Case study · Resource recovery facilities · July 2016

Moonee Valley Transfer Station

Published by Sustainability Victoria, July 2016. One of five case studies published alongside Sustainability Victoria’s Guide to Better Practice at Resource Recovery Centres. Rawtec contributed to this work.

Summary published

A metropolitan transfer station nine kilometres from the Melbourne CBD recovers an estimated 45 to 47% of everything that comes through the gate, running 21 recycling streams with four staff.

That ratio is the whole point of the case study. Twenty-one streams would normally mean a lot of sorting labour. Moonee Valley avoided it by making the customer do the sorting before they arrive.

The mechanism is pricing plus a campaign. Recyclables are free, general waste is charged, and the “Sort and Save” campaign tells people why it is worth separating the trailer load in the driveway.

45–47%

Estimated recovery rate

21

Recycling streams accepted

4

Council staff required to run it

12

Years in operation at publication

How a metro site gets to 47%

The tonnages are close to even

In 2014–15 the site handled 2,689 tonnes to landfill and 2,282 tonnes recycled. For a mixed drop-off facility taking trailer loads from the public, that is a genuinely high split.

Free recycling, charged waste

Recyclables are accepted at no charge while general waste attracts a fee, with a lower rate for pensioners. Gate fees are assessed at the gatehouse on vehicle volume, load type, how much recyclable material is present and how well the load is already separated. The customer is paid, in effect, to pre-sort.

Sort and Save shifts the work to the driveway

The campaign “encourages customers to pre-sort and drop off their waste and recyclables”. It reduces contamination, which is what makes 21 streams survivable on four staff.

A sawtooth layout on a one-way route

Customers follow a single one-way drive-through with drop-off points in sequence, past a sawtooth bin arrangement for bulk waste. Plant and machinery are separated from customer areas with a spotter supervising.

Timber is the next opportunity, and it is still going to landfill

The document names timber and wood waste as the material still being landfilled and the obvious next separation. Twenty-one streams and this one is still open.

Space, not willingness, is the binding constraint

An onsite resale shop is wanted and cannot be built. The site is nine kilometres from the CBD and there is nowhere to put it — the one limitation the document is explicit about.

What the operators credit

MANAGEMENT BACKING FOR MORE STREAMS

Council management support for expanding the number of recycling streams is listed first. Streams cost money before they save any.

SIGNAGE PER STREAM, NOT PER SITE

Ease of use with clear signage for each individual stream, so a customer who has never been before can still get it right.

HOUSEKEEPING AS A SAFETY CONTROL

Prioritising customer service and site cleanliness, on the basis that a tidy site is a safe site when the public are driving through it.

REVIEW THE MARKETS, NOT JUST THE BINS

Regularly reviewing emerging recycling options and market pricing, so the stream list stays cost-effective as commodity prices move.

The recovery rate is stated as an estimate of between 45 and 47%, not a measured figure, and the site has no weighbridge-based diversion reporting in the document. Population served, opening hours and site area are not stated.

The case study lists all 21 free recyclable streams and the materials the site will not accept.

Planning a facility upgrade?

Most facility projects start with someone who already knows the site needs to change and needs the evidence to get it funded. If that is you, we would like to hear from you.