Inside Waste June 2023

How to up the return rates for CDS

By Inside Waste

WITH most states and territories having, or about to have, a container deposit scheme (CDS) in place, is it time to turn our attention to honing the system? Should spirit and wine bottles be added?

All glassware for that matter? What about upping the refund rate? Is there enough infrastructure to handle volumes?

These and a few other subjects were discussed at a panel during the Waste 2023 Conference held at Coffs Harbour in northern New South Wales. On hand were Robert Kelman, director Reloop; Michelle Mandl, general manager communications, customer, and engagement from TOMRA Cleanaway; Danielle Smalley, CEO of Exchange for Change; Alex Young, director, container deposit scheme, NSW Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and Shaun Fraser, general manager – operations, Container Exchange. When the NSW CDS was first mooted, objectives identified to be fulfilled included:

• reducing container litter;

• making it a producer responsibility model;

• making it a complement to kerbside collections;

• making it cost effective – something that wouldn’t be costly to the NSW government; and

• having a tracking system applied so invested parties could see how successful, or not, the scheme was being implemented.

Have those objectives been met?

“I would say, in NSW yes,” said the EPA’s Young. “That’s my opinion, but it’s also the proof in the pudding. If we look at the data that we have – and we do have very good data out of the scheme – what we know is that we are tracking well. We’ve got over 600 return points, which is significantly more than the minimum required in the legislation. We’ve collected more than 9.3 billion containers, so we’re seeing good collection rates, and we’ve reduced litter by 53 per cent.”

Young also points out that the redemption rate is double that from the kerbside recovery, which was the main collection method before the implementation of the scheme.

Danielle Smalley is also happy

with the way the scheme has been implemented. The CEO of Exchange for Change answers to a board made up of some of the biggest beverage manufacturers in Australia including Coopers Brewery, Coca-Cola, Asahi and Lion. While happy with the current scheme in terms of its remit, she believes there is room for improvement, especially when it comes to harmonisation among the states.

“For suppliers, I think in the interest of continuous improvement, we need to make it easier for them to participate,” she said. “There are slight differences in all jurisdictions in terms of what’s eligible. If you are a supplier of beverages in all the different jurisdictions, you’ve got to report your volumes in different portals. You also get different invoices and there’s different pricing. For suppliers, that’s incredibly frustrating. Also, I’ll say that the announcement of wine bottles [being introduced to the scheme] in one state, without all states going in, has not sent a very strong message around the commitment to harmonisation.”

(Continued on page 21)

30

Disaster waste

32 Why definitions matter 38 NPRS: Yay or Nay?

Reset needed for a brighter future

By Richard Kirkman

THREE years ago, I landed on these shores fresh from working for more than 25 years for the utilities sector in Northern Europe. I have seen many positive changes in the resource recovery landscape since I arrived, but there remains, in my opinion, the need to pivot the ambition of the circular economy supply chain, and this will mean change for all those involved. But this change will create a massive opportunity for commercial growth and environmental gains.

A recent article published in Inside Waste caught my eye, because it unjustly criticised the government and Environment Protection Agency (EPA), who have in recent times demonstrated a bold shift in the right direction. I think our sector needs to cease this negative public narrative and focus its efforts solely on collaboration with governments, co-design with regulators, and cohabitation of the environmental space with campaigners – because we are all on the same side and want the same outcomes.

It is absurd to criticise strong government leadership and progressive EPA policy when it’s focused on delivery of the environmental infrastructure that the industry agrees is needed. As an example, the NSW policy around energy from waste (EfW) plants will allow NSW to get moving on these complex projects now.

(Continued on page 26)

The panel from left to right: Shawn Fraser, GM operations Container for Change; Danielle Smalley, CEO Exchange for Change; Alex Young, director container deposit scheme NSW EPA; Robert Kelman, director Reloop; and Michelle Mandl, GM communications, customer and engagement TOMRA Cleanaway.

3-Stage Grinding Process

Provides Faster Reduction

Astec - Peterson's powerful up-turn 3-stage grinding process provides better fracturing of material and a more consistent product, giving you just the product your buyers are looking for.

The Impact Release System

Protects Your Investment

Astec - Peterson's patented Impact Release System's air bags provides uniform grinding and protection from contaminated feedstock, a feature unique to Astec - Peterson grinders.

The Impact Cushion System

The Second Line of Defence

Urethane cushions and shear pins help protect the mill from catastrophic damage in the event of a severe impact from contaminants in the feedstock.

Astec - Peterson offers horizontal grinders from 433-839 kW, offering grinding solutions with output at the lowest cost per ton. Visit us at www.astecindustries.com and see why we have been leading the industry for over 35 years!

Land clearing, mulch, compost, asphalt shingle tiles, scrap wood, biomass, green waste-we can handle it am

2710D Horizontal Grinder

Portable 6 Efficient

Engine 433 kW or 570 kW

Length 1612 cm

Weight 30900 kg

Feed Opening 153 x 81 cm

5710D Horizontal Grinder

High Production with Consistent Sizing

Engine 722 kW

Length 1800 cm

Weight 42184 kg

Feed Opening 152 x 102 cm

Astec - Peterson is represented by Komatsu Forest in Australia and New Zealand, providing industry-leading product support and expertise.

6710D Horizontal Grinder

Largest Grinder with Highest Output

Engine 839 kW

Length 1860 cm

Weight 48987 kg

Feed Opening 168 x 127 cm

Komatsu Forest Pty Ltd.

11/4 Avenue of Ame ricas

Newington NSW 2127 Australia

T: +61 2 9647 3600

E: info.au@komatsuforest.com

A feast of info but where were the pollies?

HATS off to Greg Freeman and the team at the Waste 2023 Expo in Coffs Harbour. It was the second time I’ve been to the event, and like last year there was plenty happening in terms of exhibitors and seminars.

Subjects covered included container deposit schemes, rural and regional waste management, disaster waste management, education, social enterprise, procurement, MUDs, illegal dumping –and a whole lot more. It was impossible to get to every seminar as several were running concurrently but those I did manage to get to, were well worth attending.

Topics that caught my eye were updates on the CDS schemes, disaster waste management, as well as infrastructure and development, to name a few. A key to any successful event is that the seminars are only as good as those who are hosting and doing the talking. Freeman and his team have a canny knack of getting the right people for the right topics, with audience participation and engagement high on the agenda (when time allowed).

In this issue (and the following one), I’ll take a deep dive into some of the topics that were covered over the three days of the event. You know you’ve come to the right place when you constantly find new angles on old issues. There were plenty to be had.

The only criticism I would have of the

Chief Operating Officer Christine Clancy christine.clancy@primecreative.com.au

Managing Editor Mike Wheeler mike.wheeler@primecreative.com.au

Brand Manager Chelsea Daniel chelsea.daniel@primecreative.com.au

Design Production Manager Michelle Weston michelle.weston@primecreative.com.au

Design Blake Storey, Kerry Pert, Tom Anderson

Client Success Manager Glenn Delaney glenn.delaney@primecreative.com.au

Head Office

Prime Creative Pty Ltd 379 Docklands Drive Docklands VIC 3008 Australia p: +61 3 9690 8766 enquiries@primecreative.com.au www.insidewaste.com.au

Subscriptions +61 3 9690 8766 subscriptions@primecreative.com.au

event (and whether that is due to the organisers or not I have no idea) is the lack of state or federal politicians. This is just not the case with Coffs Harbour, but most waste conferences and expos I’ve been to have had a severe lack of those with the purse strings. There were proxies of sorts (NSW EPA CEO Tony Chappel turned up to a well-attended keynote address), but since Trevor Evans got voted out of office the absence of politicians has been noticeable. Cynics would say, ‘so what? Who wants them there anyway?’ Going by the undercurrent at most seminars, we all do. Government decision-making was mentioned at many of the big seminars, and lack of government involvement, or at least engagement, was mentioned as the number one reason why some of the issues covered off this time around had been on the agenda 25 years ago at the same event.

A lot of politicians can talk the talk on the hustings when it comes to an election, but walking the walk once the placards have been put away and the work begins, can be a different story. We know politicians are busy people but engaging with the community whose portfolio you’ve been handed should be a key driver of success. This barb just isn’t aimed at the various state and federal ministers in power, but their shadow counterparts, too.

Here’s hoping one or two might turn up at the next event.

Inside Waste is available by subscription from the publisher. The rights of refusal are reserved by the publisher

Articles

All articles submitted for publication become the property of the publisher. The Editor reserves the right to adjust any article to conform with the magazine format.

Copyright

Inside Waste is owned by Prime Creative Media and published by John Murphy. All material in Inside Waste is copyright and no part may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical including information and retrieval systems) without written permission of the publisher. The Editor welcomes contributions but reserves the right to accept or reject any material. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, Prime Creative Media will not accept responsibility for errors or omissions or for any consequences arising from reliance on information published. The opinions expressed in Inside Waste are not necessarily the opinions of, or endorsed by the publisher unless otherwise stated.

Get clarity with Cooee

Morwell company fined $40k over illegal dumping

A MORWELL waste management company has been fined $40,000 for failing to comply with the requirements of a clean-up notice at a site has been and ordered to remove the waste by the end of July this year.

Dasma Environmental Pty Ltd must remove waste from a site at Monash Way in Morwell including all mixed plastic, metal, and relocate it to a premises authorised by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Victoria.

Dasma, appearing in the LaTrobe Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty to contraventions of requirements of a clean-up notice issued under the Environment Protection Act 1970, and was fined $40,000 without conviction. In addition, costs were awarded to the EPA.

The EPA issued a clean-up notice in 2018 directing that Dasma remove waste materials from the Monash Way

site and dispose of them at a premises licensed to accept industrial waste. This notice had not been complied with by the required date.

Dasma had issued judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria challenging the notices’ validity on the basis that the stockpiled material was not ‘waste’ or ‘industrial waste’ under the EP Act 1970. The EPA’s position, that materials held by the company were waste, was subsequently upheld.

The company took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeal awarded costs to EPA. Dasma had conducted clean-up of waste at Monash Way following the Court of Appeal’s judgement, however EPA inspections found that materials remained.

Failure to comply with a clean-up notice has cost a company $40,000.

Cooee intuitively captures real-time data, saving time and money with easy reporting via customisable dashboards.

Accurate data drives good decisions, so you can check waste quantities and revenues at a glance, seamlessly manage tip passes and even work in off-line environments.

AFGC’s NPRS

THE Australian Food & Grocery Council’s (AFGC) CEO Tanya Barden has called for urgent solutions to soft plastics recycling in Australia.

“A systemic challenge faced by REDcycle was the lack of domestic infrastructure to process soft plastic materials, and a lack of end-markets, which unfortunately led to the stockpiling issues we see reported in the media. This is a challenge the waste and resource recovery industry still faces today,” she said. “The REDcycle scheme was ambitious and well-intended, but the initiative relied heavily on the public’s willingness to return their soft plastics waste to store, and at its peak, was only capturing roughly four percent of soft plastics recycling in circulation.

“While work is continuing on a shortterm solution to REDcycle’s suspension, the Australian Food and Grocery Council is spearheading a more robust, industryled solution to deal with large-scale collection and recycling: The National Plastics Recycling Scheme, or NPRS.”

She said that the NPRS tackles the problem at the kerbside, providing

consumers with a more convenient way to recycle their soft plastics, taking it out of the waste streams and giving it new life, as part of a new advanced recycling industry in Australia that can turn used soft plastics back into new food-grade packaging.

“We know this can be done,” said Barden. “The scheme has recently completed a successful trial of over 7,000 households held in six council areas across Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales.

Barden also said that data from the trials indicates people who had not used REDcycle’s store drop-off scheme have started recycling household soft plastics via the NPRS trials. The AFGC data shows that 60 per cent of respondents said they had previously used store drop-off for their soft plastics, while a handful had used drop-off options at other locations, such as council depots.

“We’re now looking to expand the trials into larger-scale pilots, with a further 100,000+ households set to join the scheme from late 2023,” said Barden.”

Munaf Al-Sarray convicted of supplying information about waste knowing that the information was false or misleading

On 31 March 2022, Mr Munaf Al-Sarray, an employee of Ace Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd, was convicted by the Land and Environment Court of NSW of two o ences of supplying information about waste knowing that the information was false or misleading in a material respect, pursuant to s144AA(2) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).

In April and June 2017, Mr Al-Sarray supplied a total of approximately 414 weighbridge disposal dockets (also known as tipping dockets) which variously misrepresented or falsely recorded the source of asbestos and other waste deposited in two land ll facilities. For both o ences, the weighbridge disposal dockets were supplied by Mr Al-Sarray to two separate entities in relation to two separate development sites located in Wolli Creek and Zetland in Sydney, respectively.

Mr Al-Sarray was prosecuted by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and pleaded guilty to the two o ences. He was sentenced to:

(1) Pay a combined ne of $270,000 (being $135,000 for each o ence); and

(2) Ordered to pay the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s legal costs of the proceedings.

is notice was placed by order of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

Report on Australian refund schemes released

THE first review of all of Australia’s drink bottle and can 10c refund laws release recently, assessed the performance of each state and territory and examines future challenges.

‘’Once opposed by the beverage industry, the Container Refund Schemes (CRS) are now broadly supported and have a crucial role to play in developing Australia’s circular economy as they deliver billions of drink containers for recycling each year. Nevertheless, all can do with some improvements, and we should be aiming for 90+ per cent return rates, well above the current national 65 per cent,’’ said Jeff Angel, director of the Total Environment Centre.

The study uses 24 criteria across a range of areas – broad operation including recycling rates; type, number and convenience of refund points; litter reduction; governance and accountability; and economics.

‘’While caution needs to be exercised in comparing each jurisdiction because some are more mature than others, there are some clear points of difference that are either weaknesses that should be targeted for improvement or lessons from other states.’’

Examples include:

• Australia’s oldest CRS in South

Australia has problems with governance, accountability and credibility of data on recycling rates and costs. Newer schemes are improved on these factors.

• NSW has the best level of refund point convenience for metro consumers and households, while Qld has the worst.

• WA has a good Strategic Plan and

a clear target, but other states and territories don’t.

‘’All schemes have made major inroads into drink container litter, and increasingly the collected glass and plastic bottles are being converted back into drink containers helping build a domestic circular economy as the assured supply of quality material is provided by the CRSs,” Angel said. “Also it’s important to push the pace for improvement on all schemes with inclusion of wine and spirit glass bottles and larger containers; increasing the participation rate particularly with apartment dwellers and the food service sector; and more refund points at major retail sites.

‘’Eventually Australia should be achieving a 90 per cent plus recycling rate, which would improve the climate, circular economy, financial and litter benefits.’’

Critics say the 65 per cent return rate for containers is nowhere near high enough.

to trial hydrogen powered truck

REMONDIS Australia will trial one of the world’s first zero-emission, hydrogenpowered waste collection trucks as part of

its commercial operations.

The trial of the hydrogen-powered truck could be the precursor for a roll-out of zero-emission heavy vehicles across REMONDIS’ global network and be a catalyst for other fleet businesses to follow suit.

Developed by Hyzon Motors ANZ in Australia and made available to REMONDIS under an agreement announced in Melbourne, the truck’s fuel cell electric engine relies on hydrogen funnelled from specially made tanks, which combines with air to generate electricity that powers the truck.

The Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) technology only results in water vapour emissions.

The truck is scheduled to be trialled in the Illawarra region of New South Wales from mid-2023, the first time such a truck has been trialled under commercial conditions in Australia.

“REMONDIS committing to this trial is a watershed moment as countries around the world try to shift to zero-emission transport outcomes,” REMONDIS Australia Chairman Björn Becker said.

“It is a big step to invest in putting a zero-emission waste collection truck to the test in a commercial setting.

“Although we can’t pre-empt the trial outcomes, we’ve certainly placed a stake in the zero-emission space.

“A best-case scenario could be gradually replacing our global dieselpowered trucks with zero-emission trucks, which could set the scene for other companies to do the same.

“At the very least we’ll collect unprecedented information about what it takes to get closer to fleet decarbonisation.”

REMONDIS NSW South Coast Region Manager Chris Wade said the goal was to have the zero-emission truck

match the capabilities of same-sized diesel-powered trucks.

“Efficiency is critical when it comes to waste collection, so we’ll be paying close attention to how the truck performs compared to our diesel trucks,” Wade said.

Wade added that refuelling will be conducted at the Coregas facility at Port Kembla and is expected to take about 20 minutes.

Hyzon’s heavy-duty garbage truck has been designed against the industry benchmark of a 200-kilometre range and 1,500 bin lifts per working day.

Last year, Hyzon announced the development of Australia’s first purposebuilt assembly plant in Melbourne’s SouthEast to manufacture hydrogen-powered trucks, including this one.

The truck has been developed in partnership with Superior Pak, an Australian manufacturer of mobile waste collection and compaction equipment.

REMONDIS chairman Björn Becker (left) and Hyzon’s ANZ president international operations John Edgley.

Investing in a world class circular economy

To achieve Australia’s commitment to deliver a net zero emissions economy by 2050, cuts from emissions need to be made anywhere they can – from the way we build to how we recycle. Unlocking the untapped value of what is considered ‘waste’ has significant potential to deliver on a more sustainable, low-emissions built environment.”

Mac Irvine Director, Alternative Fuels

cefc.com.au

BINGO’s new safety measures with ROBINGO

WHILE critical controls are in place to manage safety risks in operations, a desire to further eliminate any risk to people at site saw waste/recycling specialist BINGO Industries start developing its first AI spotter last year. Once fully operational, the AI robot, called ROBINGO, will take over some of the high-risk tasks that are carried out by the recycling centre spotters.

“We are really excited to have received our AI prototype, which we are currently testing at our sites,” said Declan Hogan, Chief Information Officer. “The robot is equipped with cameras to identify any hazardous materials on the tipping floor and its accuracy will be greater than the human eye due to the AI technology.

“The robot creates a 3D scan of a waste pile using three cameras – one infrared camera to detect temperature, one camera to see depth and another

normal camera that provides colour.

“A spotter’s role is to monitor and direct traffic on the tipping floor at recycling centres and transfer stations, and inspect the loads to ensure hazardous materials aren’t included. The task means that they often come in proximity of moving vehicles, requiring strict communication between the individuals operating the heavy machinery and the spotters.

“The introduction of ROBINGO will significantly reduce any exposure to heavy machinery, which is a great safety improvement and outcome.”

The end goal for the AI robot is to identify each material type in a customer bin to safely prevent any hazardous materials entering the recycling process. It will also provide BINGO customers with improved waste and recycling reporting as it learns more about the many waste streams

the company receives at its advanced recycling facility MPC2, at Eastern Creek in Western Sydney.

In the past five years, AI deep learning has progressed, enabling the creation of robots like the 3D camera equipped with an AI machine. With

its advanced algorithms and the ability to utilise low-cost off-the-shelf components, it stands as a testament to the rapid development and of AI technology.

BINGO aims to have AI robots operating at all sites in the coming years.

ROBINGO uses AI to identify hazardous materials on the tipping floor.

Queensland to add wine/spirit bottles to its CDS

in November 2018 providing 10-cent refunds for eligible drink containers and hit the five billion container milestone in July 2022.

Many regions across the state broke their records for numbers of containers returned before Christmas, while Brisbane residents started the new year in green spirit, returning 17.4 million containers in the first week of January alone.

More than 150 million containers were refunded across the state in January 2023, with more than $15 million refunded to individuals, community groups and charities.

“A complex system like CDS has many moving parts,” Parker said. “The Queensland success is a testament to the efforts of COEX taking steps to expand the scheme with more facilities across the state.

“And, of course, to Queenslanders for making smart choices with their drinks packaging to support sustainability.

“We’re glad to see these successes – particularly the impressive amount of containers Queenslanders returned this summer, which helps schemes to keep containers out of landfill and put millions of dollars back into consumers’ pockets.”

are about more than just preventing littering and keeping containers out of landfill, but about obtaining and reusing quality materials to support a sustainable, circular economy.”

Queensland Environment Minister Meaghan Scanlon visited one of the state’s newest container refund points at Dundowran in Hervey Bay. The site employs six locals and more than 4.5 million containers have been returned through the depot since opening in late 2022.

CONTAINERS for Change celebrated the six billionth drink container returned through the network of more than 360 container refund points in Queensland, following a record-breaking summer for the scheme. Now there is a call for spirit and wine bottles to be added.

Containers for Change was launched

The Australian Beverages Council, Limited (ABCL), which has contributed to the design of container deposit schemes (CDS) across Australia, celebrated the Queensland milestone.

Geoff Parker, Chief Executive Officer ABCL, said it’s pleasing to see strong uptake of container deposit schemes.

Parker said as more collection sites open across Queensland it’s timely to look at expanding the program to include a wider variety of recyclable food and beverage containers, including wine and spirits bottles.

“The ABCL believes container deposit schemes such as Containers for Change

Scanlon praised Hervey Bay locals for their support of Containers for Change, adding that enthusiasm for container recycling is high across the state.

For several months Queenslanders had a chance to have their say about the possible expansion of the scheme to include wine and spirit bottles via a government survey that was in the public domain.

Spirit bottles have gone under the CDS radar - that’s no longer the case in QLD.

From the CEO’s desk

Are our attention spans so short we have forgotten the lessons of China’s National Sword?

Environment Ministers will meet for the second time this year on 7 December, following the rst 2018 Meeting of Environment Ministers (MEM) in April, which was in part a response to the import restrictions driven by China’s National Sword Policy and the e ects this policy has had across the Australian waste and resource recovery (WARR) industry. Key decisions derived from the April MEM

The collapse of the REDCycle program has brought into sharp relief the urgent need for national leadership and action to hold brand owners and the packaging industry to account. For too long, these producers and generators of waste materials have avoided responsibility for end-of-life product management, with councils and communities often left to deal with the challenges and cost of dealing with a growing stream of low-value, high-complexity materials.

•Reducing waste generation, endorsing a target of 100% of Australian packaging being recyclable, compostable or reusable by 2025, and developing targets for recycled content in packaging.

• Increasing Australia’s domestic recycling capacity.

• Increasing the demand for recycled products.

• Exploring opportunities to advance waste-to-energy and waste-to-biofuels.

•Updating the 2009 Waste Strategy by year end, which will include circular economy principles.

There are approximately 3.5 million tonnes of plastics in circulation in Australia, of which 449,000 tonnes of soft plastics are in the packaging to consumer space, according to APCO, which is roughly one-third of all packaging plastics. This is low value material that in Australia is generally polymers (2), (4) and (5). REDCycle is no more, so how do we collect these materials and solve this current challenge?

It is time to take stock and examine what has been achieved since these decisions were announced. Now, seven (7) months may not seem like a long time, however in that time we have seen further markets close (Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam) and if you are an operator under continued nancial stress, seven (7) months could make or break you.

If Australia genuinely wants to address soft plastics, or any material challenge for that matter, it’s going to need genuine market settings and robust policy to get us there. So what are these? At first instance, we need to stop pretending that a collection system is a recycling system. While it may have been ignorance at first, China’s National Sword should have taught us that recycling does not simply occur by placing an item in a bin. Despite our best hopes, the recycling fairies never seem to want to make an appearance; it takes concerted effort, investment, and systems to create the demand pull to recover, recycle, and remanufacture this material back into the marketplace. As such, we need the Commonwealth Government to use its powers under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020 to establish a mandatory product stewardship scheme for soft plastics that is:

• fully funded by those importing, producing, and selling the material;

Following the April MEM, we have had three (3) states step in with varying degrees of nancial assistance for industry (councils and operators). This should be expected considering almost all states (except Queensland and Tasmania) have access to signi cant waste levy income each year. On the eastern seaboard, Victoria has approximately $600 million in waste levy reserves in the Sustainability Fund and NSW raises more than $700 million per annum from the waste levy. There is certainly no lack of funds that can be reinvested into our essential industry.

Funding helps but as we know, the money goes a much longer way with Government support and leadership, as well as appropriate policy levers.

• accessible to the community via a network of separation at source, retail and community drop off points. With more than 1,000 drop off points in operation for container refund schemes nationally, this is a terrific network that can also be used for this purpose and can be enhanced further with the almost 200 supermarket locations that were previously in existence under the REDCycle scheme;

VICTORIA

• supported by mandatory CEFLEX design standards and national packaging targets, including stronger enforceable targets for recycled content; and

• accompanied by an ongoing consumer education program.

Victoria has arguably been the most active and earnest in supporting the industry post-China, with two (2) relief packages announced to support the recycling industry, valued at a total of $37 million. The Victorian Government has also gone above and beyond all others states by announcing it would take a leadership role in creating market demand for recycled products.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

WMRR is calling for a real EPR scheme and if you want to know what an EPR is not, then you only need to turn your attention to what is currently being proposed by the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) through their National Plastics Recycling Scheme (NPRS). With serious reservations held about both its effectiveness and its longevity, WMRR rejects its claim to have “secured broad support from local government and industry” for its proposed scheme. This claim is not accurate. Industry and local government representatives have voiced a range of concerns about the proposed NPRS, not least that it appears to be “product stewardship” in name only,

Government announced a $12.4 million support package comprising $2 million of additional expenditure, $5 million additional funding for a loan scheme, together with targeted funding from the Green Industries SA budget. The Government has also o ered grants for recycling infrastructure.

NEW SOUTH WALES

At rst glance, New South Wales’ eye-watering $47 million recycling support package was heralded as the spark of hope industry needed. However, on closer inspection, the bulk of this package that was funded via the Waste Less, Recycle More initiative and therefore the waste levy, was not new, making it very di cult for stakeholders, including local government, to utilise the funds as they were already committed to other activities. Some of the criteria proposed by the NSW EPA also made it challenging for industry to apply to these grants. On the plus side, e orts are being made by the NSW Government to stimulate demand for recycled content through the intergovernmental agency working groups that have been established, though no tangible increase in demand or facilities have developed… Yet.

QUEENSLAND

Unlike its neighbours, Queensland did not provide any nancial support to

with councils expected to cover much of the cost and all the risk. Simply getting media bytes does not overcome these systemic failures and does not paint the full picture.

Such a scheme needs to be backed by regulation and have independent oversight to ensure that the objects of the scheme and the funding are met, and there is enforceable producer responsibility. Australia has seen success first-hand of doing this correctly through the establishment of CDS, which have created significant jobs and investment, as well as a high value clean stream of materials for resource recovery.

industry however the Queensland Government has embarked on the development of a waste management strategy underpinned by a waste disposal levy to increase recycling and recovery and create new jobs. The State will re-introduce a $70/ tonne land ll levy in March 2019. There are also strong attempts to use policy levers (levy discounts and exemptions) to incentivise the use of recycled material and make it cost competitive with virgin material. However, little has been done to establish new markets and Government has not taken the lead in the procurement of recycled material. There are grants available for resource recovery operations in Queensland although no monies have been allocated to assist in 2018. This is troubling as Queensland rolled out its Container Refund Scheme on 1 November, which will likely impact the cost and revenue models of the State’s MRFs – as we have seen most recently in NSW.

The REDCycle scheme failed not because of its collection system but because of the lack of market demand for the secondary raw materials that were being produced, which meant that there was little investment in processing facilities. Similarly, the AFGC scheme fails to deliver any actual market demand and worse, has no real facilities (that take at least three years to gain approval and build). Rather, it signals potential stockpiles, cost transfer, and more promises.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The Western Australian Government set up a Waste Taskforce in direct response to the China National Sword. As part of this announcement, the State Government urged all local councils to begin the utilisation of a three (3)-bin system - red for general waste, yellow for recyclables and green for organic waste - over the coming years to reduce contamination. While this taskforce is a step in the right direction, we are yet to see any tangible results from it or any funding for industry. In October, the WA Waste Authority released its draft Waste Strategy to 2030, which comprises a comprehensive and detailed roadmap towards the State’s shared vision of becoming a sustainable, low-waste, circular economy.

I often hear that it is a “chicken and egg’ scenario when it comes to facilities and input materials. I do not accept this. Councils have demonstrated how to do this - go to market with lead times for buying back this recycled content (that is, show us the market demand) and we will build the reprocessing and create the collection system to achieve the input. In the absence of this what do we get? Stockpiles! And no EPA will allow us to stockpile amounts of plastic (flammable materials) for uncertain periods.

APCO’s 2020 Roadmap states that developing a circular economy for soft plastics is hampered by the material’s diversity, complexity, single-use nature, and low market value. Phasing out, or redesigning problematic formats, is an important part of the solution while kerbside collection of soft plastics can cause significant processing problems at MRFs. Further research is required to determine the most effective and efficient way to collect, including expanded drop-off systems, additional collections must be implemented in conjunction with an end-market demand solution.

COMMONWEALTH

Following the MEM in April, Australia now has a new Federal Environment Minister, Melissa Price, who in October reiterated to media MEM’s commitment to explore waste to energy as part of the solution to the impacts of China’s National Sword, which is troubling (EfW is not a solution to recycling). The Commonwealth has also backed the Australian Recycling Label and endorsed the National Packaging Targets developed by the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), which has to date, failed to incorporate industry feedback in the development of these targets. To the Commonwealth’s credit, there has been signi cant coordination in reviewing the National Waste Policy, with the Department of Environment bringing together industry players and States during the review process.

With almost three years elapsing, there does not appear to have been further research conducted. Instead, we have seen an opportunistic and selective interpretation of some overseas schemes for soft plastics that are funded, involve design standards and end markets, being selectively deployed as a way of attempting to look like real stewardship but only absolving producers of responsibility. They also fail to address the system failure, which includes the economic and design challenges.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of addressing the critical gaps highlighted by APCO and others (design standards, technology, markets, funding) if we are to avoid further stockpiling and landfilling issues. WMRR is hopeful that the Commonwealth will urgently address the system and not continue to fall into the trap of the prior government of simply focusing on collection systems without putting equal or greater focus on waste avoidance and minimisation at the design and production stages, and on end market development.

The updated Policy will now go before Environment Ministers on 7 December. The Commonwealth can play a key role – one that goes beyond the development of the National Waste Policy. WMAA is supportive of the Federal Government maximising the levers it has, including taxation and importation powers, to maintain a strong, sustainable waste and resource recovery industry.

AHEAD OF MEM 2

It really is urgent that the response to soft plastics is a mandatory scheme, imposing binding obligations on all brand owners using soft plastic packaging to avoid waste, to reuse materials captured through the scheme, and to cover the cost and risk of managing the recovered soft plastics, with ideally, independent oversight. As a sector, I hope that we don’t fall for the hype and instead keep our eye on the system.

Gayle Sloan, Chief Executive Officer, WMRR

There may be movement across Australia, with some states doing better than others, but the consensus is, progress is still taking way too long. It is evident that there are funds available in almost all States to assist with developing secondary manufacturing infrastructure, however the only way that this will really happen is if there is government leadership around mandating recycled content in Australia now, not later.

Voluntary schemes like the Used Packaging NEPM, under which APCO is auspiced, are not working. We have 1.6million tonnes of packaging waste in Australia, which needs to be used as an input back into packaging. Barriers to using recycled content in civil infrastructure must be identi ed and removed, and Government must lead in this eld and prefer and purchase recycled material. A tax on virgin material should also be imposed as it is overseas. MEM must show strong leadership on this issue. Ministers have, since April, dealt directly with operators and councils that are under stress and we have a chance to create jobs and investment in Australia at a time when manufacturing is declining. Ministers have the opportunity to be leaders of today, not procrastinators – leaders of tomorrow and we are urging

Roads to Reuse for local governments

Roads to Reuse products are recycled road-base and recycled drainage rock. Recycled road-base – or crushed recycled concrete – consists largely of concrete produced from the crushing and screening of construction and demolition (C&D) waste.

C&D waste makes up about half of WA’s waste stream and can be recycled for reuse across the supply chain. The scheme enables C&D recycled product producers to meet local government project resourcing and sustainability needs, while improving waste diversion rates.

$5 incentive payment for each tonne of Roads to Reuse product sourced from an accredited supplier.

$35,000 payment cap per local government (equating to 7,000 tonnes of product).

A number of state and local government areas have now successfully used Roads to Reuse materials in their construction and remediation projects.

Find out how you can benefit by harnessing the C&D waste stream at wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/roads

Photos: (top): Truck loading at WA Recycling in Hazelmere, which recycles up to 350,000 tonnes of C&D waste each year. (bottom): The City of Gosnells Crescent Shared Path project used 300 tonnes of recycled road-base during its construction. For full terms and conditions of program see wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/roads

How to up the return rates for container deposit schemes

(Continued from front cover)

SMALLEY’S last point was aimed at the Queensland government, which announced recently that its scheme, Container Exchange, would be looking to include wine and spirit bottles, while other states have yet to make that commitment.

Michelle Mandl from TOMRA Cleanaway stated that while all the schemes are doing well with regards to their remit, there is room for improvement in a couple of areas, especially the education of the younger generation.

“In 5 to 10 years’ time, we’ll be dealing with adults that are teenagers of today,” she said. “Anybody operating a container deposit schemes needs to shift the mindset and start focusing on education and engagement of not just kids but with teenagers – those that will soon be adults. We need to reinforce their mindset around these environmental benefits, because we know that appeals to them now.”

Closed Loop’s Robert Kelman made the point that the established schemes seem stagnant in terms of return rates, which is currently about 68 per cent

nationally. He also made it clear that there were still between three to four million containers being littered or landfilled annually. One of his fixes is to increase the refund rate (more on that later - Ed), and that more return points are needed.

“We could substantially increase convenience,” he said. “The rate of collection points to people in Europe is about 1 per 1000. Whereas here, it varies from 1 to 12,000 to 1 to 20,000, depending on the state and metro/regional area.”

Another fix, he said, could be refilling bottles instead of returning or

landfilling them.

Shaun Fraser from Queensland’s Container Exchange has hard data, which has helped his organisation identify pressure points that need to be addressed moving forward. This includes demographics that are not coming to the party, as well as the amount of containers still bound for landfill.

“We know where participation is happening, and we know that the demographic of 18 to 35 is not where it needs to be,” he said. “We also know out-of-home consumption sits at about 20 per cent. We’re also working

The panel discussed containers that should be added to the schemes, higher refund rates and a whole lot more.

with councils because we’ve got a lot of waste data that shows up to 500 million containers are still going in household red-top bins. Certainly, there’s disproportion in the MUD (multi-unit dwelling) stream, but with standalone residences there’s plenty of containers there as well. We’re really focused on those two things.”

Scheme expansion

One of the hot-button topics was the expansion as to the types of containers that are to be collected via CDS. Currently, it is beer bottles, cans, and some cardboard receptacles. As stated, Smalley thought harmonisation across all states and territories would be a good start, however, Queensland has recently announced that it will soon include wine and spirit bottles, while others have yet to decide.

“If you go to a dinner party and say you work for a CDS, the first question you get is, ‘why won’t it take my wine bottle?’” said Smalley. “People are very hungry for wine bottles being included and our research indicates that there is strong support for returning wine bottles. We did some qualitative focus groups recently … and there were people there saying, ‘well, it’s not really worth my while just for the soft drink container. Now, if you put in the champagne and wine bottles I’ll be there with bells on.’ I think it definitely will drive up participation but whether that will drive

up the redemption rate is yet to be seen, because you’ve got to take the supply into account.”

Mandl said there is demand for more glass, and a CDS provides a great opportunity for spirit and wine bottles to be contributing to that demand.

“We’ve got processors that are hungry for our product, and having a greater volume only leads to better outcomes overall,” she said. “In kerbside recycling, glass is not the most coveted material to go through due to contamination, but a CDS is a system that keeps it a clean stream and separated and capable of going to high-end recycling. It can be back on the shelf in four weeks.”

Young was more circumspect at the idea of including more types of containers. He pointed out that wine and spirit bottles made up a much smaller percentage of containers compared to others, at around 233 million. But he did see a benefit in putting everything under one roof.

“It goes to that convenience factor. There will be some knock-on effect in terms of just the convenience of having everything in one place, so consumers don’t have to figure it out,” he said. “Some of the social research we get back is that some people find it difficult to figure out what’s in and what’s out.”

Fraser’s state is already getting prepared to add wine and spirit bottles to its list of CDS recyclables. And while he wouldn’t be drawn on the

lack of harmonisation of other states and territories (“it was a government decision”), there are several other considerations that need digesting.

“I’m super curious about the fourth bin at the household for glass in Victoria,” he said. “I’ve certainly got some very strong views of it … If you take what is a reasonable amount of material out of refund points – and you could probably argue the economics of it and why you want to do it – that does certainly have an economic impact for operators in Queensland. Putting a household glass bin arguably diverts that material from the refund points.”

Kelman went one step further by stating that CDS’s are important not just because they create clean streams compared to kerbside collections, but they are an integral part of circular economy outcomes.

“What we want to do now, is not complement kerbside collection [of glass],” he said. “We want as much material coming back through the CDS stream, not the kerbside stream, because of the circular economy outcomes that come from the CDS network.”

A question asked from the audience enquired if there was room for an increase in capacity with current infrastructure. From a NSW perspective, the short answer is ‘yes’.

“If there’s the ability to use the existing infrastructure, and we do have capacity to accept more glass,

and outlets are telling us they want more glass from us, there shouldn’t be an issue,” Mandl said. “When the government says ‘go’, we will follow suit. In short, we have capacity.”

Fraser said his organisation is locked into the current models – for the good or for bad – because it has recently signed new five-year contracts with its operators.

“We have spent a bit of time understanding the growth capacity of our network. More so from the lens of, we’re in the 60s (percentage recovery rate) and how do we get to 70s and 80s,” he said. “Do we have capacity to be able to increase that? We have a fairly good feel for what extra volume would do and where our main problems would be. The challenge we see is probably more about putting the logistics to it.”

Increase in refunds

An increase of refund amounts is a hot topic. Currently, in most states it is $0.10 per container. However, in countries like Germany, that refund rate is $0.40, which

Spirit bottles are on the radar of most states, with Queensland leading the charge.

What should the container deposit refund be upped to from its current $0.10 per container?

some believe is one reason why the return rate in that country is 98 per cent. Other European countries have higher refund rates than Australia and have return rates exceeding 90 per cent.

“We know 10 cents is not enough these days,” said Mandl. “I took my 13-year-old to a concert and paid $6.70 for a bottle of water at the stadium. Even I, as an invested participant in the scheme, found it a hard sell to think about whether I take that container home with me for a $0.10 refund. If you multiply that across the community, that redemption rate is something that we have as a lever. It’s a lever that will increase participation. And redemptions also deliver higher value and clean stream products for the circular economy.”

Although the refund rate was a motivation for returning containers, there were other factors in play. Smalley said that her organisation’s research

among consumers showed that while financial incentives were compelling, there were other issues that need to be addressed.

“There are barriers to their participation,” she said. “It’s not just about the 10 cents, it’s more the access – being able to get there and having the time to be able to do that. Do they think that there’s a value? We need to clearly communicate better those amazing recycling outcomes.”

Smalley thinks changing the redemption rate is a ‘knee-jerk reaction’, and that a cost benefit needs to be carried out because an increase will have an impact on consumers.

“Our view at the moment is that there is still room for growth, but once it does plateau, we need to look at [the refund rate],” she said. “We know it looks like growth has plateaued, but we haven’t had a normal period for a long time. We’ve had fires and COVID and floods,

and we had REDcycle, which may have impacted on people’s willingness to participate in the scheme.

“I can imagine that there would be a lot of concern, particularly in this economic environment, if anybody wants the rate to jump up to $0.40 anytime soon. And there would need to be a really sound rationale, and cost benefit analysis that would have been done to demonstrate this is the answer to raising redemption rates.”

Fraser agrees with some of Smalley’s points, including that any uplift in the refund rate would be a matter for the regulators to decide and then implement.

“Our recovery performance is anywhere between the low 60s to mid 60s,” he said. “It’s not dissimilar to any other state, but I do think there’s some room to go. And I think it is some of those points that Danielle made around putting solutions in market … especially about providing opportunities for those

that can’t get to, or use, a scheme. There’s plenty of people out there that are like that.”

Young agrees with most of the panel and gave some historical context as to why the chances of an increase occurring are high.

“At some point, it will happen,” he said. “We know this because we’ve had experience of it happening in South Australia.”

When South Australia’s scheme began there was a refund of $0.05. In today’s money, that is about $0.32 cents. However, due to the refund not moving for a very long time, it lost its value. Young believes that this is what led to a gradual decline in participation.

“It took them 20 or 30 years before they increased it,” he said. “At a certain point, it started dropping off, and that’s when they stepped in and doubled it. Then you immediately saw a much higher return and that’s what we would

Some think there will be a big push back from beverage manufacturers if the refund rate goes up.

expect to happen. There is a project going on in South Australia that is looking at all the factors that influence participation, and how do we squeeze all those things to get the most out of these schemes. And the refund is a key factor, but it’s not the only one.”

He pointed out that other reasons included:

• people thinking it’s the right thing to do;

• there are environmental benefits; and

• to support local communities, schools, and charities.

Kelman is one person who never shies away from being upfront and addressed the elephant in the room.

“Manufacturers do not want a refund increase,” he said. “They will not be advocating for a refund increase. We saw with the advent of these schemes that there was very strong opposition, and a lot of the opposition was high. It was about costs.”

He said that prior to CDS, producers and users of soft plastics and a range of other materials used the kerbside system, which didn’t cost anything. Kelman said that when there is a producer responsibility scheme, there’s a cost to manufacturers, so there’s

going to be some opposition.

“One of the claims put out is that there will be a drop in sales,” said Kelman. “We’ve done an analysis, and we haven’t put it out yet, but I will soon have sales data over the last 20 or 30 years – we’ve got all this access to global data. The data showcased several case studies from Canada, the US and Europe. It showed that when one of those states introduced a CDs that there wasn’t a reduction in sales.

“The heads of the EPA in South Australia have been charged with looking at consumer engagement. One of the questions being asked is, ‘should they increase the refund?’ There was an economic analysis that South Australia commissioned that says the refund will achieve the best result, along with some other interventions.”

Other materials

The final discussion was about other materials being dropped off at the same collection points. Although it sounds like a good idea, and it could be in the future, Fraser for one isn’t that keen for it to happen – yet.

“We need to be really excellent at collecting containers first,” he said.

“Whenever I’m asked, ‘Why don’t you expand into soft plastics, cardboard, batteries, tyres,etc?’ the answer is ‘we’ve got some work to do around containers’. We need to be focusing on that sole purpose.”

However, he did say that they are having conversations with number of LGAs – particularly the Brisbane City Council (BCC) about how to co-share a property footprint that Container Exchange has got through the network, particularly with its depot.

“This is a really exciting opportunity because BCC has five transfer stations and a population of a million people,” Fraser said.

“That’s access for their constituents to use our property for other recyclable materials. It’s exciting.”

Mandl agreed that NSW also is not currently looking to add other items to its collection points although it is something worth looking at in the future. Also, in some places, in NSW at least, there is infrastructure that caters for those waste streams.

“ There is an opportunity to think about the future,” she said. “However, the New South Wales EPA funded community recycling centres across

NSW municipalities, which are a piece of existing infrastructure that already deals with a variety of other waste types.”

Young pointed out that when the CDSs were set up, one thing the EPA found evident early on was that there were not a lot of free spaces, especially in metro areas, to build stations. Then there were the practicalities of the equipment being used on the sites.

“The reverse vending machines are very specialised pieces of equipment for collecting containers,” he said. “They don’t lend themselves to soft plastics and other things. However, where it makes sense to have collection points for other items, we can take advantage of these opportunities and we totally support that.”

While all acknowledged there is still work to be done – also around labelling and capacity – most of the schemes have been embraced by the communities they serve.

Now it’s just a matter of refining them and making sure that service continues into the next decade and ensuring both the infrastructure and demand can be kept up so as to divert containers away from landfill.

Germany has a refund rate of $0.40 per container.

Waste sector needs a reset and the future is bright

resources space – the ones prepared to collaborate – out in force. We’re seeing it in government policy, EPA leadership, and throughout the supply chain, from manufacturer right through to waste recycler. It’s evident amongst the ‘big 5’ but also the entrepreneurial mid-size players, and the ‘RE’ groups, who are all eager to invest in the future of what we call Ecological Transformation.

can all contribute to, to successfully transform our sector.

Producer responsibility –a system that drives change

more collection, and more treatment, and produce better quality, cleaner feedstocks for reuse.

(Continued from front cover)

WHILST not perfect, this framework will support a shift up the waste hierarchy, provide emissions reduction, preserve resources and generate renewable bioenergy in a relatively short time frame.

A recent example of where industry appears to be caught on the back foot is on how we effectively collect, sort and manage soft plastics. We’ve got some great trade bodies, such as NWRIC, WMRR, and ACOR, who are doing a phenomenal job advocating for better environmental outcomes overall.

Despite these voices of reason it’s hard to believe we are talking about collecting soft plastics through kerbside recycling when the material is mostly unrecyclable. I would go further to say that soft plastics are such an important and vital ingredient to putting low-carbon fresh food on the table, at reasonable cost. So, we must find a middle ground.

I fully advocate for packaging to be created with circularity in mind. But where it can’t be avoided and serves a fundamental purpose for society, we should be less obsessed about recyclability and consider its use as an energy source replacing dirty coal and natural gas –something embraced by Europe’s energy sector. We should still recycle as much of the recyclable grades we can – that makes good sense – but for complex multi-layer materials that protect meat or fresh products, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and move to less sustainable high carbon materials. Coupled with the challenging compostable packaging movement, soft plastics in the recycling bin threaten to become a perfect storm to destroy the chance of 80 per cent recovery by 2030.

It’s encouraging to see the next generation of thinkers in the waste and

As an industry, we have wider issues facing us around exports, levies, consistency across states, waste crime and policy enforcement, but we also have – in tandem – a growth opportunity if we move on from the current paradigm we are stuck inside. This big growth picture is not about stopping progress or policy, not about increasing costs to shut down conventional technologies or going back to all riding bikes instead of driving cars, but an industrial revolution 2.0. This is a transformative shift where we continue to mine, manufacture and manage Australia’s rich resource base to the benefit of Australian citizens, while at the same time contain, prevent, avoid and clean, or essentially depollute our sunburnt country.

Depollution, as well as decarbonisation and implementation of a circular economy are the main drivers of Veolia’s purpose.

I’m laser focused on the implementation of a circular economy, and we’re prepared to invest in waste infrastructure from plastics plants, soil washing, and anaerobic digestion, to energy recovery facilities and niche waste treatment of electronics where they will have a positive impact. Government and EPA are leading us most of the way, and with a few tweaks, we can supercharge the speed of delivery – something needed to match the demands of clients and the environment. It’s up to us, the industry, to enliven and harness those opportunities.

I think there are five key areas we

It’s proven globally that good source separation from consumers and householders alone won’t be enough. People have busy lives and a lot going on, so we need to design a world that combines what is obvious and convenient, with what is sustainable. This is why we advocate the need to design for recycling –create an intuitive, easy option approach, which will engage 95 per cent of the punters. This has to be combined with honest packaging that says if it’s recyclable or not. If it’s not, then the only excuse we should accept is that it’s a fair compromise for product protection it affords.

What we need is a systemic change that the consumer can rely on. Manufacturers, retailers, waste management, recyclers and local authorities have to act collaboratively to adopt a new way of thinking, invest in new technology, upskill the workforce, and change long adopted practices. This requires mandated producer responsibility rather than voluntary stewardship, which is not scalable or reliable.

If there is one thing that’s clear, it’s that all parts of the supply chain need to be involved – from the miners, the refiners, manufacturers, retailers, consumers, local authorities, and our sector, as well as the people making feedstocks to be used back in new goods.

What happens too often is waiting for someone else to make the first move, a sense of ‘if that other part of the supply chain does something differently, then the system will work’. Everyone needs to do something differently. I admit we do, and I do. We need to step up and invest in new technologies, promote more separation,

As a fair society, we could adopt a Pay As You Buy approach for products. Because when we buy something, like a takeaway coffee from a café, we are paying for nearly everything involved – the electricity to boil the water, the water itself, the picking and roasting of the beans, the barista salary, the cup it comes in. The only thing we are not paying for – bizarrely – is its recycling or disposal.

I think the consumer that’s causing the waste should pay for its recycling or disposal at the point of purchase – a kind of upfront approach. Someone pays for the recycling today, it’s just not the person buying the coffee, it’s councils who dispose of it. I think we can agree that this is not fair.

This notion is not a pipe dream, it’s essentially how the Container Deposit Scheme works; you put the full cost of something into the purchase price. Overall, it will be cost neutral or even more cost effective since manufacturers are involved from the get-go.

How, you ask? If you think about all the non-recyclable items in a yellow top bin, it is the local authority that is paying for that to be collected and treated. They can’t do anything about the design of those products; they don’t make them, which means they can’t optimise the cost.

If you put the cost with the manufacturer who passes it to the consumer, the manufacturer will optimise the cost, because businesses always optimise their costs. They will design better. Therefore, we’ll end up with a system that’s more efficient, environmental, and less costly overall. Manufacturers who make recyclable products will automatically pay less, incentivising the systemic outcome.

All parts of the recycling chain need to be involved if real change is to happen.

Veolia Australia & New Zealand CEO Richard Kirkman.

Energy-from-waste

When all the dust has settled over producer responsibility there is always going to be some residual waste left over. Energy recovery has an important role to play here, and this comes from our experience of the 65 units we operate across the world.

Despite being ‘new’ to Australia, it’s not unknown technology – it’s been proven worldwide. The first one I was involved with was in central London in 1994, which still operates between two railway stations supplying sustainable heat and energy to 10,000 nearby homes. The latest incarnation of this technology is more efficient, recovers more energy and materials and is certainly state of the art. Moving with the times, it’s one of the cleanest forms of energy production –being carbon neutral as an added value –when compared to landfilling.

If you’re wondering how the community reacted to its development, well, it was the same reaction received everywhere – initially concern, opposition, sometimes outrage of the unknown. So we did exactly what we’re doing in Australia now for energy from waste development –we engaged.

Our policy has always been to welcome people and their questions, get them to see and understand the technology, and talk to them about their concerns. Most people understand the science behind it, but there are always minority groups who don’t or won’t.

Yet, without exception, once built and operating, we’ve had no problems post construction because we continue to engage with the community until they see the proof in its safety, which we can always demonstrate. The fact is, where these units have been built, the authorities and districts who took the bold decision haven’t looked back, they are enjoying local sustainable energy and regional prosperity.

In Australia, we are on our way there. Two facilities are close to completion in Perth and others are in the pipeline on the eastern seaboard. In NSW, one of the most critical moves of the government was to promote the technology, then identify four locations so investors could have certainty on development, making sure the state doesn’t overinvest in too many, and leaving space for increased recycling –pretty progressive overall. The government also looked at sustainable transport routes, taking materials to dedicated rural areas, which will benefit from the local investment and creating wins for everyone. This plan is bespoke for NSW and makes sense given the backdrop.

Although energy from waste is widely known for non-recyclable waste treatment, Anaerobic Digestion (digestion of organics to make methane industrially) has been somewhat overlooked across Australia for energy recovery. Most people don’t

understand that it’s a sustainable, carbon neutral biogas technology. Our studies show that if we used all the wastewater sludges, waste food and other organic sources available to us, combined with Energy from Waste we could supply 10 per cent of Australia’s energy needs. This is a real opportunity to solve the waste crisis and decarbonise at the same time.

Export

Mainland European models suggest more household waste bins are the way to go when it comes to separating waste streams, but I’m not convinced. I genuinely believe three is enough, maybe with one small bin for food in cities. I think we just need to be practical. No one wants five bins at their home, and with urban infill and more multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) in our cities, we can’t accommodate multiple bins.

From a processing point of view, I know the reuse sector would be happy to see 10 separate bins. You’d have nice clean glass, clean PET, and more, but the fact is that collections have to be simple for the consumer and more collections are more expensive. I think a realistic scenario is a balance between the ideal quality, and making it as easy as possible for the consumer. The one commingled bin makes sense, as long as everything put in it has an end market.

Ultimately, the ability to export is fundamental for a proper sustainable circular economy. Without that it would be akin to banning the import of overseas alternatives for products. It would cause the price to rocket. In the case of saleable recyclable commodities, banning exports will lead to price restrictions since the outlets are limited. This can easily be fixed with flexible export quality exemptions geared to overseas market norms. Nintynine per cent of this material is going to suitable, permitted facilities today, overseas, and there is no reason that we should not continue if we wish to preserve recycling levels and local authority budgets from new pressures.

Landfill levies

There is no stick to be swung if policies are not implemented without a sting in their tail – and today some policies just don’t have a sufficient bite in them. It might not be a popular opinion, but increased landfill levies as a way to encourage more waste away from landfills is a sensible way forward, particularly if we align state levy price points.

The FOGO policy could do with a bigger stick. It requires that by 2025 we need to do FOGO, but if you don’t meet those targets, I’m not sure what, if anything, will happen. While there is certainly merit and some flexibility here for MBT to persist where there are suitable end beneficial uses, we also need to supercharge FOGO.

The power of the levy is the same the world over. Levies help to drive everything away from landfill. It works and it should be normalised federally, state by state, region by region, and slowly escalate to avoid impacts on business and households and until landfill is declining. This state harmonisation of regulatory levers is critical not only for levy but for ERF regulation, recycling and compost quality, and end of waste status – and this could be a high value contribution from the Feds.

EPA

The EPA plays one of the most important roles of our sector. Its people, such as the NSW EPA CEO Tony Chappel, are redefining the way we collaborate, which is such a refreshing new approach.

Our sector hasn’t done the best job of collaboration and co-designing solutions with the EPAs of the past, and we have been fighting them for too long. Just because they are there to regulate what we’re doing doesn’t mean we can’t work with them to design product stewardship schemes, solar panels, batteries and electronic equipment recycling legislation. We are trying to get to the same end game, so why can’t we team up?

I think we have a visionary EPA in New South Wales that really wants to make a difference and I don’t think we’re helping them enough. I’m all about finding ways to co-design the circular economy with the EPA and I think there’s power in working together.

Moving forward

So three years since my arrival, how is the industry tracking for the future?

We’re on the precipice of making the

decision to really get on with it. We’ve just seen the IPCC Survival Guide for Humanity report that confirms again that we have no time left to quibble about this. We’ve also just seen the Net Zero Australia report on the energy transition required, and among other things, we need to recycle more, FOGO more, treat more, recover energy more. As advocates for real progress like Mike Ritchie from MRA often remind us, landfill levies do work, recycling does get recycled and we all need to bite off more than we can chew if we want to get to 80 per cent any day soon.

Australia’s Net Zero report, which is requiring trillions of dollars of investment over the next few years, requires us to responsibly mine and manufacture our way out of this and I want to really step up the game in our sector to help our customers. We’ve got huge scope to improve, because we haven’t done everything yet. I think it’s all in play for us and we’ve got a government and an EPA that want to do it too, so as an industry we just need to stand up and build the future alongside them.

One thing I quickly learnt when I arrived here was that Australians are brave, fair, and really good at getting things done, once the decision is made. So, now that the decisions are being made, there’s nothing to hold us back. They say there are old garbos, and there are bold garbos, but there are no old bold garbos. Well, it’s time for all of us old garbos, myself included, to change that and be more bold.

Richard Kirkman is CEO of Veolia Australia & New Zealand.

There is one essential cost not taken into consideration when making a product - its end of life.

Can NSW achieve the national waste targets?

By Mike Ritchie

NSW is heading away from a circular economy. The latest National Waste Report data shows that not only is NSW total waste generation growing but our waste to landfill is also growing.

We landfill 1.6 million tonnes (MT) per year more waste now than we did in 2007 (7.3 MT now versus 5.7 MT in 2007). And the trend is pretty constant, as shown in the historic waste data (Figure 1).

As many readers will know, the NSW Government along with all other states, territories, Federal and local governments signed up to the National Waste Action Plan and its targets of:

• 80 per cent diversion from landfill by 2030; and

• 50 per cent reduction in organic waste to landfill by 2030.

If we project current trends out to 2030 ,the picture for NSW is not good. We expect the economy to keep growing and with it, waste generation. That means we need to run even faster. We cannot achieve the targets with the current policy settings. Simple.

We currently recycle about 61 per cent of NSW’s generated waste (blue and yellow lines in Figure 1). We still landfill 7.3 MT/year or 40 per cent.

As illustrated in Figure 1, to get to the agreed 80 per cent diversion target by 2030 we need to:

• grow recycling from its current 12.4 MT to 18.2 MT in only seven years; that is a growth of 5.8 MT or an uplift of almost 1 MT per year, every year, to 2030; and

• reduce waste to landfill from 7.3 MT to 4.5 MT (see red line in Figure 1 and the target in 2030).

Even if we take into account the historic growth in recycling (call it the “natural growth rate” of recycling –refer yellow trend line), we still need to grow recycling by 3.9 MT per year above historic growth rates.

That means 5.8 MT/year of additional recycling. Let that just sink in – 5.8 million tonnes per year in new recycling.

A bit of context:

1. Coffee cups to landfill represent 5,000t/yr in NSW.

2. All soft plastic represents less than 50,000t/yr.

3. Straws and clam shell plastic is a couple of thousand tonnes per year.

4. E-waste (TVs computers etc) is about 150,000t/yr.

Such minor streams are worthy of attention but not in the absence of the larger mixed waste streams – that’s if we want any chance of hitting the targets and reducing waste to landfill.

We need to focus on the big waste streams and big solutions. We cannot

recycle enough plastic bags to get ourselves to 80 per cent. We cannot educate enough business owners or school kids, to get to 80 per cent.

We need to think in the millions of tonnes and that means infrastructure, levies, mandates and market-based interventions.

“Ok, what are the solutions?” I hear you ask.

In terms of ease of intervention and cost to the economy of recycling (rather than landfilling), we need to focus on:

1. C&D (mixed construction waste).

2. C&I (commercial waste) particularly organics and dry recyclables.

3. MSW (household waste) and particularly organics.

What are the priorities for action?:

• Mixed construction waste – all of it. It is dry (inert), it is easily sorted, and it has lots of reuse markets (think steel, aluminium, concrete, bricks, gyproc etc).

• Mixed commercial waste can be collected as both dry and wet (food) loads. Dry loads can be recycled, while clean food can be composted or anaerobically digested.

• In the household (MSW) space, the low hanging fruit is organics (think food and garden organics; FOGO by

another name). FOGO represents 50 per cent of all the waste coming out of households.

Construction and Demolition

The trend in C&D waste is positive. While growth in the economy is driving higher generation, the C&D recycling sector is keeping up and on trend to achieve the target.

While we need to grow recycling rates by 2.5 MT over the next seven years (from 7.5 to 10.1MT/yr), the historic trends show that, with the same investment pipeline, we will get close.

To achieve the target, we need to build (and/or expand) a whole bunch of C&D recycling facilities. For example:

• 5 x 500kt/yr C&D recycling facilities; or

• say 25 x 100kt/yr facilities.

That is achievable based on historic trends, but it requires the NSW Government to continue to increase the landfill levy, in real terms.

The levy has underpinned the historic growth in recycling and needs to further increase to capture the remaining “harder to get” C&D materials. Well done the C&D sector.

Commercial and Industrial

In the C&I sector the economics don’t work as well. We see cardboard and metals recycled but almost all mixed waste goes to landfill.

It is simply cheaper to landfill much of this material than to separate it. It is expensive to drive multiple four-tonne trucks to pick up separated streams and then pay someone a gate fee to

recycle it. Generally, only cardboard and metals can overcome these cost disadvantages. Simple economics.

The trend in C&I

The first thing you will note from Figure 3 is that the generation rate (blue line) is falling over time. That is fantastic but it could also be a temporary trend rather than the decoupling of commercial waste generation from economic growth. You will note that the biggest falls (in the past three years) coincided with COVID 19 and people not going to work. It is expected to bounce back with the reopening of business.

The second thing to note is that we need to grow commercial recycling rates by more than 1.5 MT by 2030 to achieve the target (from 2.6 MT to 4.2 MT by 2030).

Again, we know what to do but recyclers are loath to invest in this space because the competitor (landfill) is so much cheaper. They just cannot make a reliable return on investment.

To achieve a 1.5 MT growth in C&I recycling we need to:

• Mandate organics separation.

Congratulations to NSW Government for announcing this will commence from 2025. We don’t know what commercial businesses will be included nor how many tonnes, but let’s assume 300-400kt.

• Build big sorting facilities “dirty MRFs” to take dry inert commercial waste and sort it for its cardboard, steel, pallets, plastic etc. For example:

o 11 x 100kt C&I sorting facilities spread across NSW (but this kit

will only be built if the landfill levy increases or there is some other regulated mandate, such as a ban on landfill).

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for specific minor streams such as packaging, e-waste and mattresses etc.

• Finally, mixed residual C&I material, once stripped of its recyclable content, is suitable for energy recovery. NSW will need a portfolio of EfW facilities to achieve the targets (you may have noticed the purple line in Figure 1 representing energy recovery. Most of that is landfill gas recovery, not EfW).

of FOGO for all households by 2030. However, this is too late to achieve the target so the new Minns Government should look at bringing forward the compliance date or providing incentives to get councils to move earlier. MRA estimates this will divert 1.2 MT of organics from landfill.

• The remaining 500kt/yr must come from better segregation of recyclables (we lose 30 per cent of all available recyclables into the red landfill bin – about 200kt), extended Container Deposit Schemes (CDS; e.g. to include wine and spirits and consider a 20c rebate), separation and recycling of kerbside bulk clean

Further, we need markets for the materials. It is not enough to collect and reprocess it.

Industry needs viable and sustainable markets to sell the products into. That requires positive procurement policies and a bias towards recycled content. Investors will only build these recycling facilities and invest in recovery when they can make a sustainable economic return. Why would Cleanaway, Veolia, Remondis or any other operator try to recycle a mixed load of commercial waste when it is cheaper to landfill it, with no commercial risk. This is one of the major broken pieces of Circular Economics in NSW.

Household Waste (MSW)

We already recycle about 2.2 MT of material from households. This is primarily garden organics, kerbside recyclables, packaging (CDS material) and some minor streams such as mattresses, e-waste, polystyrene etc.

The trend in MSW

To achieve the national waste target for NSW we need to grow recycling by 1.7 MT/yr (from 2.2 to 3.9 MT/yr by 2030.)

To achieve the target we need to:

• Mandate the separation of organic waste (garden and food) from other waste and collect it for composting or anaerobic digestion. Again, to the NSW Government’s credit they have mandated separate collection

up, MSW processing and/or energy from waste. These will involve lots of new infrastructure including composting, anaerobic digestors, MRFs and reprocessing facilities (plastic reprocessing, plastic to fuel, glass reprocessing etc).

In summary to get to just an 80 per cent “circular economy” in NSW, we need to grow:

1. C&D recycling by 2.5 MT/yr;

2. C&I by 1.5 MT/yr; and

3. MSW by 1.7 MT/yr.

We don’t have a plan to do that. The task is enormous. We need to get billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure.

We need to speed up the planning approvals. We need the offtake markets and procurement policies to be developed. But most important of all, we need to change the incentives so that investors and proponents will invest.

That means new or increased levies, subsidies, grants, mandates or bans. I am pleased the NSW Government has started down this path. But we need to move much faster.

It cannot be done without government leadership and intervention in the market. Blind Freddy can see that.

I hope that the new Minister for Environment will prioritise the above actions. To do so will create lots of green jobs, reduce emissions and put us on the path toward a more circular economy.

Figure 4 shows that MSW generation continues to climb, as does waste to landfill.

Figure 2. The trend in C&D Waste.

Figure 3. The trend in C&I.

Unintended consequences of doing good to a community

‘THE road to hell is paved with good intentions,’ is a proverb that first entered the lexicon in the 1820s. It could not be a more appropriate point of view than at a speech given by Kate Fisher to a packed audience during the Disaster Waste Management stream at the Coffs Harbour Waste Conference.

Fisher works for Givit, a not-forprofit online donation hub founded in 2009 by Juliette Wright. The organisation finds a way to maximise the distribution of donated goods in such a way that avoids unwanted disruption. How can donated products cause disruption? Read on.

Australians are known for their generosity, more so when they see others in acute distress. This is especially so after bushfire season, or torrential downpours that cause flash flooding. What generally happens is that a lot of people who haven’t suffered from the catastrophic event want to help out as best they can. This includes organising quick relief in the

form of clothes, food, white goods, toys – a plethora of things – to try and help a community get back to normal as quick as possible. Unfortunately, what a township needs, and what is collected, can be two different things.

Givit has partnered with most states over the past 18 months to help try and manage donations for those impacted by flooding. It has facilitated the donation of more than three million essential items and services, which has also led to 750 tonnes of items diverted from landfill.

However, there is also a downside.

“When people see these terrible images of disasters on television, they want to help,” said Fisher. “Unfortunately, some of that generosity can do more harm than good. People start rallying friends and family on social media to collect donations and this is often just things that people have around their homes that they no longer want.”

These items are then taken to a

drop off point where the same people have arranged transportation to take the donations into an impacted area. Fisher gives the example of the floods that hit northern New South Wales in 2022 whereby convoys of trucks arrived at the impacted regions full of unrequested donations from people in Brisbane, Sydney and elsewhere in Australia, which had potential to cause several issues.

“First, these trucks can block roads for emergency services,” said Fisher. “This can have really dangerous consequences, particularly in a disaster. Second, these trucks arrive into the disaster area with no contact person or organisation to receive the donations so they often empty their load at an evacuation or emergency centre, and then they leave. At this point, there is no one available to sort through the truckloads of stuff that has arrived. It may be unloaded outside and is exposed to the elements, and in the case of flooded regions, it gets wet

pretty quickly, and is unusable.”

Fisher said it may sit there for some time, until someone from the local council – who is already under considerable pressure – pays to have it taken away.

Fisher recounts a story regarding Cyclone Pamm, which hit the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu in 2015. The country received 70 shipping containers full of unrequested donations following the disaster. Local people and authorities, who were focused on recovery and clean-up efforts, were forced to turn their attention to dealing with an ongoing influx of cargo from around the world, which was random and unlabelled. It accumulated more than $2 million in storage fees, and most of it had to be dumped at the expense of the nation itself.

“Similarly, unsolicited donations given in response to the 2013 flooding in Queensland required a storage capacity of 2500 square metres and

60 volunteers had to be diverted from relief work to sort through donations,” she said. “The cost to the Bundaberg Regional Council to store those donations for three months was approximately $250,000, a cost that could have been spent elsewhere on the recovery of the community.”

Then there were the images of floodwaters destroying the contents of the Lismore library, which were beamed around Australia. People were compelled to clear out their own bookshelves and send replacement books. Donation drives popped up all over the country with many being driven into the region by wellmeaning individuals, said Fisher. One community group quickly realised that they may be adding to the problem and returned home with their donated books and decided to hold a book sale instead to raise money to replace the books.

“Meanwhile, the Lismore library reached out to Givit for assistance,”

she said. “And thanks to the generous donations of individuals, community groups and corporate partners Givit was able to spend over $22,000 in donated funds to purchase new books for the library. And of course, we purchased those books from local booksellers in the region to support the economic recovery.”

The Givit website is designed to be

user-friendly, so people can see what a community needs and where it can be donated. So how can Givit help?

Fisher’s organisation works with 4,500 charities, local councils and support organisations throughout Australia. Donations pledged through the website can be logged into the given online warehouse and immediately made available to registered organisations

that are supporting impacted communities.

“If you have something to donate, that’s not listed, you can list it in our online or virtual warehouse and you keep it in your home until there is a match with the charity,” said Fisher. “You are then connected with the charity, and it is delivered to the person or community in need.”

Floods are just one of the many disasters that are increasing in frequency.

Givit’s Kate Fisher says there are unintended consequences for peoples’ good intentions.

Definitions matter in complexities of approvals

By Gavin Shapiro

ARE you operating a waste facility, or are you dealing with a resource? The law makes the answer more complex than you think.

You may think that the answer to this question is simple – black and white. It either is, or isn’t a waste facility. However, recent cases have made answering this seemingly simple question a lot more complex for some facilities. In turn, this can make the planning and environmental approvals processes more complex and costly, and raise ongoing risks of non-compliances with approvals for facilities as they operate.

The states and territories typically have separate laws for planning and development, and for environmental issues such as waste, pollution, and the like. There is typically one requirement for development approval, and a separate requirement for an environmental licence – one

administered by the council or a state authority, the other administered by bodies such as the EPA. This is where the complexity lies. There are differences in definitions, interpretations, and rules between the planning and environmental regimes – so what might qualify as a waste facility for environmental laws, may be something else under planning laws.

While this may sound like a technicality, it is not. Obtaining planning and environmental approvals are complex and costly. If there is a debate on how to characterise a facility, whether it is one thing under planning laws but something else under environmental laws, it can add a whole layer of delay and cost to the process.

It can also present a stumbling block to obtaining necessary environmental approvals. For example, under s50 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW), the EPA cannot grant an environment protection licence unless there is already a development consent in place

authorising that facility. If the EPA believes that your planning approval is not sufficient to cover the proposed licensed activity, it can refuse the licence application.

Additionally, these complexities raise ongoing compliance risks. Multiple facilities have been prosecuted for allegedly operating without the necessary approvals.

If it’s not clear what approval you need – as a waste facility, or something else (such as a manufacturing facility) – then you run the risk of operating without the correct approvals.

This is illustrated in two recent cases. The case of Shah Friends Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2023] NSWLEC 31 involved an appeal against a council ‘stop use’ order. The stop use order required the operator to stop operating their facility.

The company operated what was described in court papers as being “the purchase, gathering and sorting of ferrous and non-ferrous metal scraps

to sell and export overseas”. That is – a scrap metal yard. There were a number of planning approvals for the site stretching back from 1954 for a factory, and then a development described as “metal manufacturing, foundry, general engineering and metal pressing”.

The council issued the stop use order as it believed that the company was using the facility as a “waste or resource management facility”, and more specifically a “waste or resource transfer station” – and hence, would have needed development consent as a waste facility, not in the nature of a foundry/factory.

The company argued that the scrap metal was a “resource” that had value, not “waste” – and hence, it was not a waste facility.

This is an argument that has been had many times in the courts in NSW, and across Australia. Many in the industry would be familiar with a long running series of cases – EPA v Terrace Earthmoving and EPA v Shannongrove, which defined waste (and hence what is a

Do you have the right approvals for licensed activity? Maybe, maybe not.

waste facility) under NSW environmental laws strictly – essentially, once the generator no longer wanted it, it became waste, regardless of whether it had a use or value to the recipient. But the Shah Friends case fell under NSW’s planning laws (the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) – not the environmental laws.

“Waste” is defined to include something that is “discarded or is refuse from processes or uses” and which can still be waste even if it is “reprocessed, re used or recycled, or… sold or intended for sale.” This is similar to how waste is defined under the environmental laws (the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997). So – surely the same result?

Not quite. On multiple occasions, the Land and Environment Court of NSW –the same court that defined waste so strictly under environmental legislation

– has found otherwise.

In Shah Friends, the court found that because, in the hands of the company – the recipient – the metal was not waste, but a resource, it was not “waste” for the purposes of NSW planning laws, and therefore, the site was not a waste facility.

The Shah Friends decision was based on an earlier decision involving a glass beneficiation facility – DirectorGeneral, Department of Planning and Infrastructure v Glass Recovery Services Pty Limited [2015] NSWLEC 49. Again, while the facility was classified as a waste facility under environmental laws, the court found it was a manufacturing facility under planning laws.

Given multiple decisions have now been delivered on this point, it is clear that planning laws and environmental laws are diverging on what is “waste”, and what is a waste facility. It may

seem academic, but it has real world implications for those in the industry, including:

• facilities may be operating without the necessary planning approvals, or the wrong planning approvals;

• equally, sites with planning approvals for manufacturing, industry, and the like may be authorised to operate as waste facilities by another name, depending on the materials and processes involved;

• areas where waste facilities are prohibited may allow manufacturing and industrial facilities, which can open up a range of sites that were not previously available for such operations;

• some industrial buildings can be approved by Complying Development Certificate – a process where a private certifier issues the approval, cutting the council out of the process entirely, and one that is generally much quicker and

cheaper than obtaining development consent; however, this also raises compliance issues – whether facilities are complying with their development consent, in how they operate; and

• finally, if a planning approval is relied on for “manufacturing” or “industry”, whether the EPA may refuse to issue a licence, arguing that there is no valid planning approval for a “waste facility” (which it would be under environmental laws).

These decisions raise a host of complex issues – as if our planning system were not complex enough as it is. But ultimately, there are advantages to these decisions, which can be exploited to make obtaining planning approvals for some facilities easier, quicker, and cheaper.

Gavin Shapiro is a partner at Hones Lawyers.

Planning laws and environmental laws are at loggerheads as to what constitutes a waste facility.

Environmental groups breathe a sigh of relief for national ban on disposable vapes

As more Australians started vaping over the past few years, there was little consideration to the impact that this new habit was having on our planet. With the majority of the 1.2 million Australians that regularly vape using disposable units, the environment had a new threat.

On May 2nd, 2023, the Federal Health Minister, Mark Butler, addressed the National Press Club about upcoming changes to tobacco related policies. One of the most notable changes was the proposed ban on the sales of disposable vapes. What does vaping have to do with the environment, you may ask? As the Minister noted, single-use, disposable vapes “clog landfill and are toxic to the environment”.

E-cigarettes are not new. Initially intended to assist with smoking cessation, Australians have needed a prescription to access nicotine vaping devices and products since October 2021. However, with little regulatory oversight, an influx of devices made their way into the country. Most alarmingly was that the sales channels had moved from tobacconists and convenience

stores to the playground and social media platforms.

With alluring colours, flavours and names and set to mimic everyday items, such as highlighters and USB sticks, Australians young and old had become hooked. Unfortunately, the concern wasn’t just about having a new generation of Australians addicted to nicotine, there was another side effect no one had considered, whose impact to the environment would soon be felt.

Without a UN Class or item code, nonnicotine vaping devices were being imported as a consumable item, as battery-operated confectionary. A lack of importation control enabled a strong black market to be created.

When items were intercepted or seized and examined, it was identified that more than 83 per cent of these devices contained nicotine, even though the labels suggested they did not.

Vaporising our planet

So, what’s the environmental concern? Vapes are battery-powered devices. They are filled with liquid, or ‘juice’, which regularly contain nicotine, in addition to artificial flavourings and various chemicals, which are all heated. The heating element known as a ‘coil’, which consists of wire and cotton and sits inside the tank, turns the juice into a vapour that is then inhaled into the user’s lungs. Finally, there’s the casing, which is either made from plastic, aluminium, or a composite. Disposable vapes, or single-use vapes, are designed to be thrown away after the juice is depleted. The average disposable vape

is claimed by retailers to last anywhere from 200 to 400 puffs. It is often noted that 400 puffs from a vape is the equivalent of 20 cigarettes (or one packet). Online vaping store, Puff Bar suggests “throwing away” vapes after use.

Other vapes have integrated batteries that are not meant to be replaced or removed, having a finite number of recharges after which the device needs to be thrown away. Removable batteries are found in some vaping devices, which can be recharged several times. Rechargeable batteries are typically found in more advanced devices, including the legal nicotine-based devices.

Environmental charity, No More Butts, welcomed the news from the Federal Government.

“After raising this issue in presentations, consultations and engagements with departments and politicians over the past 18 months, we are encouraged by the action taken by the government,” said No More Butts Executive Director, Shannon Mead. “While this won’t solve the problem entirely, it will restrict the amount of disposable

Sea Shepherd Australia Marine Debris teams on average pick up and record 2-5 vapes on every coastal clean-up. (Photo credit: Liza Dicks)

vapes making their way into landfill.”

“Our volunteers are collecting e-cigarettes in increasing numbers,” said Pip Kiernan, Chair of Clean Up Australia. “We need to set clear standards on environmentally responsible e-cigarette waste disposal and hold the industry accountable for adhering to them.”

Sea Shepherd Australia’s National Marine Debris Campaigner, Niels Glahn Bertelsen, commended the federal government’s move to ban imports of non-prescription vaping products and single-use disposable vapes, noting that, “this legislative change will result in positive environmental outcomes”.

How big is the issue?

From the Roy Morgan Research nationwide survey from July 2021-June

2022, an estimated 1,159,000 adults were current vapers (had vaped at least once in the last month). In 2022, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 21.7 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds had used an e-cigarette, or vaping device.

Based on estimated consumption and population statistics, it would be conservative to say that 500 tonnes of e-waste are being created annually from disposable vapes in Australia. Variables such as weight, the frequency of vaping and volumetric contents of a vape all have a bearing on estimates. It is possible that the amount of e-waste could be double.

Where there’s smoke

The ACCC noted that it is concerned about the increasing number of reported incidents involving batteries, some causing house fires resulting in serious injuries and property damage. The chemistry of these vaping batteries makes them more volatile than traditional batteries. The most dangerous outcome associated with batteries is the potential to rapidly overheat and cause fires that cannot be easily extinguished, leading to property damage, injury and/or fatality.

There have been reports of human injuries because of exploding vapes, with the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ) recording 21 admissions for burns involved, or related to, batteries over a four-year period, with the most common products involved being e-cigarettes and mobile phones.

Damage to the casing of a vaping device, caused by puncturing, compressing/compacting, or dropping, may initiate internal short-circuits, causing overheating or fire. With the increase in vaping and the emergence of technologies such as smart bins, the risk is real in public settings.

So, what should you do with a vape?

It is assumed that users already know that they shouldn’t litter their vape (or anything), but they may not know that they shouldn’t throw their vape into the bin. But where do they put it? Unfortunately, no existing e-waste program, including the stewardship program, BCycle, caters for vaping devices or their batteries. BCycle are funded by contributions from brands and legitimate importers of batteries. Due to the fragmented and unregulated importation model of vaping devices, vapes are not budgeted for and therefore their bins should not be used to drop off vapes. Mobile Muster do not accept vapes. The Return Unwanted Medicines scheme is only applicable for nicotine vaping devices and is only available at selected pharmacies. In Victoria, it is illegal to landfill e-waste (such as a

vaping device). This is why a national program needs to be implemented.

Although a select few councils across Australia advertise that they accept vaping devices in their e-waste drop-off centres, the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS) does not accept vapes. The Commonwealth Department (DCCEEW) noted that, because of the lack of regulation on importations, there was limited data to be able to act on a national level to fund the disposal of the products.

International updates

Scotland is considering banning single-use vapes and The New York City State Senate re-introduced a Bill in the Senate Health Committee that proposes to ban single-use vapes. France has also expressed their position to ban single-use vapes.

On the recycling front, New Zealand has a scheme set up with TerraCycle and a vape brand to recycle its vapes. In Canada, TerraCycle has a program for any brand of cannabis packaging and for specifically branded vape products.

What happens next?

It remains to be seen if a ban on disposable vapes will have immediate or measurable impact. Therefore, it is important that a national disposal scheme is implemented to ensure that the e-waste and other chemicals are managed effectively, so as not to harm Australia’s environment.

Without a UN Class or item code, non-nicotine vaping devices were being imported as a consumable item, as battery-operated confectionary.

Preliminary analysis of data from this year’s Clean Up Australia Day suggests that one in five volunteers reported finding vapes. (Photo credit: Clean Up Australia)

The highest number of vapes recorded during clean ups by Sea Shepherd Marine Debris teams was 27 at Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast. (Photo credit: Karolina Strittmatter)

Soft plastics scheme could be the basis of true EPR

By Robert Kelman

THE proposal from the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) for a National Plastics Recycling Scheme (NPRS) is being met with scepticism by some. The failure of industry to meet the national voluntary packaging targets hampers the credibility of this current proposal. For example, the 2025 target for 70 per cent of ‘all plastic packaging recycled or composted’ is way off with the most recent published rate at 16 per cent.

Some Material Recovery Facility (MRF) owners are unconvinced they can manage soft plastics (without upgrades or new facilities), and councils in particular, are losing interest in being the unfunded repository of packaging that producers and retailers put to market.

There are questions the AFGC must address so all can work together to build a sustainable plastics stewardship scheme, such as will the NPRS:

1. Reimburse councils the full costs of collection, transport, sorting, storage and processing of plastics covered under the scheme (assuming kerbside is a viable collection vehicle)?

2. Determine eco-modulated producer fees based on the sustainability of the packaging producers use?

3. Guarantee long-term offtake agreements for reprocessors to have the certainty they need to invest in capital?

4. Outline exactly the level of industry levy being proposed? Will this truly reflect the costs of collection, sorting and processing of recovered materials?

The NPRS appears to be seeking to embed council-funded kerbside collections as the primary collection mode for soft plastics with a number of ‘orange-bag’ trials currently underway – i.e. we don’t yet know whether this approach of a separate soft plastics bag in kerbside bins works, or whether it will simply add to existing

Many are seeing the NPRS as just another industry exercise to avoid costs of packaging recovery.

The NPRS has a broad remit starting with end markets through to collection.

contamination problems in kerbside and many councils and associations are expressing this concern.

The NPRS is being presented as a form of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) potentially modelled on schemes such as Belgium’s ‘Fost Plus’ packaging EPR scheme.

Whether Fost Plus is equitable or not (and there are questions from my European colleagues with the published recovery rates), the fact is Belgium producers will in 2023 pay around $2 per kilo for any soft plastics they put to market. If the 150,000 tonnes of soft plastics AFGC say consumers take home in Australia each year is correct, the Fost Plus model would invoice producers around $300M per annum of EPR fees to fund collection and processing of these materials, including council rebates.

Such industry responsibility would be a significant step-up for packaging recovery and recycling in the Australian market. This cost alone would also ideally incentivise buy back from

producers as a way of mitigating fees.

A recent AFGC webinar outlined that the costs and benefits should be seen through the lens of existing kerbside programs. That is, councils should be happy with possible cost savings from some soft plastics being removed from the body of the bin and possible lower landfill costs. I’m not hearing that they are, and in fact many are seeing the NPRS as just another industry exercise to avoid costs of packaging recovery and leave the costs and risks to local government and MRFs.

The NPRS has a broad remit starting with end markets through to collection. This is valuable, but ‘who should pay’ remains unanswered by the project and voluntarism hasn’t worked to date. Without regulated mandates it’s hard

to see how this current proposal will either. Minister Plibersek should engage with the sector to develop a regulated plastic packaging EPR scheme. This would likely include:

A per kilo eco modulated EPR fee should be placed on all packaging put to market (plastics more expensive than cardboard etc); If kerbside recovery of some of these materials is viable, a relevant portion of these fees would be reimbursed to councils, MRF upgrades etc;

• Additional program fees would be utilised for other collection streams, from retail etc; and Mandated targets, penalties and appropriate representative governance structures should be in play.

An eco-modulated fee would also serve to change packaging design (quantities, recyclability, materials) by making more sustainable formats cheaper.

The NPRS proposes the need to develop end markets and the published

EOI for councils from the AFGC talks about secondary markets derived from producer demand for recycled content. But this is not sustainable as virgin packaging is often cheaper than its recovered competitor, and producers will mostly opt for the cheaper option. Through the NPRS, producers appear to be stating that they are leading a new soft plastics recovery agenda. However, it appears it is, at this stage a collection system operated by councils and with no home for the material.

The NPRS framework is a good starting point and the REDcycle crisis was a circuit breaker. We cannot go back to industry leaving ratepayers and kerbside to pick up the bill or expect various voluntary targets to give enough certainty to recyclers to invest in reprocessing facilities; or expect part-funded retail-based collection schemes to survive the travails of the variabilities of secondary markets.

Robert Kelman is the director of the Reloop Platform.

The fact is, in 2023, Belgian producers will pay around $2 a kilo for any soft plastics they put into the market.

The current recycling rate of all plastic packaging sits at 16 per cent.

Source separation key to RDF and waste-to-energy plants

JONATHAN Schulberg, Eriez business development manager, heavy industry Australia and New Zealand, believes waste-to-energy (WtE) plants are in short supply, and something needs to be done about it – ASAP.

And he’s not wrong. HZI’s East Rockingham plant in Western Australia is due to come online some time in 2023 (contacted recently, the company declined to give an exact date), while Veolia and its partners are looking to Victoria’s Latrobe Valley to get a plant up and running.

There were plants mooted for Sydney, but they were nixed, and it looks like Parkes in regional NSW might be getting a plant sometime in the future. Note that it was stated ‘future’ not ‘near future.’ This is because, although Schulberg waxes lyrically about the East Rockingham plant –from the WA government, industry stakeholders, the states’ EPA, and the

developers themselves – he does make a good point about the time it takes for these things to happen. In the case of East Rockingham, from the time it was first put together as a serious proposition, until it goes live, a decade will have passed.

And therein lies the rub when it comes to getting a plant up and running. As Schulberg rightly states, technology can move along quickly over a 10-year period, so much so that the initial scope with regards to the types of equipment being used can change. This cannot only affect the cost of the project, but also efficiencies.

“That’s the area where Australia has got to be a lot sharper,” he said. “Because if a project takes that long, the initial discussions around technology equipment means that there’s literally a generational change in both the

technology and the people that are developing that technology during that timeframe.

“A plant is designed to a scope and then you take those parameters to market. Then companies like Eriez and other technology providers will bid for the separation equipment and other companies will bid for their aspects.”

When it comes to the circular economy, Schulberg said that some members of the public see energyfrom-waste as being outside that remit because the residual waste is not reused and goes to landfill. However, he points out, a lot less would go to landfill once going through the wasteto-energy process. So why is Schulberg interested in such plants? Refusederived Fuel (RDF) plants, which use a similar process in energy from waste plants.

Eriez manufactures magnetic separation equipment which is

designed to remove ferrous and nonferrous contaminates from WtE and RDF material streams to improve their purity and generate an additional revenue stream from those recovered metals.

How does the process work?

According to Schulberg, liberation is king. The material stream will first go through the screening process to remove larger, dangerous materials including ferrous metals. Then the remaining material, may be manually sorted via a picking station where additional non-desirables are removed prior to a shredding or grinding process. This both reduces material size fraction and further liberates entrapped ferrous and nonferrous metals to be recovered downstream.

“That said, it can be a delicate process in RDF plants,” he said. “These plants are preparing a fuel source

The time between a plant being scoped and commissioned needs to be reduced.

The material they take in for this can be a mixture of C&D, C&I and MSW. These material streams have a reasonably high rate of contamination that needs to be removed at different stages of the process, which is where Eriez comes in.

The use of magnetic separation can yield recovery rates as high as 95 to 98 percent of available metals in a particular stream. The key in achieving these rates comes down to selecting the right equipment in the right position and at the right part of the process. Eriez has equipment that can be applied at every part of the process.

“RDF plants operate a reasonable process rate - between 12 and 18 tonnes per hour, on average,” said Schulberg. “However, as the material is refined, the bulk density, which is the material weight per cubic metre for metric and cubic foot for imperial, changes dramatically. The bulk density at the start of the process can be in the hundreds of kilos per cubic metre. But once shredded and the material is liberated, that can be reduced to less than 150kg per cubic metre, which increases process volume – not weight – many times over.”

“In addition, the material size fraction post shredding, which can be as small as minus 25mm, possesses separate issues for recovery. Ferrous metals become harder to recover as they become smaller.

“For this we apply our range of permanent magnetic drums, Dynamic pulley separators and rare earth rolls can recover material size fractions down to ferrous dirt. By removing as much of the ferrous and weakly magnetic material as possible, this concentrates the nonferrous material in the stream, making it easier to recover via eddy current separation.”

He said that in an ideal process, what should be left over is a good

that can then be palletised and processed to be used as the fuel source. RDF fuels have been used in cement kilns and can also be used as a WtE fuel source.

Schulberg also said that when it comes to metal recovery, there are a few of important points to remember. First, metals have infinite recycling potential. Second, the recovered materials produce an immediate revenue. Finally, the purity of the RDF material being processed is critical.

“To that effect, ferrous and nonferrous separation equipment is looked at as insurance policies to maintain and or improve that purity,” he said.

And like most in the resource recovery and waste space, Schulberg sees more than just the monetary value coming from source separating metals, it’s also about what is left behind.

“A MRF, for example, would process anywhere from 20 to 35 tonnes an hour depending on the plant size,” he said. “A scrap metal yard – depending on process capacity – can process 35-40 tonnes per hour, with larger yards being able to process from 100-180 tonnes per hour. You can imagine the waste volume that’s coming from that. If you could divert that from landfill and utilise that waste stream in a waste-to-energy facility, or a fuel process facility, then that would be a significant volume of waste that’s diverted from landfill.”

Schulberg recently visited a waste-to-energy facility in Buffalo in upstate New York where he noticed they processed material straight from the kerb with no pre-processing and then into the incinerator. The facility recovered all the valuable metals after the material had been incinerated. He was surprised at how well the facility was embraced by the community,

considering its location.

“By the time I went there, they’d verted something like three and a half million tonnes from landfill,” he said. “And the only thing that’s coming out of the stacks is steam. This plant is literally in the middle of a suburban street – there are houses, and there’s a whole community directly across the road. In contrast, you look at any coal-fired power plant, you look at any power station, there’s not a single house within five or 10 kilometres. Yet here I am standing in the middle of a waste-to-energy processing facility, and I can see a house not 50 metres away.”

While education of the public and politicians still needs work, at the end of the day there might be little choice left but to use plants such as wasteto-energy to meet Australia’s future energy requirements along with dealing with residual waste going to landfill, according to Schulberg. It is a twobirds-one-stone scenario.

“A number of landfill sites have been closed in recent years,” said Schulberg. “There are fewer sites where you can take this refuse, so waste-to-energy becomes the more plausible option. In Sweden, only one per cent of waste is sent to landfill, 52 per cent is used for energy products and 47 per cent is recycled. Waste to energy has been fully embraced in countries like Sweden as a necessity and works hand-in-hand with the circular economy.

While Eriez does have skin in the game – it can provide equipment to a lot of waste processing plants –Schulberg said that if governments can get on board quicker, it will be better for equipment suppliers, councils, and communities.

“If projects happen quicker, and we’re allowed to grow more organically, rather than having that stop/start while approvals get sorted etc., then the better it will be for everybody,” he said. “[Government bodies] need to start doing, not just saying, that they’ll make the approvals system easier.”

dictate the product purity they require. stream of material di

A dynamic pulley separator is just one piece of equipment used to remove ferrous metals from WtE flows.

MRF fires could be thing of the past with new technology

FOR 30 years, Melbourne-based Wastech has been solving its customers problems by finding bespoke solutions to a customers’ waste and resource management requirements. Whether it be supplying balers, compactors, bins, lifters, washers, or helping design and engineer MRF or waste management facilities, the company’s expertise has been called upon many times to help assist business implement waste equipment to improve their efficiencies.

Garreth Dorey has been with the company for almost three months. Wastech’s general manager of sales and marketing has been brought in to help take the company to the next level as it navigates a range of issues within the industry.

Dorey is excited about his new role and passionate about driving innovation to continue to grow the Wastech brand as a “one-stop shop” company.

“It’s about bringing capability that will enable us to grow and take the business to the next level,” he said. “We’ve got a very aggressive growth strategy, which is about helping our customers develop fit-for-purpose solutions. We also provide what’s missing in the industry, which is the local aspect of what we do – local design, local engineering, local manufacturing, and local back-up service. We can really add value to bespoke options for our customers.”

This includes trying to find solutions to one of the more pressing issues that have made the headlines on more than one occasion over the past couple of years – Material Recovery Facility (MRF) fires.

Fires are one of the biggest concerns for companies that own and/or operate MRFs and other waste and resource recovery facilities. And the concern is well founded for several reasons. First, there is the significant business interruption/ financial loss of having a facility closed down for a long period of time and the ensuing issues such as feedstock build-up, and in some cases, no other place to process the waste. Second, some fires are caused by lithium-ion batteries, which cannot be put out by traditional methods such as water or foam. And even when these fires are not caused by batteries, and foam is used, it usually contains PFAS, which is starting to earn a reputation akin to asbestos as far as its negative effects on the environment. Lastly, are issues of insurance. Currently, MRFs are seen as high risk to insurers, thus only

The mast includes a thermal detection camera and a fire cannon that help put out a fire.

a couple of companies offer policies to cover such events. And of those that do, it doesn’t come cheap.

Wastech had been looking for a fire suppression system for some time but found nothing that could offer an all-encompassing solution for MRFs or similar waste processing facilities. Then along came the Fire Rover. Wastech’s distributorship of the US-based product came before Dorey joined the company, but he is a big fan of the system.

“From a Wastech point of view, one of the reasons we got into this type of product was due to the problem that you see all around the world – fires in these facilities, our partners facilities,” Dorey said. “For us, being such a big player in building and maintaining these types of facilities, we also want to help protect them.

“With insurance premiums going through the roof, we wanted to be able to protect our customers and help them protect themselves.”

Wastech started a conversation with Fire Rover’s developers after noticing how well the product had been going in the United States over the past 18 months.

“As soon as we saw the product, we knew that we could make it fit with what we do,” said Dorey. “MRFs and resource recovery facilities are becoming more common now that landfills are starting to

close, and no new ones are opening. The facilities are located all over the country and can often be unmanned. It was important for us to protect these facilities with a product that had advanced detection analytics, as well as human verification, prevention and suppression. Fully trained Fire Rover monitoring team watching screens remotely 24/7 365 days

of the year so when a hot spot is located via the system, human verification of the incident means action can be taken right away. They can see the heat detected and verify whether it’s an immediate or long-term risk. And then they suppress the fire before it starts while contacting the site and authorities and letting them know of the potential incident.”

Fire Rover is both a fire detection and suppression system, although Dorey points out that Wastech sees it more as the former.

The system works by having what can be described as a huge shipping-like container that holds the F500 encapsulating agent, as well as computers and another array of equipment that assists with helping the system perform its duties. A thermal detection camera and fire cannon are mounted on a telescopic mast. If the thermal detection camera detects a hot spot it feeds the information to the aforementioned 24-hour manned investigation station, whose staff will verify the issue before suppressing the fire. The retardant can spray up to 33 metres.

Research from the US shows that the system detected more than 2800 hotspots in 2022. This caused the system to be pressurised and ready to work 344 times, with fire suppression activation being needed 137 times. There are already some systems in place around Australia.

“We’ve got multiple units that are live at the moment,” said Dorey. “We have been engaging with some of the biggest brands in the waste and resource recovery sector and tailoring fit-forpurpose solutions. This is also helping them drive conversations with their insurance providers.

“They’re recognising that fire technology is providing greater protection and possibly assisting to lower premiums, combined with low ongoing maintenance fees compared to the risk associated with sites that are unmanned.”

An install is scoped by members of Wastech in conjunction with Fire Rover, who will propose the best solution for a client needs. Risk assessment is the key driver when it comes to setting up a new fire suppression system.

“Our process is that we will go to a site to understand where the risks are,” said Dorey. “We then propose a solution that would suit that site. For example, a site may require plumbing going to multiple cannons. We can set a system up just outside of the facility. We do that a lot, whereby we’ll put it outside and we’ll pipe it up through the building, and we’ll have a mast at two different locations inside. If it’s a big site, we might go in and place two or three of these around the area.”

Finally, one of the main points of difference that Dorey highlights, is that not only can it identify the risk of fire if it finds a hot spot, but can help suppress and put them out.

“When you look at most current fire protection products, they use sprinkler systems that might slow the fire down while authorities are called,” he said. “Our product doesn’t just slow the fire down it helps put the fire out in the early stages within seconds. Then we notify authorities. Most fire prevention technologies are designed to slow down the progress of the fire not put it out. Research has shown that for every 30 seconds a fire is going, it has the potential to double in intensity. Fires get out of control quickly because they’re not put out at the source. We stop it before it begins.”

The Fire Rover can shoot foam more than 33 metres to help put out a fire.

Human verification is key to making sure a hot spot is a potential fire risk.

It is waste and resource recovery facilities like this one that would ideally have the Fire Rover system installed.

Demolishing the problem of Queensland’s growing construction waste

By Mac Irvine

AUSTRALIA’S growing waste stream in the construction and demolition (C&D) sector will be alleviated by a new, stateof-the-art flagship Rino Recycling facility in Queensland that will accelerate the transition to a circular economy.

Backed by $75 million in debt finance from Australia’s ‘green bank,’ the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), this investment is the single largest commitment to be made by the CEFC $100 million Australian Recycling Investment Fund.

With less than a third of all C&D waste in the world being recovered and reused, the CEFC is helping to alleviate the growing waste stream, with the Queensland investment bringing CEFC lifetime commitments to the waste and bioenergy sectors during the past decade to more than $560 million. With a flexible approach to investment, recognising the needs of an evolving market, the CEFC invests to help cut emissions across the Australian economy to help achieve Australia’s target of net zero emissions by 2050.

The $89 million facility, operated by Rino Recycling, will be able to process more than one million tonnes of C&D waste annually, including concrete, excavation material, vacuum waste and skip bin waste. The plant is expected to deliver 55,363 tonnes of CO2 equivalent abatement annually, with a recovery rate of more than 90 per cent, reducing the amount of C&D waste that would otherwise be directed towards landfill.

When completed, the automated, integrated plant will be one of the largest in Australia for throughput volume under one roof, with the capacity to handle multiple waste streams efficiently and separate the products effectively to extract valuable output without reprocessing or rehandling.

Placed between the Brisbane CBD and airport in Brisbane’s east in Pinkenba, the Rino Recycling facility is located to take advantage of Queensland’s surge in building and construction and help address the under-development in the Southeast Queensland C&D recycling sector. As Brisbane’s population continues to grow and with the city preparing to host the 2032 Olympics in

less than a decade, a raft of development and infrastructure projects are breaking ground, or are in the pipeline. Brisbane aims to implement a sustainability strategy to achieve a climate-positive games.

Developers are looking for ways to handle the waste that is being generated from expansion. The new plant not only offers a solution to this with proven technology, but also supports the long-term circular economy by valuing materials that would otherwise be discarded, contributing to a more resilient and sustainable supply chain.

With technology provided by recycling specialists Turmec and CDE, the plant will allow for the use of recycled products instead of virgin aggregates, road bases, sands and soils to create opportunities for the use of lower embodied carbon content in construction projects.

The ambition for addressing decarbonisation in Australia is clear.

To get on the right track to achieve Australia’s commitment to deliver a net zero emissions economy by 2050, cuts from emissions need to be made anywhere they can – from the way we

build to how we recycle. Unlocking the untapped value of what is considered ‘waste’ has significant potential to deliver on a more sustainable, lowemissions built environment.

The new facility will be able to deliver more than 56,000 of CO2 equivalent abatement annually.

Mac Irvine is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Director for Alternative Fuels

CEFC’s Mac Irvine

Treatment and recovery on top of the agenda for one-stop shop

FIFTY-nine years ago, Hi-Quality started as a haulage company, which specialised in transportation that supported a quarrying business. Almost six decades later, the company has diversified into several businesses including being a resource and recycled products supplier.

Remaining a privately held, Australian-owned business, it has a footprint in all the Eastern seaboard states, as well as the ACT.

Greg Leghissa is the company’s COO and has spent the best part of a decade at the company, watching it grow to provide innovative, end-toend solutions. It is literally a one-stop shop for a lot of waste processing and resource recovery needs. Not only

does Hi-Quality undertake resource recovery, but it has a hand in product disposal, hazardous material treatment, quarrying materials, as well as recycling road bases and washing sands. To tie the whole operation together, the company has a national fleet of trucks. High-end infrastructure projects the company has worked on include Sydney’s WestConnex, Melbourne’s Metro Tunnel, and the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, plus a range of other Tier One and Two projects around the country. One of the key strategies of the company is to have a lot of its facilities in proximity to each other.

“Each of those sites specialise in

different solutions. In Sydney, it’s a full C&D recycling facility where they’re getting a lot of skip waste, through to a full recycling plant with optical sorters and air separators,” said Leghissa. “Another site nearby focuses on soils as well as brick and concrete recycling.

“In Queensland, we have a hazardous treatment facility, while down in Melbourne we’ve got one site that offers the full complement of Hi-Quality activities. It’s got resource recovery, treatment and disposal, and a water treatment plant. With the latter, we’re currently treating more than two million litres of water a day. There’s also the acid sulphate treatment capability as well as the ability to receive NDD Drill

Hi-Quality’s

Muds. Finally, we have got a logistics hub where the recycled products, as well as natural products, are put back into the marketplace.”

What are some of the biggest changes Leghissa has seen over the past decade while with the business?

Source separation, which is driven by the increase in levy costs, is his immediate answer. He sees the push by the government for an increase in the levy as a win-win all round. Not only because it means landfills will have less waste in them, but the recycling of C&D will reduce the end cost for clients. Then there is the issue of end markets. Are there plenty of people wanting

COO Greg Leghissa.

Hi-Quality started out as a quarrying company before expanding into related industries.

Source separation is one of the many cogs to Hi-Quality’s interstate operations.

to take the recycled bricks, wood, and concrete?

“Yes, is the short answer. The construction industry is really thriving in New South Wales and Victoria, and there’s not enough demolition work happening to keep up with the demand,” he said. “As soon as the material hits the ground and gets tested, it’s going out.

There’s just not enough concrete and brick coming though. With the soils, we’re fortunate because we do have the quarries and we can do some rehabilitation at those sites using those aforementioned soils. With timber, we’re making an RDF product in New South Wales, which gets utilised at a separate facility as a replacement for coal. We’re fortunate that we can find end customers for all our products.”

The wastewater part of the company’s remit was brought about due to it winning tenders that include generating a lot of water use. Leghissa and the team knew that they could put the wastewater to good use instead of it going down the drain. Once it’s treated, it’s now reused on-site to wash trucks, as well as having a hand in dust suppression activities.

“The plant we built means there’s actually capacity to put through three million litres a day, but we haven’t had to push it that hard yet,” he said.

And if Leghissa ruled the world, what would be some of the changes

he would like to see in the C&D space? Top of his list is the already mentioned source separation due to its associated costs, or lack thereof for the disposer. He said that people also need to do research when it comes to disposing of their waste. He believes there are plenty of options that help with the circular economy. Gone are the days of it being somebody else’s problem, or just dumping it at a landfill.

“They’ve always got options of where to take the waste, and they really need to take it somewhere where it will be recovered and circulated back into the industry,” he said. “Whether it’s brick, concrete, timber, even plastics and paper and cardboard – all of that is recoverable.

“Another point is, if there is a bit of contamination on site, that doesn’t mean the whole pile of waste needs to go to landfill. There are technologies around that can help separate the materials, to reuse where possible and only dispose of the contaminants.”

He also mentioned the government increasing landfill levies, which will help make recycling the most economic option. Then there is the social license within the community that a lot of companies want to start pushing.

“The larger corporate companies have got annual reports and board reports and commitments they need to keep,” said Leghissa. “And the smaller companies, they want to save a dollar where they can. If it’s cheaper to send their material to a recycling facility than landfill, then they will. That’s a key driver for those guys.”

Leghissa believes an increase in landfill levies will drive more companies to recycle.

Hi-Quality keeps on expanding its waste and resource recovery footprint.

Roads to Reuse paves the way for local government sustainability

RECYCLED construction and demolition

(C&D) products are being used by Western Australian state and local governments to deliver critical projects and meet sustainability targets.

Sustainable construction

The Roads to Reuse (RtR) program is the Western Australian Waste Authority’s flagship C&D recycling program and provides high-quality recycled C&D products in civil applications. Developed between the State Government and Waste and Recycling Industry WA, it closes the loop on C&D recycling, reduces waste to landfill, recovers valuable materials and creates local jobs.

RtR products are recycled road-base and recycled drainage rock. Recycled road-base – or crushed recycled concrete (CRC) – consists largely of concrete produced from the crushing and screening of C&D waste. RtR recycled road-base can be used as sub-base or base-course in sealed road and pavement construction and other sealed hardstand areas. State and local governments have used RtR products in projects, with results demonstrating reduced project costs and high performance. The RtR product specification is setting the standard for manufacture and quality control.

RtR reduces natural resource use and carbon emissions, and local processing and availability in high-demand areas mean reduced transport costs and emissions. Use of recycled construction products by governments sends a clear message that they are delivering on Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) commitments for new infrastructure projects.

The road to recovery

The RtR program started life in a 2019 pilot, a freeway widening project in

Perth’s southern suburbs with 25,000 tonnes of CRC sourced from the demolition of Subiaco Oval.

The project focussed initially on supporting the production of RtR products consistent to meet the RtR product specification. The project also includes an independent audit of producers’ processes and products to provide an additional level of assurance to purchasers. It provided prospective buyers with confidence in the final product and opened the door to a partnership with the State Government’s Main Roads agency.

Main Roads has now used more than 165,000 tonnes of RtR products in various projects. Having proven its performance and benefits, Main Roads only permits RtR-sourced CRC in road pavement construction and is committed to increasing the use of recycled materials.

A number of State Government METRONET projects have also used RtR-certified CRC with more than 15,500 tonnes used for projects such as level crossings and retaining wall blocks. Materials are only available from accredited suppliers, ensuring rigorous criteria, systems, processes and independent oversight that means environmental assurance and transparency for purchasers.

Local government applications

Local governments can now experience the benefits of RtR applications firsthand with a growing number of civil applications. Engineers are finding it delivers high strength and durability, with self-cementing properties and increasing hardness over time. That means it’s workable and provides a tight surface finish. It requires less mixing and produces a material that works like conventional granular materials. Use of RtR products

also helps local governments meet project and sustainability goals, such as:

• Water saving because less water is required for compaction than traditional limestone sub-base.

• Reduced labour costs, increased durability over raw material and lifecycle cost reductions.

• Reduced transport costs because of local availability.

• Contributes to ESG outcomes for new projects.

• Elevates ISCA sustainability evaluation ratings for the economic, social and environmental performance of infrastructure assets throughout their lifecycle.

The Waste Authority is offering financial incentives to encourage local governments to experience the benefits.

The RtR Local Government Incentives program is available to all Western Australian local governments and regional councils sourcing product from accredited RtR suppliers.

City of Gosnells uses Roads to Reuse

City of Gosnells, in the Perth metro region, recently completed the Crescent Shared Path project, which connects one of the missing links on the Principal Shared Path (PSP) network between the CBD and Armadale in Perth’s south-east.

The new section of path is 1.1 km long and runs the length of the adjacent rail reserve. The path is generally 3m wide but narrows to 2.5m at some locations to avoid impact to trees. The new shared path will tie into the existing PSPs. The project was funded jointly by the City of Gosnells and Department of Transport.

Highlights include:

• Following the boxing out and compaction of the sub-grade, the RtR

recycled road-base was applied in lieu of limestone sub-base, water-bound and compacted ready for the application of kerbing, asphalt seal and line marking.

• The existing mature trees were able to be retained and incorporated into the design, allowing the path to wind around the trees and weave through the shade of the canopy.

• 300 tonnes of recycled road-base was used during the project, along half the length of the path

City of Gosnells Mayor Terresa Lynes said the City is committed to proactive waste management and sustainability.

“Using recycled construction materials to build the shared path at The Crescent in Maddington was a perfect opportunity to demonstrate this commitment – and to prevent a substantial quantity of construction waste material going to landfill,” Mayor Lynes said.

Meeting future needs

C&D waste makes up about half of Western Australia’s waste stream and with good management practices, most of it can be recycled. As demand for building and construction continues to increase, so too will the opportunity to use high-quality recycled materials. Having supported product development, pilots and a growing network of accredited suppliers, the Waste Authority’s focus is now on ensuring governments and other buyers are aware that RtR material is ready, available and consistently delivering high performance.

The RtR program is an example of how collaboration across industry and government is fostering a circular economy, and has an important role in transporting Western Australia a long way on its journey towards becoming a lowwaste State.

Recycled road-base installation in progress.A portion of the completed path.

City of Gosnells’ Mayor Terresa Lynes, Deputy Mayor Adam Hort, Councillors Aaron Adams, Glenn Dewhurst and David Goode, Member for Thornlie Chris Tallentire and members of the Gosnells Men’s Shed Cycling Group hit the tarmac at the new bike path.

CDE Group – driving the circular economy

CDE Group has a global reach. A provider of wet processing equipment and technology, its washing solutions are in place in a range of projects around the world.

The company has been around for more than 30 years, with one of its remits being to help reduce greenhouse emissions by diverting more than 100 million tonnes of construction, demolition and excavation (CD&E) waste away from landfills.

CDE’s Australasian regional manager, Daniel Webber, has been with the company for the past five years. He’s excited about where the industry is at as it continues to look for sustainable solutions that will put the industry in good stead for years to come.

“We have proven the success of our wet processing systems with a portfolio of over 2,000 successful projects installed globally,” said Webber. “In Australia, governments are amplifying the importance of sustainable construction and development; owners are seeking contractors with an environmental and social, and corporate governance – (ESG) centric approach; and contractors are seeking material suppliers with sustainably sourced products.

“There is vast potential for the Australian construction industry to create a future of sustainability, and CDE Group can help transform that

potential into reality.”

Key to the Queensland-based company’s success is being one of the best wet processing technology provider for the quarrying and recycling industries. Its modular solutions can be quickly commissioned, deployed and constructed.

Its series of products include wash plants, conveyors, dewatering screens and everything in between. It covers a range of different applications including waste recycling and wastewater management.

CDE has helped Melbourne-based materials recycling company Repurpose It to make the most of its offering by suppling modular elements to the latter’s waste recycling wash plant. This site has reinvigorated the industry in Melbourne.

“Repurpose It is a company that’s investing to turn construction waste materials around to make the highest end products, which it can send straight back out the gate,” Webber said.

“It’s a business that’s targeting large infrastructure projects, making longlasting industry relationships, and making good stewardship of the materials that are coming in to maximise recovery.

“Our solution at Repurpose It incorporated several elements including an AggMax logwasher from the Infinity screening range, a ProGrade H2-60 screen,

an EvoWash sand classification and dewatering system, conveyors, a decanter centrifuge and an AquaCycle thickener. Today, the plant processes up to 150 tonnes per hour of a single waste input.”

From 2017-2018, CD&E waste made up approximately 46 per of all waste generated in Victoria, according to Blue Environment’s Victorian Waste Flows report. This is more than six million tonnes, of which 2.7 million tonnes was landfilled. With the help of CDE machinery, Repurpose It is trying to reduce that number by turning waste into reusable material for a variety of industries.

Webber sees these types of collaboration as a key ingredient to helping turn Australia’s circular economy into a reality. Repurposing old waste into new materials is one of CDE’s main objectives.

As with a lot of waste streams, some are more difficult to source separate than others. This is something that CDE can help with its range of products.

“Concrete crushing and screening, for example, are very much commoditised, and there’s a lot of people out there doing it very well,” he said. “But when waste streams get a bit trickier – they might be contaminated with wood, plastics, chemicals or hydrocarbons – that’s when we come to the fore.

“We can still show a recycling route for that tricky material back into the circular economy, and that’s something we’re extremely proud of.”

CDE Group is one of the companies at the forefront of trying to make Australia’s National Waste Policy Action Plan to recover 80 per cent of all waste by 2030 a reality.

As some natural resources start to diminish, or become too expensive to extract from their natural surrounds, it has become apparent that there is a good business case for recycled materials.

Over the next decade, the CDE Group

will continue to help tackles some of the more difficult waste streams, said Webber.

“A lot of the heavy fraction of CD&E waste is contaminated with masonry and low-strength materials, so we’re putting a big focus on rejecting that material and separating it out to enable the more recyclable materials to go back into full-strength aggregates,” he said. “There’s a lot of this kind of waste being handled in regional parts of Australia, so we endeavour to unlock those areas and deliver them the technology that can address contaminated materials.

“We want to see the generators of CD&E waste, such as Tier 1 and Tier 2 contractors drive the procurement of recycled materials; we want to foster the relationships between CD&E waste generators and CD&E waste recyclers where the benefits go both ways.

“We want to close the loop directly to enable waste generators to see their recyclable materials, that otherwise would have been put in landfill, to recycling companies that will take those materials in the gate and sell back the recycled products to be reused in future buildings and infrastructure.’

CDE provided modules to Repurpose It’s washing plant

CDE’s Australasian regional manager Daniel Webber is always looking for sustainable solutions.

CDE’s equipment is all about maximising the recovery of C&D waste.

Small spaces no problem for processing plant specialist

SINCE 1997, CUP Recycling GmbH in Germany has been part of the WERNER group of companies, a family-run company in the waste disposal industry.

CUP operates a processing plant for C&D waste, waste wood and green waste in Germany, whereby materials are cleaned of impurities and shredded into all standard grain sizes with raw materials being returned to the economic cycle.

CUP needed a new waste wood processing plant for an annual volume of 30,000-60,000 tonnes of waste wood of all grades.

“Our end product specifications were, firstly, a high-quality chip 0-100mm for reuse (chipboard industry), and secondly, a pre-shred of 0-300mm for thermal recovery (generation of process steam and electricity),” said Ralf Berninger, Technical Operations Manager at WERNER RC GmbH /CUP Recycling GmbH. “However,

the challenge was that the processing building had already been built and the available space had therefore already been determined.”

The system, which was designed by HAAS, was built in a way that the company could process pre-shredded material separately. This meant that the remaining part of the plant (almost 70 per cent) was not in operation during this time. According to Berninger, this guaranteed a minimisation of costs in terms of wear, maintenance, and energy consumption.

Kurt Palmer is a sales specialist for CEMAC, which is the authorised representative and sole agency for HAAS equipment in Australia. He sees the similarities between the German build and projects CEMAC has worked on locally. Making the most of available space is something the company is used to dealing

with in its builds.

“Space constraints are always a problem with most projects,” he said. “Being able to design a plant or processes to fit into an existing space creates challenges. And with this project, the challenge wasn’t necessarily around the equipment itself but how their equipment was laid out. Although HAAS is known for its shredding equipment, which is fantastic, it also designs and builds the complete process. The challenge was in the material handling of the plant.”

Several people and departments at HAAS are always involved in the planning of a technical concept. Taking the specific requirements into account, German-based HAAS specialists Sascha Kloft and Patrick Szubrin designed the layout. A technical design engineer then drew up the final drawing, which was presented and optimised in further meetings with CUP.

Palmer said although the fit was tight, there were certain types of machinery that had to be included such as the primary shredder, and a secondary hammermill that was needed to reduce volume down to 100mm minus.

“Then it’s about separating the valuables like the timber, the brick, the fibre, the plastics, etc,” he said. “The challenge is getting the material from one piece of equipment to the next in a way that makes sense, which efficiently utilises the space that you’ve got, but also transfers that material efficiently so that it’s well presented for the next piece of equipment. That might be an screen, eddy current or magnet, or it might be an optical sorter. With this project it was a big challenge.”

HAAS’s experienced mechanical engineers manufactured the individual plant elements from quality materials and

The new system makes the most of the available space therefore keeping efficiency to a maximum.

Fitting plant and machinery into tight spaces is a specialty of HAAS.

components. All electrical and hydraulic installations were completed in-house at HAAS.

“Every HAAS system is custom-made, adapted to the process specifications and the available space,” said Maik Fischer, service engineer at HAAS. “All components fit precisely, subsequent welding or flexing on site is eliminated. In this plant, for example, we have integrated solid maintenance platforms so that access is possible to all relevant points. The construction on high platform pillars also ensures ground floor accessibility where needed, even with forklifts and lifting platforms.”

Approximately 120 tonnes of steel and 100,000 screws are installed in this system. The heaviest single piece, beside the 21-tonnes pre-shredder, weighed about 12 tonnes, so the availability of crane support during assembly was essential.

“The system was about fitting in an additional process to recover more raw materials and recyclables than what they were previously,” said Palmer.

How it works

The TYRON 2000-E XL 2.0, equipped with fine tools 9/9-4, pre-shreds the waste wood. The electric overband magnet separates the exposed coarse iron parts. A bi-directional conveyor transports the pre-shredded waste wood (0-300mm) either to the storage bay outside the building or to the ARTHOS 1600-E hammermill for secondary shredding.

The ARTHOS shreds up to 40 tonnes of pre-shredded waste wood per hour to a size <100mm. The ballistic chute guarantees trouble-free operation and therefore protects the hammermill, therefore downtimes are minimised.

A heavy chain conveyor equipped with an automatic chain tensioning and lubrication system transports the material to the non-ferrous separator. The reversible screw conveyor underneath the non-ferrous separator enables a special fraction to be discharged directly into processing building or, alternatively, the end product to be transported onwards to the fully automatic storage bay filling. Finally, the end product is transported with a movable conveyor belt to the required storage bay (in total five bays).

The plant is equipped with a dust suppression system. State-of-the-art misting technology binds the existing dust.

Optimally controlled

The control room is located in a container in the processing building, from there the plant is controlled. In addition, two

mobile tablets allow flexible control and operation of the plant. During commissioning, the CUP Recycling team received training in operation and maintenance of the system.

What types of issues were taken into consideration when the plant was commissioned?

“Can we get to it to maintain it? Can staff get to it to monitor it? Are we presenting the material from the previous processing machine to the next machine in a way that allows that machine to work the best it can?” said Palmer. “For example, you don’t want to feed a vibrating screen and have a conveyor belt at 90 degrees, because the material’s just going to drop in the middle. And then there’s power requirements and cabling, too.”

What would Palmer’s advice be to those who are thinking about building

a new plant and need help with the scope?

“Engage with us early,” he said. “That engaging with us early in the project means that we can assist with a guide through the challenges right at the start. All too often, especially if it looks like it’s a new extension to that building, we need to take into consideration things like the positioning of the roof – is it a peak roof, or curved? Is there going to be a gantry crane in the way?

“One other thing is that customers tend not to clearly define is what outcome they’re looking for, so we help with that. Finally, we ask, ‘what is the budget?’ Technically, most materials can be recovered for recycling or reuse. Typically, it doesn’t always make sense to do so and that is where we can help to make the correct decision.”

Getting material seamlessly from one process to the next was a key challenge.

Maintenance accessibility was a key consideration when installing the plant.

Ecostar Dynamic Disc Screening

Company Overview:

Ecostar is synonymous with state of the art technologies in the mechanical separation of waste and the waste materials sector. Thanks to Dynamic Disc Screening technology, many types of waste can be used efficiently today as clean fuels and energy sources.

Ecostar has been manufacturing their fast and versatile screening technology for over 25 years, and has been active in Australia and New Zealand with partner CSS Recycling Equipment for more than 10 years.

Ecostar’s market is primarily manufacturers of waste disposal plants and those for the production of biomass, ecofriendly fuels and compost, renewable energy, and both public and private utility and multi-utility companies.

Ecostar has developed specific screening products and technologies to separate different materials, even the most difficult ones, while ensuring the highest quality of separation, high volumes and low maintenance costs.

Komatsu Forest

Company Overview:

Komatsu Forest is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of forest machines. We are represented on six world continents by a network of dealers and our own sales companies.

Komatsu Forest’s head office is in Umeå, Sweden, and we have two manufacturing units, in Sweden and the USA. Our own sales companies are located in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Austria, France, United Kingdom, Russia, USA, Australia and Brazil, and our network of dealers represent us on all other important forestry markets.

Our extensive service organisation takes care of the machines, ensuring that they perform their best throughout their service lives. We have workshops throughout the world, service vehicles for quick assistance, in-house machine and methodology instructors to help maximise productivity, and support functions for everything related to our machines and services.

Products and Services:

We offer products and services that

Brands:

• Custom collaborative screen design & complete plants

• Mobile Ecostar Hextra

• Static Ecostar Hexact

• Static Ecostar Easyone

Core Capabilities:

Dynamic Disc Screening (DDS) DDS is a series of shafts equipped with hexagonal or octagonal discs, with a flat profile, made of Hardox to guarantee maximum resistance. The material flows on the screen’s discs and is subjected to a jolting movement that separates waste. Undersized material drops below the screening surface, passing through the gaps between the discs while the oversized material advances to the end of the screening plane. The result is a clean fraction,ready for recycling processing.

Hyper Dynamic Disc Screening (HDDS) HDDS is for the separation of particularly difficult waste containing

long and stringy materials, such as bags and plastic straps used for packaging, which can wrap around the shafts, or plastic bottles that can get stuck during the screening process.

Screening Width Adjustment Technology (SWAT)

SWAT is the patented Ecostar technology particularly efficient with materials such as PET and plastic, paper and cardboard and multi-material. SWAT can be installed on DDS screens in order

to quickly change the screening section on-site according to the customer’s production needs and the material to be screened.

Contact Details:

CSS Recycling Equipment Solutions

PO Box 359 Dee Why NSW 2099

Phone: 1800 644 978

Email: info@cssequipment.com.au

Web: www.cssequipment.com.au

increase productivity while simplifying the working day for you as a machine owner.

We combine all our services under our Customer Care concept. This is our promise that you will enjoy the benefits of Komatsu Forest’s investments in research, development, servicing, support, logistics and innovative services. These combined resources are at the very heart of Komatsu Forest’s offer.

Our goal is to make your working day as safe, problem-free and profitable as possible, no matter where in the world you operate. Let us show you that by choosing Komatsu, peace of mind and accessibility can become a natural part of your working day.

Brands

•Komatsu

•Peterson

•TimberPro

Core Capabilities:

Our world-wide network of highly trained service professionals is ready for you. We know how important it is to be

close to service and maintenance when help is needed. Therefore, we have a market-wide network of highly trained service professionals that knows your Komatsu, Peterson & Timberpro machine in every detail. They are, in turn, in constant contact with the Komatsu Forest head office so your voice or needs are never more than a call away from our collective expertise. Furthermore, we are constantly developing new services that will help you in your everyday work.

We offer:

•Workshops and field services throughout Australia & New Zealand

•Well qualified personnel with expert knowledge of Komatsu & affiliated machines

•Field Service that enables us to remain close to you and your

machine

•Support and maintenance throughout your machine’s service life

•Maintenance agreements with fixed maintenance prices and other benefits

Contact Details:

AUSTRALIA

Komatsu Forest Pty Ltd

4/11 Ave of Americas

Newington, NSW 2127

T : +61 2 9647 3600

E : info.au@komatsuforest.com

NEW ZEALAND

Komatsu Forest Pty Ltd

15C Hyland Cres

Rotorua, New Zealand

M: John Kosar + 64 274 865 844

M: Paul Roche + 64 21 350 747

Hitachi Zosen Inova

Company Overview:

Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI) is a global leader in energy from waste (EfW), anaerobic digestion (AD) and Power-to-Gas, acting as an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor delivering complete turnkey plants and system solutions for energy recovery from waste. Since 2015, HZI Australia, a 100% subsidiary of HZI, is developing new projects in Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific. Its first project, the 300,000 tpy East Rockingham WtE is now in construction and will start commercial operation in 2023.

Products/Services:

• Thermal treatment of residual waste, energy recovery, flue gas treatment, and residue recycling

•Wet and dry anaerobic digestion of food & green resources, renewable power production, biogas upgrading to biomethane and bio-CNG

• Power-to-Gas for volatile electricity into renewable synthetic gas for a carbonneutral economy

• Development, Design, Build, Finance, Own, Operation & Maintenance

Brands:

•Hitachi Zosen

•Aquaroll, DYNOR, Kompogas, •HZI Etogas, HZI DryMining

Core Capabilities:

Energy from Waste, Renewable Gas, Project Development, EPC, O&M, Asset Management

Recent Projects/Installations:

ERCHIE KOMPOGAS DIGESTER, ITALY

At the end of 2022, the contract for the construction of the 20th digester in Italy was signed between the Swiss greentech company Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI) and Cesaro Mac Import (CMI), a key player in Italian waste management and a proven EPC sales partner of HZI, with which it shares many years of joint project experience. Construction on the plant commenced at the beginning of the year. The client is locally based Heracle Srl, which from late Autumn 2023 will be

Cooee - Waste Facility Data Solutions

Cooee

Contact Details:

East Coast Office 0447 393363 West Coast Office 0422 525 985 solutions@cooeedata.com cooeedata.com

Company Overview:

Cooee provides a cost-effective gatehouse data solution for small to medium-sized landfills and transfer stations. We have a great team with decades of waste experience and dedicated data engineers who ensure that Cooee is set up to meet each of our customer’s unique needs and circumstances. Therefore, saving our customers from frustration and wasted time and money.

Products and Services

• Cooee – Waste Facility Data Solutions, inc:

• Conversion of volumes to tonnage by waste type

• Manage and monitor tip pass use

• Account holder management & invoicing

• Compliance data capture and reporting

• Operational oversight.

Core Capabilities:

We work with our customers to ensure that Cooee is customised to meet their needs and services. Easy to use, the accurate data from Cooee drives good decisions. You can check waste quantities and revenues at a glance, seamlessly manage tip passes and even work in off-line environments.

Recent Projects/Installations:

Richardson Road landfill and transfer station. Shire of Harvey. Customisation, installation, training and commissioning of Cooee at the Council’s waste facility. At the Council’s request, their version of Cooee includes operational and compliance facility checklists. These are sent to their Waste Officer to review and promptly act upon if there are any issues.

Landfill data systems. Shire of Derby West Kimberley. Due to the remote location of the facilities, Cooee’s ability to operate in an off-line environment is important. Cooee provides up-to-date account holder transactions for prompt invoicing.

using biogenic residues from the region to generate renewable electricity in a composting plant on site.

At the heart of the treatment process is a plug-flow digester in a reinforced concrete construction. In this digester, 30,000 tonnes annually of biowaste (organic fraction of MSW) and green waste collected separately in the province of Brindisi will be mixed and degassed under anaerobic conditions by a horizontal longitudinal agitator with plough-shaped paddleheads. This will produce about 10 million Nm³/a of biogas, which will be converted into electricity in a combined heat and power plant. The electrical energy generated will be sufficient to power around 2,200 fourperson households in the region for a year. Biogas technology such as the Kompogas® digester in Erchie plays a special role, as alongside plants operated by farmers it enables the recycling of biogenic municipal

waste, leftovers from food production and green waste to generate renewable energy with a wide range of possible applications: electricity, heat and vehicle fuel. For more information visit: https://bit. ly/3HO7DFI

Contact Details:

Hitachi Zosen Inova Australia Pty Ltd

Level 16, 1 Denison, North Sydney, NSW 2060

Phone: 02-8003 4110

Email: info@hz-inova.com

Web site: www.inova.com

Key Contacts:

Dr Marc Stammbach 02 – 8003 4110 info@hz-inova.com

Applied Machinery

Brands:

• Genox

•Meyer

Contact Details:

55-61 Nissan Drive

Dandenong VIC 3175

Phone: 03 9706 8066

Email: sales@appliedmachinery.com.au

Web: www.appliedmachinery.com.au

Company Overview:

Applied Machinery is one of Australia’s largest suppliers of quality recycling machinery. Over 30 years industry experience enables us to deliver turnkey solutions for all manner of recycling applications across Australia.

Products and Services:

•Shredders and granulators

•Plastic washing, tyre, and e-waste recycling plants

•Repelletising systems/screen changers

•Optical Sorting Systems

Core Capabilities:

Applied Machinery has the capability to service the smallest single machine requirement, through to the largest of multi-site, staged installations and complete recycling line, turn-key projects. We supply some of Australia’s largest recycling organisations. A wide range of shredders and granulators are always in stock for quick delivery.

Recent Projects/Installations:

D&M WASTE MANAGEMENT

Perth

Genox J-Series Pipe Shredder feeding a plastics washing and pelletising system. The J-Series pipe shredder features a multi-rotor design with long life counter knives ideal for shredding different diameter and sized pipes.

MRA Consulting Group

detailed and practical advice to support your waste and resource recovery needs.

Core Capabilities:

Eriez Magnetics

Contact Details:

MRA Head Office

Suite 408 Henry Lawson Building, 19 Roseby Street

Drummoyne NSW 2047 02 8541 6169 info@mraconsulting.com.au www.mraconsulting.com.au

Company Overview:

MRA is one of Australia’s leading environmental consultancy firms, specialising in all aspects of waste and recycling. We are experts in waste, resource recovery and the circular economy, technology, climate change, carbon and sustainable development. Our vision of the future is one that is both environmentally sustainable and economically rational. With over 35 professionals in environmental science, engineering, law and finance, working across Australia we have the experience and technical knowledge to provide

Customised advice to all levels of government and corporations. Our objective is to collaborate with you from the initial briefing process through to project development and implementation of solutions specifically tailored to your needs in the fields of:

Strategy & Commercial – Innovative and tailored strategies

Circular Economy – Help move your organisation or material towards a circular economy model

Planning & Approvals – Development and planning approvals and licensing services

Contracts & Tenders – Preparation, review and assessment

Organics – Business case, collection processing and market development solutions

Grants – Scoping, application, writing, review and administration

Waste Education – Effective and engaging programs

Auditing – Research and compliance audits

Carbon – Climate adaptation, ERF reporting and accounting

Australasian Specialty Coatings

Products and Services:

Flooring (Epoxy and polyurethane)

Company Overview:

Leading specialists in metal separation, resource recovery technologies, and developing new recycling strategies and processes.

Products and Services:

•Magnetic Pulleys & Scrap Drums

•Ballistic Metal Separators

•Suspended Electromagnets

•Eddy Current Separators

•Stainless Steel Separators

•Fines Metal Recovery Systems

•Airless Metal Recovery Systems

•Tech Service and Repairs

Brands:

•P-Rex® Scrap Drum

•Shred1™ Ballistic Separator

•FinesSort® Metal Recovery System

•RevX-E Eddy Current Separator

Core Capabilities:

Eriez designs and manufactures equipment to successfully recover andbeneficiate ferrous and nonferrous metals. Identify and remove unwanted metal contaminates to minimise product rejection and maximise product purity. We can help you achieve greater recovery at a higher-grade product delivered at a lower cost per ton. Recover valuableresources from:

• MRF, MSW, C & I and C & D

• E-waste

• Tyre recycling and Scrap metalyards,

• Energy from waste feed and bottom& fly ash

• Green waste processing, compostingand road sweepings

Contact Details:

Eriez-Australia

21 Shirley Way, Epping, Victoria 3076

Phone: 61-3-8401-7400

Email: sales.au@eriez.com

Web: www.eriez.com.au

Company Overview:

Australasian Specialty Coatings – ASC – is an experienced coatings company located in Blacktown. We work in Construction and Maintenance and provide a range of Protective Coatings and Treatments for Concrete & Steel.

We have been established since 2003 and we have a strong track record in achieving outstanding results for our customers. ASC successfully works with a wide variety of customers including Sydney Water, Ericsson, Veolia Environmental and Water Services, Suez Water and Waste Services, Unilever, Coca Cola Australia, General Mills, Bega Foodservice, George Weston Foods, Diageo, etc.

ASC is an experienced organisation with ISO 9001, 14001 and 45001

Certified Management Systems as well as the NSW Government 5th Edition. We are also members of the Master Builders Association.

– Commercial & Industrial Floor Resurfacing, Concrete

Remediation, Concrete Repair, Anti-Slip Flooring, Anti-Static Flooring, AGVFlooring, Self-Levellers, Demarcation & Line marking

Coatings for Concrete Densifiers, Waterproofing Membranes, Sealers, Concrete Resurfacing, Epoxy and Polyurethane Flooring, Chemical Bund Linings, Acid-Resistant Coatings

Protective Painting Services

Abrasive Blasting, Vapour Blasting, Shot-Blasting, Corrosion Control Coatings, Chemical Resistant Coatings

Contact Details:

ASC Head Office

1/14 Chicago Avenue

Blacktown, NSW 2148

Phone: 02 8840 8888

Email: enquiries@acoatings.com.au

Web: ascoatings.com.au

If

If

you want access to all the major stakeholders in the waste industry then a Capability Statement is a great introduction to those decisionmakers, allowingyour business to get a crucialfoothold in a competitive market.

Zero waste to landfill with Genox line

difficult products,” said CtL marketing manager Jessica Ansell.

CtL has a number of recycling lines, a key part of which revolves around recycling soft plastics. In order to protect products from deterioration, soft plastic packaging typically contains multiple different types of plastic joined together in thin layers. This creates issues at end of life, as these materials cannot be separated, and hence provide a low grade of recycling feedstock. The company specialises in recycling imaging products, ink and toner cartridges, bottles and the toner itself. More then 53 million cartridges have been recycled over the past 20 years.

TonerPlas is a high-performance asphalt additive that improves the longevity of roads and has been used in resurfacing projects across Australia including the Monash and M80 freeway upgrades in Victoria.

The company has recently installed a new Genox recycling line at its Somerton plant, which will handle a range of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) materials including bottles, retail displays, tubs and crates. The end product called ‘flake’ will be supplied as a commodity to plastic trading companies, which in turn may be washed and turned back into bottles.

has access to full technical support and back-up. The installation of our new line was trouble free; the Applied team were there to deal with any unforeseen issue. And with Genox we have the reassurance that we are buying equipment that features the very latest technology and features.”

The new line includes a feeding platform, a conveyor with metal detector, a single shaft shredder and granulator. All of the extraction along the line includes “de-dusting”, which removes dust/dirt/fines from the material as it progresses along the line. It also ensures the safety and health of the operators.

‘Zero waste to landfill’ is Close the Loop’s (CtL) brand promise and what drives the company to help customers achieve their sustainability goals and participate in the circular economy.

The circular economy makes the most of valuable resources, transforming items that would normally end up in landfills and oceans into useful commodities that can be returned to the supply chain.

“A key role of CtL is bridging the gap between industry and the consumer. Our aim is to make the process accessible and encourage people and companies to take the next step to recover and recycle

The recycled raw material is supplied back to a number of different industry partners; cartridges are also returned to the original supplier for remanufacturing. CtL is also a manufacturer of recycled products including mailing satchels and horticulture bags. CtL’s recent merger with OF Packaging further complimented the company’s focus on more environmentally friendly packaging products.

“We are the largest user of post-consumer mixed soft plastics in Australia, taking large volumes of this material as a feedstock for our asphalt additive product - TonerPlas, and our recycled plastic injectionmoulding resin rFlex,” Ansell said.

Applied Machinery, one of Australia’s largest suppliers of recycling machinery, is the sole Australian distributor for Genox Recycling Technology.

“We always go into a competitive tendering process with any new equipment, but we place great importance on trust with any business relationship – and a long-term relationship like we have had with Applied is how that trust is built,” said CtL founder Steve Morriss.

“Over the years we’ve done a lot of work with David Macdonald from Applied; and more recently with Peter Koueik. We know if there’s any issues they’ll be addressed straight away. That’s one of the key benefits of dealing with a local supplier who

Pronar shredder makes debut

The Pronar MRW 2.1010 mobile slow-speed shredder has arrived in Australia. It has a versatile design capable of reducing materials of varying bulk and composition by up to 75 per cent.

The unit is equipped with specially adapted shredding programs for complex and stubborn materials that can be tailored to suit different types of inputs.

It also has a 55-inch wide outfeed belt with adjustable discharge height that can reach up to 198 inches. Then there is the tilting hopper that is designed to facilitate the direct feeding of extra-long materials that can sometimes be found in such operations.

The shredding shafts are also optimised for aggressive in-feed and have four adjustable shredding settings.

The Volvo Penta diesel engine

drives the shredding system, which can handle bulky materials. The engine features a noise protection system and a clean fix system for cooling the engine and hydraulic oil.

The shredding shafts measure 96 inches by 33 inches and are constructed from wear-resistant steel for durability and longevity.

The shred size of the materials depends on the input, but it typically ranges from six inches to more than 24 inches. It also has several features to improve performance, such as belt speed regulation, signal lights, and a central lubrication system.

In addition to its existing features, a range of accessories can be added to further improve the performance and efficiency of the unit.

These include the cross-belt magnet to remove metals; the breaker bar to ensure materials are

cut to the right size; the hydraulic oil heater for cold-working conditions; and the track shoes to prevent the tracks from leaving marks.

The shredder is also designed for easy service. Machine draining points are located on the outside for easy access.

There is enough space inside the shredder to carry out all necessary repairs in comfortable and safe conditions.

The dust proofing also increases the life of the motors. A zig zag (ZZ) classifier separates the plastic from any paper labels and other fines.

With the acquisition of another recycling company in the US and a commitment by the founder to keep ‘spreading the word,’ Close the Loop Group will no doubt continue to expand and be at the forefront of new recycling initiatives.

“People are realising that the world has finite resources and there needs to be a huge effort by both consumers and industry to do more in the recycling arena. For me this is not a job – it’s my life and a passion of mine; to educate and encourage everyone to embrace the circular economy,” said Morriss.

The MRW 2.1010 is suitable choice for those looking to improve their recycling processes, as it is highly efficient and has the power to reduce material size quickly.

Its versatility allows it to be used with various materials and applications, making it a great addition to any business.

Pronar equipment has sales, service, and spare parts support from Lincom Group.

Close the Loop founder Steve Morriss (left) at the company’s facility in Victoria.

The Pronar shredder has four adjustable shredding settings.

Workable and practical solutions needed for waste streams

This included working with Processed Engineered Fuel (PEF).

At the time, one of the facilities he was working on was producing PEF, and he would support them to sell that PEF to industries that needed it, as a reuse solution that prevented the use of virgin resources.

“Getting an understanding of how it worked was exciting in terms of learning about those projects,” he said, “especially because it made a tangible environmental difference.”

several factors that go into the team’s thought processes. It’s not just about cost, although that is a consideration. They are always questioning whether decisions make sense on all levels. These include asking themselves such inner thoughts as, ‘What did we miss? What are the risks?’

get source separation right. Of course, getting one built is another story.

HOW does someone who is doing a Bachelor of Business at UTS in Sydney – majoring in accounting and finance – end up working in the waste industry? To be fair, Raqib Rahman does work in the accounts team at Veolia, but unlike a lot of those profiled for the Young Professional segment, he didn’t fall into the industry by chance. It was a slow burn.

“Waste management and environmental services were not on the top of my mind as a kid,” he said. “However, my life has been influenced by a few progressive behaviours and observations. Growing up, I was brought up in the whole ‘don’t waste your food; eat everything off the plate; someone else out there doesn’t have this opportunity’.”

Ecological behaviours continued to be reinforced when he first attended kindergarten and school. In Year One, teachers got the children to build a frog pond. He believes that formed the building blocks for his interest in the industry because it showed him how important it was to look after the environment around you.

When he graduated from university, Rahman worked for a professional services team and qualified as a chartered accountant (CA) before heading off to New York for a couple of years. On his return to Australia, he decided he wanted to make more of a difference in the world so applied for a job with SUEZ, which was soon to be acquired by Veolia.

Once onboard, Rahman was part of the management accounting team, which enabled him to be part of “some pretty exciting projects” mainly in South Australia and New South Wales.

After two years working on such issues, Rahman moved to the company’s Investments Team, which entailed looking at other aspects of the waste industry, including wasteto-energy and decarbonising the company’s fleet of trucks.

“We were looking at things like hydrogen trucks and electric vehicles and seeing how we could incorporate them into our fleet,” he said. “There were challenges at the time, such as long-haul vehicles that are travelling great distances in short form, such as the residential trucks. We were trying to find the best solution for stakeholders both within the organisation and the environment.

“As part of my role, we get to trial and test every possible solution on the market. EV is something we continue to investigate with our operations team, to meet both our logistical and environmental needs – this collaboration on innovation is why I love the versatility and challenge of the job.

What does a typical week look like for Rahman? Varied, he says. Although he is a “bean counter” at heart, there is much more to the job, which is why he likes it so much. He has since moved from the Investment Team and is now with the New South Wales’ Resource Recovery Team. Currently, the team is looking to accelerate ecological transformation and build a circular economy, both for and alongside its customers.

“This includes, how do we bring them all together?” he said. “Where’s the best place to do this? And we’re also working with engineers on the right technologies, and whether it’s right for Australia – leveraging our global reach, whether that’s in Paris or the US. We need to know the best solution for the Australian market.”

When making decisions there are

“The environmental lens is a huge factor as well,” said Rahman. “That’s where my passion comes in and the need to understand the details to make sure that what we want to do works but is also sustainable.”

Looking forward, what does Rahman see as the big issues facing the industry? Unsurprisingly, an issue that is getting a lot of attention in both trade and mainstream media is FOGO, and its roll out in the various states. His main concern is ensuring there is enough education taking place, to minimise contamination during the roll out. He said it is also important to get the end market part of the strategy in place.

Another issue he is keen to spruik is waste-to-energy. Rahman believes that to maximise the value you can get out of such a facility, it is necessary to

“I would love to see an energyfrom-waste facility built in New South Wales,” he said. “From what my colleagues, who have witnessed the European experience have said, they’re amazing. These plants take waste away from landfills, so they do have a place in our waste stream and are completely safe.”

Rahman is also a fan of education. He knows it’ll take time for reuse and recycling to take hold. People are short on time, and no matter how good their intentions are, don’t fully understand the implications of their lackadaisical attitude when it comes to recycling.

“Wishcycling feels like it is a real term that can be used more often,” he said. “It’s where a person looks at a product and says, ‘I know this is recyclable’, when it may not be.

“People need to take that extra step and care to make sure only the right things end up in the right bins – and I hope to play a key role in helping them to find workable and practical solutions to our resource recovery issues.”

Veolia’s Raqib Rahman loves working in the industry.

Education of the market is a key passion for Rahman.

Government the problem, not the cure

Dear Sir

Well, it seems we might have discovered the roadblock to making sure all the various targets are hit within the waste industry. And what a plethora of objectives there are! Plastics reductions, landfill diversions, recycled content targets – the list goes on. It almost becomes like being in a never-ending line trying to get into His Majesty’s coronation (hope it all went well, Sir. Saw that you too were seated in the third row next to You Know Who).

What is the roadblock, you ask? Government. Government. And, government. I’m not talking about the people in local government who have a hell of a job trying to keep up with their state and federal political masters. More those at the federal and state level of this Great Southern Land.

I went up to the sub-tropical climes

of Coffs Harbour recently where they were having a conference on waste and resource recovery. My goodness, what an amazing gathering of like-minded souls trying to solve the waste and resource recovery problems of the world. There was an array of topics on hand – from how to get in on council collection contracts, the role of procurement in the circular economy, as well as infrastructure woes. A lot them had common themes with the main one being that government needs to come to the party. And there lies the rub.

I’ve sauntered up and down the length of the East Coast of this Antipodean outpost for some time visiting the various waste expos that have been brought together, whether it be the hinterland of Coffs Harbour, the metropolitan cool of Melbourne, or the sassy pizzaz of Sydney – very rarely have I seen state or federal politicos turn

up. The odd mayor here and there, and the occasional video link to be sure, but on the ground? Out and about? Turning up for a morning or afternoon to get down and dirty with the common folk? Nope, nada, nay, no.

It’s one thing to send out a press release spouting the latest government initiatives, but when it comes to ‘boots on the ground’ and taking onboard the needs and wants of the industry, they appear to be about as common as a £3 note. I thought it interesting that on more than one occasion at a seminar being held at the Coffs Harbour retreat, there were murmurs, rumblings and forthright thoughts stating that the biggest issue was the governments and their proxies taking too long to do – well – anything. Whether it be the hoops that need to be jumped through to get an approval – again – on anything, through to unrealistic targets being

set, or getting their priorities straight on what needs to be done in the waste space.

There was one instance where a stalwart of the industry (40 years and counting), who was espousing his decades of wisdom, mentioned that 25 years ago he stated that X, Y and Z needed doing. “Here we were 25 years later, and government inertia meant those updates were no closer to being realised,” he said.

I know I harp on sometimes, Sir, but you know, when it comes down to just getting things done, the bureaucrats are like bunker referees in the NRL or VAR in football – they know the laws of the game, but when it comes to applying them practically, they’re found wanting on many occasions.

Have a great month, Sir.

JB

London, Oslo and Dublin Rely on Our Energy-from-Waste Technology.

London, United Kingdom

So Does Perth.

Rockingham, Australia

Our solutions are based on e cient and environmentally sound in-house technology, and cover the entire life cycle of an Energy-from-Waste facility. Our proven technologies have been part of more than 700 plants worldwide. As a global leader in energy from waste we are proud to be able to say: We deliver. Check our references.

Waste is our Energy

Oslo, Norway

Dublin, Ireland

PUSHING FOR A WASTE FREE AUSTRALIA

Learn more about how we are Transforming our Business, Industry and World.