321 ZERO, RESULTS AND EXPERIENCES OF THE TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL 3 BIN KERBSIDE COLLECTION

Transcription

1 321 ZERO, RESULTS AND EXPERIENCES OF THE TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL 3 BIN KERBSIDE COLLECTION BRIAN GALLAGHER SOLID WASTE MANAGER, TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL TELEPHONE briang@timdc.govt.nz Web INTRODUCTION As a means to reduce waste materials being disposed to the Council landfill, the Timaru District Council implemented a three-bin kerbside collection system from July 20. This paper will provide an overview of the lead up, roll out and results from the first year of operation. The Timaru District has a total population of 42,000. DRIVERS FOR CHANGE With increasing waste quantities the life of the Council s Redruth landfill is finite and in 20 with the then current annual waste quantities of 50,000TPA, the landfill had approximately 15 years life remaining. The alternative when the landfill is full is to truck waste to the Kate Valley landfill, approximately 230km north from Timaru. The Council adopted a Zero Waste to Landfill goal in 1999 and along with the New Zealand Waste Strategy from 2002 these initiatives helped provide the foundation for the Council s Solid Waste Management Plan, which was adopted in The preferred kerbside collection method for the Timaru District from 1990 was primarily 240 litre wheelie bins for mixed waste only. This method of collection resulted in an overall reduction of light vehicle traffic to the Redruth landfill by 50% with a corresponding reduction in unloading space at the four district transfer stations, resulting in further capital development cost savings. In 2003 waste collected in wheelie bins comprised 32% of the total waste stream. 68% of the bins comprised organic waste and along with the community pressure for kerbside recycling maximum diversion of waste from landfill would be achieved with a recycling and organics collection. FINALISING A COLLECTION SYSTEM The Council had trialled a weekly 45-litre crate recycling collection in 1992 and introduced a fortnightly collection to the township of Geraldine in In looking to overseas experiences, at one time Ecorecycle from Victoria had information on 26 possible kerbside recycling collection options. The best practice for kerbside recycling collection by Ecorecycle ultimately favoured wheelie bins. The Council also trialled a weekly green waste only collection in 1997 with 240 litre wheelie bins. As debate loomed over whether to collect recyclables in crates or bins and whether to collect food as well as garden waste. The residents were offered an initial choice of 5 different collection options incorporating, bags, bins, split bins and crates. Indicative 1

2 feedback from a random survey and walk up displays showed an initial preference for a bin system comprising a split recycle/rubbish bin along with an organic food/garden bin as this was the cheapest option. However experiences from elsewhere with split recycle/rubbish bins revealed a number of issues pertaining to cross contamination higher bin maintenance and limited capacity. The collection system that offered the maximum diversion was the three bin system comprising a weekly 240 litre bin organic (food/garden) collection, a fortnightly 240 litre commingled recycling collection and a 140 litre fortnightly rubbish collection. As this was the most expensive collection option a trial was undertaken in 2004/05 to ascertain collection diversion and acceptability of the public. It was estimated that the extra cost would be between $141 to $177 extra. This increase in budget had been previously allocated in the Long Term Council Community Plan in THREE BIN TRIAL RESULTS Properties from Timaru, Temuka, Geraldine and Pleasant Point were randomly selected to participate in the trial. Figure 3. Three Bin Trial Composition. Recycle 19% Rubbish 11% Organic 70% The quantity of materials collected during the trial included all plastics and showed a possible 89% possible diversion of materials for either recycling or composting. Ten percent of the bins placed out for the organic collection were contaminated either by food waste in plastic bags or general rubbish. The actual contamination within the bins was relatively small and overall the organic waste was very clean. It is estimated that the contamination by weight would be less than 2%. 68% percent of the materials thrown into the rubbish would be difficult to recycle and compost. However, 32% of the materials thrown into the rubbish bin could be easily sorted for recycling or composting. This also included many clothing items. A common feature with many of the bins emptied was that recyclable items were not squashed, especially plastic bottles and cardboard boxes. If this were done it would increase the capacity of the recycling bin for some people. A lot of materials were also placed in tied plastic bags. Of the materials in the recycle bin 94% could be recycled and 6% was considered as rubbish and not worth sorting. No garden waste or food was placed in the recycle bin. 87% supported the new system with 64% identifying no problems. 2

3 The common problems identified in the trial related to: Separation of materials in the kitchen, Others in house not educated, Didn t know what to put out, Got collection days mixed up. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Instead of a prescriptive tender document the Council proposed to prepare a request for proposals document (RFP). An RFP allows prospective parties some flexibility to submit their proposal with different technologies to achieve the Council s desired outcomes. The outcomes were identified as objectives in the Council s Solid Waste Management Plan. The main objective to be achieved through the RFP process is to maximise the amount of resources to be reused, recycled and recovered at an affordable cost to the community. In calling for proposals the Council decided upon a total solid waste management package which included: Collection, including supply of bins, Composting operations, Recycle, sorting and processing (Materials Recovery Facility, MRF), Landfill operations, Transfer Station operations, Transport of Materials from Transfer Stations. There are advantages in dealing with only one main contractor and overall contract supervision would be easier. The main contractor would be responsible for the many interfaces between the different collection, sorting and processing systems. Quality of end products could also be better through overall control. For proposals to be robust with sound financial pricing it was imperative to give the contractors a clear direction of what the Council wanted. The Council s preferred collection system was a three-bin system with composting of food and garden waste to be undertaken. A crate and bag based system was not considered due to lesser quantities being diverted along with Health and Safety issues. Public consultation had indicated a clear preference for a wheelie bin collection system. The term of the total package was to be 15 years. The Council had already completed a 15-year collection contract. This period is based upon the economic life of the wheelie bins. During this time the contractor could allow for two life cycles of mobile plant, e.g. collection trucks, landfill compactor etc. This length of term also allows a longer time to amortise the more expensive recycling and composting facilities. Proposals were advertised during February Four proposals were received and two contractors were short-listed. Envirowaste Services Limited was confirmed as the preferred services provider in June 2005 with an initial Memorandum of 3

4 Understanding finalised in December 2005 to enable planning and capital development to proceed with a proposed start date of 1 July 20. A contract was signed by June 20. Securing forward exchange rates by Envirowaste provided some saving as the exchange rate dropped during the lead-in time. It was not possible to provide all detailed documentation prior to start up of services. Further documentation including Facility Management Plans, Safety, Health and Environment Plans, Communication Plan would be incorporated at a later date. The contract enables the principles of a partnership approach with an open book policy for the purpose of maximising efficiencies, operational effectiveness as well as taking into consideration any variations. The contract also allowed for capital and revenue sharing options for both parties. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW COLLECTION Essential for easy planning of collection routes and days was provision of access to the Council s Geographic Information System. This enabled good logistics planning for time allocation for collection. Envirowaste were responsible for supplying the new collection vehicles and bins. The Council owns the bins. The lead up to the introduction of the new service began in earnest from March 20. It was necessary to identify potential issues and develop policy and guidelines to enable various solutions and options to be offered. Letters to businesses, multi-unit properties, rural properties and other special situations were mailed out during April. While there was a 4-week deadline to reply it took considerable time to follow up on the no responses from people. This is important, as the final delivery schedule for bin delivery needs to be as accurate as possible to avoid additional work and confusion during the delivery. Approximately 7 people were involved in this phase from answering calls to visiting people to help explain the system and options available to people. A flyer was sent out to all households in April informing residents about the new service and offering bin size options. Table 1.Residents could choose the following bin options: Rubbish Recycle Fortnightly Fortnightly Collection Collection Organic Weekly Collection Small 140 litre 140 litre 140 litre $249 Standard 140 litre 240 litre 240 litre $249 Large 240 litre 240 litre 240 litre $300 Cost incl gst 20 Businesses could choose to have 2 recycle bins instead of having an organic bin because they may have more recyclable material. A weekly collection for each bin is provided to the main shopping locations and for some businesses. These bins are collected on different days. It is also possible to order extra individual bins for either, rubbish, organic or recycling. 4

5 As identified in the trial three bins are not suitable for some situations. The provision of an Eco-Cart has been supplied in these situations. In addition during the lead in time further information was provided in the newspaper and radio. People were very keen to inquire what was to go into each bin prior to the bin delivery. Another key message was only two bins had to be placed out for collection each week nor Figure 3 Eco-Cart available from Rotaform Plastics. all three bins. Giving people the choice of what bins they wanted has certainly created some extra work but this provides the extra level of service delivery to provide a service that the customer requires. It is essential to have a good database linked to delivery schedules. This software was developed in-house by the Council and provided the data just in time for delivery commencement. ROLL OUT OF NEW BINS 321-Zero was the branding for the new services and logos were developed to promote the new service. Envirowaste arranged for the collection of the old 240 litre bins and delivered the three new bins all on the same day. Effectively three weeks was allowed to deliver the three bins. A comprehensive brochure was supplied with the new bins providing information on what to do along with a collection calendar. In the original trial survey, mainly elderly people indicated they preferred smaller recycle bins. When it came to the main delivery this did not eventuate and we had to order some extra 240 litre bins. The bin supplier Sulo was very accommodating in sending some extra bins at short notice. The next hiccup was a delivery area had been missed in the initial delivery schedule. This resulted in a slight delay in the delivery of bins for the main business area of Timaru by a few weeks. Overall the full service took from mid July to September to fully implement. Because this was a totally new service and for some people they were unsure what their bin requirements might be, the Council allowed a 6-month amnesty period to swap bins without charge. While initial numbers were high (70 per month.) this has now dropped significantly (10 per month.) and will always fluctuate as people move houses and change business premises, etc. Another issue was the initial estimate of properties to service. The Council previously rated properties on separate individual or unit titles. This methodology changed to only rate the actual property resulting in an initial estimate of 17,500 properties. However the actual total number of services was approximately 18,300 at start-up. Overall the delivery of bins went smoothly and within two months most issues had been addressed. 5

6 COLLECTION DATA FROM THE FIRST YEAR Table 2.The following mix of bins is currently in service. Sept 20 Rubbish % Recycle % Organic % 140 litre 17,6 31 2, , litre 1,0 2 16, , Sub-total 18,666 (33) 18,984 (34) 18,015 (32) Eco-Carts TOTAL Bins 55,827 Figure 4. Composition of Kerbside Collection Rubbish 25% Recycle 17% Organic 58% In the first year of operation, the composition of materials, less contamination and process loss, diverted for recycling and composting resulted in a 75% diversion of materials from going to the landfill. The quantity of material collected was 22,300 tonnes up from 18,100 tonnes for the single stream bin collection. There was an approximate reduction of light vehicles at the transfer station by 16% over the past year. The first year showed up the great variation of seasonal influence with the organic garden waste quantities peaking in January. The recyclables also experienced a gradual build up to peak in January before dropping off again after the festive season. Figure 5. Quantities Collected from the Kerbside Collection Organic Recycling Rubbish 1200 Tonnes Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- 6

7 The presentation rate or the percentage of bins placed at the kerbside to be collected varied over the 12 months. Similarly the weight of bins that were collected varied. Table 3. Bin Presentation and Weights Recycle Organic Rubbish Month Presentation Weight Presentation Weight Presentation Weight Jul Aug Sep 71% 12.7kg 61% 21.9kg 85% 14.3kg Oct 73% 11.6kg 66% 18.6kg 93% 11.8kg Nov 76% 12.9kg 68% 20.8kg * 10.3kg Dec 76% 15.8kg 61% 27.3kg 89% 12.6kg Jan 78% 14.7kg 68% 29.3kg 87% 13.6kg Feb * * Mar * * 85% 81% 18.9kg 22.7kg 86% 87% 12.8kg 10.0kg Apr 73% 13.3kg 61% 23.4kg 85% 12.1kg May 67% 13.0kg 64% 19.0kg 98% 10.7kg Jun 76% 12.3kg 52% 18.3kg 89% 11.5kg Average 74% 13.5kg 66% 22.0kg 89% 12.0kg AUDIT OF BINS An audit of the bins was undertaken by Council Staff in June 20 to assess how well people were separating their waste materials. It was estimated that a further 8% improvement or 1,800 tonnes of material could be further diverted. The majority of this is primarily food waste placed in the rubbish bin. The Council decided not to proceed with issuing biodegradable bags and containers because of cost and possible compost contamination issues. This would arise if people ran out of biodegradable bags and used plastic bags to put food in before placing in the organic bin. 11% of households from the audit were placing food into plastic bags. This was a similar number as identified in the trial. 22% had not put any food into the organic bins. The recycle bin audit showed identical results to the trial and bins had a 6% contamination level. The Waste audit indicates that most people understand the system well, but improvements could be made on key points. In the rubbish bin apart from food, dirty cardboard and paper that could be composted should be placed in the organic bin. Ash and treated timber along with plastic bags and glass bottles need to be removed from the organic bin. Plastic bags, foam trays cannot be processed at the MRF need to be placed into the rubbish bin. MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) The MRF is located at the Council s Redruth site. The Council owns the MRF building and Envirowaste owns the sorting plant inside. FullCircle sub-lease part of the building from Envirowaste and bale paper, cardboard and plastic as a subsidiary and subcontract operation. The MRF was completed on time for the first recycle collection in July. It took a couple of weeks for the commissioning phase to settle in, but this did not disrupt the 7

8 collections. Initial quality concerns with glass issues and paper have now been addressed with staff training and quality management to ensure that the final product complies with the respective standards. Envirowaste are responsible for the sale of recyclable materials. What to do with the glass was a concern. As market options for glass are limited in the South Island it was always considered that Timaru would have a mixed wheelie bin recycling collection and that the glass would be screened and eventually crushed as a mixed cullet. We did not have the economies of scale to optical sort. It took a little while for Envirowaste to finalise the sorting and screening options, however this has now been addressed. Successful crushing and screening of the glass will ensure that it will be used as an aggregate product either by itself or blended with crushed concrete. Demographics influence the quality of recyclables that are delivered to the MRF and specific education will be undertaken to target these areas. With a 6% contamination level there are a range of non-complying materials that have to be removed. Shredded paper causes spillage in the MRF and people are now asked to place this material into the organic bin. It was initially envisaged prior to the RFP process that plastic bags and all grades of plastic would be able to be processed through the MRF however the economics to undertake this work compared to the actual tonnage to be removed was not viable. There has been some minor adjustment with plant and maintenance downtime, however this has not impacted on collection. COMPOST OPERATION Inclement weather delayed the overall completion of the compost site until August however the facility is modular and the first composting bays were ready for processing the first organic loads in July. The compost technology is the Gore Cover System. Operations went smoothly until January when the peak hit. Designed to process 16,000 tonnes, an equivalent 20,000 arrived in January. A culmination of operational events led to some heaps turning anaerobic. This resulted in a short period of odour from the site. A matter that was taken very seriously and mitigated by Envirowaste. The composting of food and garden waste is a new challenge and the first year has been a learning period for Envirowaste. In this time much has been learned and the compost operations has run smoothly since. With quality issues, concerns have arisen with clopyralid and heavy metal limits from treated timber, sawdust and shavings. Potential market opportunities with potato growers were scuttled because of minute shards of glass contamination, accepting that the growers had a zero tolerance for glass. Similarly plastic is an unacceptable aesthetic contaminant. The quality of compost is being processed to achieve compliance with the New Zealand compost standard NZS4454 and now sales and agriculture trials underway. 8

9 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT The first steps for Timaru that took sometime was to recognise that something had to be done. With no mandatory legislation it took from 1999 until 20 to implement the kerbside collection system. In considering the time taken this allowed the Council to view and assess emerging technologies, system and processes to help build the foundation for what would suit Timaru. Understanding the needs of the community while also trying to achieve solid waste diversion targets is not an easy task. Communication, consultation and trials helped with the buy in from the community. Flexibility of options, giving people a choice helps in most situations and to be realistic there will never be 100% satisfaction no matter you do. Establishing budgets early 2 to 3 years in advance helped smooth the economic impact. The key message to the community was that the Council owned the landfill and by undertaking increased waste diversion the longer term costs would be less toi the community. In all this equates to an estimated $30 million saving over a 30 year period through extending the landfill life. Overall people have a relatively good understanding of the collection system. Proactive encouragement is given through ongoing information, however for enforcement, bins are stickered, letters are sent to repeat offenders, along with personal visits, bins may not be collected and finally the Council s Solid Waste Bylaw has a penalty option. Ensuring data for bin delivery is as correct and up to date as possible for bin deliveries is critical. Ongoing updates to the bin data base will be required. With the delivery of bins, it is prudent to order extra for the initial delivery in case numbers run short. If they don t put the bins into stock as they will soon be required. During the lead up the community had a thirst for information on what to do and what options would suit. Any change to a solid waste collection affects the whole community, so be prepared. In calling for tenders or proposals it is beneficial to have a clear understanding of what you want. For Timaru it was 16 months from calling for proposals to contract start. The process will take longer if you are unsure what you want. Similarly proposals and pricing will not be definitive if there are many options to consider. It is prudent to commence new services not during peak times. WHAT NEXT? With 75% of the kerbside collection diverted, 50% of the waste being landfilled now comes from the business sector. Council staff are now in the process of identifying waste quantities and composition for all businesses. In 2008 it is expected to have in place the appropriate infrastructure for the business sector to improve their waste separation. The next step then is for the Council to ban recyclable and compostable materials form the landfill. 9