tr2010 049 Waste Programme Annual Report 2008 2009 v2

The Auckland Region
Household and Agricultural

Hazardous Waste Programme
2008/09 Annual Report
August TR 2010/049
Auckland Regional Council

Technical Report No.049 August 2010
ISSN 1179-0504 (Print)
ISSN 1179-0512 (Online)
ISBN 978-1-927135-05-1
This report represents the annual activities of the Auckland region household and
agricultural hazardous waste programme. The programme is a collaborative
undertaking of the Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, Franklin District
Council, Manukau City Council, North Shore City Council, Papakura District Council and
Rodney District Council. Previous editions of this report can be found on the
Hazmobile website (http://www.hazmobile.govt.nz).
Reviewed by: Approved for ARC publication by:
Name: N/A Name: Matthew Davis

Position Group Manager
Position: Hazmobile Working Group Partnerships & Community
Programmes
Organisation: Territorial authorities Organisation: Auckland Regional Council
Date: July 2009 Date: 29 October 2010
Recommended Citation:
MURRAY, S. The Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.
2008/2009 Annual Report. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2010/049.
© 2010 Auckland Regional Council
This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Regional Council's (ARC) copyright and other intellectual
property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication,
in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public
service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution
of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This publication must not be used
in any way for any commercial purpose without the prior written consent of ARC. ARC does not give any warranty
whatsoever, including without limitation, as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the
information or data (including third party data) made available via the publication and expressly disclaim (to the
maximum extent permitted in law) all liability for any damage or loss resulting from your use of, or reliance on the
publication or the information and data provided via the publication. The publication and information and data contained
within it are provided on an "as is" basis.
The Auckland Region Household and Agricultural
Hazardous Waste Programme
Sandi Murray
Prepared by the
Auckland Regional Council in conjunction with the Auckland City Council, Franklin
District Council, Manukau City Council, North Shore City Council, Papakura District
Council and Rodney District Council (Hazmobile Working Group).
Contents
1 Executive Summary 2
2 Introduction 4
2.1 Disposal Information 4
3 Hazardous Waste 6
3.1 The HazMobile 6
3.2 The AgChem Collection 9
3.3 Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Facilities 11
4 Hazardous Waste Statistics 12

4.1 The HazMobile 12
4.2 The AgChem Collection 13
4.3 Household hazardous waste drop-off facilities 15
4.4 Total Waste Quantities 16
5 Hazardous Waste Public Awareness 18
6 Product Stewardship 20
7 Appendix 1: Description of waste categories 21
8 Appendix 2: HazMobile schedule 2009 22
9 Appendix 3: Additional Statistical Analysis of hazmobile Data. 23
10 Appendix 4: Additional statistical analysis of hazmobile data 47

1 Executive Summary
The activities undertaken as part of the household and agricultural hazardous waste programme by
the Auckland Regional Council and Territorial Authorities are reported for the 2008/2009 financial year.
Household and agricultural hazardous waste is collected through providing four services:
the urban-based HazMobile Programme;
the rural-based AgChem Collection;
transfer station cleanouts of household hazardous waste and agrichemicals at the Warkworth
(Snells Beach) and Silverdale transfer stations; and
agrichemicals clean outs at the Waitakere Transfer station.
In addition, provision of educational material and engagement with business, industry and public
about waste, cleaner production and waste disposal is underkaen. Product stewardship initiatives are
also reported herein.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Between July 2008 and June 2009 the HazMobile, Agricultural Chemical (AgChem) and transfer
station clean out programmes diverted a total of 135,490 kg of hazardous waste from inappropriate
(i.e. without prior treatment) disposal to landfill. The HazMobile programme, with 8,216 customers,
contributed the largest amount of the overall waste stream (130,266kg or 96%). The AgChem
collection (14 properties) collected 2,147kg (1.6%) and household hazardous waste drop-off facilities
collected 3,075kg kg (2.3%) of the total.
The 2008-2009 year was the first full year without paint collections due to the introduction of an
industry led product stewardship scheme and the cessation of paint collections via the HazMobile in
January 2008. This has resulted in a significant decline in both the total amount of waste collected,
and the numbers of users of the HazMobile service. With paint no longer accepted, waste oil is now
the largest waste stream collected (72,000 litres or 55.3% of hazardous waste collected).
Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

2
Table ES1: Waste types and quantities of hazardous waste collected by the HazMobile in 2008/2009
Waste Type Quantity (kg) % of Total
Waste oil 72,000 55.3%
Dry-cell batteries 2,117 1.6%
Lead-acid batteries 47,770 36.6%
Household chemicals 5,564 4.3%
Intractable chemicals 2,207 1.7%
Fluorescent and energy-saving lights 625 0.5%
TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE 130,283 100%
LPG bottles 24,306 56.8%
Aerosols 3,194 7.5%
Packaging waste 15,292 35.7%
TOTAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE 42,792 100%
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
When the hazardous waste programme was established in 2000, the intention was to actively work
towards reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated in the region through product
stewardship initiatives, so that increasing amounts of waste could be diverted from landfills and the
waste stream in future years. Paint was the first material subject to this approach.
In 2008 two waste streams were identified as a priority for product stewardship development: waste
oil and electronic waste (e-waste). Scoping reports were prepared for these two waste streams and
the recommendations identified. Continued development of product stewardship and market driven
waste disposal options commenced in 2008/2009 and will continue throughout 2009/2010.

3
INTRODUCTION
This report provides information about the Auckland Region’s waste programme. It presents the
amount and types of unwanted hazardous materials that were collected between July 2008 and June
2009 through the urban-based HazMobile programme and the rural AgChem collections. It also
outlines how many people used these services during that time, provides information on the RENEW
waste exchange and product stewardship programmes. Data from previous years is also presented
to demonstrate the changes the programme has undergone since its inception in 2000
1.1 Disposal Information

Waste from the Hazardous Waste Programme is collected and disposed of with the intention of
diverting as much material from landfill as possible, within the following priority disposal mechanisms
preferred by the ARC:
Reuse / re-issue of un-used materials, e.g. materials which come in to a collection in unopened
containers.
Recycling of appropriate non-hazardous materials e.g. paper, steel etc.
Treatment and disposal at an appropriate facility. Treatment and disposal is prioritised by preference
as follows:
Within Auckland.
Within New Zealand.
International where there is no other alternative disposal site.
Disposal to landfill, where there is no other local or international disposal option.
The Hazardous Waste Programme ensures that all waste collected is reused, recycled or disposed of
in a manner that minimises adverse impacts on the environment and (where possible) keeps
Auckland waste in Auckland or in New Zealand.
More specifically:
The wet cell (car) batteries are refurbished and re-used (or recycled if they are not able to be
refurbished).
Hazardous chemicals and materials such as PCB ballasts are sorted and either sent to a
company to be treated and made safe, or if no process is available in NZ, sent overseas for
treatment and safe disposal.
Small batteries (e.g. rechargeable, NiCad and lithium ion) are sent to France for treatment as
no facility exists in New Zealand.
Cell phones and cell phone batteries are sent to the Starship Foundation to be on-sold as part
of a fundraising initiative (where they are shipped offshore for recycling).
The used oil and solvents are sent to local companies who use it in the production of bitumen
or burn it in approved incinerators to generate electricity.
Fluorescent light bulbs and energy saving bulbs are sent to a local company for safe
dismantling and disposal.
Cardboard and steel containers are recycled.
A small amount of non toxic rubbish is taken to landfill (approx 4% in 2008-2009).

4
Flares are taken to the coastguard or fire service for disposal. Explosives, guns and
ammunition (which we do not take but which people sometimes bring in) are referred to the
Whenuapai Air base.
Some materials are donated to community groups if appropriate - e.g. good quality kerosene
is donated to schools.
In some instances more than one of these disposal methods may be used, e.g. LPG cylinders
are sent to a disposal agent to be de-gased, and then recycled as steel.
The Hazardous Waste Programme ensures that all materials are disposed of appropriately and all
documentation confirming appropriate disposal is obtained, including documentation to ensure that
whatever is shipped overseas for disposal is undertaken in accordance and would be acceptable
under New Zealand laws. Wherever possible shipping materials overseas is avoided; however some
materials are simply not able to be treated in New Zealand as there are no facilities.
Chart 1: Bin Movements showing disposal options for hazardous waste collected through the HazMobile.

5
2 Hazardous Waste
2.1 The HazMobile
The Auckland region councils introduced regular collections of household hazardous waste in 2000.
Residents are invited to take their unwanted hazardous materials to one of 14 – 18 collection events
in any given year. The collections are always held on a Saturday from 10 am to 2 pm at a suitably
located car park, and are free of charge.
In 2008/2009, the councils offered 14 collections, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: HazMobile collections in 2008/2009
# Location Date Number of

customers1
1 Auckland City – Penrose 19 July 2008 300
2 Auckland City – Three Kings 16 August 2008 418
3 Manukau City - Howick 6 September 2008 660
4 North Shore City - Birkenhead 20 September 2008 467
5 Franklin District Council - Pukekohe 4 October 2008 259
6 Auckland City – Western Springs 18 October 2008 545
7 Papakura District - Papakura 8 November 2008 567
8 Manukau City - Manurewa 22 November 2008 445
9 North Shore City - Albany 6 December 2008 699
10 Manukau City - Pakuranga 21 February 2009 550
11 Auckland City – Glen Innes 7 March 2009 879
12 North Shore City – Takapuna 21 March 2009 543

13 Auckland City – Western Springs 4 April 2009 593
14 Manukau City - Papatoetoe 9 May 2009 169
15 Auckland City – Western Springs 23 May 2009 469
16 Auckland City – Penrose 6 June 2009 336
17 North Shore City – Takapuna 26 June 2009 317
Total number of customers 8,216
1.Based on the number of vehicles and individuals arriving on foot, but not taking into account that one
customer may dispose of waste from several households.
6
Note that there are no HazMobile collections in Waitakere City, which has its own collection service at
its transfer Station.
Figure 1: Number of HazMobile customers from 2000 to 2009 by area
Customer numbers by council area
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Auckland Manukau North Shore Franklin Papakura Rodney
Figure 1 compares the customer numbers for each area with previous years. It clearly shows a
fluctuating pattern for Auckland City, which is caused by the biannual inorganic refuse collections.
Customer numbers tend to be low in years without an inorganic refuse collection because the
HazMobile is less widely advertised. The lower numbers this year despite the inorganic collections
are due to the cessation of paint collections.
Customer numbers in Franklin District have again increased slightly because of increased advertising
of the collections by Franklin District. Tuakau and Waiuku data are not included in this report as ARC
did not run these collections in the 2008/2009 year.
The Manukau City area has shown a small decline in numbers. Numbers are still within the expected
variation caused by the cessation of paint.
The North Shore area has continued a pattern of declining numbers over the last three years. This
may partly be due to the cessation of paint collections in 2008. However, it is unlikely that this is the
sole reason for the decline and increased advertising may be required.
Finally, Papakura District has shown a decline in residents visiting the HazMobile compared over the
last two years. This decline has come despite substantial advertising – a full mail out with rates
notices as well as the usual flier and public notice.

7
Figure 2: Number of HazMobile customers in the Auckland region from 2000 to 2009
HazMobile customer numbers for the Auckland region
14,000
11,583
Number of customers
12,000 11,209
10,499
10,000 9,014
8,537 8,433 8216
8,000 7,012
6,000
3,755
4,000
2,000
-
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
/
/
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Figure 2 shows how many customers have used the HazMobile service every year across the
Auckland region since it was established in 2000. The 25% decrease in customer numbers in the
2007/2008 year is largely a reflection of the cessation of paint collections in January 2008.
In the 2008/2009 year, customer numbers have not declined to the extent anticipated as a result of a
full year without paint collection services. The 2008/2009 figures are only 2.5% less than 2007/2008
numbers.
Figure 3: Waste Quantities Collected by the HazMobile from 2000 to 2009
Hazardous waste quantities collected by the HazMobile
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
kg
387,000
345,000
200,000
324,300
260,800
262,600
242,700
150,000
207,800
100,000
130,400
84,300
50,000
-
Year
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
There was a 46% decrease in waste volumes collected from 2007/2008 to 2008/2009, primarily due
to the cessation of paint collections (previously approx 50% of the waste stream), despite 2008-2009
being a Auckland City Council inorganics year. This follows a 34% decrease in the 2007/2008 year.
The 2008/2009 volume collected is the lowest volume of waste collected since 2000/2001.

8
Figure 4: Volume of Hazardous Waste Collected at HazMobiles by Area
2000-2001
Waste Quantities collected by the HazMobile - by area 2001-2002
2002-2003
127,800
122,200
140,000 2003-2004
2004-2005
110,600
106,300
2006-2007
120,000
2007-2008
93,600
2008-2009
82,800
100,000
80,800
80,200
80,200
79,900
74,800
65,600
65,900
80,000 60,600
kg
53,500
50,900
50,400
49,700
49,000
60,000
42,100
34,300
29,300
23,200
40,000
22,100
21,400
20,000
19,500
17,300
15,700
13,600
13,300
13,400
13,100
12,000
10,100
10,200
9,400
7,500
7,300
6,600
6,000
5,700
20,000
-
-
-
Auckland Manukau North Shore Franklin Papakura Rodney Area
The volume of hazardous waste collected has decreased in all areas except the Auckland City area –
which has remained constant due to the inorganic collection.
Significant decreases in collected hazardous waste can be seen in Manukau and the North Shore.
2.2 The AgChem Collection

The AgChem collection is a service for the rural residents of the Auckland region. Anyone with old
and unwanted agricultural chemicals stored on their property could register with the Auckland
Regional Council to have these chemicals picked up free of charge. The collection was offered twice
in 2008/2009, in February and in August.
An as-needed collection service is also available for emergency pick ups, for example in deceased
estates where a large volume of agrichemicals are found, or instances where an amount of
agrichemicals are found in a degraded or dangerous state. This service was used only three times in
2008/2009.
The number of properties using the service has decreased substantially (65%) in the 2007-2008 year
and has declined another 48% in the 2008-2009 year, as shown in Figure 5.
The sharp decline in numbers may be attributed to an overall ‚clean out‛ of properties that have
unwanted agrichemicals. Available evidence suggests that the majority of chemicals collected are
recently purchased chemicals, for example where a grower has changed to organic practices or
changed brands to avoid resistance by pest species.
Data analysis carried out in 2008 indicated that the majority of chemicals collected were current
chemicals (currently manufactured or on sale). While legacy chemicals remained a steady percentage
of chemicals collected (at around 9%), the declining volumes of chemicals collected have resulted in
only a small volume of legacy chemicals being collected by the service in 2008-2009 (see Figure 6
below).
The report concluded that:
The total collected quantity of agricultural chemicals and related materials such as veterinary
medicines, detergents and fertilisers appears to be declining. Quantities declined by almost half in
2007/2008, and had been decreasing steadily since 2002/2003 (see Figure 7 below).
Around 41% (on average) of the material collected can be classified as ‘Miscellaneous’, meaning it
consists of fertilisers, detergent, surfactants, veterinary medicines and other materials commonly

9
associated with rural activities. In two of the collection years, this component was over 50%.
Figure 5: Number of properties using the Auckland region AgChem Collection
Number of Properties
100 88
86
90 79 77 76
80 70
70
60
50
40
27
30
20 14
10
0
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007 - 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 6: Percentages of chemicals collected by AgChem collections
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 - 2008 : Percentages of chemicals collected
100%
90%
LEGACY
80%
70%
CURRENT/
Percentage
60%
NOT REGISTERED
50%
40% UNKNOWN /
UNDETERMINED
30%
20%
10%
0%
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08 (All) Year
Figure 7: Total quantities of hazardous waste collected by the HazMobile
Waste Quantities collected through

the Auckland Region Hazardous Waste Programme
450,000
404,700 396,100
400,000
336,800 339,200 334,000
350,000
300,000
248,800
250,000 230,300
kg
200,000
137,800 135,490
150,000
100,000 72,500
60,100
50,000
-
1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year

10
The percentage of chemicals that can be classified as legacy chemicals appears to remain more or
less steady. On average, it is 9% of the amount of agricultural compounds collected, or 15% if
miscellaneous substances are not considered. There was a sharp decline of legacy chemicals
collected in 2007/2008, but this is closely correlated with the overall drop in chemical quantities. The
percentage of 7% in 2007/2008 was only slightly below the average of 9%.
Of the chemicals classified as legacy, an average of 61 kg or 14% (ranging from 2% to 23% over the
eight years) are Persistent Organic Pollutants’ (POPs). The remainder are chemicals that are no
longer manufactured or are otherwise banned or withdrawn.
The full report on the Auckland Agricultural Chemical Collections 2007-2008 is in Appendix 4.
As a result of declining participation, and the introduction of an industry led product stewardship
scheme (Agrecovery), the ARC ceased AgChem collections from 1 July 2009.
2.3 Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Facilities

The third element of the Auckland region’s Hazardous Waste Programme is a small network of drop-
off facilities that accept household and agricultural hazardous wastes. These have been established
at transfer stations in areas where the HazMobile and the AgChem collection are not the best options,
namely in the Rodney District (Warkworth and Silverdale). A new drop-off facility has been negotiated
at the Waitakere Transfer Station for Agrichemicals only. This allows residents in the west and lower
north of the region to drop agrichemicals off rather than use the more expensive pick-up service.
Drop-off facilities on the Gulf Islands (Waiheke and Great Barrier) have now come under the
management of Auckland City Council and have not been cleaned out by the ARC since 2007-2008.
Due to the nature of the operation, it is not possible to determine how many people use the service.
The information provided in this report is therefore limited to the amount of chemical waste that was
received. Other waste types such as paint, waste oil and batteries are not recorded as the
management and disposal of these wastes are at the discretion of the transfer station operator.
As a result of the introduction of an industry led product stewardship scheme (Agrecovery), the ARC
will cease collecting agricultural chemicals from the Warkworth and Silverdale Transfer Stations, and
cease all collections from the Waitakere Transfer Station from 1 September 2009.

11
Hazardous WASTE STATISTICS
4.1 The HazMobile

For the HazMobile Programme, the types of hazardous waste collected are broken down into seven
categories, as shown in Table 2. Information is also available on the amount of gas bottles, aerosols
and packaging waste that was collected, although this is considered to be non-hazardous waste and
therefore not included in the total amount of waste. A detailed description of each waste category is
provided in Appendix 1.
Table 2: Waste types and quantities collected by the HazMobile in 2008/2009
Waste Type Quantity (kg) % of Total
Waste oil 72,000 55.3%
Dry-cell batteries 2,117 1.6%
Lead-acid batteries 47,770 36.6%
Household chemicals 5,564 4.3%
Intractable chemicals 2,207 1.7%
Fluorescent and energy-saving lights 625 0.5%
TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE 130,283 100%
LPG bottles 24,306 56.8%
Aerosols 3,194 7.5%
Packaging waste 15,292 35.7%
TOTAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE 42,792 100%
Table 2 demonstrates that the largest component of the wastes received by the HazMobile was used
oil, followed by lead acid batteries.
Despite being a relatively large component of the HazMobile waste stream, lead-acid batteries create
revenue for the HazMobile programme, via sale to scrap metal recyclers and others.
The total amount of hazardous waste received by the HazMobile since it was first established is
shown in Figure 7 above. There is a substantial decrease in the total amount of waste collected due
to the cessation of paint collections. This was anticipated as paint collections were 50% of the waste
collected at HazMobile collections prior to the industry led product stewardship schemes through
Resenes and PlaceMakers.

12
Figure 8: Average amount of hazardous waste delivered by each customer
Waste quantities per customer at HazMobile collections
35.0 33.1
30.8 30.9
29.6 29.8
30.0 28.9 28.8
25.0
22.5
20.0
kg
15.9
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Year
Figure 8 shows the average amount of waste disposed of by each customer. There has been a
substantial decline in the amount of waste per customer in the 2008-2009 year, due to the cessation
of paint collections.
Detailed information on costs and materials per council area is available in Appendix 3.
4.2 The AgChem Collection

Similar to the decline in the number of properties using this service, the waste quantities received
through the rural AgChem collection have declined substantially, as seen in Figure 9.
This may indicate that the un-wanted chemical stockpiles that were present in the rural communities
have largely been ‚cleaned out‛.
Figure 10 shows that, over time, volumes of intractable materials appear to be relatively constant at
around one third of the material collected.
Costs associated with the AgChem collections are related to numbers of properties. It is more
economical to visit many properties in an area rather than a small number scattered over a wide area.
The decline in customer numbers has resulted in a sharp increase in the cost per property (Figure 11),
but an overall decline in total cost due to declining numbers (Figure 12).
As a result of declining participation and the introduction of an industry led product stewardship
scheme (Agrecovery), ARC ceased AgChem collections from 1 July 2009.

13
Figure 9: Quantities of hazardous waste received by the AgChem Collection
Waste Quantities received through AgChem Collections
9,000
7,800
8,000 7,400 7,200
7,000 6,600 6,400
6,000
5,000
kg
4,000
4,000 3,400
3,000
2,100
2,000
1,000
-
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
Year
Figure 10: Composition of hazardous waste received by the AgChem Collection
Waste composition in AgChem Collections
100% 2% 3% 0% 0%
8%
14%
90%
80%
1 1
70% 1
1
% of waste
1 1
60% 1 Re-issued
1 1
50% Treatable
40% Intractable
30%
20% 43%
34% 37%
26% 31%
10% 23% 19%
9%
0%
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Figure 11: Cost per property
Cost of AgChem collection per property
$1,800 $1,667
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200 $1,071
$1,000
Cost
$873
$800 $746
$654
$600 $482 $514
$449
$400
$200
$-
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
Year

14
Figure 12: Total cost of AgChem collections
Cost of AgChem collections
$80,000
$70,000 $67,200
$60,000 $56,700
$51,700
$50,000 $45,000
$42,400
Cost
$38,600
$40,000 $36,000
$30,000
$20,000 $15,000
$10,000
$-
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
Year
4.3 Household hazardous waste drop-off facilities

Figure 13 shows the amount of household and agricultural chemicals that were collected by the
Rodney District and Gulf Islands drop-off facilities since 2003.
Because the quantity that had accumulated on Great Barrier Island was not sufficient to warrant the
expense of cleaning out the facility, the Island was not visited in 2006/2007.
In the 2008 financial year responsibility for Great Barrier and Waiheke Island was transferred to the
Auckland City Council. Data for these drop-off facilities is for 2007 only.
In 2008 Waitakere Transfer Station agreed to become a drop off point for agrichemicals only, assisting
the AgChem collection process.
The Silverdale and Warkworth drop-off facilities also accept hazardous wastes other than chemicals,
but these are generally not removed by the hazardous waste contractor during the scheduled facility
clean-outs. Paint is either re-used or treated on site, and batteries and waste oil are managed by the
transfer station owners, and are therefore not included in the recorded quantities.
Figure 13: Quantities of hazardous waste received by drop-off facilities
Hazardous waste quantities (chemicals only) collected through drop-off facilities

2,350
2,500
2,000
Great Barrier
2,000
Waiheke
1,500
kg
Silverdale
1,000
800
750
730
720
700
Warkworth
650
500
400
360
350
500 Waitakere
260
250
200
200
180
150
140
100
50
50
40
- Year
2003/2004 2004/2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

15
Figure 14: Cost of operating transfer station drop off facilities
Cost of operating drop-off facilities
$45,000 $42,500
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$24,200
$25,000
$$$
$19,900 $19,300
$20,000
$15,000 $12,500 $12,700 $11,900 $12,400
$10,000
$5,000
$-
Year
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
The cost of providing the transfer station drop off facilities has remained relatively stable since clean-
outs began (Figure 14). The value of this service in areas where there are no HazMobile collections is
high to rural residents, who would otherwise have no safe alternative disposal option.
Due to the introduction of an industry led product stewardship scheme (Agrecovery), the ARC ceased
accepting agricultural chemicals via the transfer station drop offs from 1 September 2009.
It is anticipated that this will reduce the volume of material collected and the cost of cleaning out each
transfer station.
The Waitakere Transfer Station will cease to have clean-outs as only agricultural chemicals are
collected from Waitakere.
4.4 Total Waste Quantities

As can be seen in Figure 15, the total quantities of hazardous waste collected in the Auckland region
increased steadily (allowing for the fluctuations generated by Auckland City Council HazMobile
collections) since the programme was established in its present form in 2000. However, volume has
declined since the 2007/2008 year due to the cessation of paint collections.
When considering the data represented in the graph, it should be noted that the 2000/2001 year
includes wastes that have been received through the previous system of drop-off facilities at various
transfer stations throughout the region, as well as those wastes that were collected by the
HazMobile. From 2001/2002 onwards, wastes received from drop-off facilities only include chemicals
received on the Gulf Islands and in Rodney District. In 2008 the ARC stopped being responsible for
the collection of hazardous waste from the Gulf Islands and the data therefore does not include waste
collected from the Gulf Islands from 2008.
Between July 2008 and June 2009 a total of 248,767 kg of hazardous wastes was collected. This is
147,806 kg (37%) less than in the previous year. This was expected as HazMobile customer numbers
have also decreased significantly due to the cessation of both paint collections and collection of
hazardous waste from the Gulf Islands.
Future decreases in waste collected are anticipated due to the development of industry led product
stewardship schemes for agricultural chemicals (commencing 1 July 2009) and household used oil
(under development).
Fluctuations in waste streams are also pronounced as materials such as steel and lead change value.
This resulted in an increased volume of LPG cylinders and wet cell batteries being brought into the
Hazmobile for disposal, as steel prices declined sharply in 2008/2009.

16
Figure 15: Quantities of hazardous waste collected through the Auckland Region’s Hazardous Waste
Programme
Waste Quantities collected through Not incl. Gulf

Island collections
the Auckland Region Hazardous Waste Programme and paint
collections
stopped Jan 08
450,000
404,700 396,100
400,000 Introductin of
HazMobile 336,800 339,200 334,000
350,000 Programme
300,000
248,800
250,000 230,300
kg
200,000
137,800 135,490
150,000
100,000 72,500
60,100
50,000
-
1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year
Figure 16: Total waste quantities collected
Total Waste Quantities Collected
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
Drop-off facilities
250,000
AgChem Collections
200,000
HazMobile Collections
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

17
3 Hazardous Waste Public Awareness
The HazMobile exists for two reasons – to educate the residents of the Auckland region about the
different kinds of hazardous waste they may be storing in their homes, and to provide them with an
opportunity to dispose of these wastes safely. To spread this message, the HazMobile was
publicised widely (including on radio) in its early years, until it became evident that public uptake of
the service was such that the operation was being stretched to its limits.
With the cessation of paint collections, promotion in the 2008-2009 financial years was increased.
Articles were places in the Woman’s Weekly (Australian Edition) and Spasifik magazines, mail drops
of HazMobile calendars occurred in some areas, flyers for inorganic collections included HazMobile
information, an item on the Hazmobile was on Pacific Beat Street (a TV program targeting Pacific
peoples) and was also loaded onto UTube. Articles and information also occurred in Homestyle
magazine and Regionwide online, on various council-run websites, Spasifik website (article and
banner ad with a 5.9% click through rate) and inclusion on the information section of the Department
of Housing website.
In addition to the above, the regular promotion of the HazMobile occurred through the:
 Distribution of 100,000 HazMobile Calendars (Appendix 2) through relevant retail outlets such
as garden centres, hardware stores and paint shops, as well as community centres, citizens’
advice bureaux, transfer stations and libraries.
 The HazMobile website www.hazmobile.govt.nz.
The HazMobile website has shown an 18% increase in visits over the last year compared to 2007-
2008 (Figure 17).
The top 5 downloads from the site are:
 HazMobile calendar 10,537 downloads
 (Average = 878 per month)
 Recycler Directory – Households 3,049 downloads
 Recycler Directory – Business 1,795 downloads
 Healthy Alternatives to Household Chemicals 751 downloads
 E Waste FAQ 51 downloads
The most common entry page to the site is via the waste paint page. This is the most frequently
visited page on the HazMobile website (other than the downloads page for the calendar).
The most common referral sites (where they came from) are Google (#1 every month), MCC, ACC or
NSCC websites, ARC website, RENEW waste exchange and the Paintwise website (order varies each
month).
Hazardous waste related calls to the Auckland Regional Council call centre have decreased slightly
(5%), compared to the previous year (Figure 12).
This figure is still considerably increased compared to the 2006/2007 figures and is likely to be related
to changes created by the end of paint collections, i.e. people not knowing about the HazMobile
website and people wanting a person to talk to about changes to the service.

18
Figure 17: Visits to the HazMobile website
Number of visits to www.hazmobile.govt.nz
40,000
35,519
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,293
20,000 18,625
16,615 17,216
15,000
8,924
10,000
5,000 3,667
1,644
0
2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009
Figure 18: Hazardous waste related calls received by the Auckland Regional Council call centre
Number of HazMobile related calls to ARC call centre
1200 1114
1000
794
800 718
600 522 496

441
384
400
260
200 129
0
1
9
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

19
4 Product Stewardship
In 2008 two waste streams were identified as being a priority for product stewardship development:
waste oil and e-waste. Scoping reports were prepared for these two waste streams and the
recommendations identified. Continued development of product stewardship and market driven
waste disposal options commenced in 2008-2009 and will continue throughout 2009-2010.
Waste Oil
The scoping report into household waste oil was completed in December 2007. The relevant
recommendations from the report are as follows.
That the Auckland councils’ aim to improve the recovery of used oil from the domestic sector
continues to be on a collective basis, to ensure that whatever service is provided to residents of the
Auckland region is as efficient and consistent as possible.
That the Auckland councils continue to collect used oil through the HazMobile programme, at least
until sufficient and well-known alternatives are in place.
That the councils approach companies selling vehicle lubricating oil with a view to establishing a
public-private partnership to develop a product stewardship programme for this material, that will
eventually be owned and operated by the private partner.
The Ministry for the Environment named used oil as a potential priority product in its discussion
document in March 2009. This has impacted on the development of the scheme as industry groups
reassessed their involvement.
A used oil product stewardship scheme will continue to be a priority in 2010. The HazMobile service
continues to collect household waste oil and will do so until viable alternatives are available.
Electronic Waste
The scoping report into e-waste (electronic waste) was completed in December 2008. This report
recommended watching the IT&TV product stewardship group and seeking ways to support product
stewardship. With the passing of the Waste Minimisation Bill into law, it now seems more likely that
e-waste product stewardship will be implemented within a short number of years.
Continuing to develop over the year was the introduction of companies in the Auckland region who
viewed e-Waste as a valuable commodity. Companies who are willing to collect or allow drop-offs of
e-waste for free or a low fee have increased and there is now the availability of six days per week
disposal services.
This issue will continue to be monitored in 2009/2010.
The 2008 e-Day, organised by CANZ, was held at Tamaki Campus on 4 October 2008.
CANZ reported that 1,233 cars deposited 64 tonnes of e-waste at the e-Day.

20
5 Appendix 1: Description of waste categories
Waste oil is used motor oil. This waste stream also includes flammable substances such as petrol,
diesel or kerosene. It does not include cooking oil, which is vegetable-based and cannot be mixed
with mineral oils, to avoid contamination of the waste oil as a fuel source.
Dry-cell batteries include non-rechargeable alkaline and other battery types that are used in household
appliances, as well as rechargeable batteries used in power-tools, mobile phones, laptop computers
and many other applications.
Lead-acid batteries are those that are used in cars, boats and trucks. This category also includes
sealed lead-acid batteries used in various types of machinery.
Household chemicals includes items such as cleaners, polishes, insecticides and those garden
chemicals that are currently in common use and which can be treated and disposed of in New
Zealand.
Intractable chemicals are mainly old pesticides for which no treatment options are available in New
Zealand, such as DDT. This waste category also includes PCBs, which is still occasionally found in
capacitors of old fluorescent light fittings.
Fluorescent and CFL’s (energy-saving light bulbs) of all kinds contain small amounts of mercury,
which is why they are accepted by the HazMobile.
LPG bottles are typically the 9 kg gas bottles that are a common household item. However, old CNG
cylinders from cars and camping gas bottles are also accepted and included in this category.
Packaging waste includes empty containers of all kinds. Cardboard is recycled, as are all steel and
aluminium cans. This includes recyclable contaminated plastic containers bought in to the HazMobile
with waste oil. This material was recycled from March 2008 until March 2009, when facilities ceased
to be available.
6 Appendix 2: HazMobile schedule 2009
7 Appendix 3: Additional Statistical Analysis of
HazMobile Data.
Additional statistical data on the collection costs (total and management vs disposal costs by area)
and material type (volumes by area)
1.0 Collection cost data
Collection costs are separated into management and disposal costs. Management costs remain
relatively consistent for all collections, as the requirements of running a collection are generally the
same regardless of the location or size of a collection (e.g. staff, transport, equipment).
Disposal costs are dependent primarily on customer numbers and cannot be estimated well in
advance.
All the disposal facilities used by the HazMobile have increased their costs by 10-20% over the 2008-
2009 year.
1.1 Total collection cost data
Figure 19 shows the total costs of HazMobile collections from 2000 – 2009. The decline in total costs
in 2007 – 2008 is associated with the cessation of paint collections.
Figure 19: Total costs of HazMobile Collections
Total Cost of HazMobile Collections
$400,000 $368,484 $378,209

$353,329
$350,000 $324,572
$300,383 $303,899
$300,000
$250,000
$199,064 $207,797 $216,470
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 20 shows that site management costs have remained approximately the same, despite the
cessation of paint collections. The fluctuating pattern in management costs is associated with
Auckland City’s bi-annual inorganic collection as they have more collections in years with inorganic
collections than those without.
Figure 20: Total Site Management costs of HazMobile Collections
Total Site Management costs for HazMobile Collections
$250,000
$216,152
$200,000 $185,648 $187,369

$167,433 $168,334
$156,603
$143,722 $146,581
$150,000
$100,000
$72,234
$50,000
$-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 21 shows a significant decrease in treatment and disposal costs in the 2007-2008 and 2008-
2009 years due to the cessation of paint collections. This was anticipated as paint made up 50% of
waste collected.
Figure 21: Total Treatment and Disposal costs of HazMobile Collections
Treatment and Disposal Costs for HazMobile collections
$160,000 $152,025
$138,769
$140,000 $127,137
$125,031
$120,369
$120,000
$99,067
$100,000
$83,205
$80,000
$60,000 $49,736 $48,136
$40,000
$20,000
$-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1.2 Collection cost data – Auckland City Council
Figure 22 shows the total HazMobile cost for Auckland City and Figure 23 shows the fluctuating
pattern associated with Auckland City Council’s biannual inorganic collections, and the anticipated
decline in treatment and disposal costs due to the cessation of paint collections.
The increased management costs for the 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 years indicate the increased
number of collections Auckland City undertook in those years.
Figure 22: Total HazMobile Costs for Auckland City Council
Total HazMobile cost for Auckland City
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
Cost
Total
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Figure 23: Site Management and Treatment and Disposal HazMobile Costs for Auckland City Council
Auckland City
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
Site Management
$50,000
Total
$40,000 Waste Treatment &

Disposal
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
01 1
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
9
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
00
-2
-
-
00
20
Year
Figures 24a-d (below) show the management, treatment and disposal costs for the four sites used in
2008-2009.
In three of the sites (Penrose, Three Kings and Western Springs), management costs showed a slight
decrease in 2008-2009, and treatment and disposal costs showed a significant decline.
Figure 24a: Penrose Site Costs
Penrose
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
Site Management
Cost
$8,000
Waste Treatment & Disposal
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
2005- 2005- 2005- 2006- 2006- 2008- 2008-
2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2009 2009
july Oct May Oct Mar July Jun
Year
Figure 24b: Three Kings Site Costs
Three Kings
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000 Site Management
Cost
$8,000 Waste Treatment & Disposal
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
2000- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2004- 2008-
2001 2001 2002 2003 2005 2009
April May
Year
Figure 24c: Western Springs Site Costs
Western Springs
$20,000
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
Site Management
Cost
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
2
ly
ct
ay
ay
ay
ril
00
00
Ap
Ju
O
M
M
-2
-2
9
8
1
9
7
00
01
03
00
00
00
00
00
-2
20
20
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
08
07
00
04
08
06
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
The fourth site, Glen Innes, showed an increase in site management costs and stable treatment and
disposal costs between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. This is due to extra staff and equipment being
required at this site in 2008-2009. In the previous year, difficulties managing the public and the site in
general required changes in the way the site was managed, to reduce health and safety risks. This
site has an unusually high number of people walking through the site and trying to park at the site. It
is a small site with little room for traffic to form a queue. Demographic considerations, such as the
high number of people with English as a second language, also require special consideration when
operating a hazardous waste collection in the area. This site also experienced an unprecedented
increase in the volume of chemicals collected, likely to be due to the advertisement in the Australian
Woman’s weekly.
Figure 24d: Glen Innes Site Costs
1.3 Collection cost data – Manukau City Council
HazMobile costs have steadily declined for Manukau City Council collections since 2004. This is partly
due to cessation of paint collections in January 2008, but the decline began prior to this time.
Figure 25: Total HazMobile Costs for Manukau City Council
Total HazMobile Cost Manukau
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
Cost
$60,000 Total
$40,000
$20,000
$-
2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Figure 26 shows that site management costs have remained approximately the same for Manukau
City Council HazMobiles, but there has been a decline in disposal costs since 2004. Paint collections
ceased in 2008 but the decline in disposal costs was evident prior to this time.
Figure 26: Site Management and Treatment & Disposal HazMobile Costs for Manukau City Council
Manukau City
$60,000
$50,000

Total
$30,000
Waste Treatment &
$20,000 Disposal
$10,000
$-
02 02
03 03
04 04
05 05
06 06
07 07
08 08
9
00
20 -2 0
20 2 0
20 -2 0
20 -2 0
20 -2 0
20 2 0
20 -2 0
-2
-
-
01
20
Year
This decline cannot be attributed to customer numbers or waste quantities, which have remained
consistent until 2008 when paint collections ceased. The most likely reason is due to changes in the
price of wet cell batteries. The HazMobile sells these to offset the cost of disposal of materials. Over
the 2008-2009 year scrap metal prices rose significantly for a period of time. Manukau returns a high
volume of batteries and this would have reduced the disposal costs overall.
Figures 27 a – d show the site management and treatment and disposal HazMobile costs for
Manukau City Council by site.
The four Manukau City HazMobile sites used in 2008-2009 show similar patterns in cost. Site
management costs have stayed approximately the same while disposal costs have significantly
decreased due to cessation of paint collections.
Figure 27a: Howick Site Costs
Howick
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
Site Management
Cost
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
9
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
01
20
Year
Figure 27b: Pakuranga Site Costs
Pakuranga
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
Costs
Site Management
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
9
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
01
20
Year
Figure 27c: Manurewa Site Costs
Manurewa
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000

Cost
$6,000 Waste Treatment & Disposal
$4,000
$2,000
$-
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
9
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
01
20
Year
Figure 27d: Papatoetoe Site Costs
Papatoetoe
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
Site Management
Cost
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
9
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
01
20
Year
1.4 Collection cost data – North Shore City Council

As expected, overall costs of HazMobile collections have significantly decreased since the cessation
of paint collections. This is also partly due to the overall decline in customer numbers seen at North
Shore City collections.
Figure 28: Total HazMobile Costs for North Shore City Council
Total HazMobile Cost North Shore
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
Cost
Total
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Figure 29: Site Management and Treatment & Disposal HazMobile Costs for North Shore City Council
North Shore
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
Site Management
$40,000
Cost

Disposal
$20,000
$10,000
$-
01 1
02 2
03 03
04 4
05 5
06 06
07 7
08 8
9
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
20 2 00
00
20 2 0
20 2 0
-2
-
-
00
20
Year
Figure 29 shows that both management and disposal costs have decreased significantly since the
cessation of paint collections. However, the general trend of declining disposal costs is indicative of
the decline in customer numbers over the same period.
Figures 30 a-c show site management costs have remained approximately the same over the period
that collections have occurred on the North Shore.
As expected, treatment and disposal costs have significantly declined since the cessation of paint
collections.
Figure 30a: Birkenhead Site Costs
Birkenhead
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
Cost
$10,000
$6,000 Disposal
$4,000
$2,000
$-
20 002
20 003
20 004
20 005
20 006
08 08
7
9
00
00
0
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
01
02
03
04
05
07
06
20
20
20
Year
Figure 30b: Takapuna Site Costs
Takapuna
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
Site Management
Cost
$10,000
Waste Treatment &
$5,000 Disposal
$-
01
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
M
M
M
-$5,000
02 -2 0
20 003
04
05
06
08
9
7
00
00
00
0
0
20
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
03
04
05
07
08
06
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
The 2008 collection showed a profit was made overall. This was due to very high recoveries being
made on wet cell batteries. On this collection the recovery from batteries returned more than the cost
of disposal of all the waste collected.
Figure 30c: Albany Site Costs
Albany
$25,000
$20,000
Site Management
$15,000
Cost
Waste Treatment &

$10,000
Disposal
$5,000
$-
1
9
00
00
00
00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
00
02
04
06
08
20
20
20
20
20
Year
1.5 Collection cost data – Franklin District Council

As expected, Figure 31 shows a decline in overall costs associated with the Franklin District Council
HazMobile collection since the cessation of paint collections.
Figure 31: Total HazMobile Costs for Franklin District Council
Total Hazmobile Cost for Franklin District

Council
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
Cost
Total
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$-
01 1
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 7
08 8
9
00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
00
20
20
Year
Figure 32 shows that the decrease in costs can be associated with a decline in treatment and
disposal costs. This was expected as a result of the cessation of paint collections and the decline in
customer numbers.
Figure 32: Site Management and Treatment & Disposal HazMobile Costs for Franklin District Council
Franklin District Council
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
Cost
$8,000
Waste Treatment &
$6,000 Disposal
$4,000
$2,000
$-
1
9
00
00
00
00
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
00
02
04
06
08
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Figure 33: Pukekohe Site Costs
Pukekohe
$12,000
$10,000

Cost
$6,000
Waste Treatment &
$4,000 Disposal
$2,000
$-
01 1
02 2
03 3
04 4
05 5
06 6
07 07
08 08
9
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
20 00
00
20 -2 0
20 20
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
00
-
20
Year
1.6 Collection cost data – Papakura District Council

Site management costs have stayed relatively stable over time for Papakura. Unusually, treatment
and disposal costs rose significantly in 2008-2009.
This was due to an unexpectedly high volume of intractable chemicals coming in the Papakura
HazMobile. This was unexpected and is not anticipated to be repeated in 2009-2010.
Figure 34: Total HazMobile Costs for Papakura District Council
Total Costs for Papakura HazMobiles
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$-
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 35: Site Management and Treatment & Disposal HazMobile Costs for Papakura District Council
Papakura
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
Site Management
Cost
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
20 001
20 002
20 003
20 004
20 005
20 006
20 007
20 008
9
00
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
20
Year
2.0 Waste type and volume data
Auckland City Council Waste Streams
Note that the fluctuating pattern is a result of the bi-annual inorganics collection.
Figure 36a
Total Volumes of Intractable Chemicals Collected by

HazMobiles in the Auckland City Council Area
1,200
1,020
1,000
830
800
669
588
600
400 338 345

223
200
-
Total 2008/9 Total 2007/8 Total 2006/7 Total 2005/6 Total 2004/5 Total 2003/4 Total 2002/3
Figure 36b
Total Volume of Household Chemicals Collected at HazMobiles

in the Auckland City Council Area
3,000 2,787
2,500 2,264
2,000
1,464
1,500 1,277 1,284
1,000 756
603
500
-
Note the significant increase in household chemicals collected since 2007/8. This is likely to be
related to increased advertising which has been possible since the cessation of paint collections.
The increase seen in Auckland City Council area is different to the trend in all other areas, where
significant decreases in the volume of household chemicals can be seen.
Figure 36c
Total Volume of Wet and Dry Cell Batteries Collected at

HazMobile Collections in the Auckland City Council Area
25,000
22,782
19,727 19,301
20,000
15,000 13,819
12,877
11,313
10,000 8,048
5,000
-
Figure 36d
Total Volume of Oil Collected at HazMobiles in the Auckland

City Council Area
30,000 28,050
25,600
25,000
21,600
20,000
16,650 16,620
15,250
15,000
10,200
10,000
5,000
-
North Shore City Council Waste Streams:
Figure 37a
Total Volumes of Intractable Chemicals collected at HazMobiles

in the North Shore City Council Area
900
800 766
700
600 554 551
500
386 389 393
400
300 259
200
100
-
Figure 37b

in the North Shore City Council Area
8,000
6,916
7,000
6,291
6,000 5,647
5,231
4,789
5,000
4,097
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000 359
-
Note the significant decrease in household chemicals collected since 2007/8. This is seen
in all areas except Auckland City Council, and it is unclear why this significant decrease
has occurred.
Figure 37c

HazMobile Collections in the North Shore City Council Area
30,000
24,291
25,000 22,710
22,120
19,999
20,000 18,266
14,643
15,000 12,666
10,000
5,000
-
Figure 37d
Total Volume of Oil Collected in the North Shore City Council

Area
35,000
31,200
29,200 29,806
30,000 27,500
25,000 22,400
20,700
20,000
16,800
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
Manukau City Council Waste Streams:
Figure 38a
Total Volume of Intractable Chemicals Collected at HazMobiles

in the Manukau City Council Area
1,600
1,407
1,400
1,200
1,000
800 672
600
397 405
400 294 274
223
200
-
Figure 38b
Total Volume of Household Chemicals Collected at hazMobiles

in the Manukau City Council Area
8,000
6,916
7,000
6,291
6,000 5,647
5,231
4,789
5,000
4,097
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000 359
-
Note the significant decrease in household chemicals collected since 2007/8. This is seen in all areas
except Auckland City Council, and it is unclear why this significant decrease has occurred.
Figure 38c

HazMobile Collections in the Manukau City Council Area
18,000
16,000 15,315 15,133

14,684
14,014
14,000 13,180
12,000 11,134
9,735
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
Figure 38d
Total Volume of Oil Collected at HazMobiles in the Manukau

City Council Area
30,000
24,200 24,800
25,000
21,050
20,000 18,000 17,600
16,900 17,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
Papakura District Council Waste Streams
Figure 39a

in Papakura
300
253
250 239
200 177 176

153
150
100 83 89
50
-
Figure 39b

in the Papakura District Council Area
1,600 1,483 1,448

1,400
1,254
1,200 1,074 1,086
1,000
800 679
600
400
200 85
-
Figure 39c
Total Volume of Wet and Dry Cell Batteries Collected and

HazMobile Collections in the Papakura District Council Area
10,000
8,675
9,000
8,000
7,000
5,955
6,000 5,480 5,239
4,789
5,000 4,237
4,000 3,520
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
Figure 39d
Total Volume of Oil collected in the Papakura District Council

Area
9,000
7,800
8,000
7,000 6,500
5,600 5,800 5,750
6,000
4,900 4,800
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
Franklin District Council Waste Streams
Figure 40a

in the Franklin district Council Area
450
393
400
350 327
300
250 229
204
200 182
164
150
94
100
50
-
Figure 40b

in the Franklin District Council Area
2,500
1,993
2,000
1,696
1,500 1,374
1,141
1,000 915
725
500
181
-
Figure 40c

HazMobiles in the Franklin District Council Area
6,000
4,891
5,000
4,000 3,621
3,345 3,251
2,695 2,824
3,000
2,123
2,000
1,000
-
Figure 40d
Total Volume of Oil collected at HazMobiles in the Franklin

District Council Area
5,000
4,500
4,500
4,000
3,500 3,200 3,100 3,000 3,000
3,000 2,800
2,500 2,300
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
8 Appendix 4:
AUCKLAND REGION
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COLLECTION 2000 – 2008
QUANTITIES OF
LEGACY vs CURRENT CHEMICALS
October 2008
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
50
2 METHODOLOGY 490
3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 51
4 CONCLUSION 556
Table 1: Waste types and quantities collected through ARC AgChem Collections 2000 - 2008
(in kg) 51
Table 2: Agricultural chemicals and related materials collected through ARC AgChem
Collections 2000 - 2008 (in kg)
53
Table 3: Quantities of agricultural chemicals collected (in kg) 55
Figure 1: Quantities of all waste types (kg)

52
Figure 2: Percentages of all waste types 52
Figure 3: Average percentage of agricultural chemicals and related materials, over eight years
of AgChem Collections 54
Figure 4: Quantities of agricultural chemicals collected (in kg) 54
Figure 5: Relative percentages of agricultural chemicals collected 55
Figure 6: POPs and other legacy chemicals 56
Figure 7: Total quantity of agricultural chemicals and related materials (excludes other waste)
collected through AgChem Collections between 2000 and 2008 57
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is a preliminary analysis of raw data detailing the quantities and types of chemicals and
other substances collected by the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) in its Agricultural Chemical
(AgChem) Collections since 2000. It has been undertaken to obtain an estimate of how many of the
chemicals collected are historic (or legacy) chemicals, and how many are still in current use, to allow
the ARC to determine future management options for this type of waste.
2. METHODOLOGY
The data available consists of lists of chemicals and other substances collected during the regular
AgChem collections that have been offered in rural parts of the Auckland region since October 2000.
A typical example of data is shown below.
Ref no UN Class Product Active Form Type Man Vol Cont Fate
no Ingredient
EM11/1 3155 6 mosskiller PCP L H S 5.0 S I
EM11/2 3018 6 vapona dichlorvos L I S 0.4 S I
EM11/3 2902 6 landmark L SA FCC 0.5 P R
EM11/4 6 jeyes fluid L DF 0.4 S L
DB11/3 2757 6 pirimor pirimicarb S I ICI 1.2 P I
The relevant information (as highlighted) is product name, active ingredient and volume, and on this
basis the chemical lists have been coded as follows.
CURRENT Any product registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary
Medicines Act (ACVM) as on 8 January 2008 (the most recent database).
There are approximately 3,000 compounds that have been registered after
that date; this database has not been checked due to the low likelihood of any
such recently registered substances having been collected. Chemicals that
did not have a specific product name but where the active ingredient is still in
use have also been classified as CURRENT.
NOT REGISTERED Any product not listed on the ACVM database, but where the active ingredient
is listed on that database.
LEGACY Any chemical where neither the product name nor the active ingredient is
listed on the ACVM database.
LEGACY - POP Chemicals that are named by the Stockholm Convention (including PCP),
specifically Lindane, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Aldrin and PCP.
MISCELLANEOUS This category includes substances that are not strictly agricultural chemicals
but which are used in a rural context, and includes but is not limited to,
surfactants, trace elements, fertiliser, rinse water, veterinary medicines,
growth hormones, cleaners and detergents (such as formaldehyde, acids,
caustic soda and borax) and marker dyes.
UNKNOWN These are substances where no active ingredient is known, or that were
unlabelled or otherwise unidentifiable.
OTHER WASTE Materials that are not part of the AgChem collection but have been taken as a
service to the customer. This includes waste oil, paint, pool chlorine, glues,
bitumen, linseed oil etc.
UNDETERMINED Substances that could not be classified due to missing information about
active ingredient/s, or mis-spelling of product name or similar.
Data is presented on an annual basis (financial years), and is for the AgChem collection only (i.e. do
not include quantities that have been collected through rural drop-off facilities or the HazMobile
collections). An exception has been made for 2007/2008, where two data sets are presented – one
for the AgChem collection only, showing that quantities collected have decreased by about 50%, and
another (labelled 2007-2008 All) that includes wastes removed from drop-off facilities and accepted at
the HazMobile.
It is important to note that this analysis is preliminary only and that wrong codings for current and
legacy chemicals are possible. Although every effort has been made to be as accurate as possible,
approximately 20-25% of the chemicals listed would have required further research to code them
accurately, and due to time constraints this was not possible. However, a broad overview of the
nature of chemicals collected over the 8-year period the ARC AgChem collection has been in place is
still useful, even without complete accuracy of coding.
3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A summary of the quantities and relative percentages of the materials collected is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Waste types and quantities collected through ARC AgChem Collections 2000 - 2008 (in kg)
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08

(All)
Unknown 1 240 12 49 200 482 195 80 229
0% 6% 0% 1% 3% 8% 3% 3% 4%
Undetermine
d 48 29 14 107 43 77 18 0.5 5.4
1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Other waste 402 371 1,269 2,621 3,052 1,203 1,537 283 453
12% 10% 16% 35% 49% 19% 25% 10% 8%
Not
registered 100 149 503 197 150 137 299 71 166
3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 2% 5% 2% 3%
Miscellan-
eous 1,295 1,284 2,551 3,045 947 1,342 1,626 1,442 2,339
38% 33% 33% 40% 15% 22% 26% 49% 41%
Legacy-Total 438 258 637 199 350 451 419 184 775
13% 7% 8% 3% 6% 7% 7% 6% 14%
Legacy-POP 101 6 153 25 35 66 95 4.1 41
Legacy-Other 337 252 483 173 315 385 324 181 733
Current 1,131 1,564 2,800 1,354 1,544 2,546 2,145 884 1,732
33% 40% 36% 18% 25% 41% 34% 30% 30%
TOTAL 3,414 3,896 7,785 7,572 6,287 6,238 6,239 2,945 5,699
Figure 1 shows the relative quantities of the different waste types collected, with legacy chemicals
highlighted in red. Overall, quantities are declining, although the legacy component does not appear
to decrease (Figure 2).
Figure 1: Quantities of all waste types (kg)
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 -

2008
9,000
8,000
CURRENT
7,000
LEGACY
6,000
Quantity in kg
5,000 MISCELLANEOUS
4,000 NOT REGISTERED
3,000
OTHER WASTE
2,000
UNDETERMINED
1,000
UNKNOWN
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08 (All)
Year
Figure 2: Percentages of all waste types
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 - 2008 : Waste Type Percentages
60%
50% UNKNOWN
UNDETERMINED
40%
OTHER WASTE
%
30% NOT REGISTERED
MISCELLANEOUS
20%
LEGACY
10%
CURRENT
0%
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08 (All)
Year
In order to ‘clean-up’ the data and obtain a clearer picture, the category of ‘Other Waste’ (which has
contributed 22% of the material collected on average) was removed as it is not relevant to this
analysis (Table 2).
Table 2: Agricultural chemicals and related materials collected through ARC AgChem Collections 2000
- 2008 (in kg)
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
Unknown 1 240 12 49 200 482 195 80
0% 7% 0% 1% 6% 10% 4% 3%
Undetermined 48 29 14 107 43 77 18 0.5
2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Unregistered 100 149 503 197 150 137 299 71
3% 4% 8% 4% 5% 3% 6% 3%
Miscellaneous 1,295 1,284 2,551 3,045 947 1,342 1,626 1,442
43% 36% 39% 62% 29% 27% 35% 54%
Legacy 438 258 637 199 350 451 419 185
15% 7% 10% 4% 11% 9% 9% 7%
Current 1,131 1,564 2,800 1,354 1,544 2,546 2,145 884
38% 44% 43% 27% 48% 51% 46% 33%
TOTAL 3,012 3,524 6,516 4,951 3,234 5,035 4,702 2,662

Figure 3 shows the composition of collected materials that remain, as an average over the eight years
of the collection. This shows that 41% of the substances collected are not in fact agricultural
chemicals but other products routinely used in a rural context, such as detergents, surfactants,
fertiliser, veterinary medicines and similar materials. Around 5% were unknown or unidentifiable
from the description in the database, and 53%, on average, of the material collected were actual
pesticides, herbicides and vertebrate poisons.
Figure 3: Average percentage of agricultural chemicals and related materials, over eight years of
AgChem
Collections
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 - 2008 : Average waste components
UNDETERMINED
UNKNOW
1%
N
LEGAC
Y
NOT
REGISTERED
MISCELLANEOUS
41%
CURREN
T
Figure 4 and Table 3 show the quantities of agricultural chemicals collected, and Figure 5 presents the
relative percentages of the three main groupings of chemicals, namely current and non-registered
chemicals, legacy chemicals and those that were unknown or that could not be determined.
Figure 4: Quantities of agricultural chemicals collected (in kg)
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 - 2008 : Quantities of chemicals collected
3000
UNKNOWN
2500
UNDETERMINED
2000
NOT REGISTERED
Quantity in kg
1500 LEGACY
CURRENT
1000
500
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08 (All) Year
Table 3: Quantities of agricultural chemicals collected (in kg)
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08

(All)
Unknown 1 240 12 49 200 482 195 80 229
0% 11% 0% 3% 9% 13% 6% 7% 8%
Undetermine
d 48 29 14 107 43 77 18 0.5 5
3% 1% 0% 6% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0%
Not
registered 100 149 503 197 150 137 299 71 166
6% 7% 13% 10% 7% 4% 10% 6% 6%
Legacy 438 258 637 199 350 451 419 185 775
26% 12% 16% 10% 15% 12% 14% 15% 27%
Current 1,131 1,564 2,800 1,354 1,544 2,546 2,145 884 1,732
66% 70% 71% 71% 67% 69% 70% 72% 60%
TOTAL 1,718 2,240 3,965 1,906 2,287 3,693 3,076 1,220 2,907
Figure 5: Relative percentages of agricultural chemicals collected
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 - 2008 : Percentages of chemicals collected
100%
90%
LEGACY
80%
70%
CURRENT/
Percentage
60%
NOT REGISTERED
50%
40% UNKNOWN /
UNDETERMINED
30%
20%
10%
0%
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08 (All) Year
Finally, Figure 6 shows the amount of legacy chemicals that are persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
as defined by the Stockholm Convention, as opposed to other legacy chemicals that are no longer
manufactured, such as arsenic compounds. On average, POPs account for 14% of the collected
legacy chemicals, ranging from as little as 2% in 2001/2002 and 2007/2008 to as much as 24% in
2002/2003.
Figure 6: POPs and other legacy chemicals
ARC AgChem Collection 2000 - 2008

Legacy Chemicals
800
733.3
700
600
Quantity in kg
500 483.4
Legacy - POP
400 384.8
337.1
315.2 323.8 Legacy - Other
300
251.5
200 173.3 180.5

153.2
100.9 95.3
100 65.9
35.2 41.3
25.3
6.4 4.1
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 07-08 (All)
Year
4. CONCLUSION
The total collected quantity of agricultural chemicals and related materials such as veterinary
medicines, detergents and fertilisers appears to be declining. Quantities declined by almost half in
2007/2008, and had been decreasing steadily since 2002/2003 (Figure 7).
41% (on average) of the material collected can be classified as ‘Miscellaneous’, meaning it consists of
fertilisers, detergent, surfactants, veterinary medicines and other materials commonly associated with
rural activities. In two of the collection years, this component was over 50%.
The percentage of chemicals that can be classified as legacy chemicals appears to remain more or
less steady. On average, it is 9% of the amount of agricultural compounds collected, or 15% if
miscellaneous substances are not considered. There has been a sharp decline of legacy chemicals
collected in 2007/2008, but this is closely correlated with the overall drop in chemical quantities. The
percentage of 7% in 2007/2008 was only slightly below the average of 9%.
Of the chemicals classified as legacy, an average of 61 kg or 14% (ranging from 2% to 23% over the
eight years) are POPs. The remainder are chemicals that are no longer manufactured or are
otherwise banned or withdrawn.
Figure 7: Total
quantity of agricultural chemicals and related materials (excludes other waste) collected
through AgChem Collections between 2000 and 2008
ARC AgChem Collection 2000-2008: Total quantity of chemicals and related

materials collected
7000
6000
5000
Quantity (kg)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
Year

tr2010 049 Waste Programme Annual Report 2008 2009 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

tr2010 049 Waste Programme Annual Report 2008 2009 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Auckland Region

Household and Agricultural

Auckland Regional Council

Reviewed by: Approved for ARC publication by:

Name: N/A Name: Matthew Davis

© 2010 Auckland Regional Council

4 Hazardous Waste Statistics 12

5 Hazardous Waste Public Awareness 18

7 Appendix 1: Description of waste categories 21

8 Appendix 2: HazMobile schedule 2009 22

9 Appendix 3: Additional Statistical Analysis of hazmobile Data. 23

10 Appendix 4: Additional statistical analysis of hazmobile data 47

Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

Waste Type Quantity (kg) % of Total

Waste oil 72,000 55.3%

Dry-cell batteries 2,117 1.6%

Lead-acid batteries 47,770 36.6%

Household chemicals 5,564 4.3%

Intractable chemicals 2,207 1.7%

Fluorescent and energy-saving lights 625 0.5%

TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE 130,283 100%

LPG bottles 24,306 56.8%

Aerosols 3,194 7.5%

Packaging waste 15,292 35.7%

TOTAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE 42,792 100%

Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

1.1 Disposal Information

Recycling of appropriate non-hazardous materials e.g. paper, steel etc.

Within New Zealand.

International where there is no other alternative disposal site.

Disposal to landfill, where there is no other local or international disposal option.

Cardboard and steel containers are recycled.

A small amount of non toxic rubbish is taken to landfill (approx 4% in 2008-2009).

Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

Table 1: HazMobile collections in 2008/2009

# Location Date Number of

1 Auckland City – Penrose 19 July 2008 300

2 Auckland City – Three Kings 16 August 2008 418

3 Manukau City - Howick 6 September 2008 660

4 North Shore City - Birkenhead 20 September 2008 467

5 Franklin District Council - Pukekohe 4 October 2008 259

6 Auckland City – Western Springs 18 October 2008 545

7 Papakura District - Papakura 8 November 2008 567

8 Manukau City - Manurewa 22 November 2008 445

9 North Shore City - Albany 6 December 2008 699

10 Manukau City - Pakuranga 21 February 2009 550

11 Auckland City – Glen Innes 7 March 2009 879

12 North Shore City – Takapuna 21 March 2009 543

15 Auckland City – Western Springs 23 May 2009 469

16 Auckland City – Penrose 6 June 2009 336

17 North Shore City – Takapuna 26 June 2009 317

Total number of customers 8,216

Figure 1: Number of HazMobile customers from 2000 to 2009 by area

Customer numbers by council area

Auckland Manukau North Shore Franklin Papakura Rodney

Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

HazMobile customer numbers for the Auckland region

Hazardous waste quantities collected by the HazMobile

Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

2.2 The AgChem Collection

Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste Programme.

Figure 5: Number of properties using the Auckland region AgChem Collection

Figure 6: Percentages of chemicals collected by AgChem collections