FRIDAY 9 AUGUST 2013 AT 11AM IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES 53

CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE AGENDA

FRIDAY 9 AUGUST 2013

AT 11AM

IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES 53 HEREFORD STREET

Committee: Councillor Sally Buck (Christchurch City Council)

Mayor Claire Barlow (Mackenzie District Council) Councillor Robbie Brine (Waimakariri District Council) Councillor Stu Burrows (Kaikoura District Council) Councillor Dick Davison (Hurunui District Council) Councillor Matt Henderson (Waimate District Council) Councillor Aaron Keown (Christchurch City Council) Councillor Glenn Livingstone (Christchurch City Council) Councillor Pat Mulvey (Timaru District Council) Councillor Darryl Nelson (Ashburton District Council) Councillor Lindsay Philps (Selwyn District Council)

General Manager (Acting)

Principal Adviser Committee Adviser

Terry Howes Mark Christison Janet Anderson Telephone: 941-8160 Telephone: 941-8978 Telephone: 941-8112

INDEX 1. APOLOGIES 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – MEETING OF 12 APRIL 2013 3.

PROJECTS REPORT BACK FOR 2012/2013

4. PROPOSED REGIONAL WASTE MINIMISATION PROJECTS 2013/2014 5. WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TEAM COMBINED 3RD AND 4TH QUARTER

REPORTS (SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)

1. APOLOGIES An apology has been received from Councillor Pat Mulvey. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – MEETING OF 12 APRIL 2013 Attached.

1

2

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE

Held Committee Room 1, Civic Offices, Christchurch

on Friday 12 April 2013 at 9.30am.

PRESENT: Councillor Sally Buck (Chairperson)(Christchurch City Council) Councillor Dick Davison (Hurunui District Council) Councillor Aaron Keown (Christchurch City Council)

Councillor Glenn Livingstone (Christchurch City Council) Councillor Lindsay Philps (Selwyn District Council) BY TELECONFERENCE: Mayor Claire Barlow (Mackenzie District Council) IN ATTENDANCE: Tammara McKernan (Christchurch City Council) Kitty Waghorn (Waimakariri District Council) Gavin Sole (Selwyn District Council) Janet Anderson (Christchurch City Council – Minutes secretary)

APOLOGIES: Apologies were received from Councillors Robbie Brine, Stu

Burrows, Matt Henderson, Pat Mulvey and Darryl Nelson.

1. MINUTES OF MEETING 2 NOVEMBER 2012

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lindsay Philps, seconded by Councillor Aaron Keown that the minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2012, as circulated, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting. Item of business “Proposed Non-Natural Rural Waste (Farm Waste) Project was discussed and it was agreed that Chris Keeling be asked to provide feedback at the next meeting of the Committee on take-up or resistance to participation in the Survey. An explanation of the figures relating to proportion of productive farmland in dairying was also sought.

2. FUNDING FOR A TELEVISION TAKE BACK SCHEME The Committee received a staff report recommending that unspent budgeted costs be allocated

to Canterbury territorial authorities to cover part of the costs incurred in diverting television sets made redundant as the result of the digital switch over to recycling instead of going to landfill. The amount unspent is $27,000.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lindsay Philps seconded by Councillor Glenn

Livingstone that the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee approve funding of $27,300 to be divided between the member councils in accordance with Clause 21 of the Constituting Agreement and to be applied towards Television take back costs incurred.

The meeting concluded at 9.50am.

3

4

CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE 9. 9. 2013 3. PROJECTS REPORT BACK FOR 2012/2013

General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608

Officer responsible: Unit Manager, City Water and Waste

Author: Zefanja Potgieter, Senior Resource Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT 1. To report back on regional waste minimisation projects for 2012/2013. BACKGROUND 2. The following projects were approved by the committee for the 2012/2013 financial year.

$94,243 out of a potential $110,000 was spent.

Project Service Provider Actual spend

Business Resource Efficiency Projects Target Sustainability $9,507

Free Materials Service Target Sustainability $4,000

E-Scrap Recycling Timaru District Council / Metalcorp $2,700

E-Book Timaru District Council $5,500

Treated Timber Investigation Environment Canterbury, CCC, BRANZ, Scion

$5,236

Non-natural Rural Waste Management Environment Canterbury $40,000

TV Take Back All member Councils $27,300

Total $94,243 3. Only actual expenditure is shared by all member Councils as set out in the Constituting

Agreement, and unspent budget is not carried forward. REPORT BACK ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS 4. Staff will be present for each of the projects listed below, and respond to questions. Canterbury Business Resource Efficiency Projects Target Sustainability 5. Target Sustainability has worked with 13 business members during 2012 / 2013. Case studies

will be completed in 2013 / 2014.

Business Members

Countdown Rangiora

Countdown Rangiora East

Countdown Kaiapoi

Countdown Timaru Church Street

Countdown Timaru Browne Street

Countdown Rolleston

Countdown Ashburton

Heritage Hanmer Springs

Hanmer Springs Thermal Pool and Spa

Rangiora Toyota

Ashburton Toyota

Rangiora Veterinary Centre – Building design advice

Kaikoura District Council – Building design advice

5

CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE 9. 9. 2013 - 2 -

Free Materials 6. The Free Materials service was officially launched in May 2013. 7. The following table shows the number of organisations by Council area that are registered on

the Free Materials website as a supplier, a collector, and as a supplier and collector. Data is up to and including 23 July 2013.

Council Area Registered as a

Supplier Registered as

a Collector Registered as a

Supplier and as a Collector

Total Number of Registrations

Ashburton 1 1

Christchurch 52 153 47 252

Hurunui 8 8

Kaikoura 1 2 3

Selwyn 2 7 1 10

Timaru 3 2 5

Waimakariri 2 32 3 37

Total 60 205 51 316 E-Scrap Project

Project E-Scrap Recycling

Budgeted Cost $2,700.00

Total Cost $2587.50 including GST

Time Frame 2012 / 2013

Region Waimakariri District Council

Supervisor Ruth Clarke, Timaru District Council

Outline Additional crates for E-Scrap collection for Waimakariri.

Benefits Waimakariri Quantities at Oxford transfer station could be quite low once the ‘first flush’ of disposal has been dealt with. It is difficult to obtain pallets as the site is so far from main centre, and we are also keen to keep operational costs at a minimum here. A reusable crate would suit our purposes more than the pallet and wrap solution in use at Southbrook resource recovery park as there is no pallet handler or forklift at Oxford. Three crates would allow one crate to be in use, one ‘in transit’ and a third loaded ready for pickup.

Deliverables Three crates were purchased for Waimakariri District Council.

E-Book Project

Project E-Book

Budgeted Cost $5,600

Total Cost $4,299.85 including GST $2299.85 from Canterbury Waste Joint Committee budget $2,000 from Council E-Book subsidies (all Councils)

Time Frame 1 July 2012 to June 2013

Supervisor Ruth Clarke, Timaru District Council (TDC)

Region CWJC region wide

Outline Objective: To add more information to E-Book in the form of videos and extra information.

6


The E-Book has been thoroughly edited and the linking has been improved. A voice-over has been completed for the recycling video. Objective: To promote the E-Book to other Councils in New Zealand with the intention of them linking on. A letter will be sent to South Island Councils inviting them to subsidise the E-Book for $200 per annum. The new page has yet to be drafted. Objective: To develop a strategy for the E-Book funding to be self-supporting for ongoing hosting, editing and additional information and possible sponsorship of information. Canterbury Councils have agreed to pay $200 per annum (total $2,000). Further participation by other Councils will increase this funding. TDC will continue to monitor and edit the book, and provide an annual report to participating Councils from 2013 / 2014 on the use of the funding. A lookalike waste services and suppliers E-Book is being considered as a business project by Media Kitchen. A small charge per business would accrue to the CWJC E-Book on an annual basis. Objective: To develop a strategy for monitoring the effectiveness of the website through how many hits it receives. The contractor has provided a link which will enable us to browse through usage data. A data information template is provided below. TDC will monitor and report on data monthly. Objective: Promote the E-Book through existing networks. As of 7/6/2013, the following councils had the ebook listed on their sites.

Timaru District Council

Christchurch City Council

Kaikoura District Council

Waimakariri District Council

Ashburton District Council Now that the E-Book has been fully edited and improved, Councils could aim to give the E-Book a higher profile and promote it to various organisations and schools. TDC will continue to provide support to enable this.

Data A huge range of usage data is available. The data received for the first version is listed in Figure 1 below. First Version - about 234 hits over the time it was online.

Figure 1 – Usage Data for First Version E-Book

February March April May

DATA

Unique visits 56 51 53 49

Links clicks 11 12 0 0

Shares 1 0 0 0

COUNTRIES

New Zealand 6 27

Australia 4

UK 1

7


USA 1

India 1

VIDEOS

Glass O-I Total number of views to date = 166

Cinema Advert Total number of views to date = 5

Timaru MRF Total number of views to date = 175

8. New data for the latest version which was uploaded in early June will be monitored from July

2013, and will also include the top 10 most visited pages, the most zoomed pages, the most searched keywords and the most clicked links.

Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Project

Project name: Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Project

Project district / region: Christchurch‐based but implication for nationwide

Supervisor and partners:

Chris Keeling, Environment Canterbury (Project Owner) Fraser Scott, True North Consulting (Project Manager and Lead consultant) Project team completed by Kevin Crutchley (CCC) Nick Marston / Mark Jones (BRANZ) Jeff Seadon (Scion)

Why did we undertake the project:

Following the Canterbury earthquakes, large volumes of waste timber are entering the waste stream. It is anticipated that between 3 to 10 percent of this will be treated timber, classed as a hazardous waste. The disposal of treated timber has been a long-time national issue; typically land filling is the only option for disposal, which doesn’t allow for reuse, recycling or recovery of the waste. With the increased scales of economy this feasibility study will build an understanding of the issue along with potential disposal options with the hope of using this waste as a resource. Executive summaries for both reports are attached (refer Attachment 1 and Attachment 2).

Findings: To date, Milestones 1 and 2 have been completed. Reports are available on the Environment Canterbury website (http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/your-land/waste/projects/Pages/treated-timber.aspx). Milestone 1 It is estimated that, over the next fifteen years, approximately 15,000

tonnes of treated timber will be produced annually in addition to the 24,000 tonnes of demolition waste treated timber likely to be among the large waste.

Timber stockpile at Burwood Resource Recovery Park. Most of this

volume will be from ordinary activity, with about 1,750 tonnes being contributed by earthquake rebuild activity. Most of this waste will be CCA or boron treated.

The options most likely to prove feasible, based on the analysis

undertaken in this report are: o Using pyrolysis to create biofuels and charcoal. o Using torrefaction to create cement kiln fuel.

8


o Using unprocessed (but ground) treated timber as cement kiln fuel.

o Using hydrothermal processing to create biofuels. o Using the TERAX process to create saleable acetic acid.

Milestone 2 There are no widely used commercial applications for treated timber

waste beyond land filling and incineration, and no large scale commercial examples of chemical extraction processing were identified.

Incineration is preferred in a number of countries because the

hazardous treatment chemicals stay at the processing site to be disposed of (as filtered air emissions and ash), rather than producing contaminated fuels which will be further distributed.

Processing costs for all technologies identified, including incineration, appear very high.

Waste to energy plants are becoming increasingly common

throughout the world, but there are few examples of waste treated timber being a confirmed fuel source. It is apparent that ‘clean wood waste’ and municipal solid wastes are preferred, but reliable sources of clean wood waste are becomingly increasingly difficult to secure in some areas.

Most waste to energy plants are producing and generating revenue

from electricity and heat, with heat typically being supplied to district energy schemes for residential heating or industrial processes.

Meeting air discharge requirements from any kind of thermal

processing of waste treated timber is difficult and expensive, and even large plants with modern technology can have repetitive issues in meeting standards.

Incineration of waste appears to produce strong and organised public

opposition, highlighting the importance of flawless air discharge control, and the probability of opposition even if this is achieved.

Outputs and Outcomes: Environment Canterbury report, ‘Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Project. Milestone 1: Industry Overview.’ Report no. R13/31.

Environment Canterbury report, ‘Treated Timber Waste Minimisation

Project. Milestone 2: International Industry Trends.’ Report no. R13/38.

A large amount of interest has been generated within industry (waste,

demolition and manufacturing) and government organisations. As a result of this project, all parties have a better understanding of issues around treated timber and are actively and openly discussing opportunities.

Through this, relationships have been built with all stakeholders

through positive consultation and engagement.

Total project cost (to end of June 2013) $60,332.24

Environment Canterbury contribution $4,742.11

CWJC contribution $4,742.11

Cost:

Other Partner contributions $5,055.84

9


Waste Minimisation Fund contribution $45,792.18

Next steps: Milestones 3 to 5 will be completed in 2013 / 2014, with the project finishing in December 2013. The options identified during Milestones 1 and 2 will be further scrutinised and detailed business cases developed with the aim of driving these options through beyond conceptual and proven stages.

Non-natural Rural Waste Management Project

Project name: Non-natural rural waste (NNRW) management project

Project district / region: Canterbury-wide

Supervisor and partners:

Isla Hepburn, Environment Canterbury (Project Manager) Chris Keeling, Environment Canterbury (Project Owner) Jeff Matthews, GHD Ltd (consultant undertaking the work)

Why did we undertake the project:

Scoping work undertaken in 2012 indicated that the management of non-natural rural waste could be a significant issue in Canterbury. It suggested that the majority of this rural waste is burned, buried or stockpiled. The objective of this phase of the project was to gather real data to provide some context to the broad conclusions in the scoping studies.

Findings: 92 percent of the sites survey used 3B’s disposal methods; burning, burying or bulk storing their waste.

The survey identified and recorded a total of 490.2 tonnes of NNRW

from 53 farms. This means the average farm is producing nearly 10 tonnes of NNRW each year.

In addition the 53 farms also produced 742 tonnes of organic

materials (includes offal / carcasses) and 26 tonnes of domestic waste. If you combine NNRW, Organics / Carcasses and domestic this equals a total of 1,258 tonnes per year. This means the average farm produces 23.72 tonnes of waste per year.

Scaling up to a regional perspective, 81,200 tonnes of NNRW is

potentially produced per year in Canterbury. Including organic materials and domestic waste, this increases to 209,176 tonnes per year.

The most prevalent NNRW were plastics, bags (seed, feed, foil)

packaging materials (card) and timber materials. TAs felt that rural waste provisions could be improved. Commercial

waste contractors also felt that services could be improved in rural areas, but classed farms as commercial operators, therefore offering the same services.

The data suggests that farms from areas with better levels of service

did not perform better than others.

Outputs and Outcomes: Environment Canterbury technical report, ‘Non-natural wastes; Site survey data analysis’ Report no. R13/52.

Excellent outcomes to date: Project has raised awareness nationally of farm waste management –

MfE and Minister for the Environment aware of project and watching closely; national and local press coverage; Wasteminz has asked ECan to produce an article for Revolve and present at this year’s

10


conference. Interest and support from, and strengthened relationships with

farmers, product stewardship schemes, industry groups – we need to continue to build on this.

Industry movement – Fonterra reportedly considering undertaking

waste audits, Agrecovery canvassing members for opinions on how to improve collection services.

Total project cost $53,490

Environment Canterbury contribution $13,490

Cost:

CWJC contribution $40,000

Next steps: Following this phase of the project, Environment Canterbury will develop a non-natural farm waste management strategy. This will lead on to working with local government, industry and farmers to improve practices.

TV Take Back 9. On 12 April 2013 the Committee approved an allocation of $27,300 for additional costs incurred

by member councils for redundant TVs due to the digital switch over. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee receive the information.

11

12

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is estimated that, over the next fifteen years, approximately 15,000 tonnes of treated timber will be produced annually in addition to the 24,000 tonnes of demolition waste treated timber likely to be among the large waste timber stockpile at Burwood Resource Recovery Park. Most of this volume will be from ordinary activity, with about 1,750 tonnes being contributed by earthquake rebuild activity. Most of this waste will be CCA or boron treated.

A number of the treatment chemicals used in timber are hazardous and harmful to humans if released into the air, soil or water table. For this reason Environment Canterbury has tight restrictions on the burning of treated timber or its use as fuel. These resource consent restrictions require any treated timber process to rigorously control air discharge, adding significant cost to many potential processing technologies and rendering a number uneconomic.

There are a number of key issues that Christchurch faces in finding economically viable and sustainable outlets for treated timber waste:

The lack of a large centralised demand for heat energy, due to the demolition of much of

the CBD, renders some potential options uneconomic and generally requires any waste to energy utilisation to produce energy which can be stored and/or transported.

Processing treated timber is generally expensive from a capital investment perspective

and requires a certain scale to justify this investment and achieve economies of scale. Christchurch does not have a large population or large industries which overwhelmingly justify such an investment.

In general, those pathways that are more researched and refined appear to offer less

revenue potential than those that are novel and untested. There are limited active markets for untreated waste wood suggesting that the economics

of utilising treated waste wood, which will typically require extra processing and handling, are challenging.

Processes such as incineration and gasification operate at high temperature and volatilise treatment chemicals, requiring expensive gas filtration systems which may produce additional hazardous waste streams. This negatively impacts their viability compared to other options.

Most of the processes which actually remove treatment chemicals from wood, with the possible exception of wet oxidation, are unlikely to be feasible because of the high costs of such processes and the difficulty in competing economically with untreated waste wood streams.

The potential market for utilising treated timber waste as a boiler fuel is large, but this market is already hesitant to use untreated timber, and the negative impact of treatment chemicals on boilers as well as air discharge issues makes this pathway unfeasible.

Electricity and heat cogeneration, which is a common end use for waste to energy projects, is made extremely difficult by the need to distribute heat through insulated reticulation. The markets for heat and electricity in Christchurch are currently unpredictable and do not present an attractive option given the high capital investment that would be required.

Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Milestone 1 Report | May 2013 5

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE 9. 9. 2013

13

Recycling of treated timber waste into other products is also unlikely to be a large scale solution as options are limited and there are low incentives for manufacturers to utilise treated wood waste. Recycling also merely delays dealing with hazardous waste rather than offering a definitive solution.

The options most likely to prove feasible, based on the analysis undertaken in this report are: Using pyrolysis to create biofuels and charcoal

Using torrefaction to create cement kiln fuel

Using unprocessed (but ground) treated timber as cement kiln fuel

Using hydrothermal processing to create biofuels

Using the TERAX process to create saleable acetic acid

Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Milestone 1 Report | May 2013 6

14

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current information on international trends and developments in utilising waste treated timber is difficult to obtain, possibly due to commercial sensitivity concerns and fears about public reactions to admissions of processing treated timber waste. Based on the information that has been obtained, the following conclusions are drawn as to technological advancements and emerging trends in the collection and reuse/recycling/recovery of waste treated timber internationally:

CCA treated timber use is tightly restricted in most regions considered, and completely

banned in some. CCA treated timber is considered hazardous waste in Europe and is handled accordingly. Bans on landfilling treated timber waste are increasingly common internationally.

Production of CCA treated timber has sharply declined or ceased in most of the countries

in which it has been historically utilised in large volumes, with other copper-based treatments being common alternatives.

Despite production volumes declining, flows of CCA treated timber from demolition

will continue for many years in countries that have utilised it historically. There are no widely used commercial applications for treated timber waste beyond

landfilling and incineration, and no large scale commercial examples of chemical extraction processing were identified.

Incineration is preferred in a number of countries because the hazardous treatment

chemicals stay at the processing site to be disposed of (as filtered air emissions and ash), rather than producing contaminated fuels which will be further distributed.

It is apparent that the limited availability of land has been a key driver in prompting a number

of countries to restrict landfilling of treated wood waste and to consider waste management alternatives such as incineration. This provides a different context than that active in New Zealand.

Processing multiple waste streams is common in waste incineration plants and allows them

to operate at a larger scale, defraying capital costs. This also dilutes the treated timber waste, reducing the concentration of hazardous air emissions.

Processing costs for all technologies identified, including incineration, appear very high. Waste to energy plants are becoming increasingly common throughout the world, but there

are few examples of waste treated timber being a confirmed fuel source. It is apparent that ‘clean wood waste’ and municipal solid wastes are preferred, but reliable sources of clean wood waste are becomingly increasingly difficult to secure in some areas.

Most waste to energy plants are producing and generating revenue from electricity and

heat, with heat typically being supplied to district energy schemes for residential heating or industrial processes.

Meeting air discharge requirements from any kind of thermal processing of waste treated

timber is difficult and expensive, and even large plants with modern technology can have repetitive issues in meeting standards.

Incineration of waste appears to produce strong and organised public opposition,

highlighting the importance of flawless air discharge control, and the probability of opposition even if this is achieved.

Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Milestone 2 Report | June 2013 5


15

Use of waste treated timber in cement kilns is fairly common, but volumes are (or may potentially be) limited due to concerns about chromium content in cement.

The most recent developments identified, being those based in Canada, have focused on

the production of liquid biofuels from treated timber waste as these outputs have a relatively high value.

Government subsidies for renewable energy generation appear to be becoming more common. The following conclusions are drawn in terms of the impact of international trends and

developments in utilising treated timber waste in New Zealand: While Milestone 1 rightly concluded that incineration of treated timber waste would be very

difficult because of hazardous air emissions, almost any other option (other than use in a cement kiln) must be considered a relatively high commercial risk due to the lack of international precedent for such an operation at a commercial scale.

Ensuring that fuels produced by other processes considered in this project (such as pyrolysis

and biofuel production) are tested and shown not to be contaminated with treatment chemicals will be critical.

Rigorous analysis and confirmation of processing costs for proposed options should

be undertaken to ensure they are accurate and commercially sustainable. The air discharge management plans for proposed options must demonstrate with a high

degree of certainty that they can adequately and appropriately handle volatilised arsenic and chromium.

Landfilling of treated timber waste is easy and inexpensive for those seeking to dispose of

waste in New Zealand compared to most other regions. This context makes achieving a commercially sustainable alternative for waste treated timber especially difficult.

Use of treated timber waste in cement kilns appears to be a relatively low risk and viable

option, albeit with limited potential for large volumes of waste utilisation, and a need to be sure that the behaviour treatment chemicals in the end products are well understood.

Production of liquid biofuels from treated timber waste offers strong potential and is being

embraced in Canada, but a lack of reliable information on the ability of these technologies to handle CCA treated timber waste suggests that this pathway should be approached with caution.

Public opposition to any thermal processing of treated timber waste should be expected

and prepared for.

Treated Timber Waste Minimisation Milestone 2 Report | June 2013 6

16

CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE 9. 9. 2013 4. PROPOSED 2013/2014 PROJECTS

General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608

Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Asset and Network Planning

Author: Zefanja Potgieter, Senior Resource Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT 1. To propose regional waste minimisation projects for 2013/14. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. The following projects are proposed for consideration by the Committee, amounting to $81,800

out of a budget of $110,000 (excluding GST).

Projects Service Provider Budget

Previous Projects

Business resource efficiency projects** Target Sustainability $25,000

Free Materials Service** Target Sustainability $4,000

Treated Timber investigation ECan, BRANZ, Scion and Fraser Scott (Project Manager)

$10,300

E-Book Timaru District Council $5,000

New Projects

Construction and Demolition waste minimisation project ***

A Waste Minimisation Fund project $30,000

Waste Data Collection WasteMinz $7,500

TOTAL $81,800

** These projects will be seeking continuing annual funding. *** This project will be seeking approval of $30,000 for three years.

Business Resource Efficiency: Target Sustainability Services

3. The funding requested for this year is to continue with consultancy and case studies with the Canterbury business members for 2013 / 2014.

4. The Christchurch City Council Target Sustainability services provide free resource efficiency

consultancy to Christchurch businesses to assist them to reduce waste and to be energy and water efficient. Waste audits, energy assessments and water audits are conducted at the business member site. The business member receives resource efficiency recommendations and an action plan. At the end of the project, which normally takes approximately 18 months from when the business member starts the project, a business member case study is produced detailing what resource efficiency initiatives were implemented. Information about Target Sustainability and case studies can be viewed at www.targetsustainability.co.nz. The Target Sustainability Services have been expanded into the Waimakariri, Selwyn, Timaru and McKenzie Districts through funding from the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee (CWJC). Funding for this financial year is to continue with such projects for projects proposed by staff from member Councils.

Free Materials: A Web-Based Waste Exchange

5. The funding request of $4,000 is to extend the Christchurch based Free Materials service to other member Councils across Canterbury.

6. Free Materials www.freematerials.co.nz is an automated system enabling registered suppliers

and collectors to supply and collect re-usable materials. (a) The service is available to businesses, education providers, charities, community groups

and local or national government organisations. It is not available for individuals.

17


(b) All materials must be supplied free. Collectors may not on-sell material collected. (c) Collectors contact the supplier expressing an interest in collecting amounts of material.

Suppliers choose from up to three potential collectors. Suppliers can re-list their materials.

(d) Suppliers are required to record each collection on the website. (e) The following materials are prohibited from this service: hazardous materials, carpet,

liquids, compost / manure, non-operational electronic equipment. Treated Timber Project 7. The funding required in 2013/2014 to complete this two year project is $10,300. The

Committee is a part funder of this project, contributing around 8 percent of the total funding, with other contributors being Environment Canterbury, BRANZ, and the Waste Minimisation Fund. The project is progressing well to the stage where potential disposal options are being narrowed down as set out in milestone three of the original project proposal. The following link (http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/your-land/waste/projects/Pages/treated-timber.aspx) provides further information on progress.

E- Book Project

Total Cost $5,000

Time Frame 1 July 2013 to June 2014

Supervisor Ruth Clarke, Timaru District Council

Region CWJC region wide

Outline This approved project has been carried forward from 2012 / 2013 as it was not completed. To promote the E-Book to other Councils in New Zealand with the intention of them linking on. To add more information to the web pages.

Benefits Adding more Councils would contribute funding to the existing contributions by Canterbury Councils for maintaining the E-Book.

Deliverables Redesign of the regional map to allow more Councils to link in at their own cost with a commitment to pay an annual fee for maintenance, hosting and updating.

Costs to link Canterbury Councils to new design page for regions in New Zealand.

$3,000Costs Breakdown

Add more information. $2,000

Construction and Demolition waste minimisation project 8. The New Zealand Construction Waste Minimisation Project funding proposal has been

submitted to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Waste Minimisation Fund. Successful Projects will be notified by MfE later in 2013.

9. The project will focus on minimising waste from three major construction waste streams; timber,

plasterboard and concrete. The project has an initial focus on the Christchurch and Auckland areas.

10. As stated in the project proposal the three year project is focused on: (a) Fostering collaboration and buy-in from those in the best position to reduce the creation

of construction waste.

18


(b) Creating innovative best practice strategies and tools for reducing the creation of

construction waste. (c) Pursuing implementation strategies to ensure the widest uptake possible of best practice

models. 11. If the project is accepted for funding by MfE it is requested that the CWJC fund $30,000 per

year for three years towards the project. A full project description is attached to this report (refer Attachment 1).

Development of a national waste database

Total Cost $7,500

Time Frame 1 January 2014 to 30 October 2014

Supervisor Kitty Waghorn, Waimakariri District Council

Region NZ nationwide

Outline WasteMINZ propose to coordinate the development of a nationally consistent waste database in order to facilitate gathering of quality data which supports Waste Minimisation and enables Central and Local Government to meet their monitoring and reporting requirements. There are three key elements to developing a consistent approach to waste data. Each of these must be addressed to progress towards a national Waste Data Framework: 1. Definitions / standards: determine the precise meaning of the

measure that is used and the standards required to collect data that meets the definition.

2. Systems for capturing and consolidating data: investigate the types of systems used to record and collate data. Covers physical recording systems (forms or data sheets) through to databases and IT solutions.

3. Responsibility for providing / recording data: determine who generates the data and what obligations they have to provide the data to other parties.

In other words, the project is about clearly determining what data is needed, why it is needed, how it is measured, how it is gathered, who provides and records it, and how it is kept secure. WasteMINZ are initially looking to establish definitions and standards for waste and recovered material types, and for establishing systems that capture this data, for the waste data that is most vital for central and local government to meet their monitoring and reporting requirements. They propose that the database will be scalable and the range of waste data will be extended to meet other organisations’ needs. WasteMINZ is applying for $115,000 funding from the Waste Minimisation Fund (applications closed in mid-July) for Stage 1 and are seeking $69,000 funds from the local government sector in support of this project. As at 12 June $29,900 funds have been committed by a number of partners, which leaves $39,100 to be secured. This proposal is for Stage 1 of a longer term project. Stage 2 would involve implementing the specific implementation mechanisms identified in this first stage. The timing and cost of Stage 2 will be determined by the recommendations that arise out of Stage 1. Regional waste staff have discussed this project and agree that it is appropriate for CWJC funds to be used to assist with this national project. Environment Canterbury has also confirmed that they will be supporting this project.

Benefits A national project will be more cost effective than individual Councils or groups of Councils working in isolation to develop their own measurement tools. In addition, individually developed measurement

19


tools may not fit Central Government’s needs, therefore Councils may need to provide a different range of data for Central Government than they collate for their own needs. Individual Councils cannot easily gather information from non-Council waste handling or disposal sites. It is envisaged that a national waste data system would be able to aggregate waste data from a number of sources and aggregate this at a range of levels (e.g. local, regional, national). A national waste data framework would deliver:

Consistent waste definitions.

Standardised systems for recording waste quantities (including diverted waste).

Clear roles and obligations for measuring and reporting waste data.

Improved information for local, regional and national waste minimisation policy and decisions.

Ability for Local Government to benchmark themselves using nationally consistent data.

Enable Local Government to more easily meet WMA reporting requirements.

Ability for Central Government to meet international reporting requirements.

All of this is of benefit to Local Government as a whole, and will assist individual Councils to monitor the adequacy of existing services, provide information for the on-going delivery of waste management services, provide education and feedback to users of waste services and other interested parties, and for design and implementation of new services.

Deliverables A report that provides the following outcomes:

Identification of consistent, robust and accepted definitions and standards for waste data measures leading to significantly greater confidence regarding the meaning of data.

Identification of standardised systems for collecting data leading to improved efficiency in data collection and analysis.

Identification of clear roles and obligations regarding data collection and provision leading to more complete and consistent generation of waste data across localities and sectors.

Recommendations relating to most appropriate future hosting and collation mechanisms (taking into account factors such as cost and data security).

Costs Breakdown Lump Sum $7,500 excluding GST. This funding is subject to gaining WMF funding for the project. Further funding may be sought for Stage 2, but the actual funding requirement for that stage is currently unknown.

12. A letter of support sent by Waimakariri District Council staff sent on behalf of other member

councils staff, supporting the project to develop a national waste database is attached (refer Attachment 2).

Potential future projects 13. The following potential project proposals are being investigated for possible presentation to the

Committee at a later stage: (a) To determine the effect of Clopyrolid residues in compost made from kerbside organics

and greenwaste on the growth of selected New Zealand native plants; and

20


(b) To investigate the options for nappy waste reduction in the form of re-usable nappies,

and to investigate options for the recovery of Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHPs) for potential composting.

SUMMARY 14. Funding is proposed to continue with four existing projects plus two new projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee: (a) Approve funding of $25,000 to the Business Resource Efficiency project noting that

further funding will be applied for on an annual basis. (b) Approve funding of $4,000 to the Free Materials Service project noting that further

funding will be applied for on an annual basis. (c) Approve funding of $10,300 to the Treated Timber project. (d) Approve funding of $5,000 to finalise the E-Book project. (e) Approve funding of $7,500to the Waste Data Project, noting that further funding may be

applied for. (f) Approve funding of $30,000 to the Construction and Demolition waste minimisation

project noting that further funding of $30,000 per year for two years will be applied for.

21

Page 1 of 14

NEW ZEALAND CONSTRUCTION WASTE MINIMISATION PROPOSED MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WASTE MINIMISATION FUND PROJECT

PROJECT OVERVIEW & BUSINESS PLAN

Background

The volumes of construction waste in New Zealand are a growing concern, with a very large

contribution to the overall waste streams and a negative impact on building costs.

The Ministry for the Environment states that “C & D waste may represent up to 50 percent of all

waste generated in New Zealand, 20 percent of all waste going to landfill and 80 percent of all waste

going to clean-fill.”

In addition, the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s final report into housing affordability in New

Zealand concluded that building costs in New Zealand are increasing at “a greater rate than

inflation” and are “substantially higher than in Australia”. It is believed that a contributing factor to

these costs are the degree of construction waste in New Zealand building practices and that the

“fragmented nature of the residential construction industry supply chain presents a number of

management difficulties which can dampen innovation and result in lower building quality and

higher construction costs”.

Following Winstone Wallboards’ successful plasterboard waste recycling project and Environment

Canterbury’s current treated timber waste utilisation project (both funded by the MFE’s Waste

Minimisation Fund), a project vision has been created to focus on the minimisation of New Zealand-

wide construction waste creation to complement these efforts that focus on construction waste

utilisation. The project will build on the existing relationships and network created in Christchurch

around these projects and also seeks to achieve the same level of network and relationships in

Auckland. It is these relationships and cooperation that will enable a broad and sustainable change

to be made.

It is intended that this large scale, three-year industry-led innovation project will focus on the three

major streams of construction waste (timber, plasterboard, concrete), which collectively represent

80% of construction waste going to landfill. The project will identify, implement and promote

changes in how buildings and building materials are specified, manufactured, deployed and

disposed of to avoid waste creation.

The project is focused on:

Fostering collaboration and buy-in from those in the best position to reduce the creation of

construction waste

Creating innovative best practice strategies and tools for reducing the creation of

construction waste

Pursuing implementation strategies to ensure the widest uptake possible of best practice

models


22

Page 2 of 14

The project will involve people at all levels of the construction industry, from architects to

manufacturers to installers. This inclusive element, combined with a firm commitment to

evaluating and pilot-testing all strategies against ‘commercial reality’, will ensure the project is

optimised to deliver actual, measurable outcomes. It is intended that this realistic approach will

stimulate genuine and sustained behaviour change throughout the construction industry.

The project will be focused on Christchurch construction activity (due to the particular challenges

and opportunities around the rebuild) and Auckland construction activity (due to scale and growth),

but will have a New Zealand wide application and rollout and consider specific challenges outside

these two contexts. Both commercial and residential construction will be within the project’s scope.

The project is designed to align with the New Zealand Waste Strategy by specifically improving the

efficiency of resource use. This will be achieved by, as far as is practicable, designing waste out of

construction processes. The project will also align with and contribute to Statistics NZ’s new

Environment Domain Plan through improved waste data collection.

The overarching goal is to reduce construction waste to landfill/cleanfill by 20% by 2020. It is

estimated that such a waste reduction would have an economic benefit to the construction industry

of $50 – 100 million per annum. The project will determine an appropriate mechanism for measuring

construction waste reductions as part of its early phases.

Project Process

A preliminary plan and budget has been determined to give an indication of how the project would

likely be undertaken. A full, detailed, costed project plan will be completed over the coming months.

In order to learn from the work that has already been undertaken in the construction industry, the

project will initially focus on the success the steel industry has experienced in promoting recycling

and reducing waste to landfill. While steel as a material is quite different to the other waste streams,

it is believed that there are aspects of how the industry has reached its current state that will inform

and guide consideration of waste minimisation in the remaining streams.

The project will then involve the formation of industry working groups for each of the three focus

waste streams, chaired by a ‘Waste Minimisation Champion’, which represents both the industry

(e.g. timber) and the four key functional areas in the supply chain, being:

Design

Manufacturing and procurement

Handling and installation

Disposal and reuse

These functional areas represent the targeted ‘customers’ for the project; namely those involved in

any way in the construction of residential or commercial buildings in New Zealand within the three

focus waste streams. Particular emphasis will be placed on those that are seen as influencers within

these four functional areas, but the project does not seek to merely gain buy-in from ‘early adopters’

or those already focused on waste minimisation, but to implement strategies that will secure buy-in

from the majority of industry practitioners.


23

Page 3 of 14

By ensuring that each step in the supply chain is represented, the project will maintain a pragmatic

focus based on commercial reality and economic sustainability.

The working groups, which will be appropriately resourced with ‘Stream Project Managers’

(reporting to the overall Project Manager) to gather and analyse information, will seek to

understand where waste is occurring in their sectors and begin identification of opportunities for

waste reduction innovation by considering each of the four functional areas creatively and

collaboratively.

Almost all of the hands-on work throughput the project will be undertaken by the Project

Management team, headed by the Project Manager. This work, guided by each working group,

would include:

Engaging key stakeholders in the project and securing commitment to project targets

Establishing the amount of construction waste going to landfill and cleanfill for the 2012

base year to confirm specific diversion tonnage targets for the project

Establishing measurement and reporting systems for all activities, including key performance

indicators, and considering drivers to improve waste measurement

Tracking construction activity and benchmarking targets against construction activity

Facilitating industry collaboration through activities such as surveys and workshops to

determine needs and priorities

Considering international models and trends in waste minimisation to determine

applicability of strategies to a New Zealand context

Facilitating development of New Zealand strategies and tools for minimising supply chain

construction waste

Facilitating and monitoring pilot-testing of ideas and strategies, and reviewing and retesting

ideas and strategies based on feedback

Developing best practice materials and assisting in deployment of these to REBRI

Developing industry briefing/training materials, and ensuring opportunities to link these to

CPD credits are explored

Undertaking/facilitating in-house Action Planning Workshops and public industry Briefing

Workshops

Developing robust and detailed case studies relating to the true cost and impact of waste

and the impact of waste minimisation activities

Stimulating demand for recycled materials in line with a growing recycling infrastructure

Supporting initiatives such as material take back schemes, focused on priority material waste

streams

Raising awareness and visibility of waste minimisation strategies

Developing and implementing voluntary sector waste minimisation plans/agreements


24

Page 4 of 14

Ideas that are determined by the working groups to be feasible will be pilot-tested in real life

settings including within stakeholder organisations and through projects such as Christchurch City

Council’s Target Sustainability services. The emphasis in this process will be on acceptability and

feasibility of solutions, and on measurement of the impact of solutions, to ensure any solution

promoted is evidence-based.

It is likely that ideas will be developed through several iterations of design, testing and feedback.

Strategies and tools will be pilot tested (potentially through several iterations) throughout the first

eighteen months of the project.

Ideas considered to reduce construction waste may include:

Ways to change building designs to allow for greater ‘modularisation’

Ways to manufacture products to make on-site re-use or recycling more straightforward

Considering more (or less) flexibility in product ranges manufactured

Reviewing and optimising installation methods

Reviewing and optimising how products are delivered to and stored on building sites

Tools for quickly identifying, measuring and costing waste to guide action prioritisation

Pilot plans will be created for each strategy to guide strategy assessment, but ultimately strategies

must:

Be informed by information from the key players in each material supply chain

Understand and be aligned with the real financial and non-financial drivers of supply-chain

participants

Present a compelling business case for change

Be commercially sustainable

Allow for measurement of waste and the positive impacts of the strategy implementation

Strategies and tools that have been tested and approved by each working group, and subsequently

by the project governance group, will be documented as comprehensive best practice guides for

each industry/waste stream, along with supporting tools and targets to indicate the expected results

from the implementation of such strategies. This material will collectively contribute towards a

Waste Minimisation Toolkit for industry including a refreshing of the REBRI website and resources.

Where appropriate, working groups will then seek to develop best practice guides into voluntary

agreements across each industry to seek buy-in and commitment from major players to waste

minimisation targets and strategies.

The UK environmental think-tank ‘Green Alliance UK’ says “Information does not necessarily lead to

increased awareness, and increased awareness does not necessarily lead to action. Information

provision, whether through advertisements, leaflets or labelling, must be backed up by other

approaches.”


25

Page 5 of 14

With this principle in mind, following the completion of best practice guides and supporting tools,

individualised Action Planning Workshops would be undertaken with major players within each

functional area to actively promote implementation. This would likely include the top 10 commercial

builders, top 20 volume builders and top 20 architecture firms in New Zealand.

These workshops would both brief these organisations on the best practice guides and the thinking

behind them, as well as facilitating initial ‘action planning’ with each firm to identify how it could

begin to implement the strategies and ideas contained within the guides and assess the impacts of

such implementation.

The output from these workshops would be an individualised ‘road map’ for the firm to begin

implementation of the best practice guidelines. Organisations willing to commit in such a manner

would be benchmarked in terms of pre-existing waste volumes, then be followed up after six months

and twelve months to check on progress and discuss any barriers.

These subsequent interactions would also involve measurement of waste to establish the impact of

strategies implemented, and case studies would be prepared for the REBRI website to share

successes and learnings. Accreditation would be sought for these workshops in terms of offering

ongoing professional development ‘credits’ where applicable.

In addition to individualised workshops with key industry players, a broader briefing ‘roadshow’

would be undertaken throughout the country to publicise the best practice guides. Invitations would

be sent to all relevant professionals and tradespeople within the construction industry to

participate. Templates would be provided to assist practitioners in monitoring and measuring waste

to promote waste tracking and the impact of strategy implementation. Surveys would be

undertaken with all participants (in either level of workshop) to test the acceptability and

attractiveness of strategies and tools contained within the best practice guides.

To ensure the best practice strategies on waste minimisation are implemented by future generations

of construction tradespeople and professionals the project team would work with key tertiary

education and industry training organisations to incorporate the information into teaching and

training curricula.

The project would produce a broad set of educational and training outcomes that will provide the

tools, techniques and encouragement to reduce and minimise waste throughout the construction

process. The educational rollout is expected to involve AUT, CPIT, and BOPoly, as well as substantial

involvement from BCITO and Scion’s Living Laboratories programme.

AUT has already committed to incorporating the strategies and tools that the project produces into

its new Architectural Engineering and Construction Engineering programmes, which will launch in

2015, as well as into other existing relevant qualifications. It is anticipated that from 2016 between

300 and 500 students from these programmes will be trained in the strategies and principles

resulting from this project, in addition to those from other institutions.

A key part of this process would be ensuring new construction tradespeople and professionals are

closely linked and familiarised with REBRI as a hands-on ‘toolbox’ and ‘resource kit’ which guides

activities and actively encourages best practice throughout construction sector supply chains to

minimise the creation of waste.


26

Page 6 of 14

The overall goal of the project, through these processes, is to reduce the volume of building waste to

landfill and cleanfill by 20% by 2020.

Once the project is complete, ongoing impact will be ensured through:

A continuous stream of new graduates from tertiary providers who have been specifically

trained in the new waste minimisation best practice strategies and tools

The adoption of these strategies and tools by industry through workshops and REBRI

Continuing promotion through BRANZ and other industry partners

Ultimately the aim is to ensure the normalisation of innovative approaches to waste minimisation in

the New Zealand construction sector.

Project Partners and Feasibility

The project governance group will be comprised of the financial stakeholders to the project being:

Winstone Wallboards

BRANZ

Scion / Living Laboratories

Christchurch City Council (on behalf of the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee)

Auckland Council

WasteMINZ

AUT University

In addition, the following organisations have confirmed a desire to support the project and assist in

its development and implementation. While not direct financial contributors, each of these

organisations (and others that will be engaged as the project continues) will be expending significant

time and resource on activities such as testing of strategies and measuring of waste streams:

Jasmax Architects

TPI / Waste Management

CID Resource Recovery Limited

Stonewood Homes

Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT)

Cement and Concrete Association

Wood Processors Association of New Zealand

Sustainable Steel Council

NZ Green Building Council

Environment Canterbury


27

Page 7 of 14

The feasibility of the project is best established by the shared belief of the project partners in the

project’s overall goal and the processes to be undertaken. The commitment of the financial and non-

financial stakeholders to an intensive three year process that will require significant time and in-kind

investment aptly demonstrates their assessment of the project’s feasibility.

The project team has already developed strong linkages with industry and further engagement with

industry and other relevant organisations will be assured due to the existing networks and

reputations of the governance group and other stakeholder participants.

Feasibility in terms of project delivery is established based on the skills and track record of the

Project Manager who will be directly involved in securing and overseeing Stream Project Managers.

The extensive resources of the organisations represented by the governance group can also be

brought to bear on the project to ensure delivery of milestones to standard, within budget and on

time. The Project Manager has already successfully completed one major MFE Waste Minimisation

Fund project and is halfway through another of a similar size and complexity.

Feasibility in terms of achieving project targets is established based on the preliminary work done by

the governance group and stakeholders in looking at opportunities for designing waste out of the

supply chain. While this consideration is very much in the early stages the shared belief of the

governance group and the stakeholders is that there are substantial and commercially viable gains to

be made in minimising construction waste that are realisable within the timeframes and scope of the

project.

Project Scope

Waste Stream Timber Plasterboard Concrete

Industry Sector Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial

Location AKL CHC AKL CHC AKL CHC AKL CHC AKL CHC AKL CHC

Design

Manufacturing & procurement

Handling & installation

Disposal & reuse


28

Page 8 of 14

Project Map

Waste Stream Timber Plasterboard Concrete

Year Process Step

1 Situation Focus on learnings from steel industry to build a model for waste minimisation in other waste streams

Establishment of Champion-led working groups representing waste streams and areas of waste minimisation opportunity

Complication Consider where waste is occurring and identify opportunities for waste minimisation based on four functional areas below

Design Consider how materials are utilised from a design perspective and look for opportunities to ‘design waste out’, including designing for disposal or reuse

Manufacturing & procurement

Consider how manufacturing processes and product options, and scoping, specification and ordering processes could be optimised to minimise waste

Handling & installation

Consider how materials are handled and stored on construction sites to reduce damage, and look for opportunities in installation/utilisation of materials to reduce waste

Disposal & reuse

Consider how materials are disposed of and promote improved lifecycle management. Ensure efficient connection with reuse and recycling processes identified in plasterboard and timber WMF feasibility studies

Resolution Evaluate and undertake initial feasibility analysis on promising ideas through collaboration within industry (at all levels) and prioritise ideas based on size of the opportunity, simplicity of solution and impact of solution

2 Validation Pilot ideas through collaborating organisations, Christchurch City Council’s Target Sustainability services and other appropriate mechanisms and closely monitor results, including benchmarking waste levels against baseline measurements

Innovation Proven, robust, cost-effective solutions for reducing construction waste

Codification Create industry best practice guides for each waste stream based on solutions

Publication Use best practice guides as a basis for creating a Waste Minimisation Toolkit for industry including refreshing the REBRI website and resources

Affirmation Seek to develop voluntary agreements in each waste stream industry around strategies and targets

3 Communication & Implementation

Undertake in–house ‘Action-Planning Workshops’ with key industry players in each ‘opportunity stream’

Undertake open ‘Briefing Workshops’ for all within construction industry.

Initiate benchmarking activities for those following action plans to determine first year impact of strategy adoption.

Write up new case studies for REBRI to share learnings and successes

Education Work with key tertiary education providers to incorporate best practice information on waste minimisation into teaching curricula


29

Page 9 of 14

Project Organisational Chart

Capability Statement

The overall project includes both professional Project Managers and senior leaders and executives

from large organisations within the construction industry and associated sectors. Both at a

governance and operational level the project team represents a highly capable and experienced

group that is well connected and respected within the construction industry.

In addition the project team and wider stakeholder group are comprised of organisations that have

extensive knowledge, financial and administrative resources that will ensure the project is

undertaken to the highest possible standard and in a manner. The depth and breadth of the

networks that can be accessed and engaged into this project will ensure that the solutions that are

developed are both extremely robust and practical, as well as securing buy-in and commitment from

the widest possible cross-section of the construction industry.

The wide range of organisations involved in the project (including manufacturers, architects, training

organisations, regulatory organisations, research organisations and industry organisations) will

ensure a breadth of knowledge and experience deployed in solution development and rollout.

Governance Group

Project Manager

oversees and supports

oversees and supports

supports supports supports

chairs chairs chairs

Timber Stream Project Manager

Plasterboard Stream Project Manager

Concrete Stream Project Manager

Timber Waste Minimisation Champion

Plasterboard Waste Minimisation Champion

Concrete Waste Minimisation Champion

Timber Stream Working Group

Plasterboard Stream Working Group

Concrete Stream Working Group

Unpaid team members Paid team members


30

Page 10 of 14

Draft Project Budget

Year 1

Overall project management including analysis of steel industry and construction of briefing document for working groups and engagement of working groups, supervision of stream Project Managers and preparation of reports

176,800

Stream project management resource for analysis of waste minimisation opportunities, overseeing piloting and measurement, and reporting to working groups

353,600

Pilot testing expenses 30,000

Working group meeting and travel expenses (six to eight meetings per stream) 30,000

Contingency and other expenses 9,600

Overall Cost 600,000

Industry Contribution 125,000

Funding Sought from MFE 475,000

Year 2

Overall project management including reporting on feasibility and recommendations

176,800

Pilot testing expenses 50,000

Working group meeting and travel expenses (four to six meetings per stream) 20,000

Stream project management resource for monitoring of pilot testing and reporting of results

176,800

Creation of best practice guides for each sector in conjunction with Project Manager

80,000

Creation of Waste Minimisation Toolkit, refresh of REBRI website and associated communication and marketing costs

60,000

Creation of voluntary agreements and associated communication and marketing costs

30,000





Year 3

Overall project management 176,800

Preparation of Action Planning and Briefing Workshops materials and presentations

30,000

Action Planning and Briefing Workshops (including travel expenses) 80,000

Follow-up and benchmarking sessions (including travel expenses) 60,000

Preparing and undertaking satisfaction surveys with workshop participants 20,000

Preparation of REBRI case studies 40,000

Development of construction waste minimisation curricula 180,000





Overall Funding Requirement from Ministry for the Environment WMF $1,425,000


31

Page 11 of 14

Project Benefits and Metrics

The overall goal of this project is a 20% reduction of construction waste to landfill/cleanfill by 2020.

It is envisaged that by pursuing this goal the project will deliver the following benefits:

Reduction of the volume and costs of construction waste being sent to landfill and cleanfill

Reduction of potential environmental damage from the generation and disposal of

construction waste

Increased economic benefit from using material resources more effectively

Reduced construction costs from minimising wastage

Increased collaboration, innovation and information sharing around waste minimisation in

the construction industry

Promotion of shared producer responsibility and supply chain stewardship around waste

minimisation in the construction industry

Positive impact on other waste minimisation projects through optimisation of design for

reuse, recovery and/or recycling

Commitment by construction industry practitioners to voluntary waste minimisation

agreements, including volume reduction targets

Increased volumes of construction waste reuse and recycling

Promotion and increased activity around waste measurement and tracking, including

tracking of reduced waste creation levels

Creation of updated waste minimisation best practice guides as a resource to promote

construction waste minimisation within the current industry

Incorporation of waste minimisation strategies and tools into training institution curricula to

promote waste minimisation among new professionals and tradespeople

Creation of a Waste Minimisation Toolkit for industry including refreshing the REBRI website

and resources for industry practitioners to support and promote waste minimisation activity

Ongoing, sustained benefit through educational and industry integration (without the

requirement for any ongoing funding)

Specific metrics that the project will seek to measure include:

Tonnes of waste generated, avoided and diverted by participant organisations as a result of

strategies implemented (by sector)

Tonnes of waste recycled/reused as a result of strategies implemented (by sector)

Industry cost reductions from waste creation avoidance and recycling/reuse (by sector)

Numbers of industry practitioners involved in working group, pilot testing, Action

Workshops and Briefing Workshops

Numbers of construction projects (commercial and residential) involved in pilot testing

Numbers of industry practitioners implementing Action Plans

Numbers of industry signatories to voluntary waste minimisation agreements

Levels of industry satisfaction with best practice guides

Visitor and guide download numbers on REBRI site

Numbers of training institutions incorporating best practice guides into curricula, and

students reached as a result


32

Page 12 of 14

Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies

The risks recognised for the project, and strategies anticipated to mitigate these, are as follows:

Risk Mitigating Strategies

Scope of project is too large - Project is focused only on the three main streams of construction waste

- Every stage of the project is focused on areas where maximum impact can be made with available time and resources

- Overall Project Manager will ensure project remains focused

Appropriate waste stream Waste Minimisation Champions are not identified

- Project partners are well networked within sectors and well placed to identify appropriate candidates

- Waste Minimisation Champion recruitment will focus on identifying motivated and creative industry representatives that are already recognised as industry leaders

Working groups are not representative of their industry, or are not perceived by the industry as such

- Project partners are well networked within sectors and well placed to identify appropriate candidates

- Recruitment processes will evaluate potential working group members carefully to include balance across functions and organisational level

Working groups are too policy or ‘high level’ focused, or create strategies that are not commercially viable

- Overall Project Manager will monitor and attend working group meetings to ensure commercial focus

- Stream Waste Minimisation Champions will be briefed to ensure commercial focus

- Stream Project Managers will work directly with industry (beyond the working group) to ensure appropriateness of strategies

- Working group will include ‘coal-face’ practitioners such as installers

- Strategies will be field-tested to ensure appropriateness


33

Page 13 of 14

Risk Mitigating Strategies

Working groups are not able to develop sufficient innovative strategies around waste minimisation

- Working group recruitment will focus on identifying motivated and creative industry representatives from a range of backgrounds

- Working group will work to understand where waste occurs to identify the major focus areas for impact

- The project will include consideration and evaluation of international best practice trends in construction waste minimisation

- Pilot testing in actual construction projects will refine and shape strategies

Best practice strategies and tools identified do not actually impact waste volumes to landfill or recycling/reuse levels

- Strategies will be field-tested to ensure appropriateness and likelihood of adoption and impact

- Strategies will be evaluated and prioritised prior to implementation based on size of saving potential and impact of strategy

- Key industry influencers will be directly monitored to ensure impact

Implementation of best practice fails for lack of industry buy-in

- Recruitment processes will evaluate potential working group members carefully to include balance across functions and organisational level and ensure influence and representation of industry sector

- Project partners, Project Managers and sector champions will work to secure buy-in as strategies develop

- Strategies will be optimised to align with industry commercial drivers

- Workshops will ensure industry practitioners understand best practice and are actively encouraged to implement

Educational institutions do not incorporate strategies and tools into curricula

- Key educational institutions are project partners

- Key educational institutions are directly involved in evaluating strategies and tools

Project does not achieve sustainable results - Produced strategies and tools will be intensively communicated to and integrated into key industry organisations, many of whom will be participating in the project

- Produced strategies and tools will be integrated into educational curricula and taught to new industry professionals and tradespeople so as to normalise best practice


34

Page 14 of 14

About AUT University

Established in 2000 (under the Education Act, 1989)

Predecessors established:

1895 - Auckland Technical School

1913 - Seddon Memorial Technical College

1963 - Auckland Technical Institute

1989 - Auckland Institute of Technology

Chancellor: John Maasland

Vice-Chancellor: Derek McCormack

26,243 student enrolments in 2011 (18,518 equivalent full time)

Awarded in 2011:

40 Doctorates

592 Masters

750 Honours, postgraduate diplomas and postgraduate certificates

3,458 Degrees, graduate diplomas and graduate certificates


35

36


37

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 CANTERBURY WASTE JOINT COMMITTEE 9. 9. 2013 38

Documents

FRIDAY 9 AUGUST 2013 AT 11AM IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES 53