Wycheproof Resource Recovery Centre
Published by Sustainability Victoria, August 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
Buloke Shire upgraded a closed landfill into a working resource recovery centre for about $56,000, half of it funded by Sustainability Victoria. The site now recycles 147 tonnes against 160 tonnes landfilled.
That is close to half of everything through the gate, on seven streams, at roughly a fourteenth of what Kyabram spent. It is the case for doing something small well rather than waiting for a capital program.
The trick was substitution. Instead of engineered retaining structures, the council used shipping containers at about $3,500 each, backfilled, with used-tyre retaining walls between them.
Total upgrade cost
Recycled each year, against 160 t landfilled
Recyclable streams accepted
Cost per shipping container used as a retaining wall
What a $56,000 upgrade buys
Near-even split on seven streams
Approximately 160 tonnes to landfill and 147 tonnes recycled per annum. Seven streams: household commingled, scrap steel including car bodies and wire, whitegoods, green waste, tyres, e-waste and mattresses.
Containers and tyres instead of concrete
Drop-off ramps were built from shipping containers and used-tyre retaining walls on a reinforced concrete slab carrying two 33 cubic metre hook-lift skip bins. The budget was about $50,000 and the final cost about $56,000.
Mesh lids fixed the litter and created a new problem
Mesh bin lids sharply cut wind-blown litter, which had been a serious problem in a wind-prone district. But the lids “do not currently open high enough for the backhoe to be able to access the rubbish to compact it”, so bins fill faster and are collected more often. The council was negotiating a redesign.
Green waste is shredded now, not burned
The site previously burned green waste annually. It is now shredded for mulch — a change in practice rather than a change in capital.
Users got better at sorting
Operators reported “huge improvements with load sorting and greater understanding…of recycling” after the layout was restructured. Legibility does the work that supervision otherwise has to.
One operator, trained relief pool
A single operator per shift, with a pool of trained relief operators, setting fees at the gatehouse on vehicle volume, load type and how much recyclable material can be separated out.
The construction lessons, as written
Shipping containers used as retaining walls need cross-bracing “to prevent bowing of the exposed wall when compacting fill inside the container”.
Fill the gaps between containers by “welding steel plate between the gap on the front face, to prevent back fill from escaping due to erosion”.
Install a hard rubber stop along the top edge of the tipping face, like a truck loading bay, so rubbish does not fall into the gap when bins are swapped.
Mesh lids minimise litter drift but must open wide enough for backhoe access. Get that in the specification, not the variation.
Costs and tonnages are stated as approximations. No population served, site area or diversion percentage is given. This is the shortest of the five case studies and its value is in the four construction lessons above rather than in its performance data.
The rest of the series
Four more Victorian facilities and the guide behind the series.
The case study includes the opening hours, the accepted and excluded materials and the full set of construction lessons.
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.