A G E N D A

 

 

Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee MEETING

 

 

 

Meeting Date:

Friday, 20 September 2019

Time:

9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

 

Group Members

Chair:  Councillor Kerr

Councillors Heaps, and Lyons (HDC)

Councillors Brosnan (Deputy Chair), Dallimore and Tapine (NCC)

(Quorum= 4 at least 2 Councillors from each Council)

Officer Responsible

Waste and Data Services Manager (Mr M Jarvis)

Democracy & Governance Advisor

Carolyn Hunt (Extn 5634)

 

 

Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee – Terms of Reference

 

Background

Section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 states that a territorial authority must adopt a waste management and minimisation plan which provides:

 

·         objectives, policies and methods for effective and efficient waste management and minimisation,

·         collection, recovery, recycling, treatment and disposal services

·         facilities for waste management

·         waste minimisation activities including education and public awareness; and

·         a framework for funding implementation, grants and advances of money

 

The Solid Waste Management Committee which had been set up with Napier City Council, jointly prepared a Waste Minimisation Plan (WMMP) which was formally adopted in 2012.  This committee was disestablished upon adoption of the WMMP. In early 2014 the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee was established to meet to oversee and manage a range of programmes and interventions to achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the Omarunui landfill catchment.

 

The WMMP must be reviewed every 5 years. A Waste Assessment, which is the first step of the review has been undertaken and options are being developed for the WMMP. It is proposed that all submissions on the draft WMMP are heard by a joint committee of Napier City and Hastings District Council:

 

Purpose

·           To approve the content of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for public consultation.

 

·           To hear submissions and make recommendations to the constituent Councils on the draft regional Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2011-2017.

 

·           To be responsible for overseeing, supporting, monitoring and reporting progress toward achieving the intent of WMMP. As well as representing the interests of participatory Councils in the WMMP.

 

·           To review the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan at least every six years to meet the requirements of the WMA 2008

 

Members

Three elected members appointed from Hastings District Council

Three elected members appointed from Napier City Council

 

Name

The Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

 

Status

By agreement of the local authority members, the Joint Waste Futures Joint Project Steering Committee has been established as a Joint Committee under clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

Delegated Authority

The Joint Committee will have responsibility and authority to:

 

1.     Accept and hear submissions on the joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017-2023, and report back to the individual Councils on an as required basis.

 

2.     To make recommendations to each participant Council on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

 

3.     To monitor performance and progress to give effect to the purpose of the WMMP and to make recommendations to the constituent Councils accordingly.

 

 

Administering Authority and Servicing

Hastings District Council shall administer the Joint Committee meetings.

 

Meetings

The Hastings District Council’s Standing Orders will be used to conduct the Joint Committee meetings.

 

The Joint Committee shall meet as and when required as agreed for the achievement of the purpose of the joint committee.

 

Quorum

The quorum at any meeting shall be not less than four (4) including not less than two representatives of each of the member bodies.

 

Voting

The members shall strive at all times to reach a consensus.

 

Each representative shall be entitled to one vote at any meeting.

 

There shall be no casting vote.

 

Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

The Joint Committee shall also appoint by simple majority vote, a Chairperson from one Council and a Deputy Chair from the other Council.

 

Variations

Any Member may propose an amendment (including additions or deletions) to the Terms of Reference which may be agreed to by the Joint Committee.

 

Variations to the Terms of Reference must be referred to the constituent Councils for ratification.

 

Term of Office

The primary purpose of this Joint Committee is the approval and adoption, by both Councils, of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. However the Joint Committee will continue to meet as and when required to oversee performance of the WMMP in operation.

 


 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee MEETING

 

Friday, 20 September 2019

 

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

9.00am

 

 

A G E N D A

 

 

 

1.         Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

2.         Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. 

3.         Consideration of General Business Items

4.         Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee held Friday 22 March 2019.

(Previously circulated)

5.         2019 Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) report                                          7

6.         Manawatu District Council Application to Provincial Growth Fund for Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Facility                                                        85

7.         Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update          89

8.         Proposed Priority Products and Product Stewardship Scheme Consultation Submission                                                                                                                97

 

 

     


File Ref: 19/929

 

 

REPORT TO:               Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

MEETING DATE:        Friday 20 September 2019

FROM:                           Waste Planning Manager

Angela Atkins

SUBJECT:                    2019 Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) report        

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       This report is to update the committee on the results of the 2019 Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) survey. Hastings District Council (HDC) and Napier City Council (NCC) jointly complete a SWAP survey every three years.

·    SWAP surveys assist with the completion of the Waste Assessment, required under section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 for Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) reviews.

·    The Joint WMMP also requires the completion of SWAPs, Action 10.E.

            A SWAP is a classification and sampling technique to measure the quantity and composition of waste. The SWAP was completed on waste collected from kerbside collections, transfer stations and Omarunui Landfill. HDC and NCC have completed SWAP on average every three years for the past 12 years to provide direction for waste minimisation activities.1.2            The findings from this survey are similar to those of the 2016 survey which means that the actions and initiatives of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan are still relevant.  The high level results are detailed below.

·    The composition of the two kerbside waste streams has remained relatively constant through the 12-year period during which the audits have been conducted.  The relative differences between the Hastings domestic rubbish bag and the Napier domestic rubbish bag have also remained relatively consistent.

·    Napier rubbish bags contain a higher proportion of paper, plastics, ferrous metals, glass, rubble, and potentially hazardous materials than Hastings

·    Hastings rubbish bags contain a higher proportion of organics and sanitary paper than Napier.

·    Wheelie bins contained a higher proportion of green waste than bags.

·    Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station surveys showed a high timber and rubble content going to landfill. Textiles are another notable category, estimated at approximately 11% of waste at Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station.

·    Organics (28%) and plastics (12%) are high proportion of general waste going direct to landfill, and organics (17%) is high proportion of special waste.

·    Below is a comparison of domestic kerbside rubbish bag audits, top three materials over past 5 surveys.

 

Comparison of domestic kerbside rubbish bag audits

Hastings

Napier

2007

2009

2012

2016

2019

2007

2009

2012

2016

2019

Paper

10.6%

10.8%

10.5%

7.5%

9.1%

14.4%

13.2%

13.3%

12.8%

10.4%

Plastics

12.5%

11.6%

13.5%

12.8%

14.9%

14.4%

12.3%

14.4%

13.2%

14.5%

Organics

51.7%

51.2%

51.3%

52.6%

50.9%

47.7%

44.9%

47.6%

49.3%

48.1%

·    A full copy of the SWAP report is also available on the HDC website.

 

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Committee receives the report titled 2019 Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) report.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Hawke's Bay Solid Waste Surveys 2019 - Final Report

SW-25-19-4506

 

 

 

 

 


Hawke's Bay Solid Waste Surveys 2019 - Final Report

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 19/939

 

 

REPORT TO:               Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

MEETING DATE:        Friday 20 September 2019

FROM:                           Waste Planning Manager

Angela Atkins

SUBJECT:                    Manawatu District Council Application to Provincial Growth Fund for Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Facility        

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       This report is to inform the committee about the application that Manawatū District Council (MDC) intend submit to the Provincial Growth Fund seeking funding for a plastic recycling, processing and reuse facility.

·    In April 2019, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) announced Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) funding for MDC to undertake a business case and options analysis to support a Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Industry in the Manawatū region.

·    MDC is due to submit the final Business Case to MBIE in late September 2019, which will be comprised of completed strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management cases.

1.2       The Waste Planning Manager attended the Plastics Processing Forum held in Feilding on the 8th July to find out more about the project. MDC also used this forum to gather information from Councils around the lower North Island regarding volumes and types of plastics. Further details regarding the facility and project are detailed below.

·    The tonnages available in the surrounding regions appear to be sufficient to justify a value adding process to produce “hot wash flake”, and to extrude to a pellet when required with good commercial value. This can only be done with collaboration between Councils and with the help of central government.

·    A sustainable solution must be found for the diversion of plastic waste from landfill and the environment. The development of a plastic processing facility that optimises both economic and environmental benefits however comes with significant risk, and ultimately will not be developed without the support of government.

·    The technical assessment has shown that development of a plastic processing facility in Feilding to serve the lower North Island is achievable, but it is dependent on a number of factors.

·    Plastic supply issues for the proposed Recycling Reuse Facility were discussed at the Plastics Processing Forum. Following feedback from the HDC Waste Planning Manager, and further analysis of market signals, an assumption was made that an increase in the collection of viable plastics for supply of the Recycling Reuse Facility could be achieved by increasing capture of rural and agricultural plastic waste.

·    The project aligns with the PGF’s priorities of encouraging environmental sustainability, helping NZ to meet climate change commitments, and improving resilience by diversifying the economy.

·    The proposal also complements and supports a number of both regional, national and global priorities, particularly in the environmental/sustainability space.

·    Gate charges are proposed to be variable based on the types of plastic delivered for processing, e.g. Types 1-7, agricultural waste. Therefore a supplier’s gate charge would be dependent on the mix of plastic supplied. This will allow individual Councils to continue to separate out some types of plastic.

·    If funding for the project is approved by MBIE, MDC will move into the ‘Planning for Procurement Phase’. This phase will involve exploring supply agreements and potential commercial partners.

·    Questions for Central and Lower North Island Councils:

­ Would Council be interested as a potential supply partner?

­ Would Council be willing to provide MDC with a letter of support for development of a Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Industry in the Manawatū region for submission alongside our business case?

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Committee receives the report titled Manawatu District Council Application to Provincial Growth Fund for Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Facility.

B)     That the Committee support the Manawatū District Council with a letter of support for development of a Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Industry in the Manawatū region for submission alongside the business case application to the Provincial Growth Fund.

C)     A future report may be presented to the committee and Council for consideration, should Manawatū District Council require further information or a formal supply agreement.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Draft Letter of Support - Manawatu District Council Provincial Growth Fund Application - Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Industry

SW-25-19-4549

 

 

 

 

 


Draft Letter of Support - Manawatu District Council Provincial Growth Fund Application - Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Industry

Attachment 1

 

If calling ask for Angela Atkins

 

File Ref:   SW-25-19-4549

 

13 September 2019

 

 

 

Provincial Development Unit

MBIE

15 Stout St, PO Box 1473

Wellington 6140

 

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Manawatū District Council Provincial Growth Fund Application -  Letter of Support

The Hastings District Council would like to support the Provincial Growth Fund application made by the Manawatū District Council for a Plastic Recycling, Processing and Reuse Industry.

A sustainable solution must be found for the diversion of plastic waste from landfill and the environment. The development of a plastic processing facility will optimise both economic and environmental benefits however the development is dependent on the support of government.

This project offers the opportunity to provide a much needed service and facility to the wider central and lower North Island communities. Here in the Hawke’s Bay the agricultural and horticultural industry is struggling to find opportunities to recycle plastic materials associated with their activities, such as protection nets, plastic sheeting (fumigation sheets, shrink wrap, baleage and silage wrap) and irrigation piping.

Local Government is experiencing growing pressures to address unsustainable disposal of plastic waste to landfill and the environment. Development of the proposed Plastic Processing and Reuse Industry in the Manawatū would give neighbouring Councils an alternative to disposal to landfill in addition to providing a solution for the sustainable disposal of commercial and agricultural plastic waste within New Zealand borders.  

The Better Business Case process undertaken by Manawatū District Council to inform their application to the PGF found that development of the proposed facility would not only benefit the Manawatū community, but would have significant economic spill over benefits to the wider regional economy, delivering benefits to neighbouring Councils as well.

Plastic supply issues for the proposed facility were discussed at a Central and Lower North Island Plastics Processing Forum held in Feilding on 8th July 2019, which a representative from Hastings District Council attended.

Hastings District Council is supportive of the general concept presented and may be interested as a potential supply partner. This level of commitment will require a detailed report and ratification by Council once more details are known from the detailed planning phase for the project to determine opportunities for partnership. 


 

Hastings District Council believe the project aligns with the Provincial Growth Fund’s priorities of encouraging environmental sustainability, helping NZ to meet climate change commitments, and improving resilience by diversifying the economy.

The proposal also complements and supports a number of both regional, national and global priorities, particularly in the environmental/sustainability space.

We look forward to hearing the outcome of the Provincial Growth Fund application by the Manawatū District Council.

If you have any queries regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the Waste Planning Manager to discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

XX

 

 

 

 

 

 


File Ref: 19/941

 

 

REPORT TO:               Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

MEETING DATE:        Friday 20 September 2019

FROM:                           Waste Planning Manager

Angela Atkins

SUBJECT:                    Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update        

 

 

1.0       PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       This report is to update the committee regarding the implementation of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) about activities undertaken by Hastings District Council staff.

1.2       A draft implementation plan is attached, however the key points are highlighted below. Of the 55 actions detailed in the WMMP, 25 have commenced.  Some projects and initiatives will not be initiated until years 3 and 4 of the plan.

·    New kerbside collection and recycling drop off contracts are currently being procured.  Tenders are being evaluated with contract award expected in October.

·    Three new staff have been appointed to the Waste Services team and a new team structure implemented.  The staff changes are as follows:

­ Danny McClure – Solid Waste Operations & Contract Manager (new staff member in new position)

­ Angela Atkins – Waste Planning Manager (existing staff member in new roll)

­ Sam Gibbons - Senior Waste Minimisation Officer (new staff member in new position)

­ Cloe Vining - Waste Minimisation Officer (new staff member in existing position)

·    Work is due to commence next month on establishing an organic waste sector group to look into ways to achieve the organic waste diversion target.

·    Improvements are being made at the Henderson Road Refuse Transfer Station to increase resource recovery.

·    A new contract has been awarded for the operation of the Blackbridge Refuse Transfer Station.

·    A submission is being drafted regarding the government consultation on product stewardship and priority products (subject of a separate report to the committee).

·    A waste minimisation contestable fund policy has been drafted and should be open to applications in October 2019.

·    HazMobile collection was held jointly with Napier City Council at the Regional Sports Park on Sunday 30 June 2019.  A total of 360 people participated in the event.

·    Staff are working with the organisers of large events, such as A&P show, to work towards zero waste event outcomes.

·    The new waste minimisation staff will be focussed on developing an education strategy and programme in the coming months to commence roll out in 2020.

·    Staff have been supporting independent sector groups like apple growers, sustainable building/construction, and rural catchment groups to introduce changes and reduce waste.

·    A regional waste officers meeting has been scheduled for November so that council officers can meet, share ideas and challenges and collaborate where possible.

·    The SWAP survey was completed jointly by both Councils in April and May 2019 to understand the current composition of waste in the Hawke’s Bay (subject of a separate report to the committee).

·    An EIT student is undertaking a research project into textile waste in Hastings and possible opportunities to divert this material from landfill.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Committee receives the report titled Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan - Implementation Plan - Draft

PRJ17-113-0059

 

 

 

 

 


Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan - Implementation Plan - Draft

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 19/945

 

 

REPORT TO:               Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

MEETING DATE:        Friday 20 September 2019

FROM:                           Waste Planning Manager

Angela Atkins

SUBJECT:                    Proposed Priority Products and Product Stewardship Scheme Consultation Submission        

 

 

1.0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1       The purpose of the report is to obtain support from the committee for a submission to the Ministry for the Environment regarding the “Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Scheme Guidelines”.

·    The report and draft submission, will then be presented to Hastings District Council for endorsement at the meeting on 26 September 2019.

1.2       This proposal contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting the environmental wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of a community which wastes less.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A)      That the Committee receives the report titled Proposed Priority Products and Product Stewardship Scheme Consultation Submission.

B)     That the Committee support the draft Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Scheme Guidelines submission.

 

3.0       BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1       Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Minister for the Environment has the ability to declare waste materials as priority products and mandate product stewardship schemes.

3.2       The government has previously consulted on priority products and product stewardship in 2014, regarding these same materials.  Despite many submissions, including one from Hastings District Council, supporting the declaration and establishment of product stewardship schemes, the Minister and government did not act.

3.3       Declaration of a ‘priority product’ under the Waste Minimisation Act creates an obligation and opportunity. As soon as is practicable after a product is declared a priority product, a product stewardship scheme for that product must be developed and accreditation obtained.

3.4       Product stewardship schemes are initiatives that help reduce the environmental impact of manufactured products.

3.5       On 9 August 2019, the government announced another consultation regarding product stewardship.  This consultation closes on 4 October 2019.

 

4.0       DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1       Regulated product stewardship makes producers responsible for specified problematic products at the end of life, and ensures the costs of correct waste management are paid by producers and consumers, not Council via communities and the environment.

4.2       There are six proposed priority products:

• tyres

• electrical and electronic products (e-waste)

• refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases

• agrichemicals and their containers

• farm plastics

• packaging (beverage packaging, single-use plastic packaging).

4.3       The Ministry for the Environment is proposing to use a two-stage process:

• stage one (initial consultation) consults on the proposed declaration of six priority products and ministerial guidelines to clarify expected outcomes and attributes of accredited priority product schemes.

• stage two will consult progressively (by product group) through 2019–2021 on proposed WMA regulations.

 

5.0       OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1       Council makes a submission supporting the “proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines”:

 

Advantages

 

·    Making a submission is in line with Actions 6 A & B of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) which was adopted by Council on 30 August 2018.

­ 6A) Continue to support local and national Product Stewardship campaigns.

­ 6B) Continue to lobby central government for problematic materials.

·    Council Officers support the six proposed priority product groups as the current priorities for regulatory intervention:

·    Previous consultations in 2005, 2009 and 2014 have shown strong and consistent support for product stewardship schemes for these products from local government and many industries.

·    All of these products create significant harm and challenges when not recycled and/or managed correctly.

·    The regulation through product stewardship would be a catalyst for manufacturers and producers to consider the “end of life” of their products and necessitate better design and packaging choices.

 

Disadvantages

 

·    There are no known disadvantages to supporting the declaration of product stewardship programmes for these materials.

 

Other Considerations

 

·    It should be notes that the packaging product group may have an impact on Council recycling services.  However this will be better for the community overall as it shifts the responsibility from Council as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to the producer and user.  It is unlikely to have an impact for several years and another report will be presented to Council once the details are known.

 

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

 

 

5.2       Council does not make a submission:

·    Should Council not support a submission in support of the “proposed priority products and product stewardship scheme guidelines” this would not be in line with the Joint WMMP.

·    Also via the WMMP consultation there was a number of people who submitted supporting council lobbying central government to make changes.

·    These opportunities do not arise often and it could be seen as a missed opportunity should Council not partake in the consultation.

6.0       NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1       The draft submission will be presented to Council for ratification prior to submission to the Ministry for the Environment, should the committee support this approach.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Draft Submission on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme

SW-25-19-4550

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

 

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

 

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future. Also through local infrastructure which contributes to public health and safety, supports growth, connects communities, activates communities and helps to protect the natural environment.

 

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Maori have not been specifically consulted with regarding this report as all New Zealanders have an opportunity to participate in the consultation via the submission process.  All off the Maori submissions received regarding the WMMP in 2018 were supportive of Council lobbying government regarding improvements to product stewardship.

 

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The potential long term implications from this report are only positive for the environment as it will mean that more resources are used in circular pattern (Circular Economy) rather than the current linear process of make and dispose/waste. As detailed in section 5.1.

 

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

There are no financial implications.

 

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

 

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as not being of significance.

 

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

No external engagement is required.

 

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

There are no risks.

 

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications.

 

 

 


Draft Submission on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme

Attachment 1

 

 

Hastings District Council Submission on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme

 

Company name: Hastings District Council

Contact person: Angela Atkins, Waste Planning Manager

Address: Private Bay 9001, Hastings 4156

Region: Hawke’s Bay

Country: New Zealand

Phone: 06 871 5000

Email: angelama@hdc.govt.nz

Submitter type: Local Government

Overall position: Supportive as previously submitted in July 2014.  This submission is based on Hastings District Council’s previous submission.

Our youth are demanding us to take action to reduce the effects of climate change and this is one way we can take the first steps.

 

Q1 Proposed priority product declaration for end-of-life tyres 

Q1(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all pneumatic (air-filled) tyres and certain solid tyres for use on motorised vehicles (for cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, tractors, forklifts, aircraft and off-road vehicles). Why? Why not? 

Yes

Significant overseas research has been undertaken into schemes set up in Australia and Canada which indicate the need for Government Regulation to support the end of life management of this waste stream.

The major tyre companies, supported by the various motor trade and consumer associations (MTA, IMVIA, MIA, and AA) have indicated an unwillingness to participate in voluntary schemes due to the risk of ‘free riders’ and the risk of ‘legacy ‘material.  

Tyre retailers are already charging a disposal fee to customers of around $5 per unit; this is effectively profit and until recent months there has been no verifiable tyre recycling option in Hawke’s Bay.  The region experienced the abandonment of 1,200,000 tyres on Crown Land in 2010/11.  Further stock piles are being developed at a number of sites which are being closely monitored by Councils.  Often the only way to avoid tyre piles is by working in partnership with the local Fire District in order to declare a pile as a fire risk, in order to issue an abatement notice.

The reliance by the tyre industry on dairy operations to absorb large number of tyres for silage cover is not a recycling option that should be encouraged, as these tyres are either abandoned in paddocks, dumped in farm pits which are not subject to Waste Levy or used as accelerants in burn piles.  This activity leads to leaching of contaminants into the environment. The majority of tyres being collected for "recycling" from tyre retailers are often charged at a rate far less than the actual cost of recycling; resulting in tyre piles mushrooming across the country as operators haul tyres from one pile to another ultimately avoiding disposal fees.

Up until August 2019, tyres were not accepted at Council's refuse transfer station and the public were tasked to return tyres to the nearest tyre retailer.  These retailers have historically charged $5-7 per unit.  The end destination of these tyres is often unknown and tyre stock piles are problematic, presenting risk to both environment and human health.

In the past three months a shredding operation has commenced in the Hawke’s Bay exporting the shredded material to a cement kiln off-shore.  This business has processed 27 tonnes of tyres removed the waste at Omarunui Landfill over the past 10 years at a cost of $17,000.

Hastings District Council advocate for heavy machinery tyres and rubber tracks from excavators and tractors to also be included in the scope.

A declaration of priority product status should be made at the earliest opportunity.

Hastings District Council is Supportive of TyreWise  - https://3r.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/3R-Group-Case-Study-Tyrewise_email.pdf

The Final Summary Report gives a clear overview of the ELT problem within New Zealand and the Working Group’s proposed solution, including guiding principles, costs and benefits, explanation of incentives and proposed timelines.

 

Key points from the report are:

·    In the proposed product stewardship scheme a Tyrewise Fee/Advanced Disposal Deposit of $5.50 per Equivalent Passenger Unit (one EPU equals a typical passenger tyre of around 9.5kg) would initially be imposed on all tyres entering New Zealand (some exceptions, such as bicycle tyres are listed in the report).

·    This fee/deposit would replace the current disposal fees charged by some retailers of between $2.50 and $16.00, and would be expected to reduce over a ten year period.

·    It is proposed that the fee/deposit would be collected by Customs when a loose tyre enters the country and by the New Zealand Transport Authority when a vehicle is first registered in New Zealand.

·    Over the ten year period the Tyrewise fee costs ($278m) are comparable with the current disposal costs ($237M), but $207 Million from the Tyrewise Fee directly translates into economic benefits for society including investment in a new ELT recycling industry, increased employment and export opportunities.

·    The preferred scenario cost includes both “push and pull” incentives to encourage investment more rapidly than what might occur if the market was left to fund this infrastructure itself.

·    The incentives include provision for full subsidy of transport costs via the transport incentive which has been proposed for years 1-3, and will also help to generate demand for products created from ELTs by Manufacturers/End Users for both existing and new activities as well as a replacement for currently used raw materials.

 

Q2(b): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all pneumatic and solid tyres for use on bicycles (manual or motorised) and non-motorised equipment. Why? Why not? 

Yes

The Council agrees that the scope for a tyre product stewardship scheme should be inclusive of all pneumatic air filled tyres.  This mirrors the scope of overseas schemes from Australia and Canada. 

There are a number of brand owners from varying sectors which contribute to a broader “tyre” group which includes tyres from bikes, toys, wheel chairs, mobility scooters, wheel barrows and other non-motorised equipment. The composition of these tyres can be different to vehicle tyres which may require a different processing model and could become a contamination issue if processed with vehicle tyres. This would require other infrastructure to be set up to collect these types of tyres, for example collection outlets at bicycle shops and mechanism for separating the valve from the tube.   It is also likely that investment in processing would be required should their calorific value be significantly different to vehicle tyres. 

 

Q2 Proposed priority product declaration for electrical and electronic products (e-waste) 

 

Q2(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all large rechargeable batteries designed for use in electric vehicles, household-scale and industrial renewable energy power systems, including but not limited to lithium-ion batteries. Why? Why not? 

Yes

There are a number of valuable resources contained in batteries that can be extracted for reuse, reducing the reliance on mining virgin materials.

Hastings District Council collects between 2 – 4 tonnes of car batteries per year, these are collected from people who don’t know about the current recycling programme provided by some scrap metal dealers.  Should a formal product stewardship scheme be introduced this volume would increase.

 

Q2(b): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all other batteries (eg, batteries designed for use in hand-held tools and devices). Why? Why not? 

Yes

Include tonnage and cost to HDC over past 5 years

Over the past 3 years Hastings District Council has collected and paid for the processing of 4,830kg of batteries from residents who have taken the effort to drop their batteries to council for recycling.  The batteries collected range from small button batteries up to battery units for power tools. This has cost council and rate payers $28,785 for this period.

 

Q2(c): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all categories of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) defined in Annex II of European Directive 2012/19/EU (eg, 'anything that requires a plug or a battery to operate'). Why? Why not?  

Yes

This also provides consistency with an established and reputable scheme acknowledged as a world leader.

The Hastings District Council participation in the 2012 TV Takeback scheme resulted in 17,500 TV’s being collected for recycling.  Since then XX have been collected for recycling.  It is clear that both the TV Takeback scheme and earlier E-Waste collection days have acted as “pilots” for an electronic equipment stewardship scheme and have provided some valuable lessons and data.

Hastings District Council actively supports E-waste recycling through its arrangement with the Hawke’s Bay Environment Centre and E-cycle.    Historically Council has subsidised the recycling cost by $15 per TV from its waste levy funds.  This action is taken due to the $40 recycling fee being beyond the financial means of many residents.  It should also be highlighted that the End of Life (EOL) cost to these units is far greater than the $12 minimum charge to dispose 60Kg of general waste at our refuse transfer station.  Since May 2019 Council has further subsidised TV recycling to $5 per unit.  To date this programme has collected XX TVs.

These numbers would be much higher without high ($40 per TV is beyond the financial capability of many residents) EOL recycling and process charges.  The Council supports mandatory product stewardship schemes for E-waste which would see 'point of purchase' recovery costs.

The Hastings District Council supports E-Waste product Stewardship as per the WEEE definition.

It is important to recognize that new waste streams may emerge as the result of new technologies or practises and that an assessment mechanism should be created to allow for their evaluation and subsequent inclusion in any product stewardship scheme.

 

Hastings District Council is supportive the Waste MINZ Position Paper - https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PSSG-Position-Paper-on-e-Waste-FINAL-1.pdf

The scope of any product stewardship developments for e-waste should be comprehensive and cover all electrical and electronic equipment, often referred to as “any equipment with a plug or battery”, as well as batteries on their own.

Among e-waste stakeholders there is widespread agreement about the need for product stewardship. The specific outcomes WasteMINZ is seeking:

1. All suppliers (producers and importers) of electrical and electronic equipment, including batteries, participate in mandatory industry-led and industry-funded product stewardship schemes which support the transition to a circular economy.

2. Consumers are able to easily dispose of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment at no cost at the time of disposal, i.e. all costs associated with product stewardship are factored in to the price of new products.

3. All electrical and electronic equipment is banned from landfills.

These measures have been legislated for in many overseas jurisdictions and are currently being complemented in some parts of the world with consumer protection legislation that tackles the widespread issue of planned obsolescence. For example, eighteen States in the US have now passed legislation for the right to repair and the European Union is currently gearing up to do the same. Therefore, we also advocate for:

4. Right to repair legislation that requires manufacturers to supply consumers with information that enables appliances to be repaired.

Towards a Sustainable Product Stewardship Solution

Principles[1]

1. Fair and equitable for all stakeholders, especially a level playing field for suppliers, i.e. no free riders.

2. Simple, comprehensive and accountable – all industry stakeholders are able to understand the system and are clear about the goals and targets; users find the system convenient, accessible and do not face any direct costs at the time of disposal.

3. Allows for competition (avoiding monopolies), but within agreed boundaries given the limited size of the New Zealand market.

4. Achievable targets, within the capacity of the New Zealand recycling industry.

5. Consistent and complies with environmental, health & safety and recycling standards.

6. Flexibility to be able to deal with a wide variety of e-waste products - historic, orphan and future products.

7. Government and industry stakeholders must agree on an implementation timeframe; without this, there will be no incentive to develop product stewardship schemes.

8. Shared responsibility across all stakeholders, including business, central and local government and consumers.

9. The product stewardship scheme must be supported by central government with the declaration of e-waste as a priority product; this will result in the development of a clear regulatory framework.

10. Central government could also consider endorsement of complying products linked to government procurement decisions, enforcement, import licences and/or economic instruments to incentivise scheme membership.

11. Knowledge supported approach, drawing on nearly 20 years of overseas experiences; there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

12. The scheme(s) must be independent of any one stakeholder or stakeholder group, for the wider good of the public and not unduly influenced by any one company; it is expected that organisations managing product stewardship schemes would be not-for-profits.

13. The scheme(s) must be able to account for exit/entry of businesses and products from the market and/or from the scheme(s) to ensure a level playing field and compliance by new businesses.

14. The scheme(s) must include education and awareness-raising of both industry and consumers.

15. The scheme(s) should focus not only on disposal solutions, but improvements in the whole lifecycle to the extent that this is possible.

 

Q3 Proposed priority product declaration for agricultural chemicals and their containers 

Q3(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products ? Chemicals in plastic containers up to and including 1000 litres in size that are used for: horticulture, agricultural and livestock production, including veterinary medicines, industrial, utility, infrastructure and recreational pest and weed control, forestry, household pest and weed control operations, similar activities conducted by or contracted by local and central government authorities? Why? Why not? 

Yes

The Council agrees that the scope should include all chemicals which require an Agricultural Chemical and Veterinary Medicine (ACVM) registration regardless of registration date. This means Persistent organic Pollutants (POPs) and orphaned agrichemicals and their packaging is included.

 

Q4 Proposed priority product declaration for refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases 

Q4(a): Do you agree with the declaring as priority products: all gases used for heating, cooling and air conditioning that are ozone depleting substances under the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996 and/or synthetic greenhouse gases under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and products containing these gases. Why? Why not? 

Yes

The Council agrees that the defined product should be the gas rather than the containers holding the gases. The gas itself, which is the waste stream that needs to be regulated. In our opinion, all gases which are included under the Montreal Protocol should be in scope.

As it is difficult to identify all products that contain the relevant gases. It is more practical to name the gas and then the onus is on the producer or importer to check if the gas is contained within the product.

Products containing these gases can also be refurbished a number of times during the component’s life cycle, for example an air conditioning unit may be “re-gassed” a number of times before the appliance is obsolete, yet the gas needs to be managed during servicing in the same way as if the appliance had reached end of life.

Because the gas and the appliance may have separate lifecycles and the gases are present in a number of appliances and components Council support that the gas is the defined product.  There is evidence that many obsolete refrigeration units are simply being crushed with light gauge steel with no extraction of gas being undertaken.  No data is available from the Council relating to the number of refrigeration units or EOL vehicles with air condition units that are being disposed of.

 

Q4(b):Do you agree with the declaring as priority products: methyl bromide and products containing this gas. Why? Why not? 

Yes

Notes

 

 

Q5 Proposed priority product declaration for packaging 

Q5(a): Do you agree with declaring beverage packaging as priority products: packaging used to hold any beverage for retail sale that has more than 50 millilitres and less than 4 litres of capacity, made of any material singly or in combination with other materials (eg, plastic, glass, metal, paperboard or mixed laminated materials). Why? Why not? 

Yes

Most Councils provide either a kerbside recycling collection or access to a community recycling depot in order to prevent recyclable packaging entering landfill. Ratepayers are essentially lumped with the cost of effective recycling or recovery, whilst those involved in the life of the product (manufacturers, retailers and the actual consumers) are totally absolved of direct responsibility.

The Council support beverage packaging included in this process in order to address the use of single use bottles and unnecessary packaging waste.  Regulations to address beverage packaging have been successfully introduced in many countries around the world.

The continued reliance on single use bottles demonstrate the ‘throw away’ mind-set within our society and the inclusion of packaging under a mandatory product stewardship scheme would address resource scarcity and consumption. 

The regulation of packaging products would be a catalyst for manufacturers to consider the EOL of their products and necessitate better design choices.    The current model provides no incentive for industry to reduce the amount of waste produced and essentially leaves the cost of managing the products at the end of their life to ratepayers

SWAP data

The size limit should be increased to include large 10-20L containers.  Many of this size are used by residents locally due to water chlorination. Also the Council would expect milk bottles to also be included.

Hastings District Council support the introduction of a container deposit scheme to shift the responsibility back to producers for the management of beverage containers. More clarity is required regarding the extent of a Container Deposit Scheme as this appears to be excluded, which would still require management by Councils.

The wider community constantly voice their concern regarding this matter as they feel their single voice is lost against the large corporates.

The size and location of recycling symbols should also be addressed to make it easier for people to identify recyclable materials.

What about condiment containers, such as jam, peanut butter, dressings and sauces?

 

Q5(b): Do you agree with declaring single-use plastic consumer goods packaging as priority products: packaging used for consumer goods at retail or wholesale level made of plastic resin codes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, singly or in combination with one or more of these plastics or any non-plastic material, and not designed to be refilled. Why? Why not? 

Yes

Polystyrene must be included as it is a harmful material on so many levels.  Easily breaks into smaller pieces – becomes airborne and then enters the waterways.  It is a nightmare of rubbish trucks as it breaks into smaller pieces during the compaction process of the trucks and is as the truck travels along the air flow around the vehicle then pulls the small pieces out.  The transport companies can then be fined for insecure loads.

The polystyrene balls are also difficult for the fibre industry to manage to the processing systems like glass shards.

The size and location of recycling symbols should also be addressed to make it easier for people to identify recyclable materials.

 

Q6: Proposed priority product declaration for farm plastics 

Q6(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: plastic wrapping materials used for silage or hay, including but not limited to baleage wrap, hay bale netting, baling twine, and covers for silage pits. Why? Why not? 

Yes

The success of the voluntary product stewardship schemes; Agrecovery and Plasback, have been affected by ‘free riders’ and non-participation and has provided a clear example of short fallings associated with the voluntary approach.   Recycling costs are also perceived to be high and have acted as a deterrent to participation especially with regards to horticultural and agricultural plastics such as silage/baleage wrap and bird netting.

Environment Canterbury and Bay of Plenty/Waikato Regional Councils have undertaken several studies to establish the volume and composition of rural waste streams. The results of these studies should be considered through this process.

It is important to recognise that new waste streams may emerge as the result of new technologies or practises and that an assessment mechanism should be created to allow for their evaluation and subsequent inclusion in to any product stewardship scheme. For example the use of ground protection plastic is increasing and emerging as a new waste stream in some horticultural industries. This plastic is thicker than traditional plastic and is heavily contaminated with organic material. 

Buildings are now shrink-wrapped and shrink-wrap is used in vast quantities when goods are being transported on pallets, Hastings District Council advocate that all plastic film be included in the scope for this product

 

 

Q6(b): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: plastic packaging used for agricultural and horticultural commodities including but not limited to fertiliser sacks, feed sacks, and bulk tonne bags made from woven polypropylene and/or polyethylene. Why? Why not? 

Yes

Emerging horticulture practices are seeing plastic sheeting used for ground cover, for storage solutions, for crop ripening and for protection from birds.  This is resulting in an increased reliance on plastic products which are being disposed of through Council Refuse Transfer Stations or the Omarunui Landfill.  Currently Hastings District Council has over 200 wool bales of compressed bird netting that it is unable to dispose of in Omarunui Landfill due to the operational challenges it creates, gets entangled in machinery wheels and make landfill gas well drilling difficult. 

Hastings District Council is also aware of large volumes of wool fadges, tree protection guards and irrigation piping that are disposed of across the district, but don’t currently have data available. 

 

 

Q6(c): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: other plastic packaging and products used for agriculture and horticulture including, but not limited to, protective nets, reflective ground covers, and rigid plastic containers other than containers for agrichemicals, detergents, lubricants or solvents. Why? Why not? 

Yes, as above

Smaller plastic items that are used in the horticulture industry are often disregarded as they are not tracked and often left on trees and vines or cut off and left on the ground, so there is little data on how much waste is being produced here. One example is vineyard tags that are used to attach young vines to the wires. Once the young vines reach a certain height, the small tape like plastic tags are usually cut off and left in the orchard for the environment to absorb. A vineyard decided to instead collect the tags in the comparatively small orchard that they were working in, and calculated that approximately 180,000 tags would have been collected had they been collected over the whole (small) vineyard. The photo below is about half of the small vineyard’s tags for this one stage of the vines life cycle. There would be countless other small pieces of plastics such as these used in the horticulture, agriculture, and aquaculture industries that are not accounted for.

Items like these must be included in product stewardship as there is currently no incentive to collect these back, and if they were they would likely be burned. Small items of plastic like these are a huge part of our marine litter problem and need to be accounted for.  

 

Q7: Proposed ministerial guidelines for priority product stewardship schemes 

Do you agree with the proposed guidelines for priority product stewardship schemes outlined in table 3 of the public consultation document? Why? Why not? 

Staff are still working on this section

Yes

 

No

 

Not sure

 

Notes

 

 

Q7(1) Any comments on draft guidelines: Intended objectives and outcomes 

Notes

 

 

Q7(2) Any comments on draft guidelines: Fees, funding and cost effectiveness 

Notes

 

 

Q7(3) Any comments on draft guidelines: Governance 

Notes

 

 

Q7(4) Any comments on draft guidelines: Non-profit status 

Notes

 

 

Q7(5) Any comments on draft guidelines: Competition 

Notes

 

 

Q7(6) Any comments on draft guidelines: Stakeholder engagement and collaboration 

Notes

 

 

Q7(7) Any comments on draft guidelines: Compliance 

Notes

 

 

Q7(8) Any comments on draft guidelines: Targets 

Notes

 

 

Q7(9) Any comments on draft guidelines: Timeframes 

Notes

 

 

Q7(10) Any comments on draft guidelines: Market development 

Notes

 

 

Q7(11) Any comments on draft guidelines: Performance standards, training and certification 

Notes

 

 

Q7(12) Any comments on draft guidelines: Liability and insurance 

Notes

 

 

Q7(13) Any comments on draft guidelines: Design for environment 

Notes

 

 

Q7(14) Any comments on draft guidelines: Reporting and public accountability 

Notes

 

 

Q7(15) Any comments on draft guidelines: Public awareness 

Notes

 

 

Q7(16) Any comments on draft guidelines: Monitoring, compliance and enforcement 

Notes

 

 

Q7(17) Any comments on draft guidelines: Accessible collection networks 

Notes

 

 

Q8: Other comments 

Are there other products that you think should be declared as priority products? Please specify 

 

 

 

Any other comments you wish to share. 

 

The regulation of packaging products would be a catalyst for manufacturers to consider the EOL of their products and necessitate better design choices.   At a time when Territorial Authorities are facing ever increasing costs and expectation creep, the continual ‘dumping’ of these costs on local government is completely untenable. Over recent months several Councils and Community Recycling Operators have been forced review and in some cases, cancel recycling services relating to plastic.  The Council firmly believe action is required to ensure that such costs are met by those parties directly involved in the life of these products.

 

Previous consultations in 2005, 2009 and 2014 have shown strong and consistent support for product stewardship schemes from local government and many industries.

 The Council recognises there are both challenges and benefits likely to arise from the introduction of mandatory product stewardship schemes.  It is felt that the voluntary product stewardship schemes have not achieved high levels of participation or enabled economies of scale for infrastructure development and that Government intervention is now a necessity.

 

 

 

All or part of any written submission (including names of submitters) may be published on the Ministry for the Environment's website, www.mfe.govt.nz. Unless you clearly specify otherwise in your submission, the Ministry will consider that you have agreed to have your submission and your name posted on its website.

Contents of submissions may be released to the public under the Official Information Act 1982, if requested. Please let us know if you do not want some or all of your submission released, stating which part(s) you consider should be withheld and the reason(s) for withholding the information.

Under the Privacy Act 1993, people have access to information held by agencies about them. Any personal information you send to the Ministry with your submission will only be used in relation to matters covered by this document. In your submission, please indicate if you prefer we do not include your name in the published summary of submissions.



[1] Based on the principles adopted by the TV/IT Product Stewardship Working Group in July 2007