Zero Waste: Tararua Resource Recovery

Report on Zero Waste New Zealand Trust funding for a project involving resource recovery from the tip face by Tararua Resource Recovery in Masterton.
By Peter Forman

Background

Over the last five years Tararua Resource Recovery has been fine tuning Masterton District Council’s existing waste diversion initiatives which broadly consist of three smaller drop off centres around the town and a bigger resource recovery centre at the landfill, including a used goods recovery and sale area.

Tararua Resource Recovery operate a ’sorted at source’ system and have enjoyed high participation rates and a predominately positive public, achieving 50% diversion in a now out dated and under sized collection system.

With the Council embracing zero waste concepts and the landfill having a limited life span, ideas for improving and expanding waste diversion were investigated. By late 2001 the Council had approved expanded diversion, kerbside recycling, recovery from the tip face, surveys and a the appointment of a waste minimisation officer, as well as extending Tararua Resource Recovery’s contract for 2 years.

There were two key factors that prompted the development of this tip face recovery programme:

1. That many people, including Councillors, general public and the compaction contractor commented to us that the tip face was regularly littered with "tonnes of recyclables"
2. The presumption that the percentage of used goods now being recovered with a small presence on the tip face, would increase dramatically with a larger presence.

Findings

There were no mountains or tonnes of recyclables to recover from the tip face and the amount of used goods recovered was not dramatic. The tip face can give a visual illusion. What looks like tonnes are only kgs once pressed. We only recorded two businesses regularly dumping recyclables in any volume that were recoverable.

Tararua Resource Recovery’s project to recover resources from the tip face is now completed. The project started on the 17.06.01 and finished on the 11.01.02. Two young local men were employed as the recovery team. This type of project requires capable hard working workers. We recommend that anyone undertaking this type of project take the time to screen applicants thoroughly, or look at the possibility of integrating existing staff into the scheme. Some of the requirements are:

Strong and fit
Able to communicate, verbally and written
Have H.T. license
Able to grasp the essence of what they are doing and get satisfaction from that
Very honest
Able to work alone

Quite a big ask for a tip face worker.

Who Knows What’s Being Dumped?

Hazardous wastes

It was decided shortly after commencement of the project that because of lack of experience and safe handling procedures we would not handle hazardous waste. Tararua Resource Recovery believes that all hazardous wastes should be collected and handled in the appropriate manner. Our observations on the tip face were that there is spasmodic random dumping of hazardous waste that could be recovered or re-directed with even a minimal recovery project at the tip face and that the presence of workers acted as a deterrent and gave some accountability to what people dumped. A small co-ordinated re-direction system could easily be implemented.

Prior to the commencement of this project we obtained permission from Masterton District Council to recover at the tip face. One condition of this was that we reach a satisfactory working agreement with the tip face contractor, this proved to be awkward, but an agreement of a 50/50 split on all scrap recovered was reached.

There was one other change to our brief before our workers started. This was the decision to do a small survey on the amount of recyclables in Council rubbish bags, as this recovery project did not include Council bags. A kerbside collection will be implemented shortly and we thought this could be of benefit to the Councils Zero Waste strategies.

Recovery of Used Goods

We learnt that organised short recovery trips to the tip face are much more cost effective than a continued presence. If the correct system is implemented most material can be recovered with a small presence on the tip face rather than a continual one.

Scrap Steel

We recovered:
Copper: 156kg
Radiators: 82kg
Brass: 152kg
Aluminium domestic: 621 kg
Aluminium cast: 762kg
Aluminium extrusion 430kg
Stainless steel: 792kg
Zinc: 60kg

VALUE $ 5070.00

This is a good result. Although we have an easy to use ferrous and non-ferrous steel recycling area, small amounts of commingled scrap steel continue to be dumped. These collectively add up to a reasonable amount. We believe that this type of material is common in most landfills and the volumes are easy to process and likely to stay consistent. We estimate the value of heavy steel to be around 1 tonne per month = $50.00 per month, times 6 =$300.00

Used Goods

The value of used goods sold was $ 2023.00. This was lower than expected and could only increase from this figure. Common items collected and sold were: books, toys, timber, tools, clothing, appliances, beds and collectables.

Recovered Resources

The only recoverable resource in measurable amounts was old corrugated cardboard, scrap steel and used goods. The recovery operation averaged 1.5 tonne per month of old corrugated cardboard, this equates to $105.00 per month or $630.00 over 6 months.

The price of old corrugated cardboard was reasonably high during our recovery period but dropped towards the end. We pay $30 to $40 per tonne freight. If it dropped any further there could be more old corrugated cardboard on the tip face. The two companies dumping old corrugated cardboard should be persuaded to divert rather than dump. The volumes and value of old corrugated cardboard are small and inconsistent, both the weight and value are low and if you were planning a recovery system it would be wise to calculate low.

Key Points and Observations

Volumes do vary and there are highs and lows in price, they need to be estimated conservatively.
Old corrugated cardboard, used goods and scrap steel were the most consistent items.
A presence on the tip face does create accountability for those dumping, "guilt factor"
A good working relationship with tip contractor and gate contractor is critical.
Use frequent trips to the tip face, working in with the operators rather than a continual presence.
Use existing staff if possible.
This project improved environmental standards and community health as well as creating employment.
This project helped foster alternative thinking and change attitudes with councillors, council officers and the public.

Economies of Scale are Relevant

Our tip is open 7 days a week from 7am to 6pm, every day but Christmas day - this is excessive. We used 1600 hours to recover $8023.00 worth of product. Most dumps are open less than this.

The same result could have been achieved working two hours per day and with dumps that are open 5 days a week that have double or triple Masterton’s population. The dollars and diversion rates become dramatically more appealing. A town of 60,000 could possibility return $48,000 at a cost of 6-10 thousand dollars. There are a lot of variables but the cost of recovery is less than the returns.

A Fourth Option is Helpful

Avenues and systems for recovery of resources in larger volumes like truckloads are not often available or convenient, the attitude "we will pay, just get rid of it" is common. This often leaves it to the dumper not a recycler making the big decision. A fourth and more convenient option is needed, in some circumstances to help people to do the right thing.

Convenience is the key:

Example: A truck driver with a load of building demolition arrives at the landfill. The load is commingled but with 1/5 diversion content of high value timber and scrap. There have been no areas to extract or reuse the waste prior to arriving at the landfill. There is a recovery centre, but it would be impractical and take hours to sort.

Whether the truck driver is a driver, recycler, contractor, builder, or owner, the odds on him stopping and recycling are low.

We found that if there is a dedicated area close to the tip face where material can be recovered with ease after dumping that this is a practical fourth option to recover some commingled loads.

Conclusion

Whilst some results from this project were not anticipated, the information has been critical and very valuable to us. We intend to implement a recovery programme using the results as a guideline. Small recovery systems run using the parameters of our observations would be viable at most landfills and transfer stations.

There are many variables that influence recovery systems from town to town but I have never been to a transfer station or a landfill where in the first 30 seconds I have not picked up something of value. This type of recovery system is a last resort option but we found that the varied benefits do have merits that compliment Masterton’s Zero Waste journey. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Zero Waste NZ Trust for their contribution to the project.

Funded $10,000 in June 2000.