INSIDE WASTE: February/March 2017 by Prime Creative Media

Official Publication of the

ISSUE 76 | FEBRUARY 2017

www.insidewaste.com.au

INSIDE 26 The landfill vision 34 Circular Food 37 A tight race to the top

Has C&D fallen off the radar? On July 1, SUEZ will commence a $40M contract in Mackay that includes Mackay Regional Council’s landfill operation. Leachate management at Hogan’s Pocket is known to be a challenge and SUEZ is exploring novel technology to manage leachate. More on this story on page 19 (Credit: Mackay Regional Council)

Is the $45M overhaul as good as it sounds?

PP: 255003/07055

ISSN 1837-5618

FOLLOWING the independent EPA inquiry in March last year, the Victorian government has confirmed its support for all recommendations made - fully for 40, seven in principle, and one in part - and will provide more than $45 million in funding to the regulator over two years for the five-year reform program (details can be found on www. insidewaste.com.au). The Australian Industry (Ai) Group said the proposed reforms were “broadly sensible” but were undermined by initiatives for devolving enforcement and encouraging litigation. “Industry supports the protection of health and the environment, but we need a fair and predictable system to plan around. The government’s response to the EPA Inquiry risks undermining that in two ways,” Ai Group Victorian head Tim Piper said. “The government foreshadows devolving EPA enforcement powers for some matters to local government. Industry would be concerned as this could lead to arbitrary and inconsistent

practices. The EPA is best placed to do its own job and be held responsible for the results. “The risk is evident with the foreshadowed opening of environmental protection to more widespread intervention by third parties with no direct interest in matters under consideration. Excessive third party intervention could turn the separate and otherwise sensible proposal for a general duty of environmental protection into a recipe for crippling ‘lawfare’ against economic development.” Overall, the Victorian Waste Management Association (VWMA) is “very happy” with the response as well as the money offered to back the reforms and executive officer Andrew Tytherleigh told Inside Waste that the organisation would be watching how the reforms unfold but emphasised that the government’s proposal to devolve enforcement was a trial. “The Department has stressed that this is a trial, devolving to local government is only a pilot and they

were at pains to say this is not set in stone. This is a pilot but it is something that we will watch very closely and with great interest,” Tytherleigh said. Pilot or not, Piper has called on the government to rule out proceeding with devolved enforcement powers or an expansion of third party standing rules. “It should instead concentrate on bedding down the sounder architectural changes recommended by the Inquiry. The general duty is particularly important, and will require substantial consultation and resources to provide workable guidance for interpretation,” Piper said. “The introduction of stronger and more modern governance for the EPA itself and a very competent new skillsbased board will help build greater confidence in its activities. “There is much to modernise about a system designed nearly half a century ago. But the EPA should remain the single responsible authority to enforce the rules.”

NSW has a new Environment Minister, Gabrielle Upton, and it appears the proposed C&D reforms that were meant to be implemented on March 1, have stalled. The reforms go beyond managing C&D waste and will have far reaching impacts on other waste streams, especially with the proposed repeal of the proximity principle. Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association of NSW (WCRA) executive director Tony Khoury said the timing of the ministerial reshuffle is unfortunate for the sector and as Upton has two important portfolios to manage environment and local government she likely has little time to devote to environmental matters in the beginning. “The minister’s office has indicated to me that the matters in the waste sector are of a lower priority than those in the local government sector,” he said. Khoury is calling on the minister to continue pushing ahead with the C&D reforms and to start addressing the “critical issues” the industry is facing. “The C&D changes have been proposed and they’re out for consultation. It would be nice for the government and the minister to give these matters some priority. The commitment was made by Minister Speakman for March 1 and what’s in that document is what we’re asking the new minister for, that they put the resources in place to address these issues,” Khoury said. “The fact that the reforms are stalled means the issues continue on… We just need to keep on to these issues and if we’re not on to them, we’re never going to make acceptable progress.”

Nationwide solutions for electronics and battery recycling

Government Approved TV and Computer Recycling

Solutions that won’t cost the earth

Call us for a quote 1300 439 278 | mri@mri.com.au | www.mri.com.au

Editor’s Note // Official Publication of the

All things bright and shiny IN a blink of an eye, we’re just about done with the first quarter of 2017! We hope you had an enjoyable Christmas and New Year. This year certainly started with a number of new things. For one, the annual Inside Waste Consultants Review has taken on a slightly different approach. The review is a work in progress and over the years, we’ve sought feedback from our readers as well as consultants on how to make the process and analysis fairer - to those who have provided valuable insight, thank you. The results are in - more on page 37 - and while the section details the changes we’ve made to the survey, one of the more significant ones is that this year, we’ve only sent the survey to non-consulting readers, meaning consultancies big or small were not allowed to participate. Participants were also provided a unique link to prevent multiple responses and all in all, we received a stronger, cleaner

response from the right target market. As we wrap up yet another Consultants Review, we’d like to hear from you. What can we do better in 2018? Then, there’s the policy landscape. NSW for one has a new Environment Minister and amongst some of her first few decisions is the push back of the proposed container deposit scheme’s commencement date. The CDS will now start on December 1, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to many. On page 22, environment journalist Jan Arreza offers a progress update and delves into some of the areas that have received praised and others that have been criticised as lacking. Inside Waste also turns its attention to novel procurement methods in this issue, speaking to waste giant SUEZ and procurement specialist Infrastructure Transaction Network (ITN) about the recently awarded $40 million contract that will service Mackay’s bulk waste haulage and landfill operation. Though not unique, the procurement

process is uncommon and an interesting one, which promises to unlock significant value for Mackay Regional Council. In part-two of this novel procurement series on page 19 - part one can be found on www. insidewaste.com.au - SUEZ and ITN detail the process, share lessons and insights, and discuss whether other councils should follow in Mackay’s footsteps. And as promised in the December issue of Inside Waste, we’ve kept our eye on the organics market, tracking its boom, progress and challenges. On page 32, we speak to the Australian Organics Recycling Association and fertiliser spreading company Gibsons Groundspread about what farmers want and how recyclers can further drive the take-up of organic compost. We hope you enjoy the issue and of course, a big thank you to our readers who provided their input on who they think are Australia’s waste experts and why.

Senior Editor: Jacqueline Ong (jacqueline.ong@mayfam.net) Journalist: Jan Arreza (jan.arreza@mayfam.net) Advertising: Alastair Bryers (alastair.bryers@mayfam.net or 0431 730 886) Creative Director, Patterntwo Creative Studio: Toni Middendorf Published by Mayfam Media Phone: (02) 9267 1166 Web: www.insidewaste.com.au COPYRIGHT WARNING All editorial copy and some advertisements in this publication are subject to copyright and cannot be reproduced in any form without the written authorisation of the managing editor. Offenders will be prosecuted.

www.insidewaste.com.au

WE WHEELIE WANT YOUR OLD AND DAMAGED BINS. Understand the financial benefits of dealing directly with Australia’s largest recycler of old and used MGB’s. Small, medium and large volumes specialists. Email justin.knott@astronplastics.com.au Phone 0418 600 589

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Weekly news updates at www.BEN-global.com/waste

IT TAKES THE BEST COMPONENTRY FROM AROUND THE WORLD TO PRODUCE

AUSTRALIA’S FAVOURITE TRUCKS.

ISUZU’S ADVANCED TURBOCHARGED DIRECT INJECTION HIGH PRESSURE COMMON RAIL DIESEL ENGINES FEATURE A DIESEL PARTICULATE DIFFUSER (DPD) OR DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYST (DOC) EXHAUST AFTER-TREATMENT SYSTEM, DEPENDING ON THE MODEL. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ADDITION OF SCR SYSTEMS. F•S•A /ISZ10720

From the U.S. there are Alcoa Wheels and Allison or Eaton transmissions. Plus, many of our trucks are fitted with Hendrickson suspension, Meritor axles and brakes, and quality Michelin tyres. ZF transmissions are sourced from Germany and so are the renowned ISRI 6860 suspension seats that come standard in every ergonomically designed Isuzu cab (from F Series up). All Isuzu cabs are also safety compliant with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE-R29) standard.

Depending upon the model specification, these premium components are built into the rugged Isuzu cab chassis in Japan. So we’ve been around the world to ensure Isuzu Trucks are the best equipped for Australia. Visit isuzu.com.au

News //

Profile | Samantha Cross Cross Connections Consulting director Samantha Cross is a leader in the circular economy space across industry sectors, presenting waste generators, business, and government with alternatives to landfill. She also recently developed a community engagement program - Plastic Police Partnerships. What’s your favourite part of your job? The inspiring people I meet, engage and collaborate with to progress circular economy projects. Helping businesses, government and communities achieve greater resource productivity and sustainability outcomes. The variety that each day brings, through my consulting business, WMAA voluntary chair role (Hunter Regional Group), industry working groups and emerging community engagement program, Plastic Police Partnerships, and being a role model to my three daughters and my husband who thinks I’m the Plastic Police Princess. What is the strangest thing you have had to do (or found)? Turning up to a worksite as a road sweeper driver confronted by a roomful of men waiting for the “male” driver to provide instructions. How has waste management changed in your time in the industry? There’s a greater understanding of the significant impact created by the waste we generate along our supply chains, and the emerging collective and collaborative actions in terms of how we can better manage this waste. We are moving from a linear approach to a circular economy and it’s fantastic to hear circular economy being raised in general industry conversation, not just a buzz word or considered too “niche”. What are some of your achievements that you are most proud of? Assisting businesses and individuals become more connected. Seconded to assist Unilever Australia achieve zero non-hazardous waste from landfill status at their first Australian site, establishing Cross Connections Consulting. Developing a community engagement model Plastic Police Partnerships helping a local Newcastle public school community divert over 1000kg of soft plastic packaging from landfill, turning it into a bench seat proudly on show at the school, and being honoured with the 2016 WMAA Women in Waste award.

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

NSW CDS to start in Dec NEWLY appointed NSW Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton has announced that following requests from environment groups and industry bodies, the CDS will now be rolled out from December 1 instead of July 1 to “ensure maximum possible state-wide coverage from day one”. “Clean Up Australia and the Boomerang Alliance, along with industry stakeholders, have asked for an extension of time to make sure the container deposit scheme is a world leading program, from day one,” Upton said. Boomerang Alliance Director Jeff Angel said the Alliance fought hard for the container deposit scheme and wanted to ensure it would work efficiently for the community and business to maximise the environmental benefits. “The Alliance understood that getting the container deposit scheme up and running was a very complicated process. It’s better to delay the implementation by a few

months, so the scheme is ready from day one,” Angel said. The local government sector has also backed the decision. “This is an eminently sensible decision by Minister Upton and it has the sector’s full backing,” Local Government NSW president Keith Rhoades said. “Councils spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year picking up litter, and would much prefer to be investing this money in other community services. “The scheme has the potential to cut litter in NSW by up to 43%, but the complexity of the collection and refund processes required have become increasingly clear. The five-month extension announced by Minister Upton will make it easier to ensure the supporting infrastructure and resources are in place before the scheme begins. “It means there is also extra time to extend the scheme’s coverage into rural and regional local government areas.”

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

WHEN SPEED MATTERS The most versatile screen anywhere. Arguably the fastest in the world. Perfect on any type of waste.

Call us now to book your trial or demo.

Freecall: 1800 644 978

Proud Suppliers of:

www.cssequipment.com.au

News //

Profile | Reverse Garbage When was the organisation founded and why? Reverse Garbage Co-op Ltd was established in 1974 to help children’s programs access industrial discards. The founding members recognised that diverting industrial discards for schools and community projects could achieve the dual objective of fostering creative play and reducing waste. Looking back on the last four decades, what are some of the achievements you are most proud of? Reverse Garbage led the way with creative reuse long before it was fashionable. Although we can’t take all the credit, Reverse Garbage is proud to have helped move reuse and recycling from a hippy fringe notion in the 1970s to the everyday mainstream practice it is today. We are also proud of the great work we have done and continue to do providing sustainability education programs in schools. Strangest thing you’ve received? We receive lots of interesting things. Some favourites from recent years include

Cleanaway sells landfill sites CLEANAWAY has entered into contracts of sale for two closed landfills in Victoria. The sites, located in Brooklyn, Melbourne, have been sold to construction and development firm,

Pelligra Group, which Cleanaway said is an experienced developer of industrial and contaminated sites. Under the terms of the sale, Pelligra Group will assume responsibility for all remediation and ongoing monitoring works at both sites, which include undertaking all capping work in accordance with the EPA’s requirements. Cleanaway will however, retain certain rights in relation to the sites

three vintage dentist chairs, a truckload of 300 plastic mannequin bums, and a collection of several Turning waste to profit. Reverse hundred pianola rolls. Of course Garbage is leading the way when Mardi Gras Parade costumes and it comes to creative reuse. (Credit: TV and film sets are always eye Reverse Garbage) catching as well! How has waste changed over the years? The biggest change is from manufacturing discards to packaging discards. Single-use packaging is a huge concern. What are some of Reverse Garbage goals and plans for the next 12-18 months? Tackling single-use plastic will be our campaign focus. We will combine that with continuing to expand our sustainability education programs in schools and childcare centres. Our retail service is adding an online option as well! More: www.reversegarbage.org.au, Facebook: REVGARB, Instagram: reversegarbage

following the sale, such as a right to oversee conduct of the remediation work and some limited step in sites. Completion of the sale of the sites and transfer of the respective EPA licences is expected to occur around March 2, 2017. Cleanaway said these transactions are forecast to generate a pre-tax profit on sale of approximately $20 to $22 million. The forecast profit results from the release of the rectification and

remediation provisions less the book value of site assets which will transfer to the buyer on completion. This profit is expected to be disclosed as an underlying adjustment in the company’s FY17 results. Based upon forecasts, the sales of these closed landfills will reduce spending on landfill rectification and remediation by approximately $20 million over the next six years.

A VITAL LINK IN MODERN

WASTE HANDLING Volvo has over 25 years experience in waste handling and offers a wide range of purpose-built machines; all designed to meet high industry demands for safety, dependability and cost efficiency. As focus continues to shift to intensive recycling not just waste handling, Volvo is ready.

TOgEThER wITh yOu, VOLVO Is A VITAL LINK IN moDErN WASTE HANDLING. proTEcTIoN of boTH mAN AND mAcHINE with a filter system in a class of its own, the air in a Volvo cab is always clean; dust and dirt won’t get into the operator’s lungs or the engine, transmission, axles, hydraulics and fuel tank. fAST Work cycLES Volvo drivetrains provide excellent rimpull while maintaining great traction even in poor conditions, with more power and much less tyre wear. Load-sensing hydraulics and patented torque-parallel linkage on Volvo wheel loaders provide a sensitive yet strong operation of the loader in any bucket position.

BIg ENOugh TO TRusT SmALL ENouGH To cArE www.cjd.com.au | 1300 139 804 | enquiries@cjd.com.au Facebook.com/cjdequipment

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Linkedin.com/company/cjd-equipment

Instagram.com/cjd_equipment

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// News

Full steam ahead for new waste council A new body - the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council (NWRIC) - has officially formed following the first meeting of its executive in Sydney in mid-February and it will be led by waste veteran Max Spedding. Operations have commenced after the body garnered the support of Australia’s largest waste and resource recovery companies, namely Alex Fraser Group, Cleanaway, JJ Richards and Sons, Solo Resource Recovery, SUEZ, Toxfree, Remondis, ResourceCo, and Veolia. “Australia’s waste management industry is an essential service, and through the NWRIC, we will be asking the Commonwealth along with state governments to support our initiatives to take the industry forward,” Phil Richards, chairman of the NWRIC’s host association board said. The NWRIC says it will serve waste

management enterprises by creating industry-led policy and it has appointed Max Spedding CEO of the body. He will be supported by secretariat manager Alex Serpo. The NWRIC will work in close partnership with jurisdictional affiliates, which it said will allow it to represent and canvas concerns from many of Australia’s 450 small and medium sized waste management enterprises. Together, state affiliates and the national office will coordinate to create and advocate for cohesive national policy. The council has started working to create, share and build support for policy positions which it said will move the industry forward and its initial areas of focus include better planning, a fair market, the national harmonisation of the regulations governing the industry, and effective policing of standards.

NSW businesses dealing in scrap metal will need to register their company with the Commissioner of Police.

New scrap metal legislation to commence in March THE NSW Scrap Metal Industry Act 2016, which was approved by the state government in September will begin on March 1 and it aims to assist police in addressing property crime, including theft and disposal of stolen motor vehicles, copper, and other metal at scrap metal yards. The regulatory measures provided for by the Act will: • Require persons who carry on a business of dealing in scrap metal (scrap metal dealers) to register the business with the Commissioner of Police; • Prohibit scrap metal dealers from paying cash for scrap metal; • Require scrap metal dealers to keep and maintain records of transactions for buying scrap metal, including details of the person selling the scrap metal; • Require scrap metal dealers to report suspicious transactions to the police; • Prohibit scrap metal dealers from accepting a motor vehicle (or any motor vehicle body, engine or chassis) as scrap metal if it does not display its identification details;

• Provide for short-term and longterm closure orders in respect of premises at which a scrap metal business is being carried on if the business is not registered under the proposed Act or serious criminal offences have been committed on the premises; and • Authorise police officers, without a warrant, to enter premises at which a scrap metal business is being carried on to investigate contraventions of the Act and to search, take photographs and recordings and seize and copy records; and to provide for other regulatory measures in respect of the scrap metal industry. The register of scrap metal dealers will be maintained by the NSW Police Force Security Licensing & Enforcement Directorate (SLED) and made available for inspection on the NSW Police Force website. All businesses and/or persons operating in NSW that meet the legislated definition of a scrap metal dealer must be registered by March 1, 2017 and the NSW Police Force is currently posting letters to scrap metal dealers informing them of the changes.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

SEE MORE with the new Volvo Get a cleaner view with our wider windshield and additional side mirrors for perfect visibility. Custom-designed and built in consultation with our Australian waste customers, the new Volvo FE Dual Control delivers world-class safety features, with local street smarts. It also delivers rear air suspension in 6x4 axle configuration, plus improved driver ergonomics. And with fuel-saving technology and low Euro 6 emissions, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a cleaner ride too. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s everything you need to get the job done.

Call 1300 MY VOLVO or visit volvotrucks.com.au for more information.

FE Dual CONTROL.

News //

TSA CEO Dale Gilson.

New CEO for TSA TYRE Stewardship Australia (TSA) has appointed Dale Gilson, former CEO of the of Automotive Engineers Australasia, as CEO of the federal and state government supported, industry cooperative organisation. Gilson has also served as CEO of Motorcycling Australia, Speedway

Australia and Four Wheel Drive Victoria. He joins TSA on the third birthday of the organisation’s launch and will be responsible for guiding the next phase of the organisation’s growth as it focusses on driving more sustainable and valuable end-of-life tyre outcomes. Welcoming Gilson’s appointment TSA

independent chair, David Spear, said; “Having Dale’s experience on board will be of great value to TSA as we continue to achieve our objectives, particularly in developing job creating economically valuable local uses for tyre-derived raw material.” Relishing the new challenge, Gilson

said “I’m really looking forward to the role and the opportunity to support Tyre Stewardship Australia fulfil its obligations under the National Tyre Stewardship Scheme. It’s an exciting time to join TSA and I am grateful to the TSA Board for the opportunity to be part of this important initiative”.

LBL changes - larger companies left to do the heavy lifting THE Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) has expressed concerns that proposed changes to the NSW load-based licensing (LBL) scheme would put more regulatory and financial burden on larger business, where they would be expected to do the heavy lifting, while smaller operators would come under limited or close to no regulatory observance. In November, the NSW EPA released an issues paper examining how the state’s LBL scheme is working. The review looked at the scheme in detail, identified a range of issues and various potential options for improvements, and considered feedback received including a survey of LBL licences. Consultation closed on December 23

• • • • • • •

in the resource recovery and recycling industry sector as a rampant lack of compliance has been used as a means to achieve successful commercial advantage, i.e. cost saving, over regulated and licensed operators.” Turning to today’s waste streams, ACOR highlighted that these were becoming more complex and toxic. As such, it said more attention should be given to enhance the regulatory burden and compliance by waste generators and not those providing positive externalities for the community through reprocessing and all of the co-benefits of recycling. ACOR also noted that the current system provided a “soft touch” to deliberate polluters and said by actively

Operates by wireless remote control from the safety of the equipment cab. Deploys up to 1,200 sq metres of tarp at one time! Deploys and retrieves multiple tarps in minutes. Patented tarpLOX™ tarp ballast system. Attaches to existing landfill equipment. Reduces landfill operation cost. Optional spray deodoriser.

TARP DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM

and overall, ACOR is supportive of the LBL scheme, saying it is an incentive for licensees to reduce pollutants to the environment. However, placing more regulatory and financial burden on larger businesses may “further exacerbate the compliance gap between minority (large businesses) and the greater majority of smaller industry participants,” ACOR said in its submission. “This then may act to further decrease the ability of bona fide recyclers to compete against smaller operators and exporters that do not attract the same regulatory enforcement,” ACOR CEO Grant Musgrove wrote. “This issue has been especially true

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

disregarding environmental controls or community standards for profits, fines and enforcement would rarely match the crime or negative externality. “While we understand the EPA is considering increasing fines, the propensity for the EPA to concentrate the majority of its observance on licenced operators means that these will be primarily levelled at existing bona fide operators, not the large-scale wilful polluters across many industries including resource recovery and recycling,” Musgrove said. “ACOR suggests that deterrence against wilful environmental damage may be better dealt with by criminal offence uplift and increased regulatory observance, rather than a market-based instrument.”

TARP DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM

Jaylon Melbourne office phone: 03 5428 4475 Jaylon Brisbane office phone: 07 3881 1904

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// News The regional WA City of Karlgoolie-Boulder could soon be without a kerbside recycling service. (Credit: Chris Fithall, Flickr CC)

Kalgoorlie could lose kerbside recycling THE City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, some 550km east of Perth, could soon be without a kerbside recycling scheme due to declining participation. According to the ABC, the council will reconsider its kerbside collection if recycling rates, which currently sit at a mere 8%, do not improve. At present, residents have their own recycling bins and it is said that the city’s recycling progam has been under scrutiny for some time given the region’s recycling rate lags considerably behind the target of 50%. The City’s recycling efforts also pale in comparison to other regional centres such as Esperance and Albany, which recorded rates of 90% and 100% respectively. A core group of councillors are reportedly seeking to can the service and City chief executive John Walker told the ABC it would need to be reconsidered since the program is costing ratepayers $1 million a year. “Presently, we’ve got a very expensive scheme getting very little result. If

it’s not successful, we’d be better withdrawing the service and saving the money, or using it elsewhere,” he said. “It [the 8% recycling rate] is quite baffling [and] compared to everywhere else, we’re very much at the lower end of the scale.” He added that contamination was another major issue, with 40% of recyclables deemed contaminated or unsuitable and ultimately sent to landfill. “Even though [residents] have separate bins, there’s a lot of manual work required when they go to the recycling centre. It costs a lot of money to separate,” Walker told the ABC. Before a final decision is made before the end of the year, the City will consider a range of initiatives it hopes will boost the recycling rate, and it has set a modest target of 20%. These initiatives include enforcement strategies such as surveillance and ceasing waste collection for repeat offenders, as well as education, which Walker thinks is “the best way forward”.

Tasmanian tyre clean-up chugs along LONGFORD’S tyre stockpile could be removed by 2020, following an approval to build a tyre shedding facility at the site. The Longford site in the north midlands of Tasmania is said to contain a million tyres and the stockpile has been the subject of debate, particularly how these materials can and should be processed. Now, it appears work could soon begin to remove the stockpile, after the Northern Midlands Council approved a tyre shredding facility this week with certain conditions attached to it. For one, the stockpile must be removed by 2020. Additionally, delivery of tyres to the site will not be allowed until the shredder is operating, which is expected to happen later this year. Project proponent, TyreRecycle

Tasmania’s Tim Chugg, told ABC News the approval signalled a step in the right direction to develop “a whole new industry within the state”. However, just like council, Chugg also has imposed a condition - the shredding facility will only go ahead if he gets approval for another plant that can turn the shredded material into a commercial product. He told ABC News he is in the midst of finalising an application for a facility that will grind the shredded tyres into a powered which can be used on roads and playground surfaces. “One has to go with the other,” Chugg said. “We’re extremely confident that now we’ve got one we can establish the other as well.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

News //

A fine solution BENEDICT Industries is increasing its construction and demolition recycling tonnages and has embarked on a million-dollar project to upgrade its crushing plant in Belrose, 19km north east of Sydney. Benedict operates two processing plants at the site, one that sorts mixed waste, and the other that crushes and screens brick and concrete that come out of the sorting plant. The recycled materials are then used to make aggregate and bedding sand. Some six to nine months ago, Benedict upgraded its sorting plant capacity due to increasing demand, which meant more concrete and brick were being produced. “We’ve increased the processing capability of our sorting plant by well over 100%, which means for the proportion of concrete and brick, we’ve probably got 100% more than what we did prior to the upgrade,” Benedict Industries general manager recycling Ian Collier told Inside Waste. “It became apparent that our crushing plant, which was very old, was the bottleneck and we had to upgrade our crushing plant in order

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

to keep up with the other plant and what it was producing. Because if you fail to do that, what you end up with is stockpiles of waste, which no one wants or likes.” When it comes to C&D recycling, these bottlenecks are caused by fines and their removal is key to improving C&D recovery targets as well as cost savings. And the Belrose site had an added disadvantage in that the region gets an inordinate amount of rainfall which causes the material to become sticky and gluey, further hindering the screening process. Benedict turned to Focus Enviro for a holistic, turnkey solution and settled on a screen with a flip-flow deck, amongst other things. “This is a screen that has a series of segmented mats and they’re like a series of mini trampolines. Each segment expands and contracts and the screens never block as opposed to more traditional screens that might have a woven wire mesh and the whole deck shakes and it doesn’t have this trampoline effect where it unblocks itself all the time. That formed the basis

Benedict Industries has turned to Focus Enviro to upgrade its Belrose crushing plant.

for the type of screen,” Collier said. “We went for a large twin deck but the bottom deck comprises this flipflow screen and that’s the one that screens the fines component out of the crushed material.” After Benedict determined the capacity and capability it needed for fines screening and deciding on flipflow screens, it then worked backwards to complete the upgrade. “All the plant’s conveyors are sized at 1200mm, which is quite large and we kept our two crushers - one’s a jaw crusher and one’s an impactor. They weren’t going to be under capacity so really,

it was all about what fines screening output we needed and everything worked backwards from there,” Collier said. “Focus Enviro worked with us to look at our two crushers in-situ because they’re primarily fixed and how they could build the rest of the plant for us. With the other suppliers, that’s not a space they’re particularly keen to play in. Focus Enviro did an extensive amount of work keeping what we wanted to keep from our old plant with what we needed in the new plant and making it all mesh together.” The full story can be found on www.insidewaste.com.au

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

The TDS V20 raises shredding to a new level

> Variable Speed Independent Shafts > Intelligent Protection System protects against Contaminants (Airbag mounted Counter Knife) > Use as a Primary or Secondary Shredder > Bolt on Cutting Tips > Accurate End Product through Interchangeable Screens > Excels in Wood Waste to Mulch and/or Biofuel, Green Waste & MSW (Black Bag) Waste Applications

NOW AVAILABLE IN AUSTRALIA FROM MWS ENVIRONMENTAL CALL 1800 777 300

TROMMELS

CBI GRINDERS

WINDROW TURNERS

RECYCLING SCREENS

SLOW SPEED SHREDDERS

WASTE HANDLERS

â&#x2DC;&#x17D; 1800 777 300

e info@mwsenvironmental.com.au www.mwsenvironmental.com.au

Equipment news //

Terex Ecotec’s TDS 820 turns waste into profit THE Terex Ecotec track-mounted TDS 820 is an aggressive slow speed shredder suitable for many types of waste materials including household, bulky, commercial, green and wood waste, to name a few. In addition to the pre-loaded standard shredding programs, it is possible to customise shredding programs allowing operators to configure the machine to their specific requirements, thus maximising production. At the heart of the unit are hydrostatic independently driven shredder shafts, which offer protection against contamination and allow for bi-directional shredding. Meanwhile, independent gearboxes allow each

shaft to be driven separately, allowing the machine to be configured to handle numerous applications, whilst eliminating wrappage and maximising production. The double shaft shredder has 2m long shafts with a fully welded tooth construction giving impressive throughput and excellent reduction. Two different shaft configurations ensure the machine can be adapted to suit all applications. Situated below the shredding shafts is the interchangeable breaker bar, which helps to control the end product size. It is available in different designs depending on the level of reduction required. Additional features include the

Terex Ecotec’s TDS820.

tipping feeder, which increases the feed area, and hopper extensions provide increased capacity in bulky applications. The TDS 820 is powered by a Scania DC13 371kw (497HP) constant speed engine which does not require exhaust

Binweigh: paving the way for pay-by-weight ACCUONBOARD’S innovative BinWeigh system is Australia’s only in-motion weighing system that is trade-approved by the National Measuring Institute (NMI). Development of the system has been driven by demand for dynamic, accurate, on-vehicle weighing systems that enable waste truck operators to collect bins and

obtain accurate weight measurement readings without interrupting collection and tipping processes. The BinWeigh system is particularly valuable because it provides forwardthinking waste management companies with new capabilities around transparent invoicing.

The technology enables them to satisfy increasing customer demands for the supply of invoices based on the measurement of the individual weight of a bin’s content, rather than charge them on a bin’s volume capacity, whether full or not. BinWeigh’s NMI legal for trade status means waste management companies can now confidently charge waste producers by weight, free of fears about the risks associated with overcharging customers and incurring costly NMI penalties. The product of extensive engineering research and development, BinWeigh includes a number of proprietary technologies and features that enable waste management companies to optimise operations. The BinWeigh system employs sophisticated Digi Sens technology and a METIRON data processing computer, which generate high resolution, net weight calculations. These are then combined with time, date, bin and client data to meet invoicing requirements.

gas after treatment. The engine and hydraulic cooling packs are fitted with auto reversing fans to maximise cooling efficiency in dusty and high ambient conditions. MORE: www.opsaust.com.au The Binweigh system provides companies with new capabilities around transparent invoicing.

This technology is used by all major bin lifter manufacturers in Europe, which is why AccuOnboard chose to take time to develop the product rather than use standard strain gauge or pressure technology. The METIRON computer is able to communicate through successive interfaces with the container identification system, on-board computer, METERM display system, printer and other linked hardware. With off-the-shelf or customised adaptation mountings available, AccuOnboard’s robust BinWeigh system is suitable for front, rear, and side lifters providing accurate weighing of individual waste bins. MORE: www.accuonboard.com.au

Erema opens new markets for recyclers EREMA has introduced ReFresher, which offers filtrated, degassed, and odourless recyclates, at the K Fair, a trade fair for plastics and rubber. The ReFresher eliminates odours caused by migrated substances, i.e. residues left on plastic materials such as food contamination, cleaner/ detergent residues and cosmetics. It offers filtrated, degassed and odourless recyclates even in the case of severely contaminated packaging waste and is available in various expansion stages depending on the end application. The ReFresher is based on Erema’s patented TVEplus technology, which processes materials through ultrafine filtration, thorough melt homegenisation, and degassing all in a single step. 16

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

However, the Refresher is downstream of the extrusion process and it keeps the recyclates at the required temperature at which volatile materials can be discharged. Essentially, the Intarema TVEplus prevents unpleasant odours from developing in the course of the extrusion process. The interplay of the preconditioning unit, Airflush technology, low melt temperature, efficient filtration and several degassing steps ensures that the cellulose particles are separated from the plastic. At the end of the extrusion process is a high quality recyclate which is already suitable for many applications. More: http://direct.dksh.com.au/recycling

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

news

From the CEO’s desk I can’t believe that we are already into February of 2017. To be fair, the end of 2016 is a blur to me. I am, however, pleased that I had the chance to visit most States before Christmas 2016 and meet so many active WMAA members. This was a great opportunity for me to start gaining a better understanding of broader industry issues as well as first-hand feedback. To ensure that WMAA does its best to “get it right” for both members and the industry, 2017 will be a very busy year. Through January and February we conducted a survey of members relating to policy priorities for 2017. This feedback will be used at the Branch President’s Planning Day on 31 March 2017, to better develop both WMAA’s Business Plan and priorities for 2017. Advocacy is very high on the agenda for WMAA in 2017. We are determined to remain at the forefront of discussions with government and act in the best interests of the whole industry. Issues such as levies, waste transportation, waste data, product stewardship, planning for waste and resource recovery infrastructure, as well as genuine government support for innovation will no doubt remain high on WMAA’s agenda. WMAA also has a full calendar of events planned for 2017 – both national and local – kicking off with the National Landfill and Transfer Stations Conference in Sydney from 28-31 March 2017. A revamped ENVIRO Conference in Melbourne on 23-24 August 2017 will challenge the current linear thinking of “make-takewaste”, which is no longer sustainable when companies are faced increasingly with the challenge to grow their business and create value amidst mounting

volatility and signs of resource depletion. WMAA then heads to Perth for the Waste & Recycle Conference between 13-15 September 2017 and then Mackay, Queensland for WasteQ 11-13 October 2017. There literally is something for everyone! I am also really pleased that we are closely working with Impact Environment and will be very active at the Coffs Waste Conference 2017, as WMAA recognises the importance of this conference to the industry. WMAA is also very keen to collaborate with other industry groups, such as WCRA, as we acknowledge that we all have an important role to play in promoting and developing this essential industry. Membership renewals are currently underway. If you haven’t renewed, now is your chance! Contact the WMAA National Office to ensure that your voice is heard. Finally, the WMAA AGM is scheduled for early June 2017, where, given that Miranda Ransome will be at the end of the maximum four year term, we will have a new President. I think that you would agree this will be a busy, productive and exciting year! I look forward to working with you all. Gayle Sloan Chief Executive Officer Waste management Association of Australila

Is it time for a unified approach to levies? Waste and resource recovery industry revenue in Australia is expected to increase annually at 4.9%. This growth is anticipated to continue rising over the next five years at a compound annual rate of 3.8% to $6.7 billion (IBIS World). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported that waste management businesses contributed $3.3 billion and $3.5 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively. Additionally, the waste management and resource recovery industry directly employed 32,737 people across the States in 2011 (ABS). WMAA is advocating for a common approach to levies in all States to provide certainty and investment in the waste and resource recovery industry. Millions of dollars are currently contributed to the various State governments, but just how much really goes back to industry for investment? The 2014-15 NSW budget papers indicated that revenue collected through the levy (2017-2021) is expected to be $2.879 billion. Through the Waste Less Recycle More initiative, government pledged $337 million until 2021 to continue the work already underway to modernise the waste sector in NSW, deliver waste and recycling services to the community and ensure a clean environment, which means that just over 10% of revenue collected goes back to industry. In Victoria, revenue collected is paid into the Sustainability Fund managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), which is responsible for distributing funds to waste and resource recovery groups, Sustainability Victoria and EPA. From the $311 million currently sitting in the State coffers, $16 million has been pledged by the Victorian Government to job creation and innovation in resource recovery – the lowest investment in the industry across Australia, with only 5% of revenue going back to industry. SA appears to lead the way in funnelling the revenue garnered from the levy, back into the industry. The additional $64 million raised over the next four years, funds Green Industries SA (formerly Zero Waste SA) and the State Waste Strategy 2015-20. Over this period, approximately $14 million is allocated to the local government infrastructure and waste education, with a further $12.4 million assigned to improving infrastructure and innovation in the waste sector itself (ABC News). This equates to less than 24% reinvested into waste and resource recovery sector. The Waste to Resource Fund retained by the SA Government will increase to well over $100 million over the same period. WA wears the unenviable label of Australia’s biggest waste producer, with

waste production estimated at 6.2 million tonnes per annum, or 2.4 tonnes per person, in 2014-15 and only a 42% diversion rate largely due possibly to the relatively cheap cost of landfill (Office of the Auditor General (OAG)). The levy aims to discourage waste disposal to landfill while providing funds for use by the Waste Authority to encourage resource recovery and alternative waste treatment options, and innovation. The WARR Levy Act requires at least 25% of the levy to be paid into the WARR Account. The other 75% is paid by Department of Environment Regulation (DER) to the State by way of an owner distribution. From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2016, the WARR Account received $108 million in landfill levy payments, of which $98 million was distributed (OAG). This process, however, still requires a lot of work to ensure that annual business plans are in place and projects are approved, funded and implemented in a timely manner. Otherwise, as 2016 showed, project approvals were delayed and 47% of projects outlined in the 2015-16 Business Plan did not receive funding, despite unspent WARR Account funds exceeding $30 million at the end of June 2016 (OAG). So, despite 25% nominally being allocated to encourage resource recovery, the actual expenditure is far lower. As we know, Queensland does not currently have a waste levy, which has resulted in as much as 60,000 tonnes of waste per month moving from NSW to Queensland. We are also seeing this in waste moving between Victoria and SA, none of which is desirable. Unfortunately, in the absence of a common approach to waste, we will see more such movement. These long distance transfers of waste create an unlevel playing field in what is a very commercial environment. In Tasmania there is no levy. A review conducted in 2014 identified opportunities for improvements to waste management and resource recovery, none of which are feasible without the additional funding that a State-wide waste levy would provide. It is important that the State environment departments work together to find a common way forward on levies. Government, more broadly, must recognise the important role that the waste and resource recovery sector plays in creating jobs and growth in Australia. Levy income should be utilised to genuinely invest in waste and recycling infrastructure as well as innovation, as there is a real possibility with other manufacturing industries closing, and energy prices escalating, that this sector can play an important role in both these areas in the future.

Local government //

Competition issues in purchasing Cartel Provisions

By Scott Alden THE Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has recently denied an application for authorisation from Council Solutions and five Metropolitan Adelaide councils to jointly procure four service streams in South Australia for 17 years. This non-authorisation has again given rise to questions concerning whether local government collective and aggregated buying falls under the cartel provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). It is well understood that competition is the process by which rival businesses strive to maximise their profits by developing and offering desirable goods and services to consumers on the most favourable terms. The CCA enhances the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection. The issue that is considered here is whether, when two organisations in the local government sector seek to jointly purchase a service to maximise their buying power, is that anti-competitive?

Under section 44ZZRF of the CCA, a corporation commits an offence if it makes a contract or arrangement or arrives at an understanding (arrangement), and that arrangement contains a cartel provision. There are three hurdles to overcome in order for the CCA to apply that are of particular relevance to this issue involving waste services and the local council sector. These hurdles are each addressed below.

Hurdle one – does the CCA apply to government? Section 2C of the CCA states that cartel provisions under Part IV of the CCA apply to local government bodies which ‘carry on a business’. The question of whether or not a local government body (or any other body) is carrying on a business can be difficult to determine and ultimately depends on the context of the situation. This is because the word ‘business’ is a wide and general word.1 It will be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the complaint, the conduct and the context. Previous cases on this issue have

Environmental Equipment

Ecotec

SLOW SPEED SHREDDERS • MEDIUM SPEED SHREDDERS

A TEREX BRAND

COMPACT CRUSHING & SCREENING EQUIPMENT Exclusive Dealers in WA, NT & SA WA - 08 9359 0333 | NT - 08 8932 3000 | SA - 08 8280 6033

www.opsaust.com.au 18

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

found that generally, government tenders do not comprise carrying on a business.2 However the ACCC has been approached in respect of, and granted, specific authorisation under the CCA for local governments to jointly procure services.

Hurdle two – entry into a contract A corporation must make a contract or arrangement or arrive at an understanding which contains a cartel provision. Local governments agreeing to collectively procure goods or services will likely satisfy hurdle two as they are entering into a contract with each other and a waste provider. The next question, or hurdle, is whether that contract contains a cartel provision.

Hurdle three – cartel provision in the contract and parties must be competitors Under s 44 ZZRF of the CCA, the cartel provision must have the purpose of, or is likely to have the effect of, fixing, controlling or maintaining the price, discount, allowance, rebates or credit in respect of goods and services.3 It is fundamental to price fixing arrangements that the relevant conduct, in purpose or effect, substantially lessens competition or would likely do so. If an arrangement improves competition, it is unlikely that it will be perceived as a price fixing arrangement. Councils in Melbourne received authorisation to jointly tender and enter into contracts for the supply of organic waste processing systems. The ACCC stated that combining tender processes would likely reduce transactions costs and therefore result in efficiency savings compared to if each council conducted its own tender. Similarly, in Sydney, the ACCC held that the joint tender for services to process household clean-up waste provided incentives for waste providers to compete more vigorously to win tenders. The joint procurement arrangements in Melbourne and Sydney evidently established a better market and subsequently were not prohibited under the CCA. In comparison, the ACCC denied the authorisation for Council Solutions and five Adelaide councils to jointly procure four service streams in South Australia for 17 years. The proposal was the first which proposed to include all four service streams across five councils in a single tender using a Request for Proposal (RFP) process rather than a Request for Tender (RFT). The ACCC was concerned that the

RFP introduced an increased level of scope, cost and complexity and would therefore reduce the competitive tension between tenderers. Existing suppliers would be placed in a stronger position to compete in subsequent tender processes, subsequently lessening competition. The second requirement is that the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding must be in competition. This is again a difficult issue with local councils. Who is to say whether local councils are in competition with each other or not, what are they competing for and what are the tests? If they are not in competition, then this hurdle cannot be satisfied and the legislation will not be offended. However, presumably the Victorian, NSW and SA, councils considered the possibility that they be seen as competitors such that they considered it necessary to seek authorisation from the ACCC.

Authorisation Under section 88 of the CCA, the Commissioner has the power to grant an authorisation to give effect to a cartel provision within an arrangement. Authorisation is dependent upon the public benefit outweighing the public detriment constituted by any lessening of competition that would result from authorisation. It is for this reason the ACCC denied the South Australian application. The small improvements in efficient community education, the supply of recyclables and organics processing and environmental outcomes, did not outweigh the public detriment by the lessening of competition.

Conclusion Local governments must carefully consider the cost, complexity, scope, number of service streams and choice of tender process when seeking to jointly procure service streams. The public benefit must sufficiently outweigh the public detriment caused by the lessening of competition and should always remain a key concern for applicants.

Scott Alden is a partner at Holding Redlich and he advises private and public sector clients on large-scale strategic infrastructure projects. Contact: scott.alden@holdingredlich.com. The assistance of Victoria Gordon, graduate, Holding Redlich and Lauren Stables, summer clerk, Holding Redlich iw is gratefully acknowledged.

1 Re Australian Industrial Relations Commission Ex parte Australian Transport Officers Federation (1990) 171 CLR 216 at 226 Mason CJ; NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90 per McHugh A-CJ, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ. 2 JS McMillan Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 147 ALR 419; Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2002) FCA 448; Corrections Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2000) 104 FCR 448. 3 Competition and Consumer

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// Local government

Winning at procurement the Mackay way

By Jacqueline Ong In December last year, Mackay Regional Council, some 970km north of Brisbane, awarded SUEZ Australia a $40 million, eight-year contract for the region’s bulk waste haulage and landfill operation and the story has received a

fair bit of coverage on Inside Waste News (more on www.insidewaste.com.au). Inside Waste’s fascination with the story is largely because of the contract’s transparency and flexibility, Council’s keen understanding of the market, and its decision to turn to the market in order to tap its expertise -

both technical and operational. The stories published online have, for the most part, focused on how the contract will unlock value for Council and benefit both the latter and the operator, as well as SUEZ’s offerings by way of leachate management and fleet maximisation; but it is

In July, SUEZ will commence a $40M contract for Mackay Regional Council’s bulk waste haulage and landfill operation. (Credit: Mackay Regional Council)

worth digging deep into council’s procurement process.

A solid foundation John Davis, director of procurement strategy specialist Infrastructure Transaction Network, was involved in last year’s procurement process.

TRIDENT PLASTICS

AS4123 Parts 1,5,6 & 7 80,120,140,240,360L MGB

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Local government // He told Inside Waste to understand Mackay Regional Council’s procurement and contract journey, it is important to note that Council has always been forward thinking when it came to procurement, and its understanding of how different elements impact the broader strategy began more than a decade ago when Council started exploring alternative waste technologies. While AWTs were deemed inappropriate at the time - the government’s focus on other initiatives and the lack of a landfill levy were some factors - council’s in-depth analysis of issues, trends, policies and the like, allowed it to gain a good understanding of how different factors come together to potentially impact waste and resource recovery in the region. This culture, Davis said, continued over the years, with officers continuing to think about the broader strategy. One area that was examined and changed at the time has not only laid a good foundation for council, it is something Davis is encouraging all councils to take up. “What we did with the contracts was bring them all back to, effectively, a common start date and

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

matching contract operating periods (or combinations of periods) so that once every 10 years at Mackay, all the contracts will come to a common expiry date, or close to a common expiry date,” Davis said. “That way, council has the opportunity to fundamentally change its strategy. It’s not trapped in a landfill contract that’s five years out of cycle with its MRF contract for instance. So if you want to change the way in which you mix the contracts up, or if you want to introduce C&D waste separation or an AWT plant in the future, all the applicable contracts come to a common expiry date. That’s one of the key foundations to getting this flexibility, in terms of the way council and ITN set up the procurement master strategy for waste management in Mackay,” he said, adding that while he’d recommend other councils follow this path, they need to ensure all their contracts do not end on the exact same date because that would be a “recipe for disaster” because of the overload on Council officers who have to manage the contract closeout and start-ups. Instead, councils should stagger contract end dates, albeit within an overall frame of one to two years.

Building in flexibility and transparency The other foundation, Davis said, was the separation of contracts. This means that today, Council has more flexibility and can leverage changes in different supplier markets because they are not subject to ‘contractor capture’ risks. “For instance, the MRF tender was originally a design, build, operate contract by council, separate to the collection of recyclables. If council wanted to change something in the MRF contract, it could do that independently of the collection contract. Council doesn’t integrate the risk in the way that is common in some contracts in NSW and other places where they’d buy a recycling contract and pay the person who picks up the kerbside to also build the MRF and therefore, when you want to change something, the problem is that you’ve got a MRF asset that’s owned by a third party. You have no direct influence over what the MRF does and what it processes. That leaves the Council potentially without influence and unable to get competitive tendering for the MRF because the incumbent MRF provider has a distinct financial advantage over new entrants,” Davis explained. “While that might be less of an issue

in the capital metropolitan regions, it’s a very real risk in the regions.” “If you only get an integrated contract provider, you have less control over what happens to the subsidiary streams,” Davis added. “And if there is only one supplier with the distinct market advantage, for example the local MRF, that person now is effectively setting their own price as the subcontractor in an integrated collection and processing contract. You’re effectively taking their price because there’s no competitive tension on it. You might save money on your procurement but all that money you save, you will almost certainly just pay that and more in terms of the loss of competition. “In Mackay, with Council owning the MRF land and building assets but the contractor owning and taking the performance and maintenance risk on the plant and equipment over the 10-year contract period, we are effectively getting a very competitive market and technology refresh. That strategy has proven to be very effective. “Thus, council, when it puts together its contracts, works towards common dates and separate contracts so each separate supplier market can be dealt with individually.”

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// Local government

What we did with the contracts was bring them all back to, effectively, a common start date and matching contract operating periods (or combinations of periods) so that once every 10 years at Mackay, all the contracts will come to a common expiry date, or close to a common expiry date - John Davis. In the end, it’s all about getting the optimum number of contracts and not limiting the number of solutions. Mackay has relied on the market to offer its expertise and in return, a world of best value solutions was put in its hands. Of course, that involved a fairly complex market engagement process which asked waste contractors to put forward a range of options but Mackay did its part, offering contractors a level of transparency particularly around the data and capital costs of alternative solutions, an area that was debated but later acknowledged as the right step forward. “Council’s process was pretty visible as far as what their expectations were. They ran a workshop session to outline what they wanted, the real touch points on why they were going to market, and the changes they needed,” SUEZ‘s Queensland strategic development

manager Chris White told Inside Waste. “Council was also fairly receptive to the Q&A process, which was important because there were some grey areas in their document.” And Council has proved it was willing to listen to the experts, following SUEZ’s suggestion to transition to a new contractor in July, instead of February as originally proposed. “When we submitted the tender, we were quite vocal in our documents that the timing was not ideal to be transitioning from one contractor to another because it was right in the middle of the wet season and they were also putting down a new landfill cell,” White said. “We indicated to them that sensibility should reign and they should consider changing the contract so that it would start on the first of July. That would then get away from the issue of the

leachate and that would enable them to finish cell two so that as the new contractor, we’d be able to go into a fresh cell - cell three - which would also eradicate a lot of the liabilities and issues associated with it.” Council worked closely with SUEZ when it came to bulk waste haulage, which allowed SUEZ to ultimately select prime movers that offered greater costs savings and future-proof the fleet (more on www.insidewaste.com.au). Additionally, Council turned to a risksharing arrangement, which SUEZ said is not uncommon but largely employed by mature clients. “Councils look at these arrangements and say well, as long as parties understand the parameters and it is a win-win situation… for example the LCE formula, councils require a compaction ratio of 0.85T/m3. We have developed a gain pain model which will create the shared positive outcome for both council and SUEZ,” White said. “It’s an interesting model and it’s not unusual. It’s probably becoming more popular as councils are talking to each other and asking how they actually resolve issues. “For SUEZ, we’re always looking at how we can be more innovative, how we can deliver a better outcome for

Specialist provider of material processing equipment for the waste recycling and organics processing industries

the customer. We are seeking clients who share our longer term relationship contracting model, where we can openly discuss opportunities without fear or favour with the project outcome paramount to both Council and SUEZ.” White acknowledged that the process was “very long” from the time it submitted the tender to the award, but admitted that this was predicated by SUEZ’s suggestion to push back the start date of the contract. Despite the length of the process, he said it has been a “very fluid process”. “From negotiating the contract with council, they were mature about it because these days, contractual terms and departures can sometimes stifle negotiations and council was understanding of why we were requesting certain departures.” White said. “I encourage other councils to take a more holistic view of contractual terms and conditions and understand why a contractor is putting in a departure as opposed to flatly saying no, we’re not going to accept it because it’s our contract.” SUEZ has started the mobilisation process and has ordered the trailers and prime movers required for the region’s bulk waste haulage. The contract will iw commence on July 1.

Are you ready to Recover up to 75% of your C&D Waste

Stream?

Fines Lights

• • • • • •

Low Cost Modular Systems Quick & Easy Same Day Set Up Process Up to 150m³/hr within a small footprint or within existing building No on site power required No planning or civils cost Lowest cost per tonne solution

Efficient, Quick & Affordable...

C&D Waste RECOVERY PLANTS

Plastics

Clean Brick & Concrete

Timber Waste Ferrous Metals

Book your free site survey today...

T: +61 24 365 4 24/7 M:+61 478 22 00 88 www.focusenviro.com.au info@focusenviro.com.au

SHREDDERS TROMMELS AIR SEPARATORS PICKING STATIONS STACKERS Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Policy //

NSW CDS update

By Jan Arreza THANKS to a ministerial reshuffle earlier this year, NSW now has a new Environment Minister - Gabrielle Upton - and one of her first decisions was to push back the start date of the proposed container deposit scheme (CDS) from July 1 to December 1. This should come as no surprise, given how vocal a number of industry stakeholders have been on what was deemed an unrealistic timeline since former Environment Minister and now Attorney-General Mike Baird announced the CDS in early 2015. The journey since the announcement has been fraught with concerns, questions and challenges - Inside Waste News (www.insidewaste.com.au) has been following the progress closely over the last two years - and this extension could give the state a better chance at rolling out a best practice, well thought out scheme. South Australia and the Northern Territory are already operating a CDS and following NSW’s announcement, Queensland and Western Australia have jumped on the bandwagon. Given Queensland and WA will roll out their schemes after NSW, and there are discussions of potential collaboration between the states, it makes NSW’s efforts and task at hand all the more important, given it will be the first state to implement a CDS in recent years. Ahead of its roll-out, Inside Waste checks in on the progress to date.

What we know The CDS’ purpose has been clear from the start; its key aim is to deal with litter and the government has noted that drink containers represent 44% of the volume of all litter across the state and in 2014-15, 160 million containers were littered. The CDS will complement the broad suite of litter reduction initiatives that are already under way as part of the $465.7 million Waste Less, Recycle More initiative, in which the government has dedicated $20 22

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

million over five years to tackle litter. Ultimately, the government wants to reduce the volume of litter in NSW by 40% by 2020. Under the scheme, anyone who returns an empty eligible beverage container (150ml and 3L in volume) to an approved NSW collection depot or reverse vending machine - which can hold up to 3000 containers - will be eligible for a 10-cent refund. Containers not eligible include plain and flavoured milk containers, pure fruit or vegetable juice bottles (1L or more), glass containers for wine and spirits, casks for wine and water (1L or more), sachets for wine (250ml or more), containers for cordials and concentrated fruit/vegetable juices, and registered health tonics. It is proposed that the CDS will be delivered through a two-part structure: • A single scheme coordinator, which will be responsible for the financial management of the scheme, and for ensuring that the CDS meets its state-wide access and recovery targets; and • Network operators that will set up and run a state-wide network of collection points. They can build and operate these collection points themselves, or they can contract for other organisations to do this. The CDS will allow material recovery facilities (MRFs) to use an EPA-approved method for accurately estimating the number of containers recovered in the facility and to claim the refund from the scheme coordinator. Draft regulation was open for consultation from November 30 last year till December 23, which set out the operational details for the day-to-day running of the scheme.

Who can be involved and how The operator of a collection depot or reverse vending machine will require a formal agreement with the scheme coordinator to guarantee the payment of refunds and handling fees, as well as the EPA’s approval. To date a total of 27 pre-qualification submissions for the scheme coordinator

and network operator roles have been received and accepted, with the submissions assessed by the EPA and CDS Ministerial Advisory Committee, in accordance with set pre-qualification criteria. The next step in the process is for the Environment Minister to invite eight applicants to submit a Request for Tender for the Scheme Coordinator role, and 15 applicants for the Network Operator roles. Here is where it gets interesting, according to resources posted on the EPA website: “Any person or organisation can set up an informal site to collect eligible containers without paying the refund to those who deposit containers at that point, as containers are essentially gifted to the collection point operator, who can then return them to a collection depot for a refund.” This is an area that needs further clarity.

Strides have been made Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) CEO Grant Musgrove has been doing a lot of work with the government on the CDS and says that they have come a long way with it, particularly in the relationship between local government and industry. “ACOR has managed to work with government to find a way that addresses both industry assets and concerns, and some local governments have come on-board as ACOR members as a result because of the need to understand in a very specialist way what the scheme means for them,” Musgrove said. “In terms of ACOR’s agenda, our proposals around MRFs and AWTs being able to redeem using a refund protocol lodged quarterly, has been accepted, and there’s a lot of excitement at the moment, with more people now investing on the back of the draft regulations. “The negotiated position that MRFs and AWTs can redeem is fantastic news, which has the effect of not being discriminatory in terms of where a container ends up, whether it’s collected by a community group or through the existing kerbside streams. “The key risk moving forward is any

problems with the development of the methodology of the audit process, and the devil is always in the details, so we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got that right.”

Best practice? Really? But not everyone believes that the NSW CDS is best practice, with the most vocal of them being the Boomerang Alliance. Boomerang Alliance’s national policy director Dave West, who has been an advocate of the scheme, has criticised its legislation. “I’d say we are generally pretty impressed with how they’ve managed probity issues, as well as conflicts of interest issues within the beverage industry that wants to run the scheme, and they’ve put a mountain of effort in that,” West acknowledged. “The proof will be in the pudding on who they award the tenders to, because there is still a thought that they could give the network operator to a consortium, and we say that’s worse. “We don’t actually have a problem with industry running the scheme or being involved, we have a problem with a part of the industry running the scheme, because by its nature it means that sales data has got to move between competitors,” he explained. However, overall, West is quite disappointed with the model itself, which he believes explicitly undermines any opportunities to use technology to drive efficiency. “We’d regard it as the clumsiest regulatory or system architecture we’ve seen with the CDS anywhere in the world, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is being done internationally to successfully bring this in,” West said. “We are actually pretty keen if we could manage issues of independence, but when we did an assessment of the scheme and talked to financiers about it, there was a universal point of feedback that it was a bad investment. “Another really big issue of the refund scheme is that I believe it is really misleading the public - they

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// Policy The NSW CDS will now start on December 1. (Credit: frankieleon, Flickr CC)

keep treating the 10-cents as if it is an incentive, but I see it more as an advanced penalty, where the only real incentive effect will go towards the third parties that go and clean up the litter,” he added “Not getting convenience right, and not getting the network right doesn’t necessarily reflect in the performance but what it means is that a lot of those involved will all get ripped off their 10-cents, which doesn’t sound like a lot, until you realise that the model is based on 500 to 600 containers per person. “So it’s a big hit for people, and the EPA seems to think that is a good

thing, which is where I think they get this incentive mixed up.” However, Musgrove says best practice can mean different things to different people, depending on their commercial interests, but certainly the scheme being proposed is a workable one. “There have been some people that have been calling for the scheme to be delayed, but we’re not entertaining any of those calls, and what’s best practice depends on the context in which it is being applied,” Musgrove said. “Now some people might claim it’s not best practice because they think there is a higher diversion rate that

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

can be achieved through other models besides from kerbside, well that’s only best practice if you are the person running that scheme. “So whilst I’m sure there will be some thrills and spills going forward, ACOR members are much more comfortable and are out there having secured the things that they needed to invest from government that needed investing.” There will most certainly be teething problems at the start but Musgrove has some advice for industry. “NSW waste and recycling operators will need to be prepared to apply the protocol for redemption using existing

kerbside infrastructure so they can redeem those deposits,” he said. “Whilst I’m sure there will be teething problems of some nature, at this point in time we’re ecstatic with the outcome. We congratulate the government for being able to work with industry so thoroughly, and taking onboard all of our concerns to date and we look forward to continue to work with government as the implementation phase goes forward. “It’s all systems go from industry’s point of view, with some few details to work through prior to the iw commencement date.”

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Waste to energy // The Vantaa plant in Finland could serve as an ideal model for cities that have more than one million residents.

The case for waste to energy in regional Australia By Andrew Lang

Digging into MSW

IN March, Victoria will lose about 20% of its base electricity supply when the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in Latrobe Valley shuts down. Commissioned in the late 1960s, the power station is one of Australia’s oldest and contributes 4% of the electricity in the national grid. It has also been dubbed the country’s “dirtiest” coal-fired power station; based on current emission intensity estimates, the plant produces some 15 million tonnes of CO2-e annually. One question is, will Hazelwood’s closure provide a big enough push for the state to develop its first waste to energy plant? After all, the state has announced an ambitious Victorian Renewable Energy Target that commits to producing 25% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, rising to 40% by 2025. And the state’s two to three million tonnes of non-recyclable combustible municipal solid waste (over 50% biomass) is one source of baseload power. And there is already interest brewing in regional Victoria, with Ballarat and Bendigo looking at the option for waste to energy plants, and if Victoria were to decide to go down this path, there are many successful examples or models it can draw on.

For any OECD country, about 50% of municipal solid waste can potentially be recycled, including most noncombustible material, while close to 50% is non-recyclable and suitable for the production of energy. In these countries, the low moisture content (MC) combustible material usually goes into some form of thermal process (a high temperature furnace of specialised design). Some fraction of MSW is often of higher moisture content municipal waste stream usually over 60% moisture content and usually being food wastes and more putrescibles green wastes - and ideally, this is separated so it can go to anaerobic digestion. This article looks only at energy production from the combustible drier municipal waste stream. The World Bioenergy Association (WBA) is the peak body for the renewable energy that is produced from organic material or material of a biological origin. Since 50-65% of MSW is of biological origin, production of energy from MSW falls within the interest of the WBA. A position paper on waste to energy recently produced by the WBA collected data from a number of authoritative sources and is now accessible on the WBA website (www.worldbioenergy.org).

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Of the fraction of MSW that is suitable for thermal processing - about 40-50% of the total amount collected, depending on removal of higher moisture content organic material such as food wastes - in 2013, about 255 million tonnes per annum were being utilised by about 2200 WtE plants around the world. This is an average of 116,000 tonnes a year per facility. What this suggests is that many of these plants are below what would normally now be regarded as an adequate scale to be economic. Newer plants in Europe or China typically process 300,000tpa of waste, with some utilising up to 400,000-500,000tpa.

The state of WtE globally By 2017, a further 180 plants with an additional intake of 52 million tonnes will be added worldwide. This is an average of about 290,000tpa per plant (figures from www.cewep.eu). Some of these new plants will be developed in countries that are newer EU members in order to comply with EU policy for reducing waste to landfills, but most will be built in China and North America, with some in the Middle East and Africa. Many of the original EU-15 countries (plus Switzerland) have already demonstrated the potential for full diversion of waste from landfill into

recycling or to energy production. Germany is one leader in this area, with recycling rates quoted at up to 65%, and using up to 20 million tonnes a year of non-recyclable MSW in more than 90 WtE plants. Due to its leading recycling rate, Germany is now one of the countries that is having to import MSW from neighbouring European countries to maintain its WtE plants at full capacity. Sweden is another country importing waste for energy production. In 2014, it received up to one million tonnes from Norway and some of the Baltic countries. Sweden, along with Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, and Belgium have achieved similarly low rates for MSW to landfill of about 1%.

Models for Australia With ongoing interest in waste to energy in Australia, there needs to be some discussion about which countries we could model after. Now that Victoria is beginning to develop an interest in the potential for one or more WtE plants, there are a number of countries it could learn from. One good model is the Nordic country Finland. Finland’s population and productive land area are similar to Victoria’s. Legislation enacted in about 2007 that came into effect in January

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// Waste to energy

2016 in Finland made it mandatory for municipalities and provincial governments to divert all MSW and putrescible wastes from landfill and Finland now has about nine plants utilising some 1.5 million tonnes a year of waste for energy production. Most of these plants use the most common furnace design of a moving grate floor, though one at least uses the bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) design, and one at Lahti uses gasification of about 220,000tpa of sorted dry waste (refuse-derived fuel). One of the newest WtE plants in Finland is in Vantaa, just north of the capital, Helsinki. This large plant exemplifies how modern design principles mean WtE plants can have conversion efficiencies of 90% or better, have capital costs of well below US$6 million (AU$8 million)/MW-e capacity, and have emissions no more than is produced from a gas-fired plant. The Vantaa plant now takes in about 320,000tpa of MSW collected from Helsinki and the other cities and waste sources close to the plant - a region with a population of about 1.5 million people. It was built at a cost of 320 million Euros (AU$453.8 million) to allow the region’s municipalities to comply with the new legislation, and it replaces a gas-fired plant, thus reducing Finland’s reliance on import of piped Russian natural gas. The MSW from this population equates to about 213kg of non-recyclable combustible waste per person per year, or about 0.58kg per person per day. This is the sort of working figure that could be used for any Australian city. It needs to be noted that this is not just household waste but also the suitable non-recyclable combustible waste from institutions, commerce and industry within this region. The output of the plant is about 58MW of electricity, which goes into the national grid, and 99MW of heat energy which supplies the district heating system of the city of Vantaa. This heat goes to almost all households as well as institutions, industry and commercial premises. Over summer, the demand for space heating is obviously greatly reduced within this district heating network, and the heat from the Vantaa plant then goes into a number of other connected networks when heating plants supplying these (either biomass or gas-fuelled) are shut down. Since the Vantaa plant has three sources of revenue - gate fees for MSW received, sale of electricity and sale of heat - it is estimated that the payback on the overall capital cost

For smaller regional cities, Jönköping’s Torsvik plant could be a good model to follow.

would be less than 10 years. Another example is the Torsvik plant in Jönköping, Sweden. This is a city of about 120,000 people and the Torsvik plant, commissioned in late 2006, is fuelled by about 160,000tpa of MSW from the city and surrounding municipalities. The 100 gigwatt-hour of electrical output is the equivalent of 20% of the city’s electricity needs, while the 350GWh of heat output provides about 50% of the city’s annual heating needs. The city residents’ heating was previously coming from many small household heat units, 19 municipal oil-fired boilers, plus several biomassfuelled heat plants. Together these had been a source of significant pollution due to acid gases and particulates. The heat from the new Torsvik plant is also used to pasteurise about 30,000m3 a year of the city’s putrescible wastes (mainly household food wastes) and this is then mixed with sewage and converted into biogas at the city’s sewage treatment plant. The biogas is upgraded to 98% methane (a substitute for natural gas) and compressed to use as a fuel for city buses, the municipal fleet and private vehicles. The total energy produced from the city organic wastes in the form of vehicle fuel is the equivalent of 1600m3 (1,600,000 litres) of petrol. When it comes to the amount of energy that can be generated from a city’s waste, we turn to Denmark, specifically the five municipalities making up central Copenhagen.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

These municipalities were the principal managers of the Amager WtE plant in central Copenhagen. They also manage at least five waste receival and recycling centres. The population of these five municipalities is about 880,000 and this area has many hotels, businesses and institutions. Of the approximately one million tonnes a year of waste produced annually in these municipalities, more than 500,000 tonnes are recycled and about 440,000 tonnes go to fuel the Amager plant. This WtE plant produces about 20% of the electricity needs of these municipalities, plus about 30% of the heating needs. This plant is about to be upgraded and will have higher steam temperatures and pressures, and will be generally more efficient, producing a significantly higher output from the same amount of waste. So, in the context of Ballarat or other smaller regional cities of Australia, Jönköping’s Torsvik plant may serve as one example. For larger cities of one million residents or more, the Vantaa plant in Finland could serve as the ideal model. In both cases, the key issues are the scale, the quality of sorting of the waste feedstock, the sale of the heat produced, and the need to be using world’s best practice in design and emission monitoring and minimisation. It is obvious from the example of Denmark, with the population of Victoria and putting 3.5 million tonnes a year of MSW into energy production,

that Victoria could be sourcing 500 to 700MW of electricity from its nonrecyclable combustible municipal solid waste and another 100-200MW-e from wet organic wastes. Australia, as one of the world’s most urbanised countries and with about 22 million of its population living in or near the 17 capital and major cities that make up its urban concentrations, is landfilling about 10 million tonnes of MSW a year that is suitable for energy production. Based on those figures, it is well placed to develop 30-40 WtE plants, each processing 300,000-500,000tpa. One key issue is how to utilise the heat produced and make this an important revenue stream. While in many countries, the heat goes into very extensive and costly district heating systems, in Australia, one option is that it is used by nearby industries and within industry parks, including in some new processes that require major amounts of heat. One of these is the production of ethanol as a biofuel from lignocellulosic materials such as straw.

Andrew Lang is the vice president and board member of the World Bioenergy Association. He is based in south west Victoria and has a professional interest in biomass, biowaste to energy, and renewable energy technologies. He will be speaking at the Australian Waste to Energy Forum in Ballarat at the end of February. Contact: andrewlang001@bigpond.com iw FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

2017 Australian Landfill & Transfer Stations //

Building a clear vision for waste and resource recovery infrastructure By Gayle Sloan IN March, WMAA will host the National Landfill and Transfer Stations Conference in Sydney. This event will discuss a number of important issues, some of which do not just apply to landfill and transfer stations. One issue that should be high on the public and government agenda, which requires further debate and discussion is who really is responsible for the provision and planning for waste and resource recovery infrastructure in Australia?

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Increasingly, we hear “let’s leave it to the market”. Is this, however, really the right approach, given the importance of waste and resource recovery facilities for both public health and amenity, as well as the need for these facilities to support the urban growth predicted by governments in almost all Australian states? As we all know, if there is ever an industry that encounters NIMBYism, it is this industry. So, is it really appropriate for government to simply “leave it to the market”?

WMAA CEO Gayle Sloan.

A number of states in Australia currently have their Waste Infrastructure Plans underway (in particular Victoria and SA), with varying degrees (read minor) of financial and planning support proposed for the waste and resource recovery industry. In some regards, SA is leading the way from other states in that the Wingfield Resource Recovery precinct is well planned with its accessibility, ability to grow, a clear buffer zone and good transport links, and several modern

well sited landfills. Given the size of Adelaide, however, the density and growth of the SA population and the cost of land, one may argue that SA is uniquely placed. Other states are not so lucky. The cost of land and urban growth pressures are particularly evident in NSW and Victoria. Existing sites, such as Hallam Road in Victoria and Jack’s Gully in NSW, are under pressure from adjacent urban spread. Developing new sites in brownfield locations are challenging

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// 2017 Australian Landfill & Transfer Stations

for all operators in the eastern states given the cost of land, the challenge of finding land within appropriately zoned precincts, air shed issues (particularly for waste to energy (WtE) facilities), as well as in some cases the legislative framework which exists – for example, in particular for WtE in NSW. Development of new infrastructure at existing landfill sites can also be problematic, as community and planning authorities’ expectations of a change of land use (and release of buffer zones for subdivision) have been developed in some cases over many years. Even if newer facilities are enclosed and environmental considerations addressed, the perceptions remain a challenge. The legacy of old sites after a complete change of land use, generally, does not support intensive redevelopment for non-waste activities. Greenfield sites have their own challenges, particularly in relation to transportation, with often poor road networks and long travel times. This is not sustainable for commercial and domestic collection vehicles, particularly when coupled with noise restrictions associated with collection times. There is a need for convenient waste aggregation points (that is, transfer stations), if

there is a desire to pursue greenfield sites for such infrastructure that will not be encroached by urban growth. These transfer stations, however, also require legislative and planning support by government in order to be delivered. Add these to the challenges of gaining planning and environment approvals in a certain cost and time frame, and you will begin to understand why private investment is limited in this infrastructure. Much work has been done by many levels of government over recent years in relation to waste infrastructure planning. For example, a number of NSW Regions of Council (RoCs) were funded in 2014-15 to identify their needs. This was provided to the NSW EPA, yet there has been no comprehensive plan prepared in NSW, and to date, it does not appear as if the Greater Sydney Commission will fill this void. It is submitted that waste and resource recovery infrastructure is too important to be left to the market by government. Absolutely, the market is best placed to design, develop and build such infrastructure in a competitive environment. It requires, however, the strong support of government, which must have a clear vision for what it wants

and what is required, and then provide the appropriate legislative, environmental and planning support to ensure its delivery. Otherwise, we will see what is beginning to occur in NSW, in that facilities are closing and there has been no real planning or discussion with industry as to what is required in the future to meet population projections. For example: • July 2017 – Eastern Creek Landfill (putrescible), operated by WAMC, will close. This landfill is receiving over 500,000 tonnes per annum. Some of the volume will go to Lucas Heights (SUEZ) and some to Woodlawn (Veolia), which has a 1.13 million tonnes per annum approval. Lucas Heights has recently obtained approval for an additional eight million cubic metres of airspace, and will become the only putrescible landfill in Sydney when Eastern Creek closes. • It is suggested that Veolia will close the Horsley Park Landfill (non-putrescible) in 2019. This landfill receives around 430,000 tonnes per annum. • There is the real possibility that the Blacktown Waste Landfill (nonputrescible) and Glenfield landfill will either close or lose a substantial parcel of land due to development. • All AWTs in Sydney are at full capacity

and no known council tenders for new facilities are proposed (except for the current Kimbriki tender). The conference provides an opportunity to discuss these issues. In addition to the solid technical program, papers and case studies from throughout Australia and overseas will be presented, including: • Development of new resource recovery facilities at Erskine Park, Banksmeadows (Sydney), Toowoomba, Portland, Port Stephens; • Findings of a Sustainability Victoria/ CSIRO project on community trust and acceptance of the waste industry in a presentation called “Building our social licence”; • Redevelopment of closed landfills in Adelaide and Baw Baw (Victoria); • Solar farm opportunities and energy recovery; and • Development of brownfield sites and landfill extensions (Darwin, Sydney, Melbourne, rural Victoria and South East Queensland). The updated program is available at www.landfill.com.au and we hope you can join us!

Gayle Sloan is the CEO of the Waste Management Association of Australia. iw Contact: gayle@wmaa.asn.au

WANT TO MANAGE YOUR SITE MORE EFFECTIVELY?

Optimise compaction and increase productivity with Carlson machine guidance. Backed by industry expertise & nationwide support at Position Partners. 1300 867 266 • positionpartners.com.au

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

2017 Australian Landfill & Transfer Stations //

A preview of what’s to come Ahead of the Waste Management Association of Australia’s 2017 Landfill and Transfer Stations conference that will be held at Rosehill Gardens, Sydney from March 28 to 31, Inside Waste reached out to conference exhibitors to find out what they thought were the challenges in the sector, and the equipment and services they could offer to help landfill and transfer station operators do their job better. Here is a snapshot of what you can expect from some of these exhibitors at the conference as well as the various sessions that will be held at the event.

Axis Industrial Tyres

GCM Enviro

Machine maintenance and downtime are ‘do or die’ factors in today’s transfer station or landfill and we will be showcasing our BKT Pneumatic Tyres and TY Solid Rubber Puncture Proof Tyres at the conference. Both TY Solid rubber tyres and BKT poly filled tyres create a puncture proof environment where machine downtime is reduced dramatically.

GCM Enviro is a leading distributor for the latest in waste management equipment, from landfill compactors, shredders and crushers, through to state-of-the-art screeners and compost turners. We offer top quality equipment from world renowned manufacturers including TANA, TERRA SELECT, BACKHUS JENZ and ALLU. Our philosophy is to maintain constant dialogue between manufacturers and clients to ensure that design is governed by market requirements, particularly in the harsh climatic conditions we experience. Combining this with efficient service back-up and approachable personnel, a continued growth of the market share is envisaged, together with ongoing industry support.

Contact: Rene Whinwray, 0477 992 020

Thermo Fisher Scientific The sector is facing IECEx challenges with fixed instrumentation and at the conference, Thermo Fisher Scientific will be exhibiting its IECEx BIOGAS 3000 Fixed Gas Analyser. Thermo Fisher Scientific represents a range of fixed and portable IECEx gas analysers customised to your application. Contact: InfoEnviroAU@thermofisher.com

Contact: Daniel Kastowksy, 02 9457 9399, www.gcmenviro.com

Polynex One challenge facing the industry is that existing methods are not meeting today’s requirements and are expensive and slow to install. At the conference, Polynex will be showcasing its HDPE pipe for leachate well risers or relining old concrete pipe leachate well risers. Polynex’s HDPE pipe offers a range of benefits to all stakeholders involved. They bring leachate well risers into the 21st Century realising benefits in OHS, durability, installation and cost. They: • Are light weight (800mm diameter x 3.0 metre = 149 kg ) yet excel in the toxic landfill environment; • Meet the engineering requirements to depths of over 50 metres; • Reduce installation time with the screw thread system, ideal for both new leachate well risers or relining old concrete leachate wells; and • Are available in many diameters and lengths, with base plates or flanges welded in as required. The durability offers the landfill owner an extended asset lifespan with the ability to put them in new landfill cells or during rehabilitation of old landfill sites, including relining old concrete pipe risers. The Polynex HDPE pipe can also be used for culverts, road cross overs and large volume storage tanks either above or below ground. Contact: Stuart Moore, 0437 323 345 or stuart@polynex.com.au

The Water and Carbon Group Dealing with leachate from both existing and legacy landfill systems is a challenge facing the sector and innovative, sustainable leachate treatment and disposal systems by the Water and Carbon Group will be offered at the conference in March. The Water and Carbon Group designs sustainable, low energy, cost effective solutions to treat leachate to the point where it is no longer toxic and can be discharged to local estuaries or used for irrigation. These treatment and disposal solutions are designed to have low operational complexity and meet all regulatory requirements. The Water and Carbon leachate systems can incorporate trickling filters, surface and vertical flow wetlands, along with irrigation or reuse options. Contact: Anthony Heintze, 0418 857 224, A.heintze@waterandcarbon.com.au or www.waterandcarbon.com.au

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// 2017 Australian Landfill & Transfer Stations

TUESDAY MARCH 28

THURSDAY MARCH 30

8.30am 5pm

Workshop: Geosynthetics and Effective Landfill Construction Quality Assurance

5.45pm

Welcome Reception - Exhibition Hall

Session 7: Liner design and CQA

Session 8: Transfer station development case studies

9am

What is the best approach for designing protection geotextile for geomembranes in landfill lining systems?

The Erskine Park Journey – considerations for a state of the art transfer station

9.25am

10 years of field observations and findings in relation to composite liners: The latest issues to consider

Saw tooth RORO is dead!

9.50am

Designing with GCLs - Findings of laboratory testing on coated and uncoated GCLs

From zero to here

10.15am

Improving the performance of landfill lining systems during operation and after closure

Building Banksmeadow - trial and tribulations

MORNING TEA - EXHIBITION HALL

FRIDAY MARCH 31 9am

Technical tour 1 - Clyde Transfer Terminal, Wetherill Park Resource Recovery Centre, and Genesis Recycling and Landfill

4pm

TOUR CONCLUDES AT RYDGES PARRAMATTA

Technical tour 2 - Lucas Heights Resource Recovery Park and Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal

WEDNESDAY MARCH 29 8.45am

Welcome & housekeeping

8.55am

OFFICIAL OPENING

10.40am

9.10am

Keynote address - NSW EPA CEO and chair Barry Buffier

PLENARY TWO

9.50am

Keynote address - Landfill and Related Lining Failures

11.10am

Keynote address: Binning the old landfill approach using global innovations

10.30am

MORNING TEA - EXHIBITION HALL

11.45am

Panel session: CQA Best Practice Outcomes from the Geosynthetics and Effective Landfill Construction Quality Assurance workshop

12.20pm

LUNCH - EXHIBITION HALL

Session 1: Innovation in landfill operations

Session 2: Policy, regulation and planning

Stormwater management through the use of treatment wetlands at a rural landfill

Interstate transport of waste and NSW’s proximity principle a legal perspective

Spontaneous combustion risk control for a landfill developed within a former coal mine using thermal monitoring methods

Cooperate-investigatefacilitate: a unified approach to combatting unlicensed operations in SA

11.50am

Risk-based approach to reduce landfill environmental monitoring expenditure

EPA Victoria licence reform six years on – has it been a success?

12.15pm

Characterisation, use and performance of waste trommel fines as landfill cover - An Australian experience

Building our social licence

11am

11.25am

12.35pm

Session 9: Landfill development case studies

Session 10: Carbon and landfill gas

1.20pm

Geotechnical challenges of brownfield sites for use as landfill

How can landfill prosper in a low carbon world?

1.45pm

Design and development innovations for the first composite lined landfill cell at Kimbriki

Whatever happened to the landfill gas industry?

2.10pm

Victory road landfill - Stage 4B: Design and construction of the last landfill cell in the Clayton Sand Belt

Landfill gas at Kimbriki: From “Do Nothing” to best practice

2.35pm

Case Study - Landfill cell design and construction in Darwin

Analysis of ongoing composting in shallow landfill waste

3.10pm

CONFERENCE CLOSE

LUNCH - EXHIBITION HALL Session 3: Landfill closure and post closure

Session 4: Regional facilities

1.25pm

Redevelopment of 3 HA MSW landfill into inner urban sports and community facility

Lessons learnt in successfully rehabilitating a legacy landfill in Eastern Victoria

1.50pm

Managing risk of landfill gas migration and landfill aftercare

Innovative strategy for rural transfer stations: working towards increased diversion rates, revenue and employment

2.15pm

Solar on closed landfill: bright future in Australia?

Portland Transfer Station development - concept to reality

2.40pm

LFG to power the SAWT at the Elizabeth Drive Landfill

Key steps in bringing your rural landfill up to “The Standard”

3.05pm

AFTERNOON TEA - EXHIBITION HALL

Weighbridge Software Systems Does your software provider include these as standard options?

Session 5: Design challenges and lessons learned

Session 6: Planning and innovation in transfer stations

3.35pm

Investigation and management of a large scale landfill leachate breakout and cell floor collection system failure

Infrastructure development – the role of a Transfer Station

4pm

Lessons learned from an ET cap design and construction process

Better practice at resource recovery centres

4.25pm

Recurring landfill construction issues and how to resolve them: A practical approach

Private and non for profit partnerships in managing transfer station operations

4.50pm

Overcoming adversity through collaboration with communities and stakeholders

TBC

5.15pm

DAY ONE CONCLUDES

6.45pm

CONFERENCE AWARDS DINNER

THE FULL CONFERENCE PROGRAM CAN BE FOUND ON WWW.LANDFILL.COM.AU

Electronic signatures

License plate recognition

Camera images stored with transaction

Emailing invoices from the iWEIGH software

Phone & tablet application for vehicle weighing

EFTPOS integration with iWEIGH software

Colour grouping for Hot Key operation

Weighbridge Software Solutions

www.iweigh.com.au

iw Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Landfill //

What is a solar energy landfill cover system? By Judy DeVita, Kanishka Perera and Mark Roberts HISTORICALLY, landfill closures have consisted of a protective soil cover material placed over a barrier layer consisting of compacted clay or a geosynthetic liner. These caps can be maintenance-intensive due to upkeep of turf and replacement of protective cover soil where erosion has occurred and offer little in the way of post-closure benefits. HDRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s innovative approach uses a highly durable geosynthetic cover equipped with laminate solar panels reducing cap construction, maintenance costs and providing a renewable source of power for a beneficial reuse of a closed landfill site.

Solar energy covers versus traditional systems Traditional landfill caps include a geomembrane layer placed over a compacted soil base, a drainage layer (geocomposite/freely-draining sand), a protective soil cover, topsoil then grass to resist erosion and promote evapotranspiration (Figure 1). Failures of traditional caps often occur on sideslopes and are a result of slippage of closure components along an interface of dissimilar material. A solar energy cover consists of an exposed geomembrane cover (EGC) upon which laminated solar panels are directly adhered. An EGC provides a clean, stable, and relatively inexpensive closure system that reduces infiltration of precipitation

into the waste mass and requires less maintenance with the benefit of being easily inspected to confirm its integrity and impermeability. The EGC is attached to the landfill surface using anchor trenches to resist wind uplift forces. After installation, the EGC can be easily removed to access the waste or subsurface piping and reinstalled without the effort and expense of removing the soil cover and established vegetation. Installation of an EGC can reduce the cost of closure by negating the requirement for vegetative support soil and top soil layers (useful when soil would otherwise be imported). The effects of long-term exposure to the elements are well understood for many geomembrane materials, and these products can be used with confidence and warrantied against failure for periods up to 30 years.

Laminate solar panels Laminate panels can be adhered directly to a geomembrane on any area of the landfill where storm water does not pool. Their inherent flexibility is also more forgiving for undulated surfaces caused from surface grading or differential settlement due to waste decay/consolidation. The efficiency of laminate panels has recently improved, and they can be spaced with higher density utilising a greater area as they can be placed on the crown and the sideslopes of landfills.

Figure 1: Solar energy cover vs. traditional landfill cover

Maintenance and useful life Panels will require cleaning, especially in arid climates, where dust from landfill operations tends to accumulate on the panels. Design life for laminate panels is approximately 20 years. One manufacturer, First Solar, guarantees that their panels will produce 90% of the nominal power for 10 years, and 80% for 20 years (First Solar. 2009b).

Power generation One of the most attractive features of a solar EGC is that it can be a source of revenue beyond the active life of the landfill. Potential on-site uses include reducing the parasitic load of pumps, compressors and other equipment at landfill gas to energy facilities. The energy can also be used to power remediation systems and site operations or returned to the grid.

Case studies HDR provided design, permitting and construction support services for the Hickory Ridge Landfill solar EGC (Atlanta, Georgia, USA). This project Figure 2: Hickory Ridge solar energy cap (Credit: Keith Philpott).

utilised an EGC design over 19.4ha with 4ha used for solar energy generation consisting of 7000 laminate panels to generate 1MW of renewable electricity. The project provided benefits that include generating renewable energy, creating a revenue stream and eliminating erosion and dust. The laminate panels proved ideal because they are flexible, lightweight, require no bracing and thereby donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t add point load to the surface of the settling waste mass. The laminated photovoltaic panels are approximately 6mm thick and generate electricity year round under high and low light conditions and temperatures. The system is designed so the panels can be easily replaced at the end of their useable life (with 20-year standard product guarantee to meet 90% of their rated capacity). HDR has also completed a detailed concept study for a solar EGC at a landfill in Brisbane, Queensland. The study looked at applying a 2MW system to an area of approximately 4.5ha and the study indicated upside benefits of clean stormwater runoff and the ability to offset site generation needs whilst also feeding back into the grid. Solar EGCs are increasingly being considered and successfully implemented at landfills throughout the world due to their significant benefits over a traditional cover. The benefits that these covers offer landfill owners/operators include a more cost effective cover, improved stormwater runoff, and a renewable source of energy.

Judy DeVita, HDR principal civil engineer, is based in Brisbane while Kanishka Perera, HDR environmental engineer and Mark Roberts, HDR principal waste engineer, are based in Jacksonville, Florida. More: www.hdrinc.com iw 30

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// PVC recycling

Tackling the advertising banner challenge By Jan Arreza FOR several months now, a dedicated team led by the Vinyl Council of Australia has been working to find solutions to the challenges of recycling advertising banners and the team has achieved critical breakthrough results to date, while gaining further support from industry. Currently, more than 1.2 million square metres (500 tonnes) of PVC coated billboard skins go to landfill around the country each year at a significant cost to business and it represents a waste of durable materials. Companies estimate this represents on average a monthly bill of around $10,000 per printer and installer in NSW, which in the end has to be covered by customers, or taken out of an organisation’s profit margins. The Vinyl Council is working with Monash University on a prototype to recycle coated fabric commonly found in advertising banners, which is historically troublesome to recycle due to these products being multi-layered. The results and the prototype are still in progress, and Vinyl Council project manager of recycling strategy Helen Millicer told Inside Waste the issue stems from the skins on these banner ads being made of two excellent polymers – vinyl as coating over woven polyester - which are difficult to separate and reprocess. “First and foremost, the focus is on finding an end market for the material. Whether that’s packaging or durables, the same system applies,” Millicer said. “So we look for any opportunities for an end market for the materials, and we work closely with recyclers, and reprocessors in particular, to find those end markets. “As part of our project, we will produce a report on the project, which will also contain the lab results on the banner material - mechanical and chemical - and again for the combination of banner and cable. “There is no recycling of that type of material at the moment, with some materials currently being exported for relief shelters after release. When we crack this one, we’ll be absolutely over the moon.” The outcome of the funded trials, research, and testing has led to two innovative Australian mechanical recycling technologies, one of which is currently proceeding to patent.

Trials have also worked with cut, woven and reformed material, and material welded into molds, to create a stronger fabric skin, with the reprocessed material being used in 3D printing. These developments have also led to specifications for a packaging product for trial with a major multinational company. “One is proceeding through to patent developed by Dennis Collins from Paper Freight in Ballarat, who has created a new method of separating PVC from the material,” Millicer said. “There is another fellow named Michael who runs a business in Melbourne’s south, near Dandenong, where he has been developing a piece of kit that is also suitable for separation of this material. “We have also identified some other potential uses such as a slider sheet, a safety mat, a water bollard to irrigate trees, and an amazing new woven fabric that is a cross weaving of cut banner materials. “We’ve also identified a way to take the shredded material, put it through a tiny hopper and a melt device, and with that we’ll 3D print new banner material, which has never been done anywhere else in the world.” To support the research, the NSW Environment Trust and industry have invested to enable collaboration between a team of keen and intelligent minds. “It’s provided an opportunity for an organisation like the Vinyl Council to do better to perform and improve performance with its product stewardship program,” Millicer said, adding, “We haven’t had an opportunity previously, and the NSW government has to be commended for that.” Millicer does believe that some changes do need to be made with the grant program moving forward, in order for it to really make a dent with this issue, as well as provide some incentives for more people to get involved. “At the moment, I think they are putting it in the wrong places. We are continuing to fund infrastructure for major recycling facilities, rather than supporting recycling for material to go back into product into Australia,” Millicer said. “What we have now is we are supporting large transport and logistics sorting companies, not the manufacturers, so we are not actually supporting the growth of recycling and re-processing in Australia.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

Some of the uses of processed advertising banners. The skateboard was made by Shannon Kok, a third year industrial design/ mechanical engineering student at Monash University. It was displayed at a university end-of-year showcase.

“Also, most grant funds are focused on packaging but not durable complex products, so we have ignored that area to date and I think it’s time to rethink our recycling and industry programs. “There is asymmetry in the way in which the grant program is designed, in that it doesn’t necessarily support

those that are putting in the time and the effort to actually get the recycling to happen. It supports R&D, but it doesn’t support a systemic change.” The banner project is expected to be finalised in the next two months, and the Vinyl Council will have some prototypes iw to show to the market by then.

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Organics //

Enriching the future By Jacqueline Ong THERE is little doubt that organics recovery in Australia has experienced strong growth in recent years. The task at hand is to encourage farmers to take up organic compost. In the December issue of Inside Waste, green waste and biowaste processing equipment supplier Komptech declared that it is a “very good time to be in the organics business”, with growth largely driven by the money flowing out of state governments. And it is a sentiment echoed by the Australian Organics Recycling Association (AORA). According to AORA’s modelling and research, organics recovery has been on the rise and the processing of garden organics is now commonplace in Australia. Food organics recovery is also catching up, which AORA executive officer Peter McLean says is “very beneficial”. “Food organics contains a huge amount of nutrients and minerals compared with garden organics. That’s

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

the opportunity and it’s very positive,” he told Inside Waste. While the data points to progress in this space, driving take-up of end products has proven to be a challenge, what with contamination and quality issues and a lack of end user education standing in its way. McLean pointed to the eastern states, particularly NSW and Victoria, as the regions that will likely have a contamination challenge on their hands, given these states are in the thick of the domestic and commercial food waste recovery growth.

What do farmers want? Family-owned fertiliser spreading company, Gibsons Groundspread, has been servicing local farmers for 64 years. Although it started as a fertiliser and liming distributor and retailer, the company has since embarked on a composting journey. Gibsons Groundspread’s compost story began when Gippsland Water needed a new home for the ever

increasing supply of compost it was producing at its Dutson Downs facility. According to Gibsons Groundspread fertiliser consultant Ross Clancy, Gippsland Water produces some of the highest quality compost available, which bodes well for the company. “Gibsons needed a compost that was high in quality, was fully matured, i.e. put through a 12-week process and fully pasteurised, no weeds and seeds, met all standards of the EPA, and had a full quality control process in place. From there, a partnership of supply chain to agriculture was formed,” Clancy said. Over the last four to five years, compost production at Dutson Downs has doubled to some 80,000 tonnes and the end product has been accepted across the agricultural industry, including dairy, beef, and vegetable producers. Gibsons has also tailored the compost, better known as Revive, with traditional fertilisers, limes and gypsum to suit particular farming needs and the program has spread from localised output to the rest of Victoria.

To get to this point, Gibsons did their homework, undertaking a strategic trial process to assess the ability of compost to supply valuable nutrients and trace elements including organic matter, and to assess soil structural change on a broad acre basis on dairy, beef and sheep farms including irrigated, high and low rainfall and non-irrigated farms. “The overall findings have been that compost is a full package of benefits in one product including organic matter, NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) nutrients, trace elements and calcium source, and it is a pH-neutral product and supplies much-needed soil biology, which has the ability to enhance the liming process in many soil structures to increase overall production,” Clancy said. Clancy believes that there is a future for compost, saying “the product will become an integral part of the farming system through a sustainable agriculture approach to soil health and future production within the food chain”, but noted that to further drive

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// Organics

its take-up, farmers need a number of things, including greater knowledge in order to help them accept the benefits of compost, to quality product. “Farmers may be conservative by nature and have a fear of the unknown, and to some degree, [this is exacerbated] by the poor knowledge of the product by other suppliers of traditional fertilisers, which in turn causes distrust of compost through misinformation in the market place,” Clancy said. “We can get farmers to take up compost through an ongoing education process and supplying not only scientific evidence but also anecdotal evidence patterns of consistency and improvement in soil health and increased production evidence through ongoing trials and full farm use data. “Composters also need to understand that they should only make a high quality compost that not only complies with AS4454 standards and EPA requirements, it should meet the high standards of nutrient requirement and be a fully matured and pastuerised product over a 12-week composting process to suit a multitude of agricultural production systems,” Clancy advised.

Education a two-way street Quality is certainly the first step that needs to be managed to drive acceptance of end products and while McLean acknowledges that there is no silver bullet approach to reduce contamination, what is sorely lacking in Australia are consistent and targeted messaging and communication. “What I continue to see are very isolated and fragmented programs within individual councils. What we really need are state and national approaches to get some of these challenges solved. With this opportunity and growth, there will be some major growing pains for industry,” McLean said, adding that if an approach to contamination is not carefully considered, the path taken could take quality in the wrong direction. “We also need consistent labelling and categorisation of products, which will result in stronger trust through understanding that this is the exact product and outcome farmers are going to receive, and this is a consistent product they can buy over and over again.” McLean agrees that education plays an important role but says this is a two-way street. “We really want farmers to be educated so they’re asking the right questions when they’re purchasing a

Maize crop that Gibsons has been monitoring. This crop is at least 10-feet high, producing two big cobs fully filled. It is sown down with a fertiliser granular fertiliser blend and 6.5t/ha of Revive Compost. Clearly, there is no sign of nutrient deficiency. The crop is towering over Gibsons’ West Gippsland area manager, Ken Bailey. (Credit: Gibsons Groundspread)

Inside the Dutson Downs facility product. When I go and buy a car, I want to know what sort of engine, warranty, performance, and specifications it’s got. It’s no different with compost and farmers really need to be putting themselves in that position as well to understand that these are the characteristics, this is the feedstock it has derived from, these are some of the expected outcomes and this is what I need to be careful of,” McLean said. “Equally, if they’re not able to understand some of the specifications or the testing, or if they’re not available, then they should really ask the composter, why aren’t you providing me with these sorts of things? Those types of conversations will improve things considerably and of course, keep some of those less than perfect operators out of the marketplace.”

Times are changing McLean says conversations are, slowly but surely, ramping up and farmers are becoming more aware of the various options out there. “In saying that, we need a lot more consistency. It really comes from both sides. Industry has a lot to do but we really want farmers to be educated at the same time, which again, is partly industry’s challenge as well,” he reiterated. To that end, AORA’s annual conference that will be held at Mercure Grosvenor, Adelaide from May 10 to 12, aims to attract all stakeholders in the sector, from composters, waste practitioners, local and state government and organics recovery service companies, to

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

Gibsons’ Revive is made from recycled waste streams and green organic material, of which a large proportion comes from the local dairy industry. The composting program at the Dutson Downs plant facility is a full, 12-week process with a blend of prescribed and non-prescribed wastes being utilised and blended to produce the end product. Waste materials go through a settling tank and heat in-vessel

STEP 1 process to eliminate any undesired by-products and destroy unwanted pathogens weeds and seeds. Materials are then sent to the non-prescribed row facility for

STEP 2 further processing to complete the 12-week process. The final processing stage is the screening process.

STEP 3 Materials pass through 15mm tumbler screens to remove larger wood chips and parts of tree trimmings which require further processing and are reintroduced into new rows. All products coming into the site and leaving as finished product are fully tested to meet the strict standards in place and to meet the requirements of the food producing chain.

farmers and users of organic resources. “We are inviting them to come along and understand the industry. There will be some specific talks focused on their interests,” McLean said. The 2017 conference theme is Recycled organics - healthy soil, healthy food in a circular economy, which McLean says follows on from the issues and topics discussed at the event last year. “It’s really about recycled organics (RO) and how that fits into a wider circular economy, which is important particularly in recycled organics,” he said. “It’s about taking compost to the next level - it’s not just about compost, it’s about other types of recycled organics and how they link potentially to the

composting or RO process. For example, biogas and anaerobic digestion have the excellent opportunity to produce renewable energy to be used locally, but some of the outputs from that are extremely good for the recycled organics, composting processes. “So we’re really trying to understand what people are doing around the world in terms of how economies tap into the local and regional level, how they’re able to support and integrate into existing industries or developing ones, and what some of the challenges and pitfalls are as well, particularly from a regulatory point of view.”

For more information about the conference, visit www.aora.org.auiw FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Food waste // Steve Morris has turned his attention to food waste and Australia’s degrading topsoil.

Closing the loop on food waste

By Jacqueline Ong START-UP wizard Steve Morriss, founder and non-executive director of imaging consumables recycling company Close the Loop has a new venture, which aims to address two serious problems - Australia’s degraded topsoil and food waste. With Close the Loop “growing very well” - it recently acquired a business in Europe, expanding the company’s footprint to three continents - and after 16 years at the helm, Morriss told Inside Waste it was time to let the team “do their thing” and for him to “go out and do what I do best - startups and innovative new technologies”. At the end of 2015, Morriss turned his attention to society’s biggest challenges and found that organic and food waste represented a major issue and opportunity for industry. And this birthed the Circular Food concept. “I’m not sure that we do a whole lot well when it comes to food waste and it is difficult because the material in our green bin, food waste recycling bin or organics bin is so heavily mixed and contaminated that it is difficult to separate food waste,” Morriss said. “I understand that globally, we’re probably on par with many countries but there’s a lot of work that needs to be done on education, separating at source, and then of course the processing technologies that extract the valuable nutrients out of food waste and put them back into the soil. “So I’m looking at this business Circular Food - from a circular economy perspective and I’ve got touch points in every part of this business, from the farmer, to the food processing element, the waste, and then getting 34

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

the nutrients from the waste back on to the farm. That’s my model - it’s to incorporate all the aspects of the supply chain.”

Is the chicken local? The TV series Portlandia takes satirical jabs at cultural fads and trends and in its very first episode, two characters, Peter and Nance, spend a fairly long time quizzing the restaurant’s wait staff about where the chicken on the menu lived. Despite being assured that the chicken was local and came from a free-range farm - it even had a name, Colin - Peter and Nance leave abruptly and drive to the farm to make sure Colin lived a good life. This may be satire but the fact is, there is a fast growing food movement both globally and here in Australia, where consumers want to know where their food comes from and if they’re certified organic. This is the opportunity for Circular Food, says Morriss, as the company is in the business of manufacturing and supplying quality, organically-certified, bio-fertilisers to farmers. It has worked with CSIRO to develop and patent a method of producing BIG BIO, a low cost liquid bio-fertiliser, through a fermentation process. “We do that through vermiculture, which is worm farming. We operate the largest urban worm farm in Australia and to make that model work, we have developed a technology that allows the worms to produce a starter culture and then we grow that starter culture in a bioreactor much like making yoghurt,” Morriss explained. “What we get is a high volume, high quality, liquid fertiliser at a low cost and we’re able to then get

those microbes and all of those living organisms, enzymes, and plant growth hormones back into the soil. “Our soils are deteriorating, everybody knows that, and so-called modern farming practices, like the use of chemical fertilisers and heavy tilling actually degrade the quality and the productivity of our soils over time. So the fertilisers that we produce, which are rich in biology, build the soil’s ability to give increased crop yield, protect plants from disease and also increase the water retention capabilities of the soil.”

Superfood for soil At present, Circular Food manufactures two biological fertilisers under BIG BIO and has developed a prototype in Melbourne, which Morriss says, “anyone is welcome to inspect”. Circular Food’s current operation is able to produce 600,000 litres of fertiliser annually and it is sold in volumes ranging from half a litre to 1000 litres. With a further investment of $200,000, it could up its production to six million litres. While the short-term plan is to commercialise BIG BIO as well as cut its monthly cycle time from a month to a week - it is currently working with CSIRO to do just that - Morriss is looking ahead and in the longer term, it wants to duplicate Circular Food’s model in every rural and urban population centre in the country. “That way, we will be able to make the fertiliser where it’s needed because we want to minimise the amount of freight in bringing food waste into the plant and then taking the fertiliser out. If we put the plant on a franchise-type model, we will be able to duplicate and build

this 100, 200, 300 times. We can also use waste that comes straight off the farm and there is more of that than you would possibly know at the moment. It’s not talked about but there’s a lot of waste arising from the growing and production on farm,” he said. And Circular Food is in it for the long haul, which Morriss says is the kind of attitude the end user should have as well. As BIG BIO is not a “typical fertiliser” in that its make-up does not comprise large amounts of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, but instead is strong on microbial activity and enzymes and plant growth hormones, Morriss says farmers need to be aware that BIG BIO is not a quick fix, it is applied to help build long-term productive soils. “We’re targeting farmers who already understand that their best interest is to build healthy soils and then the soils look after their animals and plants. Once we’ve found those farmers, we’ll start to talk to them in a common language and it’s all about soil rejuvenation,” he said. For now, Circular Food wants to grow its business model “quickly” and Morriss is urging anyone who is interested in being involved in its growth, to get in touch. “As an industry, we need to support start-ups that are trying to do new, innovative things and build new innovative business models, particularly around meaningful pursuits and I can’t think of anything more meaningful than food waste being processed into organically certified fertiliser. That’s the message that I’d like to get out - that people strongly consider supporting these products and business model, because as a country, we need to constantly innovate and create new iw industries,” he concluded.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// Equipment

Grabbing resources By Jacqueline Ong AS waste to energy (WtE) discussions ramp up in Australia - some of these conversations can be found on www. insidewaste.com.au - one crane company has decided to capture growing opportunities by introducing a broad range of lifting and materials handling technologies specifically designed for WtE and biomass applications. In July last year, Konecranes launched its WtE cranes in Australasia. They come in three different sizes, all designed to increase the efficiency and reliability of biomass, refuse, ash, and slag handling. â&#x20AC;&#x153;We do a basic biomass crane, which uses our base product - the CXT product crane - so it becomes a basic crane with a grab,â&#x20AC;? Konecranesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; director of industrial cranes for the Pacific region, Peter Monagahan told Inside Waste. Essentially, the CXT biomass crane is a compact, fully automated and robust crane that promises to increase floor space compared to a loader conveyorbased operation, reduce noise, dust

and fuel emissions, and increase fuel storage capacity. â&#x20AC;&#x153;And then we do a purpose-built crane, which is our GL crane and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capable of anywhere between manual to fully un-manual automation. Production capacity is between 20 and 50t/hour,â&#x20AC;? Monaghan continued. â&#x20AC;&#x153;We also do the LV range, which has the same capabilities as the GL but itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s much heavier duty where youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re talking about a 1000t/day type of production facility.â&#x20AC;? Additionally, the cranes come with smart features designed to manage critical crane functions to reduce structural stress, increase efficiency and prolong the machineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lifespan. For instance, sway control minimises load sway from bridge and trolley motions, reducing collisions between the bucket and pit walls or hopper as well as preventing equipment damage. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cranes play a crucial role in waste to energy as well as other modern incineration plants where tight environmental management guidelines

are applied. A continuous material handling system with maximum safety and efficiency and minimum downtime is vital,â&#x20AC;? Monaghan said. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Our cranes are designed to maximise productivity and reduce operational expenditure. And one of the other smart features we offer is global technical connection which means that our teams in Finland and China, our crane experts, can have access to the crane at any time.â&#x20AC;? The cranes cost in excess of $1 million for a mid-range model and there is something for everyone, according to Monaghan. â&#x20AC;&#x153;You could have a very low usage crane thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only operated by an operator by a remote control and thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the CXT platform. Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve also got the GL platform for when you start to get into a process crane thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s production critical. And it goes anywhere from the manual mode to semi-automated to completely un-manual automation,â&#x20AC;? he said. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re an original equipment manufacturer so everything on the iw cranes is Konecranes.â&#x20AC;?

Koncranesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; WtE cranes can be equipped with remote monitoring amongst other features. (Credit: Konecranes)

Key features â&#x20AC;˘ Power cable of lifting device spooled on the rope drum. â&#x20AC;˘ Galvanised grid platforms on both sides. â&#x20AC;˘ Robust weighing load cell on primary end of hoist gear reducer. â&#x20AC;˘ Thrustor operated hoist brake for powers 90 and 230kW. â&#x20AC;˘ 4+12 slip rings as standard for power supply of lifting device. â&#x20AC;˘ Rope overwrap control on drum. â&#x20AC;˘ Safe operation through Sway Control. â&#x20AC;˘ Energy saving through DynAReg regenerative braking. â&#x20AC;˘ Faster lowering speeds through Extended Speed Range (ESR).

ZZZ K\YD FRP

y 7LSSLQJ VROXWLRQV y 7UXFN ORDGHU

FUDQHV

y +RRNORDGHUV y 6NLSORDGHUV y :DVWH KDQGOLQJ

HTXLSPHQW

2c`K :KMSPSM :^c 6^N

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

3K FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

Experience the Progress.

Visit us at:

Australian Landfill & Transfer Stations Conference 2017 March 29 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 30, Rosehill, NSW, Booth 12

Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd em-sales.las@liebherr.com www.facebook.com/LiebherrConstruction www.linkedin.com/company/liebherr www.liebherr.com.au

Find your Liebherr-contact

// 2017 Consultants Review

A tight race to the top

By Jacqueline Ong SIX years ago, Inside Waste launched its annual Consultants Review and over that time, it’s been a process of constant refinement. Some of you may have heard from us over the years, seeking feedback on how to improve the survey and review process. Now in its sixth year, the Inside Waste Consultants Review is far from perfect - we’d be the first to admit that - but we have worked tirelessly this year to ensure a fairer process. If you have followed the review from its inception (thank you for your support!), you’ll notice that this year, the survey was only sent to non-consultants, meaning consultancies big or small were not allowed to participate. Firms that slipped through the cracks were removed at the end of the survey. The other change we made was to ensure each person we sent the survey to was provided a unique link and unlike previous years, a general link was not offered on our website or magazine. Participants could save and return to the survey at a later date but they could not submit multiple responses or pass on the link to anyone else. The assumption we made early on was that we’d receive far fewer responses than the previous year but we were after a stronger, cleaner response from the right target market. To our surprise, and it was a pleasant surprise, we received only marginally fewer responses this year, and after taking out responses from a handful of consultants, we landed on 160 responses (in 2016, we received 164 responses). And as expected, the responses came from the appropriate stakeholders - all

levels of government (local - 40.2%, state - 5.3% and federal - 2.4%), commercial operators (4.7%) and private waste contractors (24.3%) - many of whom also offered an explanation for their chosen consultancies. Inside Waste also needed to improve its scoring system. Over the last two years, we pitted consulting firms against each other in two major categories - number of projects and project value - as well as other subcategories. Companies were divided into large and small firms and they were scored on a total of 14 questions. The top three companies with the most votes in each question were awarded points and the weight of each question was set at 20% for number of projects and project value, followed by 10% for each sub-category. This year however, companies were still divided into large and small firms but it was clear that it was simply unrealistic to expect consultants to be everything to everyone and offer the same services as each other, because they don’t (more on page 42). Thus, the overall 2017 winners were determined based on the number of votes in the number of projects and project value categories, i.e. who was winning the most work, with a weightage of 50% per question allocated. The firm that came in first was awarded three points, followed by two points for second and one for third. Their total scores were then calculated to determine the overall winner - we will get to that in a bit. Inside Waste also wanted to honour the firms that did well in specific streams, which is why this year, we are introducing awards for the firms that beat their competitors in each of the sub-categories.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

The 2017 Inside Waste Consultants Review winners On to the fun part - announcing the winners! In the large consultancy category, GHD was once again pushed to the top of the table by our readers, coming in first

for the sixth year in a row. That’s right, GHD has won every single Inside Waste Consultants Review. Congratulations for consistently impressing our readers, and for making it to the top of the leader board once again.

iw FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

2017 Consultants Review // Table 1: Top 2 large consultancies 2017 No, of projects 50%

Project value 50%

Firm

Points

IWCR Score

Firm

Points

IWCR Score

Total score

GHD

1.5

GHD

1.5

Golder

AECOM

Golder - 1.5

AECOM

0.5

Golder

0.5

AECOM - 1.5

GHD - 3

Table 2: Top 3 small consultancies 2017 No, of projects 50%

Project value 50%

Firm

Points

IWCR Score

Firm

Points

IWCR Score

Total score

MRA

1.5

Talis

1.5

Talis - 2.5

Talis

Rawtec

0.5

MRA

0.5

GHD beat Golder and AECOM in both categories (see Table 1) to become the overall winner in the large consultancy category. And much like an Olympic relay, Golder and AECOM were tied at second place, with no clear second runner-up this year. Now this is where it gets interesting. Despite not placing top three in the past

two surveys, dark horse Talis Consultants raced to the top in 2017, taking out MRA Consulting Group and Rawtec to emerge the overall winner in the small consultancy category. MRA Consulting, which held on to the crown from 2013 to 2016, placed second this year, followed by Rawtec in third (see Table 2). Congratulations once again to GHD

and Talis Consultants for winning the 2017 Inside Waste Consultants Review.

The best in… While the winners this year were determined based on the volume and value of work awarded, we also wanted to honour firms that scored well in each of the sub-categories. Thus, this year,

MRA - 2 Rawtec - 1.5 we are giving out “best in” awards. Again, firms were divided into two groups - large and small - and competed across a range of specialties. In the large consultancy subcategories, here are the firms that were voted best in: • Technology/infrastructure review and procurement: AECOM

Delivering Strategic & Infrastructure Solutions Talis Consultants are one of Australia’s leading •

Waste Strategy, Planning & Policy

Waste Management Consultancies providing the •

Resource Recovery & AWT

full range of Waste Management Consultancy •

Feasibility & Business Cases

Services to both Public and Private clients.

•

Site Selection, Due Diligence & Investigations

•

Planning & Environmental Approvals

•

Engineering Design

Waste Strategy

•

Procurement & Contract Management

•

Construction Supervision & Quality Assurance

Waste Services Contracts

•

Operations & Services Reviews

•

Community Consultation & Education

Waste Infrastructure Project

•

Waste Management Plans & Audits

•

Environmental Monitoring

Ronan Cullen | 0488 332 424 John King | 0419 923 128

info@talisconsultants.com.au | www.talisconsultants.com.au

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// 2017 Consultants Review â&#x20AC;˘ Landfill design and engineering: Golder â&#x20AC;˘ Facility design and engineering: Golder â&#x20AC;˘ Environmental/greenhouse management, reporting and compliance: GHD â&#x20AC;˘ Strategy, policy, planning and grants: AECOM and Jacobs Engineering Group â&#x20AC;˘ Tender development and evaluation: AECOM

Table 3 highlights the firms that placed second and third in each of these sections and it was a tight race this year, with a number of firms tying for second and third place in the strategy, policy, planning and grants as well as tender development and evaluation categories.

So why did these firms outshine the others? â&#x20AC;&#x153;We have used GHD several times now on several projects, more so than other firms, and they were engaged on the strength of their submissions, and past performance working for us,â&#x20AC;? said one reader when asked why GHD was selected as the top firm in the

technology/infrastructure review and procurement category. Another pointed to AECOMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;breadth of staff, location and skillsâ&#x20AC;? while one said Golder was a â&#x20AC;&#x153;specialist in waste, capable of a full range of multi-disciplined [services]. Golder works efficiently and effectively with the client and there are no massive surprise high fees.â&#x20AC;?

Table 3: Top ranking large consultancies based on services offered Technology/ infrastructure review Landfill design & & procurement engineering

Facility design & engineering

Environmental/ greenhouse management, reporting & compliance

Strategy, policy, planning & grants

Tender development & evaluation

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

AECOM

1st

Golder

1st

Golder

1st

GHD

1st

AECOM

1st

AECOM

1st

GHD

2nd

GHD

2nd

AECOM

2nd

AECOM

2nd

Jacobs Engineering Group

1st

Arcadis

2nd

Golder

3rd

AECOM

3rd

GHD

3rd

Cardno

3rd

Arcadis

2nd

Arup

2nd

Golder

3rd

Arup

2nd

Coffey

2nd

GHD

2nd

GHD

2nd

ERM

3rd

Golder Associates

2nd

Jacobs Engineering Group

2nd

Meinhardt

3rd

SLR Consulting

3rd

SMEC

3rd

Tonkin & Taylor

3rd

A leading environmental and advisory consultancy providing waste and resource recovery advice to the private and public sectors. Our experts are at the forefront of: â&#x20AC;˘ Business Case Modelling â&#x20AC;˘ Due Diligence, Expert Witness & Peer Review â&#x20AC;˘ Waste & Resource Recovery Strategic Advice â&#x20AC;˘ Infrastructure Feasibility, Design & Procurement â&#x20AC;˘ Landfill Design, Closure & Construction Support â&#x20AC;˘ Waste Facility Development Approvals & Licensing â&#x20AC;˘ Waste Asset Valuation

! "#$%

"& #%#%'

& ( & )

! " # #! ! $% $ & % ! ! # % $ & # % # & % # % #!

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

% + ( ,

(

www.slrconsulting.com | 1300 434 443 TDWASTEAU@slrconsulting.com Lono Tyson - Technical Discipline Manager global environmental and advisory solutions

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

2017 Consultants Review //

Table 4: Top ranking small consultancies based on services offered

Data management & auditing

Education & training

Reporting & compliance

Community consultation

Strategy, policy, planning & grants

Tender development & evaluation

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

Firm

Rank

A.Prince

1st

MRA

1st

EnviroCom

1st

MRA

1st

MRA

1st

MRA

1st

MRA

2nd

EnviroCom

2nd

Impact Environmental

1st

A.Prince

2nd

Rawtec

2nd

Impact Environmental

2nd

EC Sustainable

3rd

Impact Environmental

3rd

MRA

1st

Rawtec

3rd

Blue Environment

3rd

Talis Consultants

3rd

EnviroCom

3rd

Waste Audit & Consultancy Services

3rd

Rawtec

1st

Impact Environmental

3rd

A.Prince

2nd

EC Sustainable

2nd

Sustainable Resource Use

2nd

Talis Consultants

2nd

Waste Audit & Consultancy Services

2nd

Blue Environment

3rd

In the landfill design and engineering category, GHD was praised for providing “very strong” engineering designs and landfill gas management, while a reader pointed out that Golder was the only consultant that designed the “piggy back” system in Australia.

GHD’s team was also complimented by a reader who said the they were skilled and “in touch with state-specific trends in both industry and regulation.” Turning to the environmental/ greenhouse management, reporting and compliance category, Jacobs

Landfill engineering

Environmental monitoring

Construction quality assurance

Geotechnical engineering

Waste management & strategy

Resource recovery

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Engineering Group assisted one reader with data collection for a carbon audit and was complimented as being “reliable”. Cardno also received praise for its “knowledge, experience, value for money, and multi-disciplinary skilled team”. In the strategy, policy, planning and grants category, where competition was fierce, one reader said: “Jacobs Engineering Group is good with waste data that informs strategy and it has a good understanding of the EPA’s waste grants.” Over in the small consultancy sub-categories, the firms that were voted best in each service were: • Data management and auditing: A.Prince Consulting • Education and training: MRA Consulting Group • Community consultation: EnviroCom, Impact Environmental, MRA Consulting Group, and Rawtec • Reporting and compliance: MRA Consulting Group • Strategy, policy, planning and grants: MRA Consulting Group • Tender development and evaluation: MRA Consulting Group Table 4 highlights the firms that placed second and third in each of these sections and it is evident that readers were impressed with a large number of firms when it came to community consultation. “Rawtec was chosen for its knowledge of South Australian legislation and industry, as well as excellent understanding of our business from previous work undertaken,” said one reader when asked why Rawtec was selected in community consultation, while another said Impact Environmental had sound local knowledge. “Impact Environmental has the knowledge and experience, is value for money, and has a multi-

disciplinary skilled team,” added another respondent, while a reader heaped praised on A.Prince Consulting saying the firm is “recognised as an honest broker, excellent facilitator, has subject knowledge, is an experienced change agent, and has a commitment to environmental improvement.” Blue Environment was also noted as having a deep understanding of the community and a respondent said when it came to strategy, policy, planning and grants, Blue Environment produced “quality work by principal staff who are hands-on or in effective control of projects.” MRA received a fair few compliments as well. In the education and training category, one reader said MRA’s consultants were skilled in this area while another pointed to the firm being “proactive in the industry” when it came to data management and auditing. In that same category, a reader highlighted EC Sustainable’s “excellent experience in waste auditing and producing consistent reports on findings.” This year, Inside Waste received a phenomenal amount of feedback, both general and category-specific. While we are unable to publish every single comment received, we will, over the next few weeks, carry on our coverage of the review online (www.insidewaste. com.au), and this will include many of the category-specific comments, both good and bad, that we’ve received. Readers who assisted us with the survey will also receive a more detailed analysis of the results shortly, including a full list of consultants and votes garnered in each category, and further commentary on up and coming firms. More on the trends and changes over the last 12 months can be found on iw page 41.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

// 2017 Consultants Review

Expectations, wants, and needs BEFORE we delve into the bouquets and brickbats, the one thing that stood out this year was just how close a fight it was, particularly across the subcategories for both large and small firms. There were far more ties this year compared to 2015 and 2016, implying that perhaps within each sub-category, consultants and the firms they worked for, owned or operated, have, over the last 12 months honed their skills to a point where companies are today competing neck and neck in the sector and no single firm is miles ahead of the other. It is also worth noting that over the past two years, there have been a few high profile moves, from Ron Wainberg heading from Arcadis to MRA Consulting Group, to Lono Tyson returning to SLR Consulting after a stint at Remondis. That, and the comments we received about the importance of past experiences and word-of-mouth played a part in determining who won across all categories. For instance, one reader highlighted that they had picked MRA in the data management and auditing category because of Wainberg, saying: “We have worked with Ron for many years and and value his experience whilst he understands our business and data we generate. It’s all about understanding the data and he gets it.” Another notable event that occurred last year, though not a personnel move, was the pitt&sherry merger with KMH Environmental and this was reflected in the feedback. “The skillset of pitt&sherry, particularly KMH Environmental, has been exceptionally relevant to projects I have been conducting over the past 18 months. The firm has a very wide range of subject matter experts and their communication systems are excellent.” Readers as with previous years, were vocal about the firms and personalities they liked and gave a shout out to three firms that were not represented in the survey - this is a work in progress so do contact us if you missed out this year Knowwaste, Great Forest Australia, and Infrastructure Transaction Network. “Knowwaste is a fantastic auditing firm. Director James Elliman is a pleasure to work with,” one respondent said. “Infrastructure Transaction Network has real experience in waste and water contracting,” said another. “A bouquet for Great Forest Australia - provided practical advice (which has worked well) and assistance beyond contract requirements,” one reader commented.

The good and the bad As always, we were interested to find out what readers were after, what they thought made a great consulting firm and what could be improved on. One reader advised consultants to “define the end objective, and then allow the contract and documentation to evolve to suit, not the other way around” and this was backed by another comment that said: “Consultants are not focused enough on project outcomes. In particular, risk in projects needs to be fairly allocated between project participants. This concept is not well understood by many consultants who represent local government on waste contracts. This leads to poor project outcomes or no project at all.” A reader pointed to AECOM saying the firm did great work and offered good value but generally, “consultants are too expensive”. This idea of cost versus value however, has unsurprisingly been a constant theme across surveys and it is an area that is subjective and difficult to qualitatively determine. A first for Inside Waste was a comment that criticised firms with only three letters in their company names, and there are a fair few, with a respondent saying: “The poor project management/delivery demonstrated by certain three letter consultants is appalling (you know who you are). More competition is required.” “Consultants should be delivering value for you and the company you represent. Trying to second guess what your manager needs does not gel a relationship,” one reader said, and another noted that unless consultants have had “real life world experience, they are of no value.” said one reader. There were a number of insightful comments, which we will publish online in due time, but we’ll end this section with this comment we received: “The industry appears to be under quoting when putting forward a submission due to intense competition and desire to win jobs. This has required RFQs [requests for quotations] to be a bit tighter in the scope of works and has eroded some level of trust. This is more typical of the larger firms and there is a trend to build closer relationships with the smaller boutique firms where trust is considered of a larger value.”

Changes in spending And why should we care what respondents think? Because there has been a quite a bit of movement in terms of change in spending.

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

Chart 1: Change in spending Change in spending 2015-2017 (%) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Decrease more than Decrease less than 10% 10%

No change 2015

In 2017, 29.1% of respondents expect an increase in spending of more than 10%. This is compared to the 22.99% of 164 respondents (including consultants), who expected an increase in spending by more than 10% in 2016. However, 12.8% of consultants expect a decrease in spending by more

2016

Increase less than 10%

Increase more than 10%

2017

than 10% in 2017, compared to only 5.75% in 2016, while 7% expect a decrease in spending by less than 10% in 2017 compared to a much lower 4.6% in 2016. (see Chart 1). 2017 spending expectations, as seen in the chart, are similar to expectations iw in 2015.

Exceptional thinking together T+T has a long-standing reputation for delivering outstanding results. We’re Australasia’s leading environmental and engineering consultancy – as judged by the Australian Financial Review/Beaton Professional Services Awards in 2016. Our national and international award-winning engineers, scientists, planners and project managers stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the best in the world. Equally, their personal and professional values are as important to us as their internationally recognised expertise. For you, that means working alongside people with whom you can build solid, enduring relationships founded on trust. Our focus is 100 per cent on you, your needs, your project, your aspirations to create reliable, well-designed, future-proof infrastructure while maintaining a caring eye on the environment. So give us a call: T+T will ensure that your project stands proud on every level, so you can too. For further enquiries contact: Simonne Eldridge Sfeldridge@tonkintaylor.com.au Sze-Fei Peng SPeng@tonkintaylor.com.au Luke Adams LAdams@tonkintaylor.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

2017 Consultants Review //

The waste experts and their expertise ARE you on the lookout for a waste expert? We’re here to help. As we do each year, Inside Waste has put together a list of leading waste consultants Australia-wide. The information provided in this list comes directly from the consulting firms and they have detailed their key locations, areas of expertise, number of staff, and revenue breakdown by segment.

2017 CONSULTANTS

JustWaste Consulting KMH Environmental

$2M to $5M $500,000 to $2M $2M to $5M

10 90

10 2

$500,000 to $2M $10M+

10 20

30 10

•

$500,000 to $2M

•

Less than $500,000

•

Less than $500,000 $500,000 to $2M

60 13

Less than $500,000

$500,000 to $2M $500,000 to $2M $500,000 to $2M Less than $500,000 $500,000 to $2M $500,000 to $2M $500,000 to $2M $2M to $5M $2M to $5M

40 80 3

20 5

15 5 20

35 20 25 10 50

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

40 30 35 30 30

10 11 15 4 20

25 50 100

6 4 2

80 8

20 4 26

30 10

30 50

6 200 including North America 6

40 52

4 11

15 20

•

• •

•

Economic evaluation & modelling

• •

Strategy, policy & planning

• •

•

30 80 45 85 30

0.45

Website address

25 50

• •

•

Office locations

$500,000 to $2M $500,000 to $2M Less than $500,000

•

• •

Private

5 30 25 10 30

•

• •

Federal

45 40 35 60 40

•

• •

Number of staff employed in waste and resource recovery consultancy (not including contractors)

Procurement - tender development & evaluation, contract management

$2M to $5M $2M to $5M $2M to $5M Less than $500,000 $500,000 to $2M

•

Other

Environmental approvals

Education, training & community consultation

Technology/infrastructure reviews & evaluation

•

LOGICUS Environmental Management Mark Rigby & Associates Pty Ltd Meinhardt Mobius Partners OCTEC Limited Rawtec Resource Innovations SLR Consulting Talis Consultants Tonkin & Taylor

•

State

Impact Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd Iolar Consultancy Services

•

Local

Equilibrium GHD Pty Ltd

•

Percentage of the amount of revenue earned in waste and resource recovery consultancy derived from each of these sectors

Annual revenue earned in waste and resource recovery consultancy

Blue Environment Pty Ltd Bowman & Associates Eastern Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd EC Sustainable Encycle Consulting EnviroCom Australia

•

Environmental/greenhouse management, reporting & compliance

AECOM A.Prince Consulting Arcadis Australia ASK Waste Management Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

Design & engineering of facilities

COMPANY NAME

Logistics - collection & transfer studies

All care was taken in compiling this Consultants Survey. No responsibility is accepted for accuracy. While the guidelines provided to consultants by Mayfam Media stated that only demonstrable experience should be recorded, the information was provided solely by the consultant and does not present the opinions or recommendations of Mayfam Media.

Waste auditing

LISTINGS

Landfill - design, operation, gas, closure, rehabilitation, etc

SERVICES AND DETAILS

All states NSW NSW, Vic, Qld, WA WA, Indonesia Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, SA, WA, NT Vic WA Sydney

aecom.com aprince.com.au arcadis.com/en/australia askwm.com aurecongroup.com

Sydney WA Brisbane, Sydney, Orange, Melbourne, Sunshine Coast Vic, Qld National plus overseas offices (UK, Middle East, North America, Philippines) NSW

ecsustainable.com encycle.com.au envirocom.com.au

blueenvironment.com.au bowmanassociates.com.au easternenviro.com.au

eqlomg.com ghd.com

impactenviro.com.au iolar.com.au

Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Northern NSW Launceston Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, Devonport, Launceston, Hobart Tamworth, NSW

6 12 2 4 4 3 4 14 50

Qld Vic, NSW, SA, Qld NSW NSW SA Qld, NSW National, NZ WA, NSW Vic, Qld, WA

mraenvironmental.com.au meinhardt.com.au mobius.partners octec.org.au rawtec.com.au resourceinnovations.com.au slrconsulting.com talisconsultants.com.au tonkintaylor.com.au

justwaste.com.au kmh.com.au

logicusem.com

iw 42

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

Sweepers // DISAB’s dust and water-free DISA-CLEAN 130 road and area sweeper.

Dust and water-free sweepers come Down Under By Jan Arreza EUROPEAN manufacturer of industrial applications using vacuum-based technology, DISAB, has introduced a new concept for road sweepers, comprising a high vacuum cleaning system built into a road and area sweeper. Road and area sweeping tends to generate dust around the brushes and in the outgoing air from the machine. The Disa-Clean 130 promises a cleaner, high-speed, dust and

water-free operation by combining the technology of a standard sweeper with a vacuum and filter technology for industrial use. And the Disa-Clean is able to both brush and vacuum the street surface without the addition of water or chemicals for dust suppression or to aid in cleaning. Earlier this year, Australian service and equipment supplier Skala, which specialises in bulk material handling and vibratory process equipment, announced that is has been appointed the Australian

dealer for the Disa-Clean 130. Skala’s product range caters to industrial applications, which require general dust and waste removal, as well as spillage control and deep cleans, with their units made available for sale, hire, and demonstration. Skala Australia director Simon Toal told Inside Waste the decision to bring the sweepers to the country was driven by its commitment to provide a fuller service to customers. “The original enquiries came from our customers who have been telling us that they are interested in the Disa-Clean, and they have an extremely high regard for the brand, so we sought the technology for that very reason,” Toal said. “They are very well recognised and successful in Europe but they just haven’t really been able to tap into the Australian market previously for whatever reason so we saw an opportunity where we have a worldclass reputable established product that wasn’t represented in Australia. “They were a good fit and complimentary to what we already do, which is spread across the recycling, mining and bulk material handling space,” he added.

How the sweeper works The Disa-Clean 130 has a unique fourstep filter separation to secure dust-free cleaning through the entire process. This process ultimately cleans outflowing air to just 2.5 microns, with the filters cleaning them automatically whenever needed. Even smaller particles than PM10 are being completely sucked up the vacuum and not blown out in the air again. The machine also offers a One Touch Command System, which is designed to simplify sweeping managers and contract-owners’ jobs. Without curb brooms, the sweeping path is 2500mm/8.2ft, and with the addition of both left and right optional side brushes, the total sweeping width expands to 3100mm/10.17ft. The sweeper is mounted on a 13-tonne 44

INSIDEWASTE FEBRUARY 2017

chassis and the sweeper is powered by a four-cylinder turbo engine, which has an engine output of 129Kw/173hp. “One of the key differences is that it is a dry vacuum system, so it doesn’t need a supply of water to operate, which a lot of other sweepers on the market do use,” Toal reiterated. “The second major difference is that the vacuum was designed for the really fine particles of PM10 and below, which are some of the standards in Europe. “The machine is great in highly dusty areas and there are some great case studies of the machine being used on box mine sites, in ports and terminals, as well as places where bulk material handling is done. Of course, there are the standard council and urban road applications, and there is some interest coming from the power stations like your typical coal power plants.” The Disa-Clean 130 is said to also be very efficient under wet conditions and leaves the area clean and almost dry after vacuum sweeping. The sweeper is also a powerful Vacloader, which is able to suck different types of materials such as water, stone and sand with a connected eight-inch hose. “We’ve started rolling out the first units and we have units available for you to hire also,” Toal said. “We’ve started to bring them in and we’ll be showcasing the technology at some upcoming trade shows later in the year, including the Australasian Waste and Recycling Expo (AWRE). “We are also meeting with customers to find out where they are not being properly serviced now, then we can find out what we can do to overcome those problems. For us, it’s all about identifying where the shortfalls are currently, particularly if some customers already are quite fixed in their current way of doing business. “The challenge now is being able to demonstrate to the market that there is a better way of doing something, then gaining that market recognition iw and acceptance.”

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

Boschung S2 Urban-Sweeper

Dimensions: (LxWxH) 3580mm x 1140mm x 1980mm Gross weight: 2550kg Hopper capacity: 1m³ Water tank: N/A Fuel tank: N/A Turning circle: 4100mm wall-to-wall Max sweeper width: 2050mm Max speed travel & clean: 40km/h, 13km/h Key users: Ideal for councils and other municipalities cleaning pedestrian, and other urban areas. Base price: P.O.A More: www.tennantco.com.au, contactus@tennantco.com or 1300 TENNANT

Dimensions: (LxWxH) 4300 x 1150 x 1990mm Gross weight: 3500kg Hopper capacity: 2m³ /1200kg Water tank: 340L (190L fresh, 150L recycling) Fuel tank: 60L Turning circle: 6650 wall-to-wall Max sweeper width: 2300mm (2600mm with third broom) Max speed travel & clean: 45km/hr, 18km/hr Key users: ideal for streetscape, busy pedestrian areas, kerb and gutter, underground car parks and laneways. Base price: $149,500 + GST More: https://sweepex.com.au/boschung-s2-urban-sweeper.html or Steve Byrne - 0409 732 403

SweepEx Australia

636 Air Sweeper

Johnston CN401

Johnston CN201

Dimensions: (WxHxL) 1.8m x 2.5m x 5.5m Gross weight: 5500kg Hopper capacity: 4.1m3 Water tank: 825L Fuel tank: 110L Turning circle: 2950mm kerbto-kerb Max sweeper width: 3430mm Max speed travel & clean: 50km/h - sweeping 0-16km/h Key users: ideal for urban areas where a large hopper capacity and compact agility are equally important. Base price: P.O.A More: www.buchermunicipal.com.au or 03 9271 6400

Dimensions: (WxHxL) 1.31m x 1.99m x 4.27m Gross weight: 4000kg Hopper capacity: 1.8m3 (1.5 m3 payload capacity) Water tank: 425L total (175L clean & 250L recirculation) Fuel tank: 52L Turning circle: 5.02m kerb-tokerb (two-wheel steering) Max sweeper width: 3120mm Max speed travel & clean: 50kph Key users: ideal for streetscape, busy pedestrian areas, kerb and channel, underground carparks and small laneways. Base price: P.O.A More: www.buchermunicipal.com.au or 03 9271 6400

Bucher Municipal

Tennant Australia

// Product Profile: Sweepers

Bucher Municipal

Johnston VT651 Dimensions: (WxHxL) 2.24m x 3.112m x 6.44m, chassis dependent Gross weight: 9360kg, chassis dependent Hopper capacity: 6.5m3 Water tank: 1572L Fuel tank: 190L Turning circle: chassis dependent Max sweeper width: 3600mm working Max speed travel & clean: 2-15kph chassis dependent Key users: the VT651 provides the ideal balance between performance, environmental impact with applications to suit all types of sweeping environments. Base price: P.O.A More: www.buchermunicipal.com.au or 03 9271 6400

Reducing the cost of waste

Tired of replacing broken plastic bins?

Bucher Municipal

Johnston RT655 Dimensions: (WxHxL) 2.35m x 2.76m x 6.36m, chassis dependent Gross weight: 9524kg, chassis dependent Hopper capacity: 6.5m3 Water tank: 900L Fuel tank: 220L (includes 15L reserve) Turning circle: chassis dependent Max sweeper width: 3500mm working Max speed travel & clean: 2-15kph Key users: the RT655 provides an ideal solution to long low cambered roads and urban environments. In addition, the RT655 is perfectlysuited for airport applications and is utilised worldwide in this capacity. Base price: P.O.A More: www.buchermunicipal.com.au or 03 9271 6400

Order steel MGB’s

and prove the benefits Innovators in the waste equipment industry for over 20 years

Easyquip MGB bins

1300 797 543 Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

sales@easyquip.net.au FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE

THE NEW PW 24 280

Trusted. Skip after skip... After skip. Just like you, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re trusted to drive efficiency in the waste and recycling business.

0.99

FOR A LIMITED TIME THE NEW PW 24 280

FIXED FOR THE 1ST YEAR

UD Trucks new PW 24 280 was designed and developed with the local market in mind exclusively for Australian customers. The all new PW 6x4 provides new levels of traction and efficiency now available in the UD Trucks Condor range. Contact your local dealer and find out why the PW 24 280 is set to become the trusted solution in waste management operations everywhere.

Hooklift

Going the Extra Mile To find out more, contact your UD Trucks dealer on 1300 BUY A UD or visit udtrucks.com.au

*Available at participating UD Trucks dealerships to approved Business Applicants of UD Trucks Financial Services** for new UD Truck PW Condor stock vehicles on a hire purchase or chattel mortgage, with a minimum 10% deposit then: (i) 0.99% p.a. for the first 12 months followed by 2.99% p.a for the remaining 24 months over a total 36 month term; or (ii) 0.99% p.a. for the first 12 months followed by 3.99% p.a for the remaining 36 months over a total 48 month term; or (iii) 0.99% p.a. for the first 12 months followed by 4.99% p.a. for the remaining 48 months over a total 60 month, with no final balloon payments. Vehicles must be ordered between 7 November 2016 and 31 March 2017. While stocks last. Offer ends 31 March 2017. Standard fees and charges apply. Full conditions are available on application. Not available with other offers or to fleet or government buyers. UD Trucks Financial Services** reserves the right to extend or change this offer. UD Trucks Financial Services** is a trading name of Volvo Finance Australia Pty Ltd.

// Wasted Space

Spouting rubbish, telling lies We, alongside our fellow journalists from the various news outlets - I’m looking at you Washington Post and CNN, to name a few - need to apologise. We stand accused of being dishonest and publishing fake news. And just two months into the new year, we’ve already spotted coverage of some interesting (we think dodgy but hey, don’t take our word for it, dishonest media, remember?) decisions that have been made, which is no one’s fault but ours. Serves us right for exaggerating the facts, throwing in numbers and research from academics and scientists and the like that could have influenced these decisions. Reports and stories we’ve posted about litter and plastic pollution should be taken with a pinch of salt. Plastic is not polluting our oceans and waterways… we’ve just been reporting on these issues because well, slow news day you know? Clearly you should take your cue from The Sydney Festival, which ran for the best part of January. One of the installations - The Beach at the Cutaway - drew quite a bit of attention because visitors were allowed to swim through a sea of 1.1 million airfilled plastic balls. It was a popular exhibit because in landlocked Sydney, people

don’t have real beaches or anything close to large stretches of sand and sea to enjoy. Actually, the festival’s director made a good point, telling the ABC: “To have fun, to spend some time at a different type of beach is really what it’s all about.” The festival has certainly proven itself to be a visionary because if and when our oceans become severely polluted, at least people will know what they’re in for. Now, the dishonest media jumped on the story, criticising festival organisers for sending a message that promoted plastic consumption and creating millions of materials that negatively impacted the environment. But The Sydney Festival has a sustainability policy so we’re sure they know what they’re doing. Also, they did say the plastic balls were going to be recycled, completely justifying manufacturing them in the first place. Then we turn to Captain Cheeto in America. Scientists and academics are wrong. Climate change is a Chinese hoax. And who can blame US President Donald Trump for thinking that? After all, everything these days is made in China. He’s declared that global warming is “fictional” and “bullsh*t”, pointing to

plunging temperatures in 2014 as proof that global warming isn’t real. Then again, global warming is misleading. It should just be called situational warming because it certainly is real in County Clare, Ireland where Trump has a golf course and has filed for permission to build a wall - Jesus Christ. Not another one - to protect the property from rising sea levels (he

invoked the dangers of climate change in his bid). Trump has declared that he would cancel the Paris climate agreement because it’s bad for business so it’ll be an interesting year or four ahead for the environment. Two months in, 10 to go. We can’t wait to see what other interesting decisions are made this year.

DIARY March 27-30 2017 Australian Landfill & Transfer Stations Conference Rosehill Gardens, Sydney NSW Landfills and transfer stations play an integral role in the waste management industry, providing avenues for materials aggregation and separation, resource recovery, and final disposal. The innovation, design, operation, regulation, and safety of these facilities are all paramount to the services they offer and the future growth areas where services can be expanded and efficiencies gained. WMAA’s premier national event will on the areas that matter. www.landfill.com.au May2-4 Waste 2017 Opal Cove Resort, Coffs Harbour NSW First established back in 1996, the Coffs Harbour Waste Management Conference is now well regarded as the leading waste management conference in Australia. Well-known as the ‘Coffs Conference’ or the ‘Coffs Waste Conference’, this prestigious event will be held in Coffs Harbour from May 2-4, 2017 and will feature two full days of presentations, a comprehensive trade exhibition and social events on three evenings providing invaluable networking opportunities. www.coffswasteconference.com.au

May 10-12 AORA National Conference Mercure Grosvenor Adelaide The highly popular AORA National Conference for the organics recycling and composting industry showcased over three days includes workshops, networking opportunities, professional development, keynote speakers, panels, case studies, focused sessions, the National Awards gala dinner, and site tours. www.aora.org.au/nationalconference August 23-24 Australasian Waste & Recycling Expo Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre The Australasian Waste & Recycling Expo (AWRE) is the most established commercial event dedicated to the Australasian waste and recycling marketplace. The event brings together the industry to generate quality sales leads; discover the latest trends; showcase innovation; network with key waste and recycling decision makers from industry and government; and attend high quality practical seminars and workshops. www.awre.com.au

Weekly news updates at www.insidewaste.com.au

FEBRUARY 2017 INSIDEWASTE