working Party on the Provision of Refuse Disposal Services by the Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, pp. 3-1 - 4-3 13 Auckland Regional Authority (1987). Auckland Region Refuse Strategy Discussion Document, Auckland Regional Authority, Auckland, pp. 1-3 14 ARA Refuse Department (1988). Integrated Refuse Disposal Strategy for Auckland Region, Auckland Regional Authority, Auckland, pp. 1-5

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

34

Page 308 of 470

shredding, compacting or other means. Recycling was included in legislation for the first time as the separation or extraction or conversion into a useful marketable product were allowed as a means of disposal.
Further responsibilities for local authorities were enacted when the Litter Act 1979 made better provision for the abatement and control of litter. Under the Act, every public authority was required to provide suitable litter receptacles in every public place where litter is likely to be deposited and to make provision for the emptying of the receptacles. In 1988, the ARA adopted its Integrated Refuse Disposal Strategy.15 The Local Government Amendment (No 2) Act 1989 provided the framework for the transformation of the local government sector in New Zealand, reconfiguring a myriad of existing bodies into 13 regional councils and 76 territorial local authorities comprising city and district councils. The new regional councils were given wide responsibility for natural resource management, and the necessary powers of enforcement, by assuming the functions of the catchment boards, drainage boards, and other local bodies. The restructuring provided regional councils with policy-making functions while leaving the responsibility for service provision with the territorial local authorities.16 The Order in Council conferred on the Auckland Regional Council the same residual powers with respect to refuse disposal as the ARA had had previously. In 1990, a national waste management policy was announced by the Labour government of the day. The policy included a target to reduce solid waste production nationally to 20% below its 1988 levels.17 In November, 1991, the refuse disposal enterprise of the ARC (still operating Greenmount and Rosedale landfills) was transferred to Northern Disposal Systems, a local authority trading enterprise. In 1992, the Government Waste Management Policy was released, which no longer included a waste reduction target. The policy aimed to ensure that waste generators should meet the costs of the waste they produce and to encourage the implementation of the waste management hierarchy. A national database for waste was established by the Department of Statistics, using the Waste Analysis Protocol, as part of the State of the Environment Reporting project. The generator pays principle included in the policy was meant to provide an incentive for waste generators to adopt less wasteful practices through an economic incentive. In June 1995, Northern Disposal Systems joined with Fulton Hogan Limited, a contracting company with waste collection activities throughout the South Island, to form EnviroWaste Services Limited, a 50/50 joint venture company. The 1996 Government Coalition Agreement outlined specific waste reduction policy initiatives and reinstated a target for the reduction of solid waste production to half the 1990 level by the year 2000.18 The passing of the Local Government Amendment Act (No. 4) 1996 radically changed the responsibilities of territorial authorities. Territorial authorities were given the duty of encouraging efficient waste management while giving regard to environmental and economic costs and benefits as well as to the traditional function of maintaining public health. Every territorial authority was required to adopt a waste management plan making provision for the collection and reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment, or disposal of waste in the district. Appropriate powers were given to territorial authorities to perform these functions, including the use of economic incentives and disincentives to promote the objectives of its plan. The passing of the Act transferred the responsibility for the future of waste management to territorial authorities and away from the regional councils. The Act revoked the powers given to the ARA by the 1976 Order in Council and the ARAs

15

ARA Refuse Department, 1988. Integrated Refuse Disposal Strategy for Auckland Region, Auckland Regional Authority, Auckland, pp. 1-5 McNeill, J, (1989) ibid 17 Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 1997b. The State of New Zealands Environment, Ministry for the Environment,
16

Wellington, pp. 3.37


18

Boyle, C, 1999. Cleaner Production in New Zealand, Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999), pp. 59-67

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

35

Page 309 of 470

Refuse Disposal Bylaw 1976. In November 2001, Northern Disposal Systems sold its 50% interest in EnviroWaste to Fulton Hogan Limited, ending the Auckland Regional Councils involvement with waste infrastructure. The current legislative environment affecting waste management is described in detail in Section 1.3z Current Auckland Regional Council involvement Under the Resource Management Act 1991, regional councils do not have any specific waste management functions, other than those relating to managing the environmental effects of waste, particularly discharges. Under the Act, the first Auckland Regional Policy Statement was put into place in 1999, and at time of writing (July 2009) is under review. The 1999 Policy Statement addressed waste management in an extensive manner, providing objectives and policies on waste minimisation, the environmental effects of waste management, integrated management, and waste disposal facilities. This Policy Statement formed the basis for the ARCs reduced role in waste management for the next decade. The discussion document released for the review of the Policy Statement states19:

Given the comprehensive statutory changes, it is questionable whether the next ARPS needs to deal with waste management. The ARC has no waste management functions and the provisions of the New Zealand Waste Strategy and the upcoming Waste Minimisation Bill have overtaken most provisions of the previous ARPS. Nevertheless, there are real benefits to be gained from region-wide integration. If a two-tier system of local government continues in the Auckland region, then the ARPS could contain policies and methods supporting a regionally coordinated approach.
The role of ARC in waste management in 2009 reflects the diminished functions given it by legislation. Currently, as well as its regulatory role relating to resource consents for the waste industry, Auckland Regional Council is involved in:

The HazMobile mobile hazardous waste collection service Auckland Waste Officers Forum WasteWise Schools EnviroSmart The Auckland Sustainability Framework project Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme RENEW waste exchange network Big Clean Up (completed in 2008) Planned establishment of a region-wide used oil collection system.

3.2.4 Private sectors view of local governments role in waste market


The Auckland Region is fortunate in that there is a processing or reuse option for a wide range of materials present in the region, and the waste management sector has a very strong presence. Recently a number of interviews were held with key players in the Auckland waste management industry to seek their views on the key issues facing the industry, and solutions to these. There were several issues which were common across most interviews and these are described below.
19

http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Plans/Regional%20Policy%20and%20Plans/ARPS/ARPS%20Background%20Document%20Part%20A.pdf Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 36

Page 310 of 470

The companies interviewed were comfortable with the role most Councils have chosen in focusing on household waste. The private sector considers it is better suited to dealing with the waste streams produced by the commercial and business sectors, given that these are often very specific material types and in large quantities. The private sector is also comfortable with their role in responding to the needs of Councils for infrastructure or processing facilities. As long as they are given sufficient indication of Councils strategic direction, the private sector believes they can respond to these needs with more innovative solutions than the Councils can working alone. Without exception all waste management businesses confirmed that they had the ability to manage larger volumes of waste or recycling material. Working more closely with the Councils was mentioned frequently as a way of achieving these increases in volumes. The waste materials processing industry dislikes seeing material transported overseas which could have been processed here, but does anticipate they will be even less competitive on price in future with the introduction of the national Waste Levy. This is because on-shore operators will be required to pay the extra disposal costs for the reject portion of the material they accept. Some recycling businesses landfill around 10% of their incoming material stream. Inevitably, there are businesses operating in the industry that are viewed as being less responsible and compliant with consents and regulations. All businesses spoken to would like to see Councils taking a strong role in setting and enforcing requirements for minimum practice. Although there have been issues in the past with licensing schemes in the region, this is also seen by the industry as a potential solution to this problem as long as the burden of paperwork and reporting is minimised. A coordinated licensing scheme that is consistent across the region could benefit from strong support in the private sector who desire a level playing field and do not want to be in effect penalised for responsible management. Construction and demolition waste in particular is seen as a waste stream that is vulnerable to poor management.

3.3

Inventory of waste facilities

3.3.1 Transfer & bulking facilities


A map of the location of the transfer stations in the Auckland Region is presented in Section 3.1.2.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

37

Page 311 of 470

Table 2: Summary of Transfer Facilities in Auckland Region

Name
Constellation Drive Refuse Transfer Station Devonport Transfer Station East Tamaki Transfer Station Helensville Transfer Station Hobill Avenue Depot Papakura Transfer Station Pikes Point Patiki Road Pukekohe Transfer Station Rosedale Transfer Station Silverdale Transfer Station Snells Beach Waste Transfer Station and Resource Recovery Centre Waiheke Waste Transfer Station Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station Waiuku Transfer Station Wellsford Waste Transfer Station and Resource Recovery Centre Wiri Transfer Station

Owner EnviroWaste North Shore City Council Waste Disposal Services Rodney District Council TPI TPI EnviroWaste EnviroWaste EnviroWaste TPI Metrowaste Mason Contractors Auckland City Council Waitakere City Council Franklin District Council Mason Contractors EnviroWaste

Waste Stream
General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, whiteware and garden waste General waste (only from Transpacific Industries) General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste and recyclables General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste (bulk), commercial greenwaste. Cleanfill is separated. General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and construction waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste General waste, recyclables, and construction waste General waste, recyclables, and garden waste

Location
4 Home Place, Mairangi Bay 27 Lake Road, Devonport 33 Neales Road, East Tamaki Mill Lane, Helensville Hobill Avenue, Wiri Inlet Road, Takanini Onehunga, Auckland City Patiki Road, Avondale, Auckland City Nelson Street, Pukekohe Rosedale Road, North Shore 101 Foundry Road, Silverdale Lawrie Road, Snells Beach Ostend Road, Waiheke Island The Concourse, Henderson Hosking Place, Waiuku Rustybrook Road, Wellsford 196 Wiri Station Road, Wiri

3.3.2 Cleanfills and managed fill sites


Auckland is served by a range of facilities through the Region. A national survey of non municipal waste disposal sites conducted on behalf of the Ministry for the Environment in 200820 identified 30 operational clean-fill facilities and 6 Managed Fill sites in the Auckland Region. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of clean fill sites is likely to be

20

Sinclair Knight Mertz (2008), Waste Facilities Survey, report to Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
38

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 312 of 470

much greater than this but that many of these sites are small and are only open to accept material for a short period of time21. The Auckland Regional Council holds records on 5 operating managed fill sites across the region at the time of writing of this report. There are also a large number of sites holding consents relating to cleanfill. A review of information on Consent files for a portion of the managed fills and cleanfills holding resource consent from the Auckland Regional Council were reviewed. Estimates can also be developed based on a the MfE 2008 survey of managed fills/cleanfills throughout New Zealand, with the results pro-rated for Auckland using population i.e. per capita basis. This provides a basis for developing the estimate of the quantity of material disposed of to these sites presented in Section 4.3.

3.3.3 Disposal facilities


The landfills currently serving the Auckland market are shown in Table 3 below and in the map in Section 3.1.2. Tonnage figures are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2.
Table 3 Landfills serving the Auckland Region.

Name/owner Claris Landfill Redvale Landfill Whitford Landfill

Owner Auckland City Council TPI Waste Disposal Services (Manukau City Council and TPI) EnviroWaste

Location Claris, Great Barrier Island Dairy Flat, Rodney Whiford, Manukau City

Capacity & Estimated Operational life Accepting 613 tonnes per annum, consented until 2015, capacity 20 40 years22 Annual tonnage commercially sensitive, consented until 2023 Annual tonnage commercially sensitive, limited to 200,000 tonnes per annum by resource consents, consented until 2040 Annual tonnage commercially sensitive. Consented to 2030, capacity to at least 204523

Hampton Downs

Hampton Downs, North Waikato

3.4

Diverted materials

3.4.1 Transfer, bulking and processing


Many of the facilities listed in Section 3.3.1 are also available for the transfer of recyclable materials. Table 4 focuses more on key facilities specifically for transfer, bulking and processing of recyclables.
Table 4 Diverted Materials Processing

Name/owner Sims Pacific Metals Owens-Illinois (NZ ) Ltd


21

Key services/waste streams Recycle scrap steel Recycle glass

Location Otahuhu, Manukau City Penrose, Auckland City

Many cleanfill sites consist of depressions or gullies that farmers/landowners wish to fill in, or building sites needing ground profile increases before construction begins. 22 Auckland City Council internal assessment 23 Hampton Downs Landfill does not have an annual limit on the amount of waste they can accept. As they are located in the Waikato Region, their consent is with Environment Waikato and the consent doesnt provide for a requirement to report on the amount of waste received from the Auckland Region.
Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 39

Page 313 of 470

Name/owner CHH Fullcircle Living Earth Ward Resource Recovery Ltd Nikau Contractors Ltd Envirofert Ltd Eco Stock Supplies Sustainable Waste Management Ltd Heard's Landscape Supplies Reharvest Timber Products Ltd PVL Proteins Waikato By-Products JJ Laughton Astron Plastics Interwaste

Key services/waste streams Recycle paper and cardboard Compost garden waste Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste Process organic waste through vermicomposting and windrow composting, and dispose of cleanfill waste Waste food from manufacturers and processors Organic waste processing through enclosed windrow process including biosolids and organic processing wastes Organic wastes, including greenwaste and demolition timber Waste wood Fish and meat processing waste into fertiliser & tallow products Fish and meat processing waste into fertiliser& tallow products Tyre shredding Process pre-consumer plastic waste Hazardous waste treatment & recycling (fluorescent tubes, dental amalgam, precious metals, quarantine, medical, pharmaceutical, secure waste, batteries and IT Equipment) Process mixed recyclables from their collections, and from various other facilities such as the Helensville Resource Recovery Centre. Processes dry recyclables from Manukau and Auckland City Councils kerbside collections. Also accepts mixed dry recyclables at the gate. Processes dry recyclables from North Shore and Waitakere City Councils kerbside collections. Processes recyclables from Franklin DC and from commercial collections Processing a range of organic wastes through vermicomposting including some wastes from Auckland food/meat processors. Also processing paunch and drilling mud from other parts of New Zealand. Scrap metal recyclers Collect, consolidate and on-sell paper, cardboard and other commodities (plastics, steel, aluminium, and glass)

Location Penrose, Auckland City Puketutu Island, Manukau City Onehunga, Auckland City Church St, Penrose and Taniwha St, Meremere Tuakau, North Waikato Wiri, Manukau Ruakaka, Whangarei Boundary Road, Papakura Hunua Rd, Papakura Great South Rd, Penrose Lapwood Rd, Tuakau Glendene Waitakere City Neales Road, East Tamaki Auckland Airport

Smart Environmental

James Fletcher Dr, Favona

Visy (operated under contract to Auckland and Manukau City Councils, also financial partners) Onyx Group Limited Transpacific Allbrite Ltd Remediation NZ Limited

Onehunga, Auckland City

Waitakere Transfer Station, The Concourse, Henderson Takanini Ureti (Taranaki)

CMA Recycling Ltd Paper Reclaim

Onehunga, Auckland City Penrose, Auckland City

In some cases the material flows between the recovered material collectors, transfer/bulking points and processors is clear and measurable, but in many cases the information is not available. Material flows that can be quantified to a reasonable degree include:

Glass: the vast majority of recyclable glass in the Auckland Region is eventually delivered to Owens-Illinois (NZ) Ltd in Penrose. The only current exception to this is glass fines that are too small and contaminated to go through the ACI plant, and alternative uses for these are currently under investigation such as base layer material for roading.
40

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 314 of 470

Paper: CHH FullCircle used to receive the vast majority of recyclable paper in the Auckland Region. They have recently lost about 30,000 tonnes per annum of this material, largely to export markets. Green waste: Green waste disposed of at transfer stations, collected from businesses and households and generated by commercial landscape companies is handled by Living Earth, EnviroFert and Sustainable Waste Management. Steel: Scrap steel is either reprocessed by Pacific Steel Ltd or exported. Concrete: A number of demolition companies make use of on-site crushing equipment where job timing and space on site allow. Ward Demolition has a crushing operation in Onehunga for their own material that cannot be processed on demolition sites. Other organic wastes: There are a number of processors of other organic wastes (i.e. not green waste) in the Auckland Region. Options include rendering (PVL Proteins, Penrose and Lowe Corporation, Tuakau), stock food (Eco Stock Food), composting/vermi composting (EnviroFert, Remediation NZ Ltd).

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

41

Page 315 of 470

Figure 4 Key Processors of Diverted Materials

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

42

Page 316 of 470

3.5

Inventory of territorial authority waste and recovery service contracts


Territorial authorities are able to contract out the provision of various waste management services and all territorial authorities in the Auckland Region have done so, to a greater or lesser degree. Appendix B provides a complete inventory of contracts issued by each territorial authority, current contractors and expiry date. A summary of this information in presented in Table 5.
Table 5 Inventory of Territorial Authority Waste Contracts

SERVICE DESCRIPTION Auckland City Council Kerbside refuse collection - East Kerbside refuse collection - Central Kerbside refuse collection - West Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Waiheke Island collection etc. Franklin District Council Kerbside refuse collection bags Kerbside refuse collection Tuakau bins Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Waiuku transfer station operation Manukau City Council Kerbside refuse collections Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Operation of East Tamaki transfer station and Whitford Landfill (owned by Waste Disposal Services, a joint venture between Manukau City Council and Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd.) North Shore City Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside refuse disposal Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Papakura District Council

CONTRACTOR Enviroway Ltd Metropolitan Waste Ltd Metropolitan Waste Ltd Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd Thiess Services NZ Ltd Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd EnviroWaste Services Ltd Envirowaste Services Ltd Transpacific Allbrite Ltd Transpacific Allbrite Ltd Waiuku Recycling Ltd. Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd Waste Disposal Services Enviroway Ltd Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd Waste Disposal Services

EXPIRY DATE June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 June 2015 June 2022 Expired for 2009 June 2019 March 2010 March 2010 March 2010 March 2010 December 2010 June 2012 None June 2015 June 2022 December 2012 None

Onyx Group Ltd Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd

June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

43

Page 317 of 470

Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Rodney District Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside recycling collection Waitakere City Council Kerbside refuse collection Kerbside recycling collection Kerbside recycling processing Inorganic refuse collection Waste transport from transfer station Waste disposal from transfer station

Waste Management Smart Environmental Ltd Smart Environmental Ltd Annual contracts only None private operators only Smart Environmental Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Onyx Group Ltd Smith & Davies Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd

June 2010 August 2010 No contract

June 2013 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 2011 2014

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

44

Page 318 of 470

Evaluation of current waste and diverted materials generation


As noted previously in this report data on waste disposal and diversion is of mixed quality. The data presented in this section has been compiled based on information provided by the Auckland Regional Council, territorial authorities, and from discussion with a range of disposal and processing companies. The figures should be treated as informed estimates rather than definitive.

4.1

Council-controlled waste and recycling streams


All of the territorial authorities in the Auckland region, with the exception of Rodney District, provide kerbside refuse and recycling collections for their residents. Rodney District provides a kerbside recycling collection, but not a kerbside refuse collection. Private waste operators also offer kerbside refuse collections in all areas. The proportion of households that uses private services varies between the councils. Factors may include the type of service and charging mechanism used by the local council and the cost of the services offered by the private operators. There is no region-wide uniformity between the services, with different councils using wheeled bins and/or bags for refuse and wheeled bins or crates for recycling. Each of the councils also provides a range of other waste related services, including:

Public place litter bins Loose litter collection Public place recycling bins Collection of illegal dumping Street sweeping Roading cesspit cleaning Distinct refuse and recycling services for shopping areas and business districts.

A summary of each councils refuse and recycling services, including tonnage data for the major services and estimates of the councils market share, is provided in Appendix B. A summary of the tonnage and composition data on domestic kerbside refuse and recycling collections is given in the following sections.

4.1.1 Tonnage of domestic kerbside refuse collections council and private


The term domestic kerbside refuse collections is used in this section to refer primarily to the kerbside refuse collections offered by councils or private waste operators to householders and small businesses. While most of the councils also provide separate collection services to business districts, which are not classed as domestic kerbside refuse, a small proportion of businesses in areas not served by the business district collections use the domestic kerbside collections.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

45

Page 319 of 470

As the collections all use either bags or wheelie bins, the volume of waste that can be set out by each user is not large, so these collections are only used by smaller businesses. In most instances, it is not possible to separate purely domestic (i.e. household) refuse tonnages from business tonnages, so the business waste is included in the figures for domestic refuse. While the figure varies between councils, a general estimate is that 5% of domestic refuse is generated by businesses, not households. To estimate the annual tonnage of domestic kerbside refuse collected in the Auckland region, it is necessary to make certain assumptions. These are:

The quantity of refuse collected by private waste operators. North Shore, Waitakere, and Rodney, through their waste operator licensing system, collect data on private domestic refuse collections, but for the other councils no data are available on private waste operators. For the other councils, tonnages are estimated based on councils individual estimates of the proportion of households using the councils service, converted to a councils market share, by weight. It should be noted that for Rodney District, the dataset supplied by private operators under licensing conditions is incomplete, and therefore the domestic waste tonnage figure presented here is based on 2005 SWAP surveys. This has been adjusted based on a 4% population increase between 2005 and 2009.

The proportion of refuse collected by the councils kerbside refuse collections that originates from commercial premises. While most of the councils have separate commercial collections, for which data are recorded separately, some commercial premises in all areas use the domestic collection. For the purposes of the following calculations all waste collected via the council domestic kerbside refuse collections is considered to be domestic.

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

46

Page 320 of 470

Table 6 Domestic Waste Tonnage for the Auckland Region

Papakura District

North Shore City

Franklin District

Rodney District

Waitakere City

Auckland City

Manukau City

Population 24 Council collection - tonnes Council market share % by wt. Private operator tonnes Total- tonnes Kg/capita/annum

96,400 0 0% 15,649 15,649 162

223,000 20,000 66% 10,500 30,500 137

201,300 23,000 91% 2,390 25,390 126

438,100 74,000 98% 1,480 75,480 172

361,900 64,000 95% 3,200 67,200 186

48,300 5,982 80% 1238 7,178 149

63,200 5,630 67% 2,815 8,445 134

1,432,200 192,611 84% 37,271 229,843 160

It is estimated that a total of over 230,000 tonnes of domestic kerbside refuse are collected in the Auckland region each year. This equates to 161 kg per capita per annum, which is comparable to other territorial authorities measured by Waste Not Consulting.

4.1.2 Composition of council domestic kerbside refuse collections


The tonnage and composition of the domestic kerbside refuse collected by each of the individual councils is provided in Appendix B. By combining the tonnage and SWAP composition audit information from all of the councils, the data on total annual tonnage and composition can be calculated. The estimated composition of domestic refuse is presented in Table 7.
Table 7 Domestic Waste Composition

Tonnes/annum Paper Plastics Putrescibles Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Textiles Nappies & sanitary Rubble 21,835 22,209 100,730 3,275 1,784 3,988 7,556 24,112 3,272

% of total 11.3% 11.5% 52.2% 1.7% 0.9% 2.1% 3.9% 12.5% 1.7%

24

Statistics NZ estimate for 2008


47

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Overall

Page 321 of 470

Timber Rubber Potentially hazardous TOTAL

1,671 582 1,807 192,822

0.9% 0.3% 0.9% 100.0%

An estimated 193,000 tonnes of domestic kerbside refuse was collected by the councils of the Auckland region in the year to June 2008. This figure does not include the estimated 37,000 tonnes collected by private waste operators. Over half of the kerbside refuse (over 100,000 tonnes) was putrescible material, with the bulk of this being food waste. The second largest component of the kerbside refuse was material classified as Nappies & sanitary. As well as disposable nappies, this classification includes paper towels, tissues, and feminine hygiene products.

4.1.3 Tonnage and composition of council kerbside recycling collections


The tonnage and composition of the kerbside recycling collected by each of the individual councils is provided in Appendix B. This information is provided to the councils by the processor of the material. By combining the information from all of the councils, the data on total annual tonnage and composition can be calculated. For the calculation, it has been assumed that the councils that reported no contamination had an average contamination rate of 4%, similar to that for the councils that did report contamination.
Table 8 Domestic Kerbside Recycling Quantities for the Auckland Region

Material

T/annum

% of total

HDPE PET Mixed plastic


Subtotal plastics Aluminium cans Steel cans Paper/cardboard Glass Contamination Total

1,910 2,216 2,838


6,980 566 3,207 60,410 50,268 5,270 126,701

1.5% 1.7% 2.2%


5.5% 0.4% 2.5% 47.7% 39.7% 4.2% 100.0%

Over 120,000 tonnes of recyclable material are collected by the councils kerbside recycling services. Nearly half of this is paper and cardboard, with glass accounting for a further 40%.

4.2

Tonnage and composition of waste to landfill


It is not possible to calculate, with any degree of precision, up-to-date tonnage and composition information related to waste being disposed of to landfill from the Auckland region. The reasons for this include:

Only an aggregated tonnage for waste disposed of to landfills within the Auckland Region is released by the Auckland Regional Council. Tonnage figures are supplied to the Regional Council as a condition of the Redvale,

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

48

Page 322 of 470

Claris, and Whitford landfills resource consents. This aggregated figure comprises solely the aggregated tonnage of waste disposed of at Redvale, Whitford, and Claris Landfills (to protect the commercial sensitivity of the information), and does not differentiate between waste originating from within the Auckland Region and that which is transported into the Region.

Hampton Downs Landfill accepts waste from both Auckland and Waikato Regions, and source data is not required to be provided to Environment Waikato as part of the resource consent process. Data on the tonnage of waste entering Hampton Downs from the Auckland Region is available only if the owner, EnviroWaste Services Ltd, chooses to make it available. Hampton Downs Landfill has supplied a tonnage figure of waste disposed of at the facility from the Auckland Region, but does not wish to have this figure made public. Composition data for Redvale and Whitford Landfills are collected regularly as a condition of the landfills resource consents, and, as such, are in the public domain. Redvale conducts SWAP audits every three years, with the most recent being in 2006. Whitford has, until the most recent audit in 2006, been required to provide composition information every three years. That condition of Whitfords resource consent has been altered, and SWAP audits are now required every five years. No tonnage data are provided with the SWAP audits, only the composition in terms of proportions of the primary classifications of the SWAP. Hampton Downs is not required to provide composition data to Environment Waikato as part of its resource consent conditions and so, if any is collected, it is not in the public domain and has not been made available for this report. While both tonnage and composition data from Claris Landfill are in the public domain, the most recent composition data are from 2002. In the regional context, the tonnage of waste disposed of at Claris Landfill (about 650 tonnes per year25) is not significant, and Claris Landfill is not included in the following calculations.

Working within these limitations, the tonnage and composition of waste being disposed of to landfill from the Auckland region for the period 2007-2008 has been calculated as shown below.

25

http://0-www.aucklandcity.govt.nz.www.elgar.govt.nz/council/members/councilmeetings/20060727_1900/CNCL-2707-agd-%2308b.pdf 49

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 323 of 470

Whitford Landfill Tonnage Composition For the purposes of these calculations, it is assumed that Whitford Landfill is operating at the maximum rate permitted by its resource consents 200,000 tonnes per annum. The composition of waste disposed of at Whitford Landfill is assumed to be that determined by the SWAP audit undertaken at the facility in 2006 by Waste Not Consulting. As the composition is reported to ARC as part of the facilitys resource consent conditions, the results are in the public domain. The composition is given below. Composition of overall waste to Whitford Landfill 2005 2006 Paper Plastics Putrescibles Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Textiles Nappies & sanitary Rubble & concrete Timber Rubber Potentially hazardous TOTAL Redvale Landfill Tonnage Aggregated tonnage and data from Hampton Downs Landfill have been provided for the calculations by ARC. Only aggregated totals for the landfills in the Auckland region have been made available. Therefore the tonnage to Redvale Landfill must be estimated using the available information. For the purposes of these calculations, it is assumed that Whitford Landfill is operating at its maximum capacity permitted by its resource consents (200,000 tonnes per annum). Of the total to Redvale, it is estimated that 50,000 tonnes per annum are from Northland Region.26, and is not waste from the Auckland region. Composition The composition of waste disposed of at Redvale Landfill is assumed to be that determined by the SWAP audit undertaken at the facility in 2006 by Waste Not Consulting. As the composition is reported to ARC as part of the facilitys resource consent conditions, the results are in the public domain. The composition is given below. Composition of overall waste to Redvale Landfill - 2005 2006 Paper Plastics Putrescibles Ferrous metals
26

% of total 17.2% 15.3% 29.3% 4.7% 0.6% 3.4% 4.0% 5.6% 5.0% 12.6% 0.4% 1.9% 100%

% of total 8.3% 7.1% 17.6% 3.6%

Northland Regional Council 2007 State of the Environment Report at http://www.nrc.govt.nz/upload/3879/4%20-%20Solid%20Waste%20Management_2.pdf 50

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

Page 324 of 470

Non-ferrous metals Glass Textiles Nappies & sanitary Rubble & concrete Timber Rubber Potentially hazardous TOTAL

0.7% 1.9% 2.7% 2.7% 9.2% 13.1% 1.4% 31.8% 100.0%

Note that 32% of the total waste stream to Redvale Landfill has been classified as Potentially hazardous. If it is assumed that this material is primarily sludges and contaminated soil, and this material is removed from the calculations, then the composition of the general waste (with an assumed 1% now being Potentially hazardous, as the 1% figure is common to most waste streams) can be calculated. As there is no means of differentiating from the available data the composition of waste from Northland Region from the composition of waste from Auckland Region, it is assumed that the composition of the overall waste stream to Redvale Landfill is the same as the composition of waste from the Auckland Region being disposed of at Redvale Landfill. Hampton Downs Landfill Tonnage An annual tonnage figure for waste from the Auckland Region disposed of at Hampton Downs Landfill for the period 2007-2008 has been provided to ARC by EnviroWaste Services Ltd. A figure for special waste has also been provided. These data can not be published due to reasons of commercial sensitivity. The only information available on the composition of waste from the Auckland Region discharged at Hampton Downs is that the proportion of sludge/contaminated soil fraction can be calculated and that all of the domestic kerbside refuse from Papakura District and Franklin District and a portion of that from Auckland City is disposed of at the facility. To calculate the composition of waste from the Auckland Region discharged at Hampton Downs, the composition of waste to Redvale Landfill (with sludge/contaminated soil excluded) and Whitford Landfill have been combined proportionally, based on the tonnage estimated to be discharged at each facility. To account for the proportionally smaller quantity of domestic kerbside refuse being discharged at Hampton Downs, domestic waste from the five other local authorities has been removed from the combined Redvale/Whitford waste stream (taking into account that waste from the Auckland City East kerbside collection contract is disposed of at Hampton Downs Landfill). The composition of the remainder of the waste disposed of at Redvale and Whitford can be calculated, and is assumed, in the absence of any other information, to be the composition of waste discharged at Hampton Downs. Overall waste to landfill from Auckland Region Tonnage The annual tonnage of waste generated in the Auckland Region that is disposed of to landfill in 20072008 is calculated to be 1,396,432 tonnes. This figure includes all types of waste to all four landfills receiving waste from the Region. The composition of the overall waste stream from Auckland Region that is disposed of to landfill has been calculated by combining the tonnages and composition data from the previous tables in this section. Composition of overall waste to landfill from Auckland Region including special wastes Tonnes per annum % of total

Composition

Composition

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

51

Page 325 of 470

Paper Plastics Putrescibles Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Textiles Nappies & sanitary Rubble & concrete Timber Rubber Potentially hazardous TOTAL

145,015 124,646 266,249 55,874 9,482 31,939 41,787 41,465 121,539 191,592 17,309 349,535 1,396,432

10.4% 8.9% 19.1% 4.0% 0.7% 2.3% 3.0% 3.0% 8.7% 13.7% 1.2% 25.0% 100.0%

4.3

Tonnage and composition of waste to cleanfills and managed fills


With limited specific information available, the quantity and composition of materials disposed of to managed fills and cleanfills has been estimated based on information in the public domain (Watercare, NZ Steel, total capacity and quantity information on ARC consent files and per capita estimates based on detailed information in Canterbury). The sources and limitations of the data presented below are as follows:

Managed Fill Quantity information published by Watercare and NZ Steel, data held on consent files. The estimate for remaining sites is based on historical fill volumes and consent application (Winstone Aggregates, replacement for Puketutu Island Quarry including estimate of annual quantity. Cleanfill in some cases consent records have information about the total capacity, annual quantities (both in m3) and/or cleanfill area (in Ha). Total capacity was converted to an annual estimate based on consent term. Estimates for the remaining consented cleanfill sites were developed based on the number of sites and using an average quantity per Ha. Both of these methods are far from perfect. Data in Canterbury is relatively detailed due to the implementation of a bylaw covering cleanfill disposal in Christchurch including reporting requirements. The estimates developed as noted above and the based on the per capita figures from Canterbury provide a range for the quantity of materials disposed to Managed fills and Cleanfills in the Auckland Region.

Table 9 Summary of Data and Estimates for Disposal of Material to Managed Fill and Cleanfill

Estimate Managed Fills data available Managed Fills estimate for remaining sites (3) Cleanfills estimate based on available capacity or annual quantity data Cleanfills estimate for remaining sites based on cleanfill area Cleanfills estimate for remaining sites based on number of sites 360000 T/yr 400000 T/yr 770000 T/yr 930000 T/yr

Data Used 260000 T/yr 360000 T/yr 400000 T/yr 770000 T/yr

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment

52

Page 326 of 470

Estimate of total managed fill/cleanfill disposal (based on Canterbury data) Total quantity of material disposed of to Managed Fill and Cleanfill Range

2,170,000 T/yr 1790000 T/yr 1,790,000 to 2,170,000 T/yr

For the purposes of analysis, and based on experience in other regions, the following waste composition has been assumed for managed fills and cleanfills:

2% of the material disposed comprises green waste - most consent conditions or permitted activity rules allow for a small quantity of green waste. This is typica