Skip to main content.

9 Recycling and Destruction

Summary

A relatively low proportion of used refrigerants is collected for recycling or destruction in New Zealand compared with Australia. An increasing proportion of the collected refrigerants is HFC for which no recovery levy has been paid. The Recovery Trust and chemical importers are keen to engage with the Ministry for the Environment on the issue of HFC levies on both imported bulk chemicals and equipment.

An incentive scheme could be designed as an effective means of encouraging recycling or collection for destruction. ETS participation by the Recovery Trust would be an inefficient means because market participation costs might be too high to justify the relatively low level of credits granted for exporting for destruction.

In 1993, a trust was formed with the objective to promote and facilitate the collection, storage and disposal of all ozone-depleting substances during the phasing-out period. The trust, now known as Recovery, also consults with environmental groups and reports regularly to the Minister for the Environment.

The Recovery programme is funded through a wholesale levy that is placed on every kilogram of imported ozone-depleting refrigerant. The process, which is provided at no charge to industry participants, includes the provision of secure transfer units and storage tanks to hold unwanted refrigerants. From accredited collection depots in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, the refrigerants are transferred to overseas destruction facilities.

An increasing proportion of the collected refrigerants is HFC for which no recovery levy has been paid (17% of 12 tonnes destroyed in 2006). The Trust and the Importers and Wholesalers Group (a RACCA committee) are keen to engage with the Ministry for the Environment on the issue of HFC levies (on both imported bulk chemicals and equipment) for recovering used refrigerants for destruction.

A member of the Trust board, Ivan Tottle (2008) stated it was very difficult to recycle HFCs (by a cleaning process) in New Zealand and they might need to be sent offshore. He considered it would be important to capture recycled HFCs in the ETS – the exemption of recycled HCFCs from licensing requirements created a perverse outcome for the environment.

Fisher & Paykel commented (Roke 2008) that Australian legislation provides a range of incentives that have resulted in a significantly higher proportion of refrigerants being collected for recycling or destruction in Australia than is the case in New Zealand. The company operates a number of appliance recycling centres throughout New Zealand that collect refrigerant from household refrigerators and freezers, but the quantity is a relatively small proportion of what could be collected. With the right incentives, it would become profitable for a range of companies to recover refrigerants rather than rely on corporate responsibility to absorb the collection costs.

Installers / servicers of remote refrigeration cabinets, commercial air-conditioning units, MAC units and fire protection systems have commented that recycling is practised when the servicing history is well known and there is little risk of contamination.

ETS participation by the Recovery Trust would be an inefficient means of encouraging HFC collection for destruction. Extra recording costs would be minimal but market participation costs might be too high to justify the relatively low level of credits granted for exporting for destruction. An incentive scheme could be designed as a more effective means of encouraging recycling or collection for destruction.

[ |