Aggregate, masonry & soil (AMS) and garden and timber ...€¦ · Detox Your Home A Victorian...

Aggregate, masonry & soil (AMS) and garden and timber waste (GTW) product improvement project North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group

NORTH EAST WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY GROUP

AGGREGATE, MASONRY & SOIL (AMS) AND GARDEN &

TIMBER WASTE (GTW) PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

Author Matt Genever, Paul Randell

Reviewer Paul Randell

Approver Matt Genever

Reference RI045-01-R01

Date 27 June 2018

This report has been prepared for NEWRRG under the agreement dated 10 April 2018. Reincarnate (ABN: 83 620 459 387)

cannot accept any responsibility for any use or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

REINCARNATE | NE AMS GTW Improvement Project RI045-01-R01 3

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

3 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT STATE ...................................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 Timber waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Garden waste .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Concrete and brick ...................................................................................................................................................... 32

3.4 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39

4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED PROCESSES .............................................................................................................. 41

4.1 Improvement opportunities at regional scale ............................................................................................................. 41

5 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR LARGER SITES..................................................................................................... 45

5.1 Timber waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 45

5.2 Garden waste .............................................................................................................................................................. 47

5.3 Concrete ...................................................................................................................................................................... 51

5.4 Brick ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53

5.5 Soil (clean fill) .............................................................................................................................................................. 54

6 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR SMALLER SITES .................................................................................................. 56

6.1 Timber waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 56

6.2 Garden waste .............................................................................................................................................................. 56

6.3 Concrete and brick ...................................................................................................................................................... 56

6.4 Soil (clean fill) .............................................................................................................................................................. 56

7 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FINANCIALS ............................................................................................................... 57

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Examples of current RRC storage conditions for AMS and GTW wastes .......................................................................... 9

Figure 2 Waste generation in the north east ............................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3 Project stages ................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 4 Examples of receival and storage areas for timber in the north east ............................................................................ 20

Figure 5 Typical mobile timber shredding process ....................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 6 Examples processed timber stockpiles in the north east ............................................................................................... 22

Figure 7 Examples of receival and storage areas for garden waste in the north east ................................................................. 27

Figure 8 Examples processed garden waste stockpiles in the north east .................................................................................... 29

Figure 9 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east ............................................... 33

Figure 10 Example of a mobile crushing plant for concrete and heavy materials (including brick and asphalt) ......................... 34

Figure 11 Examples processed concrete and brick waste stockpiles in the north east ............................................................... 35

Figure 12 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east ............................................. 39


TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 Overview of the current state for AMS and GTW wastes in the north-east...................................................................... 8

Table 2 Summary of current financials for AMS and GTW wastes ............................................................................................... 10

Table 3 Summary of material specific process improvements..................................................................................................... 11

Table 4 Summary of financial analysis for improved recovery processes for AMS and GTW wastes .......................................... 12

Table 5 Overview of timber waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east ....................................................................... 19

Table 6 Current financial summary – timber waste ..................................................................................................................... 25

Table 7 Overview of garden waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east ...................................................................... 27

Table 8 Current financial summary – garden waste ..................................................................................................................... 30

Table 9 Overview of concrete and brick waste acceptance at RRC facilities assessed in the north east ..................................... 32

Table 10 Current financial summary – concrete and brick........................................................................................................... 37

Table 11 Current financial summary – soil ................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 12 Recommended process improvements to be considered at a regional scale ............................................................... 42

Table 13 Recommended process improvements for timber waste at larger RRC facilities ......................................................... 45

Table 14 Recommended process improvements for garden waste at larger RRC facilities ......................................................... 48

Table 15 Recommended process improvements for concrete waste at larger RRC facilities ...................................................... 51

Table 16 Recommended process improvements for brick waste at larger RRC facilities ............................................................ 53

Table 17 Recommended process improvements for soil (clean fill) at larger RRC facilities ........................................................ 54

Table 18 Improved process financial summary – separated raw timber waste........................................................................... 57

Table 19 Improved process financial summary – garden waste .................................................................................................. 58

Table 20 Improved process financial summary – concrete and brick .......................................................................................... 59

Table 21 Improved process financial summary – soil................................................................................................................... 60


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM MEANING

Cages A receptacle or storage area that does not have fully enclosed sides, generally using

wire mesh or steel mesh sides. Some cages have bunding units at the base to prevent

spillage.

Covered area An area with a roof and no more than three sides.

Dangerous goods Dangerous goods relate to items that have immediate physical effects such as

explosion, fire, corrosion or poisoning. A waste material can be both a hazardous

waste AND a dangerous good (such as batteries, which may contain acids that can

impact human health, explode and/or corrode).

Detox Your Home A Victorian Government program that uses event-style collections for household

hazardous waste drop-off.

E-waste Electronic or electrical waste. In Victoria, this is essentially defined as anything with a

cord or a battery. There are different types of e-waste and each may have its own

storage and management requirements based on the level of risk. Whitegoods such

as fridges are metal rich forms of e-waste. These must be degassed prior to

processing to reduce the risk from ozone depleting refrigerant gas.

Garden organics Organics derived from garden sources e.g. grass clippings, tree prunings. Also known

as garden waste.

Gatehouse A building (temporary or permanent) that is the first point of contact for a customer

at a waste and resource recovery facility. Site operatives take payment and direct

customers from this point of the site.

Hazardous waste Hazardous wastes are those wastes that pose a risk to human health. These can

include chemicals such as pool chlorine, cleaning solvents and bleach. Common

hazardous waste collected at a transfer station or resource recovery centre include

batteries, some types of e-waste, paint, fluorescent tubes and gas bottles.

Household Chemical Collection A network of 30 permanent sites funded by Sustainability Victoria for the collection of

common household “problem wastes” including paint, batteries and fluorescent

lights.

Hubs The concentration of reprocessing facilities where there is sufficient waste derived

feedstock to support viable reprocessing options. The location of hubs will vary for

individual material streams.

Office A building (temporary or permanent) that is used by site operatives for office related

activities. For the purposes of this report, an office that is part of the gatehouse has

not been treated separately and is simply referred to as a gatehouse.

Paved A road or pathway that is surfaced in some way.

Recycling shed A shed at a facility that is primarily used for the purposes of collection and storage of

waste or recycling materials.

Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) A facility whose primary purpose is to aggregate, sort, and consolidate reusable and

recyclable materials prior to transport to another facility for recovery or

management. It may include a resale centre. They may be designed to receive specific

material streams such as metals or organics or to receive multiple streams such as

those from households including residual waste. Can be combined with a transfer

station and may include resale centres.


TERM MEANING

Sealed A road or pathway that is sealed with bitumen or concrete.

Spokes The sequence of activities that move materials from waste generators to (and from)

hubs e.g. collection, transport and sorting. The length of the spoke and hence the

location of the hub for a particular material stream is influenced by the impact of

transport on the margin of return for that particular material stream.

Transfer Station (TS) A facility allowing the drop-off and consolidation of garbage and a wide range of

recyclable materials. Can be combined with a resource recovery centre and may

include resale centres. Transfer stations technically do not undertake reprocessing

activities and for this reason we have used the term resource recovery centres (RRCs)

throughout the report.

Transfer Trailer A location, commonly in holiday areas or remote areas, that allows the drop-off of

residual waste and often commingled recyclables for collection. Commonly used in

areas that do not have a regular kerbside service.

Work shed A shed at a facility that is used for site operatives and site work, as opposed to a shed

that is used for the acceptance and storage of waste or recycling materials.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group (NEWRRG) is a statutory body established under the Environment

Protection Act 1970 and is responsible for coordinating and facilitating best practice waste management and

resource recovery across Victoria’s north-east.

NEWRRG has identified a number of waste streams received at resource recovery centres (RRCs) in the region that

are not being managed to maximise potential returns and to promote the creation of value-add recycled products.

Specifically, these wastes include:

➢ Aggregate, masonry and soil (AMS) waste – which includes heavy waste associated with building, demolition

and landscape works and includes concrete, brick, rock, stone, asphalt and soil.

➢ Garden waste and timber waste (GTW) – which includes RRC garden waste and all types of timber waste.

In response, NEWRRG has appointed Reincarnate Pty Ltd (Reincarnate) and Randell Environmental Consulting Pty

Ltd (REC) to investigate options for improved processes and procedures at RRCs that could:

• improve product quality, consistency and saleability

• reduce the impacts of material contamination

• increase material separation

• create higher value end products through processing improvements

• unlock potential end markets for processed materials.

In general, AMS and GTW wastes are processed onsite at RRC facilities, using contracted mobile crushing /

mulching / chipping infrastructure that moves from site to site as part of a processing “milk run”. In most instances

this is managed council by council, with the exception of garden waste which is currently processed through a

regional contract, which is due for retendering in 2019.

The project has taken a staged approach to identifying opportunities for improvement, including:

• A review of available data and information

• Site visits to nine of the 14 council owned RRCs operating in the region

• Analysis of the current state of AMS and GTW wastes

• Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each material stream and its markets

• Review of current financial costs and benefits with current AMS and GTW processes

• Identification and documentation of recommended process improvements (including accompanying flow

charts)

• High-level analysis of financial costs and benefits associated with recommended process improvements.

CURRENT STATE

An analysis of the current state for receival, management and processing of AMS and GTW wastes was developed

using data provided by councils site visits at nine of the regions RRC facilities. A brief summary of the current state

analysis for AMS and GTW wastes in the north-east is presented in Table 1.


Table 1 Overview of the current state for AMS and GTW wastes in the north-east

Material Acceptance and management at RRCs Current end markets

Timber Timber waste is accepted at all 14 RRCs, 12

of which accept mixed timber and shred the

material onsite for use as landfill cover or

rehabilitation. Two sites separate raw

(clean) timber into 30m3 bins for recycling.

End markets for mixed timber do not

currently exist due to the contamination

associated with treated and processed

timbers. This material is only suitable for

landfill. However, the region has significant

opportunities for raw (clean) timber in the

manufacture of particleboard, a fuel source,

or for creating raw timber mulch products.

Garden waste Garden waste is accepted at all 14 RRCs in

the region, 12 of which store the material

separately and process it into a mulch

product when suitable volume is available.

Two sites co-process garden waste with

mixed timber. Gross contamination in

garden waste stockpiles is a key issue,

especially for sites that co-process green

and timber waste together.

Processed garden waste is generally used by

councils for low-value applications such as

embankment fill and landfill rehabilitation.

Visible contamination and inconsistent

product size (often associated with the

current regional contract), as well as the

presence of weed seeds remains a barrier.

Concrete and

brick

Concrete and brick are accepted at 10 of

the 14 RRC sites, generally stored together

in open areas that lack good hardstands.

Material is crushed into a mixed aggregate

product of varying size and consistency.

Signage stating the acceptance of “mixed

rubble” and “contaminated fill

(concrete/bricks/tiles)” at some sites

presents a contamination risk from asbestos

and other materials.

Processed aggregate is mostly used by

council on landfill haul roads or as

handstands or pavement base. A lack of

screening down to a consistent industry

standard (circa 40mm) limits sale options

for this material, however commercial

processors in the region generate revenue

from the same processed material.

Soil (clean fill) Soil is not widely accepted at RRC facilities

in the region.

Those sites that do accept soil use it

exclusively as gully fill or landfill cover.

Examples of typical RRC storage conditions for AMS and GTW waste can be seen in Figure 1.


Figure 1 Examples of current RRC storage conditions for AMS and GTW wastes

The current state review also includes analysis of current financial associated with AMS and GTW wastes.

Reincarnate collated data from councils, industry and some external sources to ascertain current costs and

revenues, which are presented in Table 2. Note: negative returns or losses are highlighted with a red outline.

The financial data suggests that on average, RRC sites are making good margins on AMS and GTW wastes,

generating more revenue on gate fees than they pay in processing costs. This is particularly the case with garden

waste where the 14 sites across the north-east generated more than $400,000 in 2016/17. Similarly, profits for

timber waste and concrete and brick are also high, both generating around $90,000 profit regionally.

It is important to note that this is a limited financial analysis and only provides insight into a set of ‘direct’ profits

and losses for the management of each waste stream. The scope of this financial assessment is limited to the

profits and losses listed in the tables below. Other 'indirect' costs and benefits are not included in this analysis

(such as staff time, site operation expenses, reduced fire risk, reduced stockpiling, improved amenity etc). Costing

all site costs and benefits is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.

This report is accompanied by an Excel workbook (RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) that details all

calculations and assumptions included in the project financial analysis.


Table 2 Summary of current financials for AMS and GTW wastes

Esti

ma

ted

to

nn

es o

r cu

bic

met

ers

rece

ived

per

yea

r

Ga

te f

ee (

$/m

3 O

R $

/t)

Pro

cess

ing

co

st (

on

site

or

off

site

)

($/m

3 O

R $

/t)

Tra

nsp

ort

co

st (

$/m

3 O

R $

/t)

Lan

dfi

llin

g c

ost

($

/m3

OR

$/t

)

Rev

enu

e fr

om

sa

les

of

pro

cess

ed

ma

teri

als

($

/m3

OR

$/t

)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t p

er m

3 O

R p

er t

on

ne

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l an

nu

al c

ost

or

pro

fit

($/y

ear)

(In

c. G

ST)

TIMBER WASTE

Highest ($/m3) 3,275 $45 -$9 -$13 -$33 $- $40 $32,881

Lowest ($/m3) 11 $5 $- $- $- $- -$8 -$1,172

Average ($/m3) 733 $28 -$5 -$3 -$3 $- $16 $6,267

Totals 10,266 $87,742

GARDEN WASTE

Highest ($/m3) 20,000 $23 -$5 -$2 $- $- $18 $287,411

Lowest ($/m3) 67 $5 -$5 $- $- $- -$0 -$4,134

Average ($/m3) 4,139 $15 -$5 -$0 $- $- $8 $28,719

Totals 49,673 $402,063

CONCRETE & BRICK

Highest ($/m3) 1,697 $57 -$15 -$6 $- $37 $58 $33,942

Lowest ($/m3) 10 $18 -$9 $- $- $- $- $-

Average ($/m3) 436 $32 -$14 -$1 $- $4 $17 $6,436

Totals 5,230 $90,098

SOIL

Highest ($/m3) 764 $11 -$6 -$6 $- $- $9 $4,202

Lowest ($/m3) 190 $- $- $- $- $- -$6 -$1,458

Average ($/m3) 399 $6 -$1 -$1 $- $- $2 $560

Totals 1,994 $6,164

RECOMMENDED PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

The report sets out a number of detailed process improvements for each of the materials analysed, including

specific actions for larger sites, where volumes and throughput are higher, and smaller sites, where only small

quantities of materials may be accepted. These improvements are presented in tables and accompanying process

flow charts that provide an easy to follow reference guide for councils and site operatives.

Given the materials are received and stored in very similar ways, the report makes a series of recommendations

for process improvements apply to most of the target materials and that could be potentially delivered at regional

scale. These include:

• Improved operator training and development of standard operating procedures.

• Changes to acceptance processes to ensure that contamination, either gross contamination or the presence of

asbestos, is minimised from the outset.

• Triggers for rejecting loads that are potentially contaminated.


• Changes to gatehouse signage to promote load separation.

• Improved oversight of drop-off areas where feasible.

• Investment in upgraded hardstands for storage areas and site traffic flow.

• More regular removal of gross contamination by site operatives.

• Collaborative procurement of processing services to improve consistency and generate economies of scale.

• Greater engagement with council works departments who are at present the most common end user of

processed AMS and GTW products.

• Improved leverage of regional opportunities such as current energy recovery facilities.

In addition to regional recommendations, specific process improvements are documented for each material

stream, which are highlighted in Table 3.

Table 3 Summary of material specific process improvements

Material Recommended process improvements

Timber • Separation of raw (clean) timber from processed and treated timbers. This will

allow councils to access existing and potential markets for clean timber, such as

waste to energy, particleboard manufacture and use of clean chipped timber as

high-quality ground cover mulch

• Separation of high-value reusable timber, such as hardwood beams, doors,

windows, decking boards and potentially treated pine posts. There is a strong

salvage market for these timbers.

• Landfilling of treated and processed timber for which there is currently no viable

market.

Garden waste • A strong focus on removal of gross contamination at the gatehouse and prior to

mulching, as contamination is increased exponentially through mulching.

• Training of site operatives to identify persistent/noxious weeds such that these can

be directed to landfill and not the garden waste stockpile.

• Mulching to a desired specification in line with market requirements, such as 50mm

minus. For larger sites, separate grades of mulch could be produced using different

size screens.

• Potential bulk haulage of garden waste for processing at a fully licenced composting

facility to ensure products are processed in controlled conditions to Australian

Standards.

Concrete and brick • Changes to acceptance processes to stop receival of mixed “building rubble” or

“contaminated fill (concrete/bricks/tiles)” which carries a high risk of asbestos

contamination and cannot be easily separated.

• Separation of high-value reusable bricks, such as clinkers or other bricks that are

required for renovation of older buildings.

• Crushing of brick and concrete to specification, for example a 40mm minus product

that is useful in a number of applications such as road base and hardstands.

• Potential consolidation and processing at larger hub sites to improve product

quality and economies of scale.

Soil (clean fill) • Given the inherent risk from visible and non-visible contamination in soil, site

operatives should reject loads suspected of any form of contamination, by visual

inspection at the gatehouse and/or where the soils have come from potentially

contaminated sources (e.g. industrial sites, old petrol stations etc) the customer


would need to provide results of analytical testing that classifies the soils as ‘Clean

Fill’ according to EPA requirements. Where loads are rejected, customers should be

provided with details of disposal options for contaminated soil within the region.

• Potential for screening of clean fill into higher value soil by removal of oversize

pieces.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESSES

Whilst many of the process improvements suggested are low or no cost to council, those that require additional

sorting, processing, screening or transport are likely to have higher upfront costs that the current status quo.

However, the resulting product is intended to be more saleable, easily moved, have the potential to generate

additional revenue and greatly improve site amenity.

Reincarnate has assessed the potential costs and revenues associated with the process improvements for each

material stream. In all cases, with the exception of garden waste, there is an increase in the return at a regional

level. A summary of the financial analysis for the improved recovery processes for AMS and GTW wastes is

presented in Table 4 with additional detail provided in Section 6. This report is accompanied by an Excel workbook

(RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) that details all calculations and assumptions included in the financial

analysis below.

Table 4 Summary of financial analysis for improved recovery processes for AMS and GTW wastes

Material Description / comments Financial analysis

Timber Under the proposed process changes, raw timber would

be separated for recovery at all sites, with treated and

processed timber directed to landfill. Reincarnate

estimates around 4,700m3 of material would be

recovered and transported to Benalla or Wangaratta for

recycling or energy recovery. Under this scenario, the

region could generate an additional $67,455 from timber

waste at RRCs

Current $87,742

Future $155,197

Net outcome $67,455

Garden waste It is assumed that around 52,000m3 of garden waste

would be recovered at RRCs across the region, a slight

increase on current rates as Indigo would be separating

garden waste from timber waste under the changes.

There is an assumed increase in processing costs to

ensure standardised, high-quality mulching to 50mm

minus. It is assumed that no revenue would be generated

from sale of mulch, however demand would increase

leading to a likely reduction in stockpile risks.

Current $402,063

Future $358,888

Net outcome ($43,175)

Concrete and brick Concrete and brick represent the most significant

opportunity for AMS and GTW wastes in the region.

Under the proposed changes, sites would divert only

clean loads for processing, with mixed loads of demolition

waste being sent to landfill. Material would be

consolidated at larger sites for processing into a 40mm

Current $90,098

Future $335,834


Material Description / comments Financial analysis

minus product. An assumed sale rate of $37/tonne has

been applied, reflecting past rates and the current

commercial market rate. The region has the potential to

generate almost $250,000 in additional revenue from this

material stream.

Net outcome $245,736

Soil Currently, only small amounts of soil (clean fill) are

accepted at RRC facilities in the north east. The process

improvements recommended focus on reduced risk of

contamination and improved load acceptance

procedures. There is no additional cost or revenue

associated with these changes.

Current $6,164

Future $6,164

Net outcome $0


1 INTRODUCTION

NEWRRG has a role in the planning and facilitation of improved outcomes for waste and recycling in Victoria’s

north east. Central to this is the development of the NEWRRG Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan

(NE Implementation Plan), which sets out a 10-year framework for new and improved infrastructure and services.

In delivering its role, NEWRRG has identified an opportunity for improved management and recovery of AMS and

GTW wastes received at RRC facilities across the region. These materials tend to be processed onsite using

shredding / crushing equipment, into commodities that can be used by council or potentially sold back into the

market.

However, due to a number of persistent barriers the quality of the processed commodities is variable and, in many

instances, RRC facilities do not produce outputs that can be readily used. These barriers occur both before and

after the material is processed, including site processes, contamination and limited controls on sizing and

screening.

According to the statewide data (presented in Figure 2), AMS waste – which is predominantly concrete, brick, rock,

stone, asphalt and soil – makes up around 38% of all waste generated in Victoria1. However, unlike many waste

streams, AMS waste has benefited from very high rates recovery, with more than 80% of material diverted to

recycling and reuse markets. This reflects the impact of landfill levies which are applied on a per tonne basis and as

such disproportionately impact heavy waste streams.

GTW waste makes up around 8% of waste generation, of which 5% comes from garden waste and 3% from wood

and timber waste. There is no verified statewide data on the split of raw timber (sometimes referred to as “clean”

timber) and treated and processed timber, although a market assessment undertaken by Sustainability Victoria in

2014 suggests around 15% – 20% of all timber waste generated is treated or processed2.

Figure 2 Waste generation in the north east3

1 NEWRRG 2017. NE Implementation Plan, North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group 2 Sustainability Victoria 2014. Fact Sheet: Market summary – recycled timber, Accessed 7 June 2018. 3 NEWRRG 2017. NE Implementation Plan, North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group


NEWRRG has engaged Reincarnate and REC to undertake an analysis of how AMS & GTW wastes are received and

managed at RRC facilities, and to develop a set of process recommendations that would seek to optimise sorting,

separation, infrastructure, recovery and processing of the materials. It also aims to develop a high-level business

case for improvement scenarios against the current base-case, identifying where additional costs and savings

might be generated through process improvements.

This report is accompanied by an Excel workbook (RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) that details all

calculations and assumptions included in the project financial analysis.


2 METHODOLOGY

Reincarnate has taken a staged approach to identifying options for process and product improvement for GTW and

AMS materials in the north-east. The project stages are presented in Figure 3 and explained in more detail below.

Figure 3 Project stages

Stage 1 – Project Inception, project planning, literature review data collation

The project team attended an inception meeting with NEWRRG which was followed by a period of data collection

where a standard excel proforma was used to capture information on tonnages of the target materials accepted at

RRCs.

Stage 2 – Consultation and site visits and “current state” analysis

Some 9 of the 14 RRCs in the NE region were visited as part of targeted site assessments. The site assessments

aimed at capturing information on:

• target materials accepted

• acceptance and storage procedures and infrastructure

• processing operations

• end products.

Following on from the site assessments, Reincarnate undertook targeted consultation with industry processors

that service the existing RRC market. The consultation focused on areas for process and product improvement and

potential costs. Consultation data was used to develop part 1 of the financial analysis which summarises the

current financials for receiving and processing GTW and AMS materials in the north-east.

Stage 3 – Improved recovery process analysis

Reincarnate then developed improved receival and sorting processes for differing sized sites in the region that

could drive improved recovery of AMS and GTW. This analysis includes the recommended process and, where

required, the infrastructure and plant required. Part 2 of the financial analysis of AMS and GTW recovery was then

completed for each process and includes: operational and capital costs, estimates of any revenue, avoided landfill

levies and estimated payback periods.

Stage 4 – Reporting and workshop

Workshop: To support the analysis and reporting, Reincarnate facilitated a workshop with council and NEWRRG

representatives to present findings and discuss potential options for improvements.

Reporting: All of the analysis and site findings were then pulled together as a draft report and final report with

required changes (following NEWRRG comments).

Stage 1 – Project Inception, project planning, literature review data collation

Stage 2 – Consultation and site visits and “current state” analysis

Stage 3 – Improved recovery process analysis

Stage 4 – Reporting and workshop


NOTE ON DATA TABLES PRESENTED THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT

It should be noted that the financial data tables presented throughout this report have been structured to show

lowest cost, average cost and highest cost for each of the material streams being discussed (as opposed to costs

for each of the 14 RRC sites). The “Total” row provided in each table reflects the totals for all 14 RRC sites and as

such the columns in each table that show lowest, average and highest cost do not add up to the totals figure.


3 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT STATE

In determining the current state for processing and markets for AMS & GTW wastes, Reincarnate undertook

primary data collection and visited nine RRC facilities4 with relevant council officers, including:

Site Council

Beechworth RRC Indigo Shire

Benalla RRC Benalla Rural City

Mansfield RRC Mansfield Shire

El Dorado RRC Rural City of Wangaratta

Myrtleford RRC Alpine Shire

Rutherglen RRC Indigo Shire

Tallangatta RRC Towong Shire

Wangaratta RRC Rural City of Wangaratta

Wodonga RRC Rural City of Wodonga

The purpose of the site visits was to:

• understand current processes for waste acceptance and load oversight

• assess drop-off, collection and storage activities

• examine stockpiles of processed and unprocessed material

• discuss contamination management.

Detailed site reports for each of the sites are provided in Appendix 1 to this report.

This section provides an overview of our findings, including an analysis of the data supplied by councils and existing

regional data from the North East Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan (NE Implementation Plan).

The commentary provided aims at providing a snapshot of the current state of conditions for the target materials

and for each waste type includes:

• acceptance and storage processes

• current waste processing

• a discussion of end markets

• analysis of barriers and opportunities

• summary of current financials.

Notes: Excel workbook (RI045-01 Volumes and financial analysis) for details of all calculations and assumptions

included in the project financial analysis. In the financial analysis tables that follow a negative return or loss is

highlighted with a red outline.

4 Note that the scope of the project involves council owned RRC facilities only. We also note that during the site visit planning, Markwood RRC was swapped with El Dorado RRC.


3.1 Timber waste

According to the NE Implementation Plan, the region generates some 8,500 tonnes of timber waste per annum,

with a recovery rate of around 30%5. Timber waste is accepted at all of the 14 RRC sites examined6, either as a

mixed timber stream or separated into timber types. Data collected from councils suggests that around 1,500

tonnes of timber is accepted at RRCs, of which roughly half is mixed timber and half is separated raw or “clean”

timber. There is a significant difference between the volume of timber generated and recovered at RRC facilities

which is likely to be a product of:

• Data methodology issues, with the NEWRRG Implementation Plan using data from the Sustainability Victoria

Waste Projection Model which uses standard compositional splits for waste generation rather than primary

data.

• Upstream recycling, where timber is collected and reprocessed directly by timber recyclers without reaching

an RRC facility (as discussed in D&R Henderson case study, below).

• Inadequate reporting and data collection at RRC facilities for volumes of material being disposed at sites.

ACCEPTANCE AND STORAGE PROCESSES

There are two typical models for the acceptance and storage of timber waste at RRC facilities, which include:

• stockpiling in open areas, commonly adjacent to garden waste storage areas

• collecting in 30m3 skip bins for bulk haulage.

Incoming loads of timbers waste/mixed waste are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then directed

to tipping areas. At most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for concealed

wastes such as asbestos.

Timber acceptance and storage processes are summarised in Table 5 and Figure 4.

Table 5 Overview of timber waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east

Site Mixed or separated

raw timber

Current acceptance and storage procedures

Beechworth RRC Mixed Large stockpile in centre of site for mixed timber and garden

waste which are stored and processed together.

Benalla RRC Mixed Mixed timber is received at the site and stockpiled loose on

the ground. Mixed timber is processed separate from garden

waste.

Mansfield RRC Separated Timber is dropped off the elevated platform onto a hardstand

where it is separated by site staff. Raw timber is loaded into

30m3 bins and treated / manufactured timbers are disposed

to landfill.

5 NEWRRG 2017. North East Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan, pp25, Table 5 6 Note that RRC facilities in the Alpine Resorts, including Mt Buller, Mt Hotham, Dinner Plain and Falls Creek have been excluded from the study as these sites do not accept AMS GTW wastes


Site Mixed or separated

raw timber


El Dorado RRC Mixed Mixed timber is accepted at stockpiled in the unrehabilitated

area of the closed landfill. Mixed timber is processed

separate from garden waste.

Myrtleford RRC Mixed Mixed timber is received at the site and stockpiled loose on

the ground to the east of the gatehouse. Mixed timber is

processed separate from garden waste.

Rutherglen RRC Mixed Large stockpile on western side of site for mixed timber and

garden waste which are stored and processed together.

Tallangatta RRC Mixed Timber is separated and stored in the area adjacent garden

waste near site entrance. Mixed timber is processed separate

from garden waste.

Wangaratta RRC Mixed Mixed timber waste is accepted in a 30m3 skip off the

sawtooth with a further bin used for rotation. Mixed timber is

processed separate from garden waste off-site at Bowser

landfill.

Wodonga RRC Separated There is a clean timber 30m3 skip off the elevated general

waste area which is bulk hauled to Albury landfill for

processing. Treated / manufactured timbers are disposed to

landfill.

Figure 4 Examples of receival and storage areas for timber in the north east


TIMBER PROCESSING

Timber is mostly mulched, chipped or shredded onsite (see Figure 5 and Figure 6 below) using specialist

contractors that visit site when volumes are sufficient to warrant processing (commonly this will be assessed

across all of a council’s sites such that processing can be done at all sites during the one round of processing).

Visual inspection of processed timber piles suggests that a coarse shred is preferred which aims to keep costs

down.

Not all sites that accept timber waste process it onsite. Wodonga, Mansfield and Wangaratta separate raw timber

into 30m3 skip bins which are moved offsite for processing.

Figure 5 Typical mobile timber shredding process7

7 Photo source: The Rock Yard http://www.therockyard.com.au/recycling/timber-waste-shredding

http://www.therockyard.com.au/recycling/timber-waste-shredding


Figure 6 Examples processed timber stockpiles in the north east

CURRENT END MARKETS

The north-east region benefits from a number of markets for raw, well-separated timber waste. The area around

Benalla and Wangaratta is recognised as a regional hub for timber processing with two industrial processors

processing recycled timber, being:

• D&R Henderson (Benalla) – Particleboard manufacturer that uses recycled timber as an input in the

manufacture of new particleboard. The company has the only 100% recycled particleboard product that meets


the current Australian Standard8. D&R Henderson also use reclaimed timber to generate power and heat in

their industrial boiler.

• Alpine MDF (Wangaratta) – Manufacturer of medium-density fibreboard (MDF) reportedly using recycled

timber to feed a timber boiler.

In addition to these industrial operations, there are commercial garden supplies using shredded timber in

production of mulch products for retail and wholesale markets. However, these operators tend to prefer bulk

contracts which may be difficult to service from smaller RRC facilities.

Current markets for timber waste from RRCs is varied and depends on the degree to which material is separated.

The two councils that separate raw timber have good existing markets for this material stream. Material from

Mansfield Shire is bulk hauled in 30m3 bins to D&R Henderson where it is used as a raw input for the production of

new particleboard and laminated timbers. Similarly, raw timber from Wodonga RRC is moved in 30m3 skips to

Albury landfill where it is processed (chipped) with other raw timber into a landscaping product. There appears to

be an opportunity for Benalla and Wangaratta, at least, to separate clean timbers (such as pine pallets) and send

this stream to D&R Henderson and or Alpine MDF, as discussed below.

Case Study 1 – D&R Henderson, Benalla9

D&R Henderson is a specialist manufacturer of

particleboard and wood panel products,

employing more than 400 people across NSW,

QLD, SA and Victoria. At their manufacturing site

in Benalla, D&R Henderson receive waste timber

from more than 100 suppliers and use this

material to produce Australia’s only 100% recycled

particleboard products. Currently, the site is

accepting around 24,000 – 36,000 tonnes of raw

timber waste per annum.

The key challenges in the use of waste timber relate to contamination, with dirt and sand being commonly

found in timber loads from RRCs due to material being stored on the ground. The presence of processed and

treated timber is another concern that restricts D&R Henderson’s ability to receive RRC timber waste.

The site presents a market opportunity for RRC sites in the north east for raw, separated timber (such as

packaging timber and pallets) with D&R Henderson’s accepting this at the gate for free.

Consultation with D&R Henderson during this project confirmed that if RRCs could separate pine pallet wastes,

store the material on a concrete hardstand, and deliver the material to site the material would be suitable to

their process. Council would have to pay for transport costs, however, would save on shredding costs and would

be supporting a recycling fate arguable more beneficial that use in landfill tipping area hardstand.

8 SV 2015. Investment case study, D&R Henderson. Sustainability Victoria 2015 9 Information sourced from D&R Henderson Investment Case Study - http://www.drhenderson.com.au/giving-recycled-wood-a-new-lease-of-life/. Image sourced from D&R Henderson website http://www.drhenderson.com.au/news/ and through a direct consultation held on 9 June 2018.

http://www.drhenderson.com.au/giving-recycled-wood-a-new-lease-of-life/

http://www.drhenderson.com.au/news/


Case Study 2 – Reid Brothers Sawmill, Yarra Junction10

Reid Brothers Timber is one of Victoria’s oldest sawmills, having operated

in Yarra Junction for almost 80 years. As a provider of kiln dried timbers,

Reid Brothers were impacted by increasing LPG costs and had

traditionally sent waste timber to landfill in the absence of other viable

options. The decision to install a 1MWth (thermal) timber fired boiler has

reduced the sites energy and landfill costs significantly.

The boiler uses a walking floor fuel supply system and automated ash

removal to ensure a highly efficient process that requires low operational

labour costs. At present, the boiler consumes more than 4,000 tonnes of

timber waste per annum, including offcuts and sawdust. Capital costs for the installation were around $360,000

with a payback period of 1.3 years due to the offset of both LPG and landfill disposal costs.

Whilst the Reid Brothers Sawmill is not located in the north east region, it highlights the waste to energy

opportunities presented by raw, separated timber (and potentially woody garden waste).

Case Study 3 – Alpine MDF, Wangaratta11

Alpine MDF Industries is a manufacturer and supplier of

medium-density fibreboard (MDF) and has been operating in

Wangaratta since 1996. The towns largest employer, Alpine

MDF processes timber in a large industrial facility, processing

more than 150,000m³ of MDF per year12.

Alpine MDF are currently using timber powered boiler which

utilises bark, off cuts from logs processed onsite and waste

woodchip material from off-site as feedstock. The boiler

offsets gas usage at the site and reduces landfill costs

associated with MDF process residues.

The site offers another regional opportunity for disposal of separated raw timber, with Alpine MDF showing a

genuine interest in receiving clean timber such as pallets and packaging timber, provided nails are removed and

the material is shredded. The company is currently paying $30 - $40/tonne for shredded wood waste from

offsite. There is also scope for woody garden waste (potentially oversize fraction) to be used in the boiler,

provided the moisture content is low so that it is not too active (i.e. prior to composting / breakdown

commencing) and again this would need to be delivered in shredded form.

Treated timber and manufactured timbers (including mixed timber streams that include both raw and treated

timbers) are exclusively sent to landfill with no recovery occurring across the region13. This reflects the lack of

viable markets and safety issues associated with chemical treatments (particularly copper chrome arsenic (CCA))

and the presence of glues and resins (such as those in ply or medium-density fibreboard (MDF)). In some instances,

10 Information and image sourced from Energy Victoria Reid Brothers Case Study - https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/bioenergy/sawmill-powered-by-wood-waste 11 Information and image sourced from direct consultation with Alpine MDF on 13 June 2018. 12 Friday Offcuts Wood News - http://fridayoffcuts.com/dsp_article.cfm?id=713&date=%7Bts%20%272017-03-10%2000:00:00%27%7D&aid=8418 13 Several sites use chipped timber waste to establish a tipping area at the active area of the landfill. In winter shredded timber can be particularly useful to prevent vehicles getting bogged. If the timber is too coarsely chipped Council have issues with vehicles getting punctures as they unload waste into the landfill.

https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/bioenergy/sawmill-powered-by-wood-waste

https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/bioenergy/sawmill-powered-by-wood-waste

http://fridayoffcuts.com/dsp_article.cfm?id=713&date=%7Bts%20%272017-03-10%2000:00:00%27%7D&aid=8418


this material is shredded first to improve transport efficiencies and to ensure that the material can be used for

landfill rehabilitation or tipping area pads.

Note: mixed timber waste that is co-processed with garden waste is discussed in the garden waste section of the

report.

CURRENT FINANCIALS – TIMBER WASTE

Table 6 provides a summary of the current financials for timber waste in the region. Note: negative returns or

losses are highlighted with a red outline. Gate fees vary widely across the region with an upper rate of $45 per

cubic meter to as low as $5 per cubic meter. There is an opportunity for Council to agree on a uniform tipping rate

for timber waste that ensure all costs and liabilities are covered whilst providing a consistent service cost across

the region.

Processing costs for timber waste are currently around $5 per cubic meter for all sites apart of Wodonga whose

processing cost are around $9 per cubic meter.

Transport costs for most sites are currently very low or zero, where the materials are being used onsite. The Alpine

Shire has been transporting shredded timber long distances for disposal at either Bowser landfill or as part of bulk

haul loads to Patho landfill due to the mixed shredded timber material (treated, raw, manufactured etc.) having no

off-take markets in the region.

Current landfilling costs for timber waste are only included for two Alpine Shire sites where the timber waste is

trucked off-site to landfill and a gate-fee paid. For all other sites where the shredded mix timber is utilised onsite

for landfill hardstands, rehabilitation no landfilling cost is allocated. For sites consuming landfill airspace with

timber waste used as a hardstand, a cost could be assumed, which would make negatively impact the theoretical

net profit that Council are receiving at the moment (discussed below).

Currently no sites in the region receive any revenue from the sale of timber wastes. This is mostly due to the lack

of any off-take markets for mixed (treated, raw, manufactured, etc.) shredded timber waste.

Overall two sites in the region currently have a negative net return on the receival of timber waste with all other

sites receiving a small profit, on average around $6,000 per year.

Important: the scope of this financial assessment is limited to the items listed in the table below. Financials only

consider the 'direct' costs and profit that are listed. Other 'indirect' costs are not included in this analysis (such as

staff time, site operation expenses, etc). Costing all site costs is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.

Table 6 Current financial summary – timber waste

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te (

m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(on

site

or

off

site

)

($/m

3)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($/m

3)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st

($/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s

of

pro

cess

ed

mat

eri

als

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t

($/m

3)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 3,275 $45 -$9 -$13 -$33 $- $40 $32,881

Lowest ($/m3) 11 $5 $- $- $- $- -$8 -$1,172

Average ($/m3) 733 $28 -$5 -$3 -$3 $- $16 $6,267

Total (all sites) 10,266 87,742

Number of sites with negative net return

2


TIMBER WASTE STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY THREAT ANALYSIS

Strength

• Most sites collect timber waste separately

• Some waste timber is sought after for reuse

(structural and CCA treated posts)

• Raw timber has a high calorific value and can

provide valuable fuel source

• Raw timber can be used in manufacture of

Medium-density fibreboard (MDF)

• Landfill operation use shredded timber to create a

tipping area in wetter months.

Weakness

• Most sites combine treated or manufactured

timber with 'raw' timbers limiting reuse and

recycling opportunities

• Once CCA treated, MDF and painted timber are

mixed, energy from waste options are not available

in the region

• Poor separation by customers and challenges

identifying timber types makes it difficult to keep

'raw' timber waste separated and from

treated/manufactured timbers

• It takes a long time to build-up sufficient volume of

timber before processing occurs

• The use of mixed shredded timber in landfill tipping

area prevents the pursuit of higher value reuse or

recycling options.

Threat

• Stockpiles of timber are a fire risk

• Shredded timber wastes can cause tyre punctures

and potential of tyre blow-outs (on the road).

Opportunity

• High value timbers such as structural and CCA

treated posts have a reuse market that would

require minimal investment to set-up.

• The region has a local MDF manufacturer that is

able to receive raw timbers

• The region has local energy from waste options for

raw timbers.

• There are market gardeners that also seek a clean

mulch product that raw timber could contribute to.

3.2 Garden waste

Garden waste is one of the most prolific materials accepted at RRC facilities across regional Victoria. In the north-

east, garden waste is accepted at all 14 RRC sites, predominantly as a source separated material with the

exception of Indigo Shire where garden waste and timber waste are co-stored and co-processed. Data received

from councils indicates that more than 7,000 tonnes of garden waste is received at RRC facilities, which is around

half of all garden waste generated in the region14.


Acceptance and storage of garden waste at RRCs in the NE region is limited to stockpile areas where garden waste

is dropped off by customers and compacted and consolidated wherever possible by site staff (using either heavy

14 NEWRRG 2017. North East Waste and Resource Recovery Implementation Plan, pp25, Table 5 notes that around 12,700 tonnes of garden waste is generated per annum


machinery or forklifts). In most cases, the storage area for garden waste and timber are side by side and

hardstands are limited to compacted dirt or gravel rather than fully sealed concrete or bitumen areas. In wetter

periods, these areas tend to become boggy and difficult to access for normal 2WD vehicles.

Incoming loads of garden waste/mixed waste are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then directed

to tipping areas. At most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for concealed

wastes such as asbestos.

Garden waste acceptance and storage processes are summarised in Table 7 and Figure 7.

Table 7 Overview of garden waste acceptance at RRC facilities in the north east

Site Separated or mixed

with timber


Beechworth RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles with timber waste, in the open with

no hardstand.

Benalla RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.

Mansfield RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.

El Dorado RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.

Myrtleford RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.

Rutherglen RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles with timber waste, in the open with

no hardstand.

Tallangatta RRC Separated Stored loose in the open with no hardstand.

Wangaratta RRC Separated Stored loose in the open with no hardstand.

Wodonga RRC Separated Stored loose in stockpiles in the open with no hardstand.

Figure 7 Examples of receival and storage areas for garden waste in the north east


GARDEN WASTE PROCESSING

As with timber waste, garden waste is generally processed via mulching or chipping using a mobile shredder that

moves from site to site. NEWRRG facilitates a regional contract for the processing of garden waste which is due to

be retendered in 2019. The current contractor for regional garden waste processing is Ausshredding who use a

large capacity Tana Shark and screen to mulch the material. The current contract requires the product to be

processed to a 50mm minus product, however several council officers noted that this was not often the case and

that an 80mm – 100mm screen is often used which results in a poor quality, coarse product with limited off-take

markets.

Examples of current products arising from garden waste processing are presented in


Figure 8.


Figure 8 Examples processed garden waste stockpiles in the north east

CURRENT END MARKETS

At present, the majority of processed garden waste in the north-east is being used as landfill rehabilitation, landfill

cover or in low-value uses on site, such as batters and general site landscaping. Some councils note that garden

waste is available to the public when the quality of the product is good enough to be used however this is not

often the case.

At Wodonga, shredded garden waste is further screened into coarse and fine fractions which is then used by the

works department for site and roadside landscaping. Apart from this, there is little productive reuse of garden

waste from RRCs in the region.


CURRENT FINANCIALS – GARDEN WASTE

Table 8 provides a summary of the current financials for garden waste in the region. Gate fees vary across the

region with an upper rate of $23 per cubic meter to as low as $5 per cubic meter. There is an opportunity for

Councils to agree on a uniform gate fee for garden waste that ensure all costs and liabilities are covered whilst

providing a consistent service cost across the region.

Processing costs (shredding) for garden waste are currently around $5 per cubic meter for all sites across the

region. It is noted that this cost is not achieving a mulch product of sufficient quality (screen size is far too large) at

most sites resulting in significant stockpiling of product on some sites in the region.

Transport costs for all sites but Wangaratta are currently zero as the materials are being used onsite. Wangaratta

transport garden waste to Bowser landfill using contracted walking floor trucks which is estimated to cost around

$250 per load.

Currently no sites in the region receive any revenue from the sale of garden wastes. This is due to the lack of off-

take markets shredded garden waste. The lack of material off-take is linked to several key issues including: the

shred screen being too coarse, customers needed/wanting the material to be loaded, and concern about weed or

other contamination.

Overall just one site in the region currently have a negative net return on the receival of garden waste with all

other sites receiving a profit, on average around $28,000 per year.




Table 8 Current financial summary – garden waste

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te

(m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(o

nsi

te

or

off

site

) ($

/m3

)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($

/m3

)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st (

$/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s o

f

pro

cess

ed

mat

eria

ls

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t ($

/m3

)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 20,000 $23 -$5 -$2 $- $- $18

$287,411

Lowest ($/m3) 67 $5 -$5 $- $- $- -$0 -$4,134

Average ($/m3) 4,139 $15 -$5 -$0.15 $- $- $8 $28,719



1


GARDEN WASTE STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT (SWOT) ANALYSIS

Strength

• Most sites collect garden waste separately

• Garden waste contamination rates are very low

• Garden waste can be recycled into a valuable

product by composting

• Most sites have sufficient area to collect garden

waste.

Weakness

• Where garden waste and timber wastes are

mixed, the end-use are limited to landfill tipping

pad and some rehabilitation (if the material is

approved for use)

• For many sites it is difficult to find markets for

processed material due to the material often not

being shredded to a fine enough screen and/or

difficulty in loading the material for domestic

customers

• It takes a long time to build-up sufficient volume

of garden waste before processing occurs

• Garden waste is bulky and expensive to transport

with shredding first

• The use of mixed garden waste in landfill

rehabilitation uses prevents the pursuit of higher

value reuse or recycling options.

Threat

• Stockpiles of garden waste are a fire risk

• Shredded garden waste will begin to compost after

a few days and if wet can cause significant odour

• EPA could require a composting licence if the

amount of materials received is more than 100

tonnes or 200 cubic meters in any month

• Most sites do not store garden waste in

accordance with better practice guidelines,

including hardstand and run-off management. If

offsite impacts occurred, EPA could require site

upgrade.

Opportunity

• The region is about to open a new composting

facility in Bowser, which will provide an excellent

outlet for separated garden waste

• There are market gardeners that also seek a clean

mulch product that shredded clean garden waste

can provide

• If garden waste was shredded to a fine screen,

customers would likely collect the material (if it

was free)

• If garden waste was consolidated at one main

site, the shredding costs would be reduced.


3.3 Concrete and brick

Concrete and brick are accepted at 10 of the 14 sites included in the project, mostly as a mixed stream of material

(despite some sites having separate areas for concrete and brick, the materials are almost exclusively mixed

together). This material is generated by households and also small commercial contractors with most sites allowing

small commercial loads into RRC facilities (limited to a ute or ute and trailer combination for example). Data

provided by councils suggests that around 2,500 tonnes of concrete and brick are received per annum at RRCs.


Heavy wastes such as concrete and brick are exclusively stored loose and in the open, generally in larger areas at

RRCs where there is room for unloading of trailers and small trucks. The site visits suggest that, as with garden

waste areas, the storage of concrete and brick tends to be in areas that lack a hardstand, although given crushing

of the material often occurs in situ, residual crushed material often improves surfaces in these areas somewhat.

Concrete and brick acceptance and storage processes are summarised in Table 9 and shown in Figure 9.

Incoming loads of concrete and brick and mixed waste are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then

directed to tipping areas. At most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for

concealed wastes such as asbestos.

Table 9 Overview of concrete and brick waste acceptance at RRC facilities assessed in the north east

Site Mixed or separated Current acceptance and storage procedures

Beechworth RRC NA Not accepted

Benalla RRC Mixed* Brick and concrete is stored in separate piles at the rear of the

site. The area cannot be easily observed from the gatehouse, so

customers are instructed upon entry.

Mansfield RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand

El Dorado RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand

Myrtleford RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area on a gravel hardstand

Rutherglen RRC NA Not accepted

Tallangatta RRC Mixed* Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand

Wangaratta RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand

Wodonga RRC Mixed Stored loose in stockpiles in the open area with no hardstand

* Note that these sites have areas for separated brick and concrete collection however material was mixed at the time of the site visits


Figure 9 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east


CONCRETE AND BRICK WASTE PROCESSING

Processing of concrete and brick occurs through crushing, mostly via mobile crushing plants working site to site in

a milk run (similar to garden waste and timber processing) as can be seen in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Example of a mobile crushing plant for concrete and heavy materials (including brick and asphalt)

Once crushed, the material is screened to a certain size which will ultimately determine the applications for which

the product can be used. Typical industry sizes for aggregate are a 20mm minus product, however most councils

reported screen sizes of between 45mm and 80mm which produces a much coarser grade product (processing

costs are lower for larger screen sizes as the material generally only needs to be passed through the crushing plant

once).

Examples of current products arising from concrete and brick waste processing are presented in Figure 11.


Figure 11 Examples processed concrete and brick waste stockpiles in the north east


CURRENT END MARKETS

The industry for crushed, recycled aggregate (mainly crushed concrete) has developed considerably in Victoria

over the past decade with large scale processors, such as Alex Fraser, developing products that meet or exceed

industry specifications for aggregate and road base. The material is cost competitive (or sometimes cheaper) than

virgin aggregate and has the advantage of improved tensile strength as the residual cement is remobilised and

reset during laydown of the product. Similarly, recycled brick has now been approved by VicRoads for use in

subbase as a result of research undertaken by Swinburne University and Sustainability Victoria.

Due to the size and quality of material produced, there are limited markets for processed concrete and brick waste

from RRCs in the north-east, with the majority of crushed material being used by internal council departments or

given away at low cost or no cost to residents and local businesses. Internal council uses include:

• Landfill haul roads

• Roadside verges and pavement base

• Hardstands at RRCs or council depots or other council facilities

• Fill material

Several councils noted that material can be slow to move, particularly when there are large quantities of aggregate

produced.

Case Study 4 – Jackson’s Earthmoving, Wodonga15

Jackson’s Earthmoving is a large industrial business that is co-located with the

Wodonga Transfer Station. The site specialises in the processing of AMS &

GTW materials and resale of processed commodities including aggregates,

road base and mulch.

The facility already processes waste from surrounding RRC facilities but is

potentially underutilised as a market outlet. Jackson’s are able to process

high-grade aggregates and mulch for their existing customer base and would

likely negotiate a near $0/tonne gate fee if transported directly to site. The

additional transport costs may therefore be offset by reduced concrete

crushing fees at RRCs (however, it must be noted that Jackson’s would

require very low incidence of contamination).

Councils with limited markets for processed concrete, brick and garden waste

could consider a bulk haulage option to Jackson’s or a similar company.

15 Image sourced from NEWRRG Implementation Plan - http://www.newrrg.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/North-East-Implementation-Plan-July-2017.pdf

http://www.newrrg.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/North-East-Implementation-Plan-July-2017.pdf

http://www.newrrg.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/North-East-Implementation-Plan-July-2017.pdf


CURRENT FINANCIALS – CONCRETE AND BRICK

Table 4 provides a summary of the current financials for concrete and brick waste in the region. Gate fees vary

widely across the region with an upper rate of $57 per cubic meter to as low as $18 per cubic meter. There is an

opportunity for Councils to agree on a uniform gate fee for concrete and brick waste that ensure all costs and

liabilities are covered whilst providing a consistent service cost across the region.

Processing costs (crushing) for concrete and brick waste are currently around $15 per cubic meter for all sites

across the region except Wodonga which is able to leverage its location (being located next to a concrete recycler)

and processes concrete and brick for around $9 per meter.

Transport costs for all sites but Wangaratta are currently zero as the materials are being used or collected from the

site. Wangaratta transport concrete and brick waste to Bowser landfill for processing and use in landfill operations

using contractors each time a load is accumulated.

Current landfilling costs for concrete and brick waste are assumed to be zero for all other sites where the crushed

concrete and brick is utilised onsite for landfill hardstands, rehabilitation no landfilling cost is allocated. For sites

consuming landfill airspace with concrete and brick waste used as a hardstand, a cost could be assumed, which

would make negatively impact the theoretical net profit that Council are receiving at the moment (discussed

below).

Alpine (Myrtleford site) and Wodonga have been successful in producing a valuable and sought after recycled

concrete and brick aggregate. They received around $37 per cubic meter for the material. Currently, no other sites

in the region receive any revenue from the sale of processed concrete and brick. Wangaratta and Benalla utilise

the crushed concrete in landfill operations (for haul roads and hardstand). Smaller sites across the region collect

such small tonnages that many of the sites have not processed the concrete for ‘many’ years and typically the

material has been stockpiled onsite for 10-20 years.

Overall no site in the region currently have a negative net return on the receival of concrete waste with all sites

receiving a profit, on average around $6,000 per year.




Table 10 Current financial summary – concrete and brick

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te (

m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(on

site

or

off

site

)

($/m

3)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($/m

3)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st

($/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s

of

pro

cess

ed

mat

eri

als

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t

($/m

3)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 1,697 $57 -$15 -$6 $- $37 $58 $33,942

Lowest ($/m3) 10 $18 -$9 $- $- $- $- $-

Average ($/m3) 436 $32 -$14 -$1 $- $4 $17 $6,436



0


CONCRETE AND BRICK STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT (SWOT) ANALYSIS

Strength

• Concrete and brick can be made into a valuable

and high-volume demand product (road base, hard

standing, etc.)

• Recycled concrete and brick aggregate performs

very well due to the high cement content, that

virgin aggregates to not contain

• Alpine Shire Council has previously produced clean

recycled aggregates that were approved to

VicRoads specification and had excellent market

uptake once the market knew the material were

available.

• There is reuse demand for second hand bricks in

the building trade for renovations (to match older

bricks) and new builds.

Weakness

• Concrete and brick are often mixed with other

construction and demolition (C&D) wastes which

limits end-uses landfill haul roads (if the material is

approved for use)

• It is difficult control contamination from other

C&D wastes at RRC, the only option being to

accept loads of concrete and brick ONLY with

mixed loads of C&D going direct to landfill.

• For many sites it is difficult to find markets for

processed material due to the historical/current

contamination issues

• It takes a long time to build-up sufficient volume

of concrete and brick before processing occurs

• The use of crushed concrete and brick waste in

landfill haul road prevents the pursuit of higher

value reuse or recycling options

• Gate fees do not always cover the costs of

processing

Threat

• A lack of control over unloading processes may

lead to asbestos contamination

• The risk of asbestos contamination in recycled

aggregate has the potential to completely halt the

use of the recycled materials

• If the materials are not crushed to the correct

grade Council can be left with a stockpile of

materials with no end market.

Opportunity

• There are proven markets in the region for clean

aggregates that meet VicRoads specification. The

key is to only allow clean separated concrete and

brick waste to be stockpiled. All mixed loads are

landfilled due to contamination risks

• There is reportedly demand for second hand

bricks. If only clean concrete and brick are

stockpiled, there is also an option to keep bricks to

one side and offer the bricks for sale unprocessed.

If they are not sold, they are crushed along with

concrete

• Clean concrete and brick from smaller sites could

be transported to a main Council or regional site

for crushing, to reduce processing costs and allow

for more frequent crushing.


3.4 Soil

Separated soil is accepted at Benalla RRC and Wodonga (Kane Road) RRC (although it must be noted that other

sites will accept fill material for use as batters or embankments on site when required), with data provided by

councils indicating around 1,100 tonnes of soil is accepted per annum.


Soil is stored in stockpiles in open areas, typically without a hardstand as can be seen in Figure 12.

Incoming loads of soils are visually inspected at the site office/gatehouse and then directed to tipping areas. At

most sites staff are unable to monitor loads as they are unloaded to check for concealed wastes such as asbestos.

Figure 12 Examples of receival and storage areas for concrete and brick waste in the north east

CURRENT END MARKETS

Soil received at RRC facilities in the region is used exclusively for landfill cover and onsite embankment fill.

CURRENT FINANCIALS – SOIL

Table 11 provides a summary of the current financials for waste soil in the region. Only 5 of the 14 sites in the

region have a clear acceptance process and pricing for soils. Other sites may, at times, accept soils, however, the

process and pricing are not clear.

Gate fees vary across the region with an upper rate of $11 per cubic meter to as low as $0 per cubic meter. There

is an opportunity for Councils to agree on a uniform gate fee for waste soil that ensure all costs and liabilities are

covered whilst providing a consistent service cost across the region.

Processing costs for soil waste are currently around $6 per cubic meter at Wodonga, which is the only site

processing soils. Other sites simply reuse the materials onsite.

Transport costs for all sites but Wangaratta are currently zero as the materials are being used onsite. Wangaratta

transport soils to Bowser landfill for use onsite, often with the use of a private contractor at a cost of about $175

per load.

Currently no sites in the region receive any revenue from the sale of soil.


Overall just Wangaratta currently has a negative net return (due to loading and transport costs) on the receipt of

soil waste with all other sites effectively breaking even.




Table 11 Current financial summary – soil

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te

(m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(o

nsi

te

or

off

site

) ($

/m3

)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($

/m3

)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st (

$/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s o

f

pro

cess

ed

mat

eria

ls

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t ($

/m3

)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 764 $11 -$6 -$6 $- $- $9 $4,202

Lowest ($/m3) 190 $- $- $- $- $- -$6 -$1,458

Average ($/m3) 399 $6 -$1 -$1 $- $- $2 $560



1

SOIL STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY AND THREAT (SWOT) ANALYSIS

Strength

• Soil (clean fill) is sought after, often in high

tonnages (filling in low areas, etc.)

• Where soils were seen stockpiled, gross

contamination was very low.

Weakness

• It is difficult control contamination in soils. Not all

contamination will be visible, chemical

contamination for example

• Clean fill is required to be levied if taken at landfill,

a cover rebate of 15% is given to all landfill sites to

compensate

• The dollar value of fill material is generally low.

Threat

• The risk of contamination in clean fill has the

potential to make Council liable for damages.

Opportunity

• Where contamination is controlled and end-use is

not sensitive, Council can make use of fill materials

in works project and within landfill operations.


4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED PROCESSES

This section of the report contains detailed analysis and recommendations on potential process improvements for

AMS & GTW wastes. Reincarnate has presented these opportunities at the following scales:

• Regional opportunities that would benefit most sites and target materials (Section 4.1)

• Process improvements for larger sites (Section 4.2)

• Process improvements for smaller sites (Section 4.3)

To support the analysis in this section of the report, Reincarnate has developed a series of process flow charts for

each of the target AMS & GTW materials. This aims to provide a simpler, visual representation of the better

practice processes being recommended. This is supported by more detailed text in the sections below which looks

at site improvements across the following key stages:

The process flow charts for each material are provided at Appendix A.

4.1 Improvement opportunities at regional scale

There are a number of opportunities to improve process and material outputs for AMS & GTW materials that

would be best applied at regional scale. These improvements are detailed below, rather than being duplicated for

each material in later sections.

Recommended actions for process improvements that should be considered are a regional scale are presented in

Table 12.

Customer phase

This includes the customers engagement with the site, including entrance via the gatehouse, access through the facility, drop-off of waste materials and exit. There are critical points of engagement between the site operator and customer that can significantly impact the quality and usability of AMS & GTW wastes.

Site operator

phase

Once material has been dropped off at an RRC facility, the material is managed onsite before being processed into a commodity or bulk hauled offsite.

Processing contract

phase

The majority of AMS & GTW wastes in the north east are processed onsite and the processing phase usually involves a contract with an external provider that shreds, mulches, crushes and screens materials into products.

End markets phase

Once processed, AMS & GTW commodities are used by councils, sold or given away to residents. The saleability and usability of products is typically a direct result of the previous three phases of material management.


Table 12 Recommended process improvements to be considered at a regional scale

Improvement area Description

Operator training and

standard operating

procedures (SOPs)

There is a need for ongoing operator training that focuses on the key steps in the

RRC receival and management process. In the first instance, training should focus

on load oversight at the point of entry to ascertain the origin of loads and identify

contaminants such as asbestos and treated timbers prior to entry.

To support this, the region could look at developing standard operating

procedures for management of RRC materials. It is probable that SOPs already

exist in some councils and it may be simply a process of combining and building on

these. Visual aids, such as the process flow charts developed for this project could

be used to support the translation of SOPs in everyday use.

Estimated cost: nil if developed in-house or around $30,000 for external delivery

Lead: NEWRRG

Upgrades to gatehouse /

entrance signage

The gatehouse is generally a customer’s first point of engagement with an RRC

and in many cases signage is limited to traffic warnings and a fee board. Clear,

practical signage that uses visual aids (photos and illustrations) and focuses on the

importance of load separation and what materials are not accepted at the site

should be installed. Sites not already collecting registration details at the

gatehouse should consider this practice as it is likely to act as some deterrent

against dumping of prohibited materials at the site.

Estimated cost: $1,500 per site

Lead: Councils, NEWRRG could support standardisation

Load oversight and

contamination

management

Acceptance procedures for AMS & GTW wastes are similar if not identical at most

sites given the materials tend to be bulk stockpiled in a similar manner. In general,

loads are inspected at the gatehouse either at an elevated platform (for example,

Wodonga) or at ground level. Any visual issues, such as cement sheet or asbestos

looking materials are flagged and potentially rejected at this stage.

The degree to which inspections at the gatehouse occurs differs from site to site

and Reincarnate witnessed a range of processes during the site inspections. At

some sites, load inspection was thorough with the site operative actively looking

through the load to flag potential issues. At other sites, load inspection was little

more than a cursory glance. The state of stockpiled materials provides evidence of

poor load oversight at several sites, with significant cross contamination, which in

turn leads to poorer quality outputs which also contain visual contamination and

decreases saleability.

Reincarnate notes that there appears to be a direct correlation between mixed

AMS & GTW wastes and higher levels of contamination. Sites that separated

materials fully (for example, separate piles for concrete and brick and separate

piles for timber and garden waste) have fewer contamination issues than sites

storing these materials in mixed piles, particularly sites storing garden waste and


timber waste together. It is likely customers see a mixed pile of material as a

waste pile and are possible less inclined to separate their own material.

Councils note that at some sites, operatives will actively remove gross

contamination when they see it, although at smaller sites staffed by one operative

this appears to be less common.

Estimated cost: nil, costs covered under Operator training and standard operating

procedures (SOPs)

Lead: Council

Oversight of drop-off

areas

Ideally, larger sites would be appropriately resourced such that customers are

observed at the point of material drop-off in addition to the gatehouse. This is a

useful point of engagement, not just as a means of ensuring that contamination of

stockpiles is minimised, but as a general education and engagement opportunity.

This may not always be possible, depending on the size and layout of the facility,

therefore the following should be considered:

• Rearranging the site to provide better oversight from the gatehouse and

tipping areas of wastes that are particularly important to keep free of

contamination (e.g. concrete and brick, garden waste, separate raw timbers)

• Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to provide improved site

oversight from the gatehouse.

• Installing dummy CCTV cameras (for sites that lack power) to provide a visual

deterrent against dumping.

Estimated cost: Variable depending on steps taken. Dummy CCTV cameras $350

each. Wireless CCTV to iPad $4,000 (includes 3 cameras and iPad).

Lead: Councils

Infrastructure

improvements

This project, and the recent NE RRC Assessments project, highlights a broad range

of recommended infrastructure improvements at RRC facilities, a number of which

relate to AMS & GTW wastes. There is scope for coordinated investment in

infrastructure upgrades that could be packaged up and released to the market for

several sites under the one procurement. These upgrades include:

• Improved hardstands to AMS & GTW storage areas

• Improved oversight of drop-off areas (see above)

• Improved site layout and traffic flow.

Estimated cost: Site by site. Quality hardstands

Lead: NEWRRG

Collaborative

procurement

Collaborative procurement is a key mechanism that NEWRRG can use to affect

change in the region. The collection and processing of AMS & GTW materials at

RRCs is often impacted by poor economies of scale, particularly when councils are

working independently as it may take some time for sites to aggregate the

required feedstock to warrant transportation or onsite processing. The longer


material stays stockpiled onsite, the greater the chances of some form of

contamination.

There is scope for NEWRRG to facilitate collaborative procurement for the

processing and/or transportation of AMS & GTW products. Given the consistency

in which the products are treated (i.e. most sites use crushing / mulching onsite as

the preferred processing option) a large number of sites could potentially be

linked into the same processing contract, underpinned by clear SOPs for both the

sites and the processor. It is likely that this could generate both improved

products and lower costs for councils.

There is already a joint contract in place for processing garden waste, which

should be revised, strengthened and put back out to market as soon as practicable

given the current issues with the existing provider, and timber could be

incorporated into this contract if it is not already. A parallel process for concrete

and brick crushing should also be considered.

Estimated cost: nil if developed in-house or around $40,000 - $60,000 for external

delivery

Lead: NEWRRG

Waste to energy

opportunities

The region benefits from existing industrial boilers that are reportedly capable of

accepting timber waste as feedstock, including Alpine MDF at Wangaratta and

D&R Henderson at Benalla16. These facilities could provide a regional outlet for

raw, separated timber either individually or through a regional contract.

The Reid Brothers case study (see Section 3.1) suggests that small scale timber

boilers offer a cost-effective offset for facilities using gas fired boilers and other

opportunities in the region should be investigated.

Estimated cost: Nil, feasibility for future timber boilers $30,000

Lead: NEWRRG

Engagement with council

works departments

One of the most important offtake markets is councils own internal works

departments, who often require mulch for landscaping and remediation works. In

many regional areas, these opportunities are not leveraged, with works

departments favouring mulch purchased externally. There is scope to engage with

these departments individually and as a group to workshop potential ways to

improve product quality to the standard that is required. The current push from

state government toward circular economy thinking aligns well with this and

messaging can be developed around this idea.

This could involve a regional workshop with council waste and works department

officers to identify barriers to uptake of RRC generated commodities, and

opportunities for greater uptake and reuse within council. This could be supported

by expert speakers on key materials such as organics and road aggregates.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: NEWRRG

16 NE Implementation Plan, p38


5 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR LARGER SITES

Larger sites in the north east service the key population centres, such as Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla, and

have the level of throughput that would more likely support investment in process improvements and site

infrastructure. The following process improvements, which are detailed in the process flow charts, relate to larger

RRC sites in the region.

5.1 Timber waste

This report highlights the difference in market opportunities for raw or clean timber compared to processed and

treated timber. There are no recycling or energy recovery markets for processed and treated timber and under

current market conditions these should be separated from raw timber and sent straight to landfill, once high value

reusable items are removed.17 Ensuring that processed and treated timbers do not end up as contaminants in

other material streams provides the greatest opportunity for new/expanded markets for clean timber products.

Recommended actions for process improvements for timber waste are presented in Table 13.

Table 13 Recommended process improvements for timber waste at larger RRC facilities


Customer Phase

Separation of raw timber

from processed timber

There are currently only legitimate end markets for raw timber, such as pine

pallets or packaging timber, and high value treated and processed timber products

that can be reused or repurposed. There are no markets for most processed,

painted or treated timbers and as such these should be sent directly to landfill.

The focus on timber waste at RRCs should therefore focus on effective separation

of raw timber at all points within the RRC chain. This should include at least the

following steps:

➢ Clear signage at the gatehouse and throughout the appropriate drop-off

areas.

➢ Identification of raw timbers for separation at the gatehouse, including

high-value reusable timber (see below).

➢ Improved oversight of drop-off areas (see below).

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils supported by site operatives.

Oversight of drop-off area Ideally, larger sites would be appropriately resourced such that customers are






17 high value reusable treated and processed timber products, such as posts, beams, doors, window frames should be set aside for resale for reuse.


➢ Rearranging the site to provide better oversight from the gatehouse and

garden waste drop off areas.

➢ Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to provide improved

site oversight from the gatehouse.

➢ Installing dummy CCTV cameras (for sites that lack power) to provide a

visual deterrent against dumping.



Lead: Councils

Site Operator Phase

Separation of high-value

reusable timber

The separation of high-value reusable timber, such hardwood beams, feature

grade Australian timber, hardwood doors and windows, hardwood decking boards

and potentially treated pine posts (provided they are clearly separated from other

timber wastes).

This may not make up significant volumes as the salvage market for good timber is

already established. However, it is likely that at least some timber will be of a

quality that can be salvaged and reused.

Estimated cost: $5,000 – 10,000 to set-up a covered area and racks for timber for

reuse/resale.

Lead: Councils working with site operatives

Stockpile separation Once a customer has entered the site, processes must focus on separation and

stockpiling of materials in well managed, separate piles. This is dependent on both

the behaviour of the customer, the layout and infrastructure onsite and the role of

the site operative.

As noted previously, the separation of raw timber and processed timber is

important as it facilitates better reuse and recycling opportunities. RRC sites

accepting timber waste should have a designated area for raw timber, preferably

on a sealed hardstand or in a 30m3 bin off the sawtooth, which would support

aggregation of clean material, reduce contamination, save the need to load the

materials for transport and potentially open up other markets.

In all instances, garden waste should be separated from timber waste at RRC sites.

Estimated cost: Some sites nil, potential upgrades to hardstands in the order of

$20/m2 (200mm crushed rock) to $100m2 (concrete slab). Significant additional

costs to set-up raw timber collection off sawtooth where the site is not developed

with sawtooth for waste drop off for garbage, metals, recyclables, etc.

Lead: Councils

Removal of gross

contamination by site

operator

Site operators should be working to ensure that gross contamination in the raw

timber stockpile is identified and removed as soon as possible. During each shift,

operators should be undertaking a site “walkthrough” that looks to identify

contamination / stockpile mixing issues. Where it is safe and practical to do so, the

operators should remove visual / gross contamination.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils, supported by site operators


Processing Contract Phase

Improve pre-processing

activities

In addition to removal of gross contamination by site operatives, processing

contracts / arrangements should have provisions that encourage further removal

of contaminants before and during processing of timber waste, where safe to do

so.

Estimated cost: Could be built into new contracts at minimal additional cost

Lead: Councils / NWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)

Ensuring timber chipping

is done to required

specification

Sites choosing to process raw separated timber into mulch products should ensure

that contracts specify chip sizes that meet the requirements of existing and future

customers (and any industry standards and specifications).

Processed raw timber is commonly used as ground cover mulch as it provides

more air pockets than mulch made from garden waste. This allows water to

penetrate into the soil and improves airflow and weed suppression. Chipping to

30mm – 50mm would meet these requirements.

A finer grade 40mm minus product could be used for soft fall mulch in children’s

playgrounds.

Contract specifications should allow for councils to vary screen sizes based on

their customer needs (with appropriate pricing scales built into the contract)

which will ensure greater flexibility and adaptability.

Estimated cost: $7.5/cubic meter (inc GST). This is $2.30 more than current

contract, to allow for an improved shredding process/screen size to be contracted

in the next contract.


End Markets Phase

Leverage existing regional

markets for timber waste

Larger sites are likely to have the volumes of raw timber required to access the

existing regional markets for timber waste, including:

➢ Inputs of raw timber for manufacture of particleboard and timber panel

at D&R Henderson, Benalla.

➢ Inputs for existing timber fired boilers at Alpine MDF, Wangaratta and

D&R Henderson, Benalla.

Estimated cost: Transport costs to the gate using bulk haulage (using b-double

with two 30-meter bins) will add cost, in the order of $1.40 per km or $145 per

load (60 cubic meters) for a 50 km travel distance (return trip or 100 kms) and

excluding loading/unloading costs.

Lead: Councils

5.2 Garden waste

Garden waste is a significant material stream within RRC facilities as these sites are often the only option for

residents seeking to dispose woody organics, that cannot be disposed in the kerbside green bin. The improvement

opportunities for RRC garden waste are considerable and exist across all areas of the product chain. Improved


practices to monitor incoming loads and updated procedures for mulching and contamination management are

likely to result in higher quality materials that generate greater demand.

Recommended actions for process improvements for garden waste are presented in Table 13.

Table 14 Recommended process improvements for garden waste at larger RRC facilities


Customer Phase

Improved inspections of

incoming loads

Garden waste is commonly contaminated by plastic, timber and building waste

when it enters an RRC facility in a mixed load. Heaped up garden waste in a trailer

or ute can also be used to hide other materials beneath. Whilst it is not always

possible to inspect a whole load, site operatives should be vigilant in inspecting all

incoming loads and working to identify gross contamination in garden waste piles.

Where large loads are delivered to site (or where the operative can’t do a good

visual inspection), the operative should instruct the customer to put their load in

an area directly adjacent to the main garden waste drop off area.

By partially segregating the material, the operative can identify contamination and

keep it out of the garden waste stockpile and also to identify poor customer

practices and address these (for example by taking customer details at the

gatehouse).

For mixed loads of waste with some garden waste in the load, the whole load

should be directed to the landfill bin and the customer charged accordingly and

provided information about the cost savings of keeping garden waste separate.


Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils supported by site operatives.

Training to identify

persistent/noxious weeds

RRC garden waste tends to be generated through tree clippings and branches

rather than weeding and grass clippings which are more frequently disposed

through the kerbside green bin.

The potential presence of weed seeds constitutes a significant barrier to markets

for mulched garden waste. Whilst it would be impossible for gatehouse operators

to eradicate weeds entirely, there is scope for training to assist operators in

identifying key regional weeds, such as tussock, paspalum, ivy, wandering jew and

spear thistle, amongst others.

Where weeds are suspected, the operator could ask for these to be separated and

removed or direct the load to the landfill bin at the appropriate cost.

Estimated cost: No or low cost, should be existing government staff to provide

training

Lead: Councils working with DELWP and NE CMA









garden waste drop off areas.







Lead: Councils

Site Operator Phase




the site operative.

Garden waste should be stored in a large area with suitable hardstand, ideally

with areas adjacent to the main stockpile where targeted customers can drop off

their waste before it is integrated into the larger pile (for example, loads

suspected of having gross contamination).


Estimated cost: Nil, potential upgrades to hardstands in the order of $20/m2

(200mm crushed rock) to $100m2 (concrete slab).

Lead: Councils

Removal of gross


operator

There are often long periods between onsite processing of garden waste at RRCs.

During this period, site operators should be working to ensure that gross

contamination is identified and removed as soon as possible. During each shift,




The condition of sites and stockpiled materials is an important visual cue that

impacts customer behaviours. Messy sites beget messy behaviours and this

ongoing process of removing contamination should support improvements in site

behaviours over time.

Estimated cost: Nil




activities



of contaminants before and during processing, where safe to do so.



Ensuring mulching is done

to required specification

Garden waste can be processed into a few products, depending on the technology

and the screens being used. There are existing standards that define the


characteristics of compost, mulch and soil conditioner which are the most likely

outputs of garden waste processing. However, the processing of some of these

products may require the site to be licensed by EPA Victoria.

Councils report that mulch screened to a 50mm minus product (which is required

under the current mulching contract but often not adhered to) creates a highly

usable product that can be utilised by council’s internal departments and the

public. This should therefore be the target for product size.

Sites with larger volumes could consider using multiple screens to provide some

product differentiation. For example, a finer fraction of 15mm – 50mm which can

be used as soil improvement mulch, and a coarser fraction 50mm – 80mm which

can be used as ground cover mulch. Sites should be mindful of the risk of EPA fines

or pollution abatement notices as material below 15mm has the potential to

compost, thus resulting in potential odour off-site impacts and compliance issues.

Estimated cost: $7.5/cubic meter (incl GST). This is $2.30 more than current

contract, to allow for an improved shredding process/screen size to be contracted

in the next contract.

Lead: Councils / NEWRRG (potential collaborative procurement)

Consider bulk haulage to a

licensed garden waste

processing facility.

The proposed construction of a fully licensed composting facility at Wangaratta

presents a potential opportunity for RRC sites to bulk haul all their garden waste

for processing at this site. Whilst bulk haulage will present an additional cost,

some of this could be offset against current mulching costs (although it must be

noted that a coarse mulch may be required to ensure transport efficiencies can be

achieved).

This approach has the benefit of ensuring that all garden waste is processed under

controlled conditions and made into products that are able to meet the current

Australian Standard AS4454.





Lead: Councils

End Markets Phase

Engage with council works

departments

Council’s own works departments are likely to be key customers for mulch

products. It is important that their needs are understood and met as far as

possible. Councils should ensure that relationships and lines of communication

between waste officers and works officers are well developed. Working together

to set clear requirements for mulch products may benefit both product quality

and the reliability of offtakes.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils / NEWRRG (potential for a regional process)

Investigate local

partnerships

Larger sites that have regular volumes of mulch available should investigate local

partnerships with landscapers and garden supplies and other sites/companies that

may have regular need for mulch products. This could provide regular offtake


opportunities that would allow for more long-term planning and stockpile

management.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils

5.3 Concrete

Concrete waste (and building waste in general) is a high-risk waste stream for asbestos contamination, which not

only creates a liability for the site but presents a potential risk to health and safety. Rigorous oversight of incoming

loads is essential to identify potential contamination, in particular the presence of asbestos.

Recommended actions for process improvements for concrete waste are presented in Table 15.

Table 15 Recommended process improvements for concrete waste at larger RRC facilities


Customer Phase

Changes to acceptance

procedures for building

“rubble”

Several sites in the north east accept “building rubble” at RRC facilities and this is

listed on site entrance boards. The acceptance of mixed rubble does not support

the separation of material nor does it support contamination management,

particularly addressing the risks from asbestos contamination. Sites should

consider:

➢ Removing any reference to “building rubble” or “mixed building

materials” from site entrance boards

➢ Direct any heavily mixed building / demolition loads directly to landfill

and charge customers accordingly.

➢ Ensure signage and pricing clearly states that only separated concrete

and brick will be accepted for recycling.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils

Load rejection

requirements

Given the inherent risk from asbestos contamination in brick and concrete loads

(particularly mixed loads as outlined above) site operatives should reject loads

suspected of containing asbestos at the gatehouse. Customers should be provided

with details of asbestos disposal options within the region.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils








commonly used areas.








Lead: Councils

Site Operator Phase




the site operative.

Where practicable, brick and concrete should be stored in separate piles onsite as

a means of encouraging material separation and discouraging mixed loads and

cross contamination.

However, some councils note that processors have requested that brick and

concrete be stored together. In these instances, additional care should be taken to

ensure that only brick and concrete are being disposed to the stockpile.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils

Removal of gross


operator

There are often long periods between onsite processing of concrete at RRCs.

During this period, site operators should be working to ensure that gross

contamination is identified and removed as soon as possible. During each shift,




The condition of sites and stockpiled materials is an important visual cue that

impacts customer behaviours. Messy sites beget messy behaviours and this

ongoing process of removing contamination should support improvements in site

behaviours over time.

Estimated cost: Nil




activities



of contaminants before and during processing, where safe to do so.



Ensuring crushing is done

to required specification

Consultation with the aggregates industry suggests that the ideal aggregate sizes

are between 20mm – 40mm as this allows for a wide range of uses, including

drainage aggregate, irrigation medium and use as road base.


Contracts should include specific requirements for processing materials to the

required specification, which should be set by councils / NEWRRG based on

consultation with end users. In many cases, this will be councils own internal

works departments and their requirements should be considered first and

foremost.

The minimum and maximum requirements for oversize and undersize outputs

should also be stipulated, which in turn may require the use of two or more

screens to remove these fractions (the oversize then being recirculated through

the process).

Estimated cost: $15 per cubic meter.


End Markets Phase

Engage with council works

departments

Council’s own works departments are likely to be key customers for crushed

concrete products. It is important that their needs are understood and met as far

as possible. Councils should ensure that relationships and lines of communication

between waste officers and works officers are well developed. Working together

to set clear requirements for crushed concrete/brick products (internal or external

specifications for example) may benefit both product quality and end markets.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils / NEWRRG (regional process)

Consider consolidation of

storage and processing

Larger sites could act as consolidation points for processed (or unprocessed)

concrete to ensure that quality standards can be met and provide the volumes

required to support better processing.





Lead: Councils

5.4 Brick

Brick and concrete are often co-stored and co-processed at RRC facilities and as such most of the commentary for

concrete applies to bricks with a one additional process improvement recommendation made below in Table 16

Table 16 Recommended process improvements for brick waste at larger RRC facilities


Site Operator Phase

Separation of high value

bricks for reuse

There is a market for reuse of certain types of whole bricks (i.e. not damaged) for

renovations. New bricks are not made in the same size and colour as old bricks

and as such salvage of old bricks is often necessary when restoring older

properties. There are certain types of brick that have greater potential to be

salvaged, such as old red bricks, and sites should develop relationships with local

salvage yards to help identify and resell these products.


Estimated cost: Nil


5.5 Soil (clean fill)

At present, soil (clean fill) is only accepted at a limited number of sites in the north east and is mostly used for

onsite landscaping or as landfill cover. Potential process improvements for receival and management of soil (clean

fill) at RRC facilities are limited to improved acceptance procedures and potential screening of fill to produce a

higher-grade soil mix.

Recommended actions for process improvements for soil (clean fill) are presented in Table 17.

Table 17 Recommended process improvements for soil (clean fill) at larger RRC facilities


Customer Phase

Clean fill acceptance

procedures

There are strict requirements as to what constitutes “clean fill” which are set by

EPA Victoria in the Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines: Soil Hazard

Categorisation and Management.

RRC sites accepting clean fill should have appropriate processes, including a

management plan, in place to ensure that they are not accepting contaminated

soil. This should include the following18:

➢ pre-receipt procedures for soil, which includes assessment and/or

analysis that provides evidence fill material is clean

➢ staff training requirements

➢ load inspection procedure

➢ non-conforming load procedure

➢ topsoil management

➢ drainage and erosion control

➢ community engagement (where appropriate)

➢ monitoring and maintenance

➢ site security (to prevent unauthorised access)

➢ noise and dust-mitigation procedures.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils accepting soil at RRC facilities

Load rejection

requirements

• Given the inherent risk from visible and non-visible contamination in soil, site

operatives should reject loads suspected of any form of contamination, by

visual inspection at the gatehouse and/or where the soils have come from

potentially contaminated sources (e.g. industrial sites, old petrol stations etc)

the customer would need to provide results of analytical testing that classifies

the soils as ‘Clean Fill’ according to EPA requirements. Where loads are

rejected, customers should be provided with details of disposal options for

contaminated soil within the region.

18 EPA Victoria 2016. Industrial Waste Fact Sheet, Publication 1624, May 2016 - https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/1624.pdf

https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/Publications/1624.pdf



Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils

Site Operator Phase




the site operative.

Where practicable, soil (clean fill) should be stored in separate piles onsite as a

means of encouraging material separation and discouraging mixed loads and cross

contamination.

Estimated cost: Nil

Lead: Councils

Removal of gross


operator

As with other AMS materials, management of contamination on site should be

undertaken in a proactive manner. During each shift, operators should be

undertaking a site “walkthrough” that looks to identify contamination / stockpile

mixing issues. Where it is safe and practical to do so, the operators should remove

visual / gross contamination.

Estimated cost: Nil



Potential for soil screening Depending on volumes, there is scope at large RRC sites to screen clean fill into a

25mm minus fraction and an oversize fraction. Whilst this is likely to incur

additional cost, it would allow for the higher-grade material to be sold rather than

used onsite or as landfill cover (the oversize fraction could be used for this

purpose).

Estimated cost: $5.5 per cubic meter

Lead: Councils


6 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FOR SMALLER SITES

Smaller (and mid-size) RRCs are common across the north east and tend to service smaller population areas with

more limited site infrastructure. The lack of throughput at these sites presents a significant challenge, and the

recommended process improvements outlined in this section of the report should be considered in light of site

costs and efficiencies. The importance of regional collaborative procurement to provide improved services to

smaller RRCs should not be underestimated, and many of the process changes suggested would benefit from this.

Management and processing of AMS & GTW wastes at smaller RRCs is a balance between cost and pragmatic

solutions. In many cases, it would not be feasible for small sites to implement all of the process changes

recommended in this section. However, there are many that are cost neutral and rely simply on behaviour change

in and around the site.

This section includes the improved processes recommended for small sites. To avoid repetition of content, where

the process for large and small sites is the same, this section refers back to Section 5 above for larger sites. As with

the process improvements for larger sites outlined above, this section of the report is supported by the process

flow charts presented in Appendix 1.

6.1 Timber waste

As with the commentary for timber waste at larger sites, management of timber waste at smaller RRC sites should

also focus on separation of raw (clean) timber from processed and treated timbers. This will provide significantly

greater opportunity for recycling and reuse of the material. The recommended improved process for timber waste

at smaller RRCs are the same as for larger sites, refer to Table 13.

6.2 Garden waste

Recommended actions for process improvements for garden waste at smaller RRCs are the same as for larger sites,

refer to Table 14. There is one key difference in the recommended process between larger and smaller sites is the

recommended screening size. Councils report that mulch screened to a 50mm minus product (which is required

under the current mulching contract but often not adhered to) creates a highly usable product that can be utilised

by council’s internal departments and the public. This should therefore be the target for product size for smaller

sites.

6.3 Concrete and brick

Recommended actions for process improvements for concrete and brick at smaller RRCs are the same as for larger

sites, refer to in Table 15.

6.4 Soil (clean fill)

The acceptance of soil (clean fill) at smaller RRC sites in the region is currently limited and given the acceptance

requirements (such as a formal management plan), councils should consider whether it is practical and worth the

risk to accept soil at smaller sites. For smaller sites that decide to continue receiving soils the recommended

improved processes are the same as for larger sites, refer to Table 17.


7 IMPROVED RECOVERY PROCESS FINANCIALS

This section includes analysis of the financials for the improved resource recovery processes that are outlined

above for each waste stream. It is important to note that this is a limited financial analysis and only provides

insight into a set of ‘direct’ profits and losses for the management of each waste stream. The scope of this financial

assessment is limited to the profits and losses listed in the tables below. Other 'indirect' costs and benefits are not

included in this analysis (such as staff time, site operation expenses, reduced fire risk, reduced stockpiling,

improved amenity etc). Costing all site costs and benefits is beyond the scope of this financial assessment.

For each waste stream the change in the financial outcomes is compared to the main outcomes of the current

process and includes a discussion of the key process changes and assumptions that are used in deriving the

financial estimates. Note: in the tables that follow, negative returns or losses are highlighted with a red outline.

IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – TIMBER WASTE (SEPARATED RAW TIMBER ONLY)

Table 18 provides a summary of the improved process financials for separated raw timber waste in the region.

Table 18 Improved process financial summary – separated raw timber waste

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te (

m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(on

site

or

off

site

)

($/m

3)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($/m

3)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st

($/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s

of

pro

cess

ed

mat

eri

als

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t

($/m

3)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 3,275 $45 -$7.5 -$9 $15 $5 $52 $115,771

Lowest ($/m3) 3 $11 $- $- $15 $- $24 $147

Average ($/m3) 336 $28 -$6 -$3 $15 $4 $37 $11,086

Total (all sites) 4,701 $155,197

Total of current process 10,266 $87,742

Change resulting for process change

-5,565 $67,455


0

The separation of raw timber is estimated to result in a collection of around 4,70019 cubic meters of waste for

recovery across the region. This is around 5,500 cubic meters less material diverted for recovery than is currently

diverted because it is assumed that all treated, manufactured, painted timbers are sent to landfill either directly or

after shredding (to enable use as tipping area hardstand). Council would need to set the gate fee for treated,

manufactured, painted timbers to ensure full cost recovery (at least) for landfilling of these materials.

Gate fees for raw timbers are assumed to stay the same for all sites apart from Benalla, who have noted plans to

increase gate fees to around $11.20 per cubic meter ($70 per tonne).

The improved process financial analysis assumes that Benalla and Myrtleford would send the separated raw

timber directly to D&R Henderson for recycling without shredding. For all other sites it is assumed that raw timbers

19 This assumes that 25% of the current timber waste stream is raw timbers that are suitable for recovery. The remaining 75% are assumed to be sent to landfill either directly or after shredding (to enable use as tipping area hardstand).


would be separated, shredded and transported to Wangaratta for energy recovery at Alpine MDF or sold as a

mulch product (which could be via a market garden outlet or via the new composting facility that is to open in

Bowser).

Processing costs for raw timber waste are assumed to increase to $7.5 per cubic meter for all sites apart of Benalla

and Myrtleford as their raw timber is assumed to be sent directly to D&R Henderson for recycling. The increased

processing costs would allow for the raw timber to be shredded to a 30-50 mm screen size to ensure it is suitable

for a range of off-take markets.

The is an assumed saving of $15 per cubic meter ($45/tonne) for avoided landfilling costs for the raw timber waste

volumes. When raw timbers are mixed with other timbers there are no off-take markets and the waste is sent to

landfill. In these circumstances it is reasonable to assume a saving of landfill airspace and cost. This is the only

waste stream where an assumed landfill saving is allocated because for the other waste stream there is some

current off-take markets.

For all site sites, except Benalla and Myrtleford, a modest return of $5 per cubic meter is assumed from the sale of

processed raw timber product. Alpine MDF currently pay around $30-40 per tonne for timber wastes to fuel their

boiler (when they require off-site materials) so it seems reasonable to assume a $5 per cubic meter return. Raw

timber waste sent to D&R Henderson from Benalla and Myrtleford is assumed to receive $0 payment, however,

the material does not require shredding, so the outcome is similar.

Overall it is estimated that the improved process would return around $155,000 to the region which is around

$67,000 more than the current process, despite assuming recovery of only 25% of the all incoming timber wastes.

Importantly, the improved process would also prevent the current issues associated with mixed timber waste

stockpiling at some sites, which will in-turn reduce fire risk, vermin issues and improve site amenity.

IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – GARDEN WASTE

Table 19 provides a summary of the improved process financials for garden waste in the region.

Table 19 Improved process financial summary – garden waste

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te

(m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(o

nsi

te

or

off

site

) ($

/m3

)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($

/m3

)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st (

$/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s o

f

pro

cess

ed

mat

eria

ls

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t ($

/m3

)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 20,000 $23 -$7.5 -$2 $- $- $16 $250,273

Lowest ($/m3) 67 $10 -$7.5 $- $- $- $- $-

Average ($/m3) 3,648 $16 -$7.5 -$0 $- $- $8 $25,635

Total (all sites) 51,073 $358,888

Total of current process

49,673 $402,063


1,400 $-43,175


0


Around 51,700 cubic meters of garden waste is estimated to be recovered across the region. This is around 1,400

cubic meters more material diverted for recovery than is currently diverted because it is assumed that Indigo

Council sites would collect and process garden waste separately from timber wastes.

Gate fees for garden waste are assumed to stay the same for all sites apart from Benalla, who have noted plans to

increase gate fees to around $11.20 per cubic meter ($70 per tonne).

The improved process financial analysis assumes that all sites separate and shredded garden waste and allow free

collection by internal works departments or the public.

Processing costs for garden waste are assumed to increase to $7.5 per cubic meter for all sites. The increased

processing costs (from $5.20 per cubic meter) would allow for the garden waste to be shredded to a 50 mm minus

screen size to help ensure it is a good mulch product sought after by works departments and the public.

There are no assumed cost saving for avoided landfilling costs by garden waste landfill diversion as no sites

currently send garden waste to landfill.

No assumed revenue for the sale of mulched garden waste is assumed.


$43,000 less than the current process. The reduced return is linked to the increase in processing costs. Whilst the

return is lower than the current process it is still a good return and more importantly the garden waste mulch

would be of a quality that would ‘move’ more easily.

Importantly, the improved process would also prevent the current issues associated with garden waste stockpiling

of processed materials at some sites.

IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – CONCRETE AND BRICK

Table 20 provides a summary of the improved process financials for concrete and brick in the region.

Table 20 Improved process financial summary – concrete and brick

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te (

m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(on

site

or

off

site

)

($/m

3)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($/m

3)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st

($/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s

of

pro

cess

ed

mat

eri

als

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t

($/m

3)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 1,697 $70 -$15 -$9 $- $37 $92 $155,283

Lowest ($/m3) 10 $18 -$9 $- $- $37 $- $-

Average ($/m3) 436 $35 -$14 -$3 $- $37 $47 $23,988


Total of current process

5,230 $90,098


- $245,736


0

Around 5,200 cubic meters of concrete and brick garden waste is estimated to be recovered across the region via

the RRC network. This is the same amount that is estimated to be recovered by the current process.


Gate fees for concrete and brick are assumed to stay the same for all sites apart from Benalla, who have noted

plans to increase gate fees to around $70 per cubic meter ($70 per tonne).

The improved process financial analysis assumes that all sites divert only clean concrete and brick loads for

processing, with mixed loads of construction and demolition waste being sent directly to landfill due to

contamination risks. For sites receiving less than 100 cubic meters of concrete per year, it is assumed that the

concrete and brick are bulk hauled before processing to a larger site in the region for processing. This change is to

enable these smaller volumes to be processed more regularly and explains why the transport costs are higher in

the improved process estimates.

Processing costs for concrete and brick are assumed to stay the same at $15 per cubic meter for all sites, except

Wodonga. The processing costs allows for the concrete and brick waste to be crushed to a 40 mm minus screen

size to help ensure it is a good product sought after by works departments and by customers such as VicRoads.

There are no assumed cost saving for avoided landfilling costs by concrete and brick landfill diversion as most sites

currently do not send concrete to landfill, except where the concrete and brick are used as landfill haul roads.

For all sites a return of around $37 per cubic meter is assumed from the sale of processed concrete and brick

product. This is slightly below the current market rate of $40 for recycled aggregate and this price was achieved by

Myrtleford when they put recycled product to the market a few years ago. Where sites currently use crushed

concrete and brick onsite for haul roads etc, it is assumed that using the recycled concrete and brick off-sets the

cost of bringing in aggregate from off-site, as hence the assumed revenue from sales is maintained in the

estimates.


$245,000 more than the current process. Importantly, the improved process would also prevent the current issues

associated with concrete and brick stockpiling at smaller sites due to a lack of volume for processing.

IMPROVED PROCESS FINANCIALS – SOIL

Table 15 provides a summary of the improved process financials for soils in the region.

Table 21 Improved process financial summary – soil

Est.

am

ou

nt

of

was

te

(m3

/yr)

)

Gat

e f

ee

($

/m3

)

Pro

cess

ing

cost

(o

nsi

te

or

off

site

) ($

/m3

)

Tran

spo

rt c

ost

($

/m3

)

Lan

dfi

llin

g co

st (

$/m

3)

Re

ven

ue

fro

m s

ale

s o

f

pro

cess

ed

mat

eria

ls

($/m

3)

Co

st o

r p

rofi

t ($

/m3

)*

(In

c. G

ST)

Tota

l ne

t p

rofi

t/lo

ss

($/y

ear

)* (

Inc.

GST

)

Highest ($/m3) 764 $11 -$6 -$6 $- $- $9 $4,202

Lowest ($/m3) 190 $- $- $- $- $- -$6 -$1,458

Average ($/m3) 399 $6 -$1 -$1 $- $- $2 $560


Total of current process 1,994 $6,164


- $-


1


Around 2,000 cubic meters of soil is estimated to be recovered across the region under the current and the

improved process.

Following the project workshop, it is understood that the focus for soils is to recommend an improved process for

receiving soils that better manages the risk of contaminated soils being disposed.

The improved process includes no change to the gate fees, processing costs, landfilling costs, or revenue and there

is therefore no change in between the current and improved process financials.


APPENDIX 1 – PROCESS FLOWCHARTS FOR AMS & GTW WASTES

Date post:	31-Aug-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Aggregate, masonry & soil (AMS) and garden and timber ...€¦ · Detox Your Home A Victorian...

Documents