review of “best practice” waste management alternatives

Document No.: 09-524-5.3-R-001-C Date: 3 November 2010

Lake Macquarie City Council

REVIEW

OF “BEST PRACTICE”

WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Page Deliberately Blank For Duplex Printing

Review of Best Practice Waste Management Alternatives

Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

The Notion of “Best Practice” 1

Waste Streams 2

Advanced Technologies 2

Domestic Waste Reduction ..................................................................................... 5

Domestic Reduction 5

Reviews of Reduction Options 7

Food and Garden Waste Reduction........................................................................15

Organic Waste Reduction 15

Reviews of Home Composting Programs 16

Collection Systems .................................................................................................25

Recycling................................................................................................................29

Transfer Station Resource Recovery (Dirty MRF) ....................................................31

Landfill / Disposal ..................................................................................................35

Appendix 1 ‐ MCC AWT Review Australia ................................................................. i

Appendix 2 ‐ Waste Management in Developing or Non‐anglophone Countries ...... i

Appendix 3 ‐ In‐depth Analysis of Selected Options.................................................. i

Appendix 4 ‐ Cleaner Production in NSW.................................................................. i


i



ii

Introduction

This Report has been commissioned to review some “best practice” waste management practices with a bias to domestic waste. The Report explores a spectrum of initiatives from around the globe. Specific attention was required on AWT’s (Appendix 1) and developing and non-English speaking world initiatives (marked by red ink in the body of the Report) and in Appendix 2. Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) identified some specific issues that could benefit from greater focus and these are contained in Appendix 3. Appendix 4 examines some Cleaner Production programs in NSW that LMCC may wish to complement.

The Notion of “Best Practice” LMCC is motivated to identify waste management options to ensure that emerging or lesser known alternatives are not ignored in the relatively conventional wisdom of long term commitments to Mechanical and Biological Treatment plants. The label “best practice” is misleading, as it suggests that there are some alternatives that stand out above all others. It ignores the legal, market and financial contexts of each system which may have driven such an outcome. For example, according to the European Union Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC), biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 35 % of the total amount (base year 1995) by 2016. This law to reduce un-stabilised waste to landfill in Europe has driven a focus on organics capture and re-use. Similarly, the NSW landfill levy puts a huge financial imperative of diversion and the resource paucity of Japan has encouraged a culture of re-use and recycling, coupled with incineration. For this reason, the context can be as important as the so-called “best practice” and this study will attempt to identify issues and factors that have driven a waste management option to assist LMCC in selecting, which, if any, require pursuing at a greater depth. The Study, in the first stage, simply identifies some apparently sensible options that may warrant further investigation. It is also important to realise that few of these options exist in a waste management vacuum and often exist within a more complete framework.


1

Waste Streams As agreed with LMCC, the focus will be on domestic wastes. While LMCC does receive other waste streams, primarily from the building and commercial sectors, it has no legal responsibility to accept them, nor does it have the legislative control to do so. LMCC would run a huge financial risk if it predicated its waste management systems on these streams, only to find they migrate to cheaper options, elsewhere. That is not to say that these streams should be ignored but they are a secondary priority for ratepayers funds. As a result, they could fall more into a potential commercial opportunity if LMCC believes it can compete successfully with other waste managers. Alternatively, there are several excellent programs at the State level aimed at reducing waste, which LMCC could augment in its aim of becoming a more sustainable region (see Appendix 4). Thus, unless an obvious synergy exists with other streams, the primary focus will be on the domestic or more precisely, the household and small business generated and kerbside collected wastes.

Advanced Technologies The scope of this report does not include the very technical advanced waste technologies such as AWT, plasma or even composting options. There are many such reviews including the excellent Mechanical and Biological Report (MBT) produced for SITA by the highly respected UK-based Juniper Group (http://www.wastereports.com/free_downloads/MBT_report.html). Similarly, a report on pyrolysis and gasification can be found at: http://www.wastereports.com/free_downloads/pyrolysis-and-gasification.html. Comparison of those technologies is either best handled by the accessing those reviews or the commissioning of a specific analysis of some preferred options in active consideration by LMCC. There may well be value in purchasing specific reports when the Options review is closer to finalisation. An updated review of leading examples of AWT’s in Australia is attached as Appendix 1. This review was undertaken by Lloyd Consulting’s Mike Ritchie through his company, Mike Ritchie and Associates. The report is based on publicly available information and that supplied by the operators of the technologies. As such, caution should be exercised in placing any commercial reliance on the information and independent confirmation should be sought before any such decisions are progressed.


2

http://www.wastereports.com/free_downloads/MBT_report.html

http://www.wastereports.com/free_downloads/pyrolysis-and-gasification.html

There is also a recent and excellent non-critical compilation of Australian AWT’s compiled by the Waste Management and Environment magazine which provides an overview of currently available processes and plants (www.insidewaste.com.au, March / April 2010).


3

http://www.insidewaste.com.au/



4

Domestic Waste Reduction

Domestic Reduction Reduction in domestic waste is achieved by using programs that can divert waste from the kerbside bin. This includes re-use and home composting, as well as encouraging avoidance through better purchasing. Studies have shown that intense interventions such as those discussed in this section can have significant results but quantifying that remains problematic. Measuring waste outcomes is always fraught but gets more so when the data hinges on whether something that would have been normally disposed of, is not. Some jurisdictions also distinguish between reduction in waste volumes and reduction in waste impacts where they focus on specific wastes, with disproportionate impact such as household hazardous wastes or organics. It is clear that successful reduction strategies employ a multi-faceted approach. Most taxation and business engagement occurs at the State or Federal levels while the community outreach is, not surprisingly, overwhelming implemented by Local Government. Very rarely is a single program in place, and most jurisdictions use a spectrum of different programs aimed often at different sectors or specific outcomes. The United Kingdom Government found “The most effective and most frequently applied suite of waste prevention instruments appear to comprise:

• waste prevention targets; • producer responsibility; • variable rate charging (pay-as-you-throw) systems for householders’ residual

waste; • intense public awareness/communications campaigns; • public sector funding pilot projects; and • collaboration between public, private and third sectors.

The evidence suggests that effective combinations of these instruments can reduce the quantities of household waste by more than 10%, and that individual waste prevention measures tend to become effective where more than 15 % of the population supports them” (DEFRA Household Waste Prevention Evidence Review (wr1204) 2009).


5

The growth in waste per person is a product of our increasingly “consumer based” lifestyle and economy. We have seen major advances in reducing the weight of packaging, which has reduced material and energy consumption but, in the case of glass bottles, made recycling less effective, due to the higher breakage. The flood of cheaper goods from low cost exporters like China has also contributed to a “throw-away” society with the costs of repair for goods often exceeding the cost of purchasing brand new lower quality replacements. In 2003 Prof Gerhard Vogel, when launching the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, reported on a study in Vienna that showed 200 households provided with outreach assistance and asked to reduce their consumption and change their purchasing, reduced their waste by 20% over the course of a year. Taking on the might of ubiquitous advertising and social pressures to convince the public that happiness does not lie in more “stuff” is not within LMCC’s budget. However, there is always the course of tackling particular items that disproportionately generate waste or target specific events or issues. In such cases, the general public is more likely to respond positively and LMCC get an outcome for its expenditure. Thus, the change over from CRT screens to flat screens offered a particular opportunity (and threat) to diversion from landfill that most Governments did not move quickly enough to avert. The volumes of food waste offer a chance for targeted reduction that would in this case, save the consumer significant funds and greenhouse gas emissions. CSIRO has estimated that the greenhouse gas exacerbation from food waste in Australian landfills equals that of the manufacture and supply of our iron and steel (CSIRO and University of Sydney, Balancing Act. A Triple Bottom Line analysis of the Australian Economy). Using Australia Institute figures, approximately $50M worth of food is wasted in Lake Macquarie each year (www.tai.org.au). While food waste will never be eliminated, much can and those funds that can be put to a more sustainable use. As the scope of local legislation is limited, significant reduction in waste (and increases in recycling for that matter) will depend on the quality of the relationships between LMCC and its residents. Experiences elsewhere have shown that those relationships are often best managed by focusing on specific community groupings rather than the “one size fits all” approach encapsulating the entire community. Different groups respond to different messages, barriers and motivators. Included here are some approaches that involve legislation by the State or Federal Governments. They do work, but the extended time usually taken to get either of those levels of Government to act means that it is unlikely that functional diversion will be happening within five years in Lake Macquarie.


6

http://www.tai.org.au/

However, it also means that the sooner LMCC joins with other Local Governments in pushing this agenda, the sooner the outcomes will be felt at the local level. The potential and value for money aspects of such programs remains a contentious issue, with very few programs quantifying accurately the expenditures or outcomes. Infrastructure changes gain their improvements almost immediately, whereas behaviour change programs can take a number of years to reach their full potential. With many of the community outreach programs, outcomes can be unquantifiable in that they raise the profile of waste management and provide a more favourable political climate for government initiatives and increased expenditure.

Reviews of Reduction Options

• DEFRA (http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ScienceProject) in the United Kingdom recently commissioned a scan of waste reduction programs. The report makes a number of points that are directly applicable to the LMCC situation. They also state that comparisons are problematic due to the lack of robust data, the synergies between different levels of the waste hierarchy and the varying degrees of vigour and investment that governments apply to programs over time.

• York Region of nine municipal governments outside of Toronto in Canada

reviewed the potential cost-effectiveness of various approaches and came to the following conclusions. The review began from a current 34% diversion rate and costs are obviously case-specific and in Canadian dollars. While the specifics will vary, the proportions are valid for comparisons.

Option Diversion rate Cost per household % / $

Source separated organics 25% $55 0.45

Optimised recycling 6% $5 3.2

Education 4% $4 1.0

Garden waste collection 5% $8 0.61


7

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ScienceProject

Waste Management Project: Integrated Strategy

Helsinki Metropolitan Council (YTV) responded to a national initiative with its own Waste Prevention Strategy. By setting an example in its own, the Council aimed to reduce waste production, disseminate information on waste prevention to

businesses, and encourage sustainable consumption habits. In 2008, they ran a campaign to encourage non-consumptive Xmas presents such as massages, public transport credit cards, household tasks, and outdoor activities. Other programs include a food waste reduction campaign. While waste per unit of the economy has decreased, household waste has not significantly changed.

Location: Helsinki, Finland

”Less food wasted means more money in your wallet”

Key Features and context:

While their campaigns showed very good public recognition, little change has been measured except in the use of re-usable nappies. This illustrates the difficulty of translating “awareness” into behaviour change. For these types of programs it is even more difficult to measure quantifiable impacts on waste volume.


8

Waste Management Project: Direct Marketing of Farm Produce

These direct marketing schemes have been successfully instituted in many areas. The concept is to provide a “farmers’ market” or web-based inventory and ordering system which avoids the usual farm to wholesale market to retailer to consumer chain. A particularly noteworthy scheme is the Fraser Valley Farm Direct Marketing Association website at www.bcfarmfresh.com. The website will allow access to local producers of more than 100 different farm products and services who market what they produce either directly from their farms or at area farmers’ markets. Sixty eight member suppliers provide a range of produce and the economies of scale for delivery to nearby urban markets in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. The FVFDMA provides many services and opportunities to member farmers, including:

• A Farm Fresh Guide distributed across the Lower Mainland, and listing all member farms with descriptions, locations, and a useful product index;

• A website, bcfarmfresh.com, to put consumers in touch with our member growers;

• A newsletter with important information for farm direct marketers; • An Agriculture Mentoring Program to encourage people with smaller acreages

to start a farm operation by providing access to our experienced farmers; • Access to a network of farm direct marketers with experience in a wide range

of areas; and • Opportunity to be part of local marketing programs and other marketing

initiatives such as media tours and others.

Location: British Columbia on the west coast of Canada

Key features:

• The direct marketing of fresh produce produces less packaging waste and less food waste as the produce has a longer life.

• There are also a number of bottom line benefits from the direct connection of growers and consumers including for example, social interactions that can benefit both groups and facilitate related projects such as urban composting to supply peri-urban farmland. Most of the large supermarket chains prohibit use of compost for vegetable growing as a risk reduction measure but many consumers prefer a more organic or sustainably produced crop.

• Town planning issues often arise with “farmers’ markets and may need changes to town plans, community consultation and liaison with established retail outlets.


9

http://www.bcfarmfresh.com/

Waste Management Project: Plastic Bag Reduction

A number of jurisdictions around the world have successfully addressed the issue of thin film single use plastic bags used for fast food and shopping. The key strategies have been to make re-usable bags more desirable or compostable bags more competitive. Ireland and others have taxed non-compostable thin film plastic bags to make them more expensive than compostable ones.

Monies raised are returned to public environmental projects. Reduction has been significant (~ 90% in Ireland, 66% in Denmark where the tax was on retailers, not consumers) with broad public support.

A number of jurisdictions have followed Ireland’s lead, while others such as Samoa and South Australia have chosen alternatives, such as a complete ban on light weight non-compostable bags. The Sunshine Coast Regional Council is planning to use the Qld Local Law mechanism to do likewise, after a period of transition.

Some major retailers such as Bunnings have voluntarily adopted a user pays charge for reusable bags and banned disposables. There is the potential to work with retailers to expand this through a voluntary campaign delivering consumer support for “cleaner shopping” even in the absence of a NSW-wide approach. The Sunshine Coast Council is planning to start with a voluntary program and follow up with a regulatory option two years after.

Location: Bans and taxes in place in many jurisdictions, in both developed and developing worlds.


• Plastic bags represent a minute fraction of the waste stream but have significant litter consequences for tourism and lifestyle. In a seaside environment like Lake Macquarie, they have the potential to negatively impact on the aquatic environment as well.

• The key contaminant of organic collection is usually the thin film plastic bag. By reducing the number of such bags and encouraging compostable bags, it is expected that the contamination issue would be lessened.

• They also provide a key avenue with which to engage the community on issues such as waste reduction as the sheer volume of bags in households is deeply resented by consumers.

• Regulating the sale of bags in Lake Macquarie has more symbolic significance than practical as many residents shop outside of the jurisdiction. However, the process of announcing a proposed ban subject to the level of voluntary reduction by fast food and shopping outlets cannot be over-stated.


10

• Taxing at the local level is legally very difficult, if not impossible, unless it was a voluntary initiative and the funds went to a very worthy cause or program with strong community and business support.

Waste Management Project: Weight or volume based kerbside charges

Variable charging (pay-as-you-throw) schemes are designed to provide a carrot and stick charge for waste disposal with the assumption being that householders will work harder to reduce, sort and divert if they see a financial advantage in doing so. This can be approached in a number of ways as illustrated below.

SenterNovem, an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, produced the graph above illustrating effects of differing approaches to Pay-as-you-throw schemes (http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/separate%20collection%20of%20waste%20in%20the%20Netherlandst). A study in the USA estimated that pay-as-you-throw schemes in place in their jurisdiction had reduced waste by 24% (Kinnaman, T.C., Fullerton, D., 2000. ‘Garbage and recycling with endogenous local policy’. Journal of Urban Economics 48 (3), 419–442). The Sunshine Coast Regional Council was recently amalgamated from three smaller jurisdictions with variations still embedded in the old contracts making comparisons easy. The Council has a suite of waste bins with corresponding annual charges (general waste collected weekly (as is required by law in Qld 80L = $123, 140L = $141, 240L = $187, 240L recycling fortnightly = free, 240L garden waste fortnightly = $72)). Most residents in the south, where there is an optional user pays garden waste collection, opt for the 140L service with a 20% take-up of the garden waste service. Previous studies of the 80L and 120L indicate that they are too small for most households.


11

http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/separate%20collection%20of%20waste%20in%20the%20Netherlandst

http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/separate%20collection%20of%20waste%20in%20the%20Netherlandst

Comparisons have been made between a 120L waste bin with a 240L garden waste service and a 240L bin with garden waste service. The addition of a garden waste bin to the 240L waste service saw a 10% reduction in weight in the waste service, but a 50% reduction when added to the 120L waste service.

Location: various


It should be remembered that there are legal problems with weighing MGB’s for charging in Australia and that charging has to also accommodate the propensity for some to use the neighbours’ bins for cheap disposal.

There has been some anecdotal evidence that squeezing variable charging or available volume too heavily results in householders using their other recycling bins for waste disposal, causing contamination.

Waste Management Project: Costs of Waste as a motivator

The French environmental agency, Ademe, attempted to use the costs of waste to drive consumer behaviour. They ran a trial over a year, using a normal buying pattern for a family of four ("maxidéchets"), with one that focused on less waste ("minidéchets"). The respective costs and volumes were tallied at the end of the study and the results showed the waste prevention version (the "minidéchets”), saved just under 100kg in waste produced and the family saved, on average, I67 euros (~ A$250) per month.

Location: France


The translation of waste into economic terms is designed to motivate those members of the public who are not motivated by the environmental imperative or who need a further rationale to change their behaviour. Coupled with the money wasted in food waste, the household costs of waste are quite substantial. As the result of the communication campaign is not yet available, this will remain an interesting approach until that data is available. To be fair, the impact of these statistics on public behaviour also will hinge on the competence of the communication campaign that delivers them.


12

Waste Management Project: Household Goods Re-use

Dublin City has created a web-based re-use service called “Free Trade” at www.DublinWaste.ie . Goods such as books, clothing, furniture and appliances are listed for free exchange. The program has been so successful with about 1000 trades per month that it is expanding to a national system. There are six officers working on waste minimisation in the region of the capital.

Location: Dublin, Ireland


The system has a triple bottom line outcome in that it assists poorer residents to access household goods and builds a conserver ethic on both sides of the exchange. The web-based databases have revolutionised the re-use markets in the same manner that the e-bay and similar sites have facilitated second hand markets. The key issue is the lack of transaction charges. It is unknown if this increases trades proportionally to the subsidy.

Waste Management Project: Appliance Repair

Vienna has tackled electronics repair as a critical service in prolonging the life of our increasingly electronic households. By training and accrediting long term unemployed in a guaranteed repair system, Viennese can now save goods that couldn’t be viably repaired before.

Location: Vienna, Austria


These repair shops complement the other initiatives such as a rental guide, a second hand guide and an internet-based “junk exchange” to discourage purchasing new goods.


13

http://www.dublinwaste.ie/



14

Food and Garden Waste Reduction

Organic Waste Reduction Organic waste reduction represents the highest imperative for waste managers, particularly in NSW. Organics give rise to most of the air and water pollution from landfills. Their density incurs the landfill levy and their climate change emissions are likely to incur significant charges under any future emissions trading scheme. On the plus side, reprocessing organics into energy or composts can occur locally and so has economic development potential.

While there is economic development potential, the organics reprocessing will still come at a nett cost to LMCC and organics managed on site remains the most cost-effective option.

Organic waste reduction hinges on significant levels of home composting. Local Governments realised this a decade ago and have been rushing into supplying cheap or free compost bins, believing that cost was the barrier to widespread adoption. That burst of government largesse resulted in large numbers of cheap bins ending up in the family garage and little increase in the volumes reduced. It also became apparent that the relatively small volumes of household food waste were likely to “disappear” into the ground in the cheap, open bottomed bins. While that served a waste reduction purpose, it was of little comfort to those expecting volumes of nice friable compost for their gardens. In short, home composting had challenges well beyond the $40 purchase barrier. Since then, programs have focussed on linking the completion of training programs with subsidised bins.

“Seattle, for example, estimates that it saves $20 in avoided yard debris collecting and tipping fees for each ton of material composted in residents’ backyards. Volume-based refuse rates can encourage backyard composting. For example, communities with successful backyard composting programs, such as West Linn, Oregon also have variable refuse rates. Even Seattle and King County can partially attribute their success with backyard composting to their yard waste collection fee structure.” The costs of outreach programs are one third of those involving bin subsidies but no data is available on whether bin subsidies increase volumes significantly.” (USA EPA: Lessons from 30 Communities 1992)

Over time, it was realised that it was important to dig deeper into the barriers to widespread home composting if funds were to be spent with a measurable result.


15

Five years ago, Brisbane City Council found that the older population, who represent the largest proportion of gardeners and a key target segment, were resistant to mulching their gardens as it looked “untidy”. Since that time, the explosion in TV gardening shows and the rapid rise in the costs of water has gone a long way to shift sympathy of gardeners towards composting and mulching.

Other technologies like worm farms and Bokashi bins have made food composting more convenient, particularly for multi-unit dwelling inhabitants.

Waste Management Project: Grass-cycling or mulch mowing

By making the simple switch to grasscycling in 1993, Kalamazoo realizes savings of approximately $5,000 per year and recovers 140 hours of staff time per week during the growing season. Kalamazoo studied reports on turf management and determined that grasscycling would require less effort than other options such as composting. The potential benefits of grass-cycling, including reductions in lawn watering, fertilizer application, and labor demand, convinced the county to make the switch on its 51 mowed acres of county parks and lawns.

Location: Kalamazoo County, Michigan


Mulch mowing programs require some community education to make them more socially acceptable, as some residents believe them “untidy” and others see a raked “clean” lawn as most desirable. With information on the environmental and economic benefits, acceptance is more likely. US EPA calculations show the average cost per ton diverted through mulch mowing was amortized over 5 years (the time estimated before another round of community education was necessary) to arrive at an estimated average cost of $1.03. Of the seven programs analysed, costs per ton ranged from a low of $0.26 per ton in Montgomery County, Ohio, to a high of $7.04 per ton in Dubuque, Iowa. The higher cost in Dubuque is the result of the city’s innovative program of rebating $25 to each resident who purchases a mulching mower.

Reviews of Home Composting Programs Significant research on home composting (amongst other aspects of waste) has been performed by the excellent WRAP organisation in the U.K. and published in the past year. It is culturally and technologically relevant to Lake Macquarie. Their website link is http://www.wrap.org.uk/. The Home Composting Council of the USA reviewed 249 backyard composting programs in 40 states and two Canadian provinces.


16

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

“In 1996, The Composting Council analyzed backyard composting programs and concluded that such programs are successful and cost-effective throughout the United States, regardless of community size or socioeconomic status. When setting up a backyard composting program, governments spent an average of $12 per ton of organic materials composted at home to educate the public and promote the program. They also received an average of $1 per ton of solid waste in volunteer labor. Savings averaged $23 per ton in reduced collection costs and $32 per ton in reduced disposal costs. Total net benefit was $43 to $44 per ton of solid waste. The backyard composting programs diverted approximately 14 percent of yard trimmings generated, an average of more than 1,145 tons per year. Each household composted an average of 646 pounds per year, which amounted to more than 12 pounds every week. Communities saved money because they didn’t have to collect or process the yard waste. Residents were also able to save garbage or yard waste collection fees in areas where local governments based collection fees on volume or weight of materials disposed. Backyard composting also reduces the need for municipal composting sites and delays the need for more landfill space or incinerator capacity.” Recommendations for developing programs:

• Focus efforts on single-family households, targeting home gardeners first. • Develop a home composting brochure (possibly adapted from existing ones). • Harness volunteers and community support and offer workshops. • Distribute information through the media and local groups. • Include grasscycling tips in any promotional and educational information. • Consider a mobile or neighborhood chipping program for brush and branches. • Structure economic incentives for home composting by adopting refuse

collection rates that reward waste reduction. • Consider having a subsidized compost bin purchase program and one-day

sales. • Evaluate cost-sharing opportunities between jurisdictions, especially for

educational efforts and bin distribution programs. • Provide a home composting hotline number. • Remember that success is measured over the course of at least a few years. • Monitor results, participation and diversion rates, and cost per ton diverted.

Survey respondents identified several barriers to home composting, including: apathy and resistance to change; the desire to have a “perfect, manicured yard;” concerns about odors, flies, and rodents; and the time and labor needed for composting (http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/vermicomposting/pubs/composting.pdf).


17

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/vermicomposting/pubs/composting.pdf

Management Project: Banana Circles – minimal labour Home Composting

The banana circles are a way of passive composting using organic waste compost piles within a circle of heavy feeding fruit trees, normally bananas. The waste is piled in a ring of trees, watered with grey water from the household and the slow decomposition feeds the root mat that quickly underlies the pile. The ring contains the pile while the compost bio-filters the grey water and the trees crop at an increased yield. There is no management of the compost pile in terms of turning.

Location: Kiribati, Pacific


Banana circles are a permaculture technique adapted for the Pacific atolls where the gardening culture, due to the poor soil and lack of water, is not strong. However, the techniques are more widely applicable. The key feature is the lack of any turning or need for any bins or cages to contain the garden waste. The sheer size of the banana plot makes it inapplicable in dense urban settings and some authorities restrict the number of banana plants a private dwelling can have. However, it is a very useful low effort garden waste minimisation method.

Waste Management Project: Home Composting

The Alameda County Home Composting Scheme to the west of San Francisco is the largest in California, covering 1.3M inhabitants and began in 1990. In 1995, program funding exceeded US$500.000 (or approximately $0.40 per resident) of which nearly two-thirds was expended for composting literature and the subsidized purchase of compost bins. It is a well-staffed and multifaceted program, with a “train the trainer” master composter training course, school education programs and several permanent compost demonstration sites. The program publishes an annual report and prints many useful materials that have been adapted by other home composting programs.

Location: Alameda County, California


18

Features, context and results:

As of 1995, compost bins have been purchased through discount programs by 6.1% of single-family households over the past three years. Around 18,400 bins have been distributed to residents at a reduced price. ACHC staff believe that actual participation in home composting is much greater than 6 percent. Based on data gathered by ACHC, the average participating household composts 600 pounds of yard trimmings per year. In the 1994/95 fiscal year, 1,000 tons of yard trimmings and food scraps were diverted through home composting efforts, which was double the amount from the previous year. For $33, a resident can receive a compost bin, instructional materials, invitations to free workshops and a how-to book on home composting. The program is coordinated by 5.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff, and 80 volunteers provide additional support.


Olympia began its Home Composting program in 1993 and it ties subsidised bins to its free training course run with keen volunteer gardeners.

Location: Olympia, Washington State, USA


Olympia is a relatively cold region and the autumn “fall” comes right before an extended cold and wet period. Home composting is a challenge under those conditions. A key component of the program is selling composting bins at wholesale prices to residents who complete a free backyard composting workshop. Olympia also has a demonstration garden sponsored by the state as an educational tool, and the city has developed a full range of free composting brochures. Staff time for this comprehensive program amounts to only 10 percent of one FTE staff per year but is supplemented by over 830 hours of volunteer labour per year. Costs are approximately US$0.31 per resident per year.

Results:

An estimated 60 percent of single-family households practice some form of organics source reduction, whether through active composting or grass-cycling. Olympia has steadily increased the diversion of yard trimmings and food scraps through home composting over the past three years. A total of 1,500 tons were projected to be composted at home in 1995, compared to 1,000 tons in 1994 and 500 tons in 1993. The city estimates that participating households compost approximately 500 pounds each year.


19

Waste Management Project: Home composting Since 1997, residents of Milton-Keynes, in the UK, have been involved in home composting. They can buy home composting bins from the Council at close to cost price or make their own composting bin. A large information campaign has been carried out, mainly through the Council’s “Messenger” magazine, two or three times a year, and permanently through the Council’s internet site.

Location: Milton Keynes, U.K. (a small city on the periphery of the Greater London conurbation).


The composting bins are made from HDPE plastic produced in the Council’s recycling factory. The Council buys these bins in bulk from the manufacturing company and distributes them in partnership with a garden centre. This garden centre stores the bins and exchanges them to residents for vouchers that they obtain from the Council against payment (about 17 Euros). The campaign for home composting is also linked to wider sustainability issues and promoted alongside wildlife gardening and the need to reduce the use of peat. Indeed, a composting demonstration garden has been developed in an environmental education centre situated in the surroundings of the city. This centre is run by the Council as a combined nature reserve and field study centre. It was built using the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme funding. In this garden, the Recycling department organises free workshops all around the year to teach participants how to do their own compost.

Results:

Between 1997 and June 2003, 11,000 residents had bought home composting bins from the Council. Each participating household reduces its production of waste by approximately 100 kg each year.


The region of Porto is a pioneer for waste management in Portugal. LIPOR is the Inter-municipal Waste Treatment Service for the Porto Region. It is responsible for the management, treatment, and transforming of the solid household waste from 8 municipal boroughs. This area counts nearly 1 million inhabitants who produce about 480,000 tonnes of solid urban waste yearly. Activities include the creation of an Eco-library, the regular publication of a newspaper, the setting up of a free phone line, awareness raising campaigns, exhibitions, workshops on the reuse of waste.

Location: Porto, Portugal (http://www.lipor.pt)


20

http://www.lipor.pt/


LIPOR realised that, in spite of a new centralised composting plant, home composting was a more cost-effective option for those who would participate. To educate and sensitise the population on the necessity to reduce the amount of waste produced daily, LIPOR set ua home compost demonstration site named “Horta da Formiga”. The objective of this project is to promote school visits, seminars and programs.

p

A pleasant area has been arranged next to the new composting centre. School children and other target groups can visit and learn about composting, its advantages and different uses. In addition, a biological garden is grown with vegetables, fruit trees and aromatic plants using the compost produced on the site. Visitors enter the welcome room and receive some information about the demonstration site, before they start to follow the “circuit of composting”. It starts with the composting area, where they can see 16 different types of composting bins, so visitors can choose what type is the most appropriate for them. Then comes the maturation, screening and bagging of compost. Finally, visitors walk through the vegetable garden, the orchard and the aromatic garden. In addition to the visits, LIPOR promote free courses in organic agriculture for teachers and adults, to enhance the quality of life and health by respecting the ways of nature. The home composting demonstration site is considered an essential tool for the education of the population as it provides hands-on experimentation.

Waste Management Project: City Farm

The Northey St City Farm has been operating in inner Brisbane for many years. Conceived as a “permaculture in the suburbs” demonstration site, it has now blossomed into a key piece of urban social and environmental infrastructure.

Location: Brisbane, Australia


The City Farm utilises a small 3 hectare site on a flood plain adjoining a major hospital. Demonstration gardens are staffed by local volunteers interested in gardening or, increasingly by new comers to the City including refugees.


21

The farming aspect provides a welcome safe environment for those who have fled war and persecution and provides a support network of friends and contacts to assist in the difficult transition into city life. The City Farm instituted a drop off facility for local garden maintenance contractors to dump clippings. This is cheaper than using the City’s facilities. The volumes proved too large for normal turning so the volunteers built huge reinforcing mesh tumblers that are rolled along a bitumen strip daily to keep the garden waste aerated. Two tumblers are used to run the system as a “batch” composter and physical labour and odour is minimised while the speed of composting is maximised.

A local market is held fortnightly where produce is held and locals can meet to swap or buy their own produce or household items. The City Farm forms a major part of increasing the social cohesion of the suburb as well as its wider unexpected role with new comers to the City.

The farm runs on occasional grants and free lease but mostly on volunteer effort.

Waste Management Project: Institutional Synergies – the Market and School Co-composting

A fortuitous co-location of a tourist market and a school in Eumundi has fostered a partnership where organics from the market are composted and worm farmed at the school and the products sold at the market on the weekend to benefit the school.

Location: Eumundi, Queensland, Australia


The Eumundi Markets have embarked on a journey to a more sustainable management over the past few years. After considering their bins and recycling, they decided to tackle the relatively large volumes of organic waste from food stalls and produce stalls. The neighbouring school had also been involved in composting their own garden waste, teaching the students about the process and gardening. Market stalls were encouraged to use compostable utensils and plates and separate their organics which are then taken next door to the school yard for composting and feeding the worm farms. This material is either used by the school, or packaged and sold to provide an income for the school.

The triple bottom line success (less environmental impact, reduced waste costs for the market, income and education at the school and a closer sense of community) and the feel good nature of the project has ensured strong community support. Apart from occasional grants, the project is self-funding.


22


Around 5,000 households in the Shoalhaven will have the opportunity to get involved in home composting through Shoalhaven City Council. Council has broadened the Green Home Composting Trial to 5,000 households throughout the city, following the initial 12-month trial which saw 200 households involved in the scheme.

Location: Shoalhaven, NSW, Australia


The initial trial, which began in early 2007, was designed to resource and provides skills for more than 200 households and enables them to compost their household garden and kitchen organic waste.

The trial included training, support and feedback, a pre-trial and post-trial waste bin composition audit and a number of participant surveys.

In support of this project, Council will provide the compost bin, kitchen tidy and bio bags on the provision that at least one person in the household attends an hour long training program. Council will be calling for expressions of interest in July, and if more than 5,000 expressions of interests are received, selection will be on a first come, first served basis, provided that the requirement to attend the training session is fulfilled. The $10 cost per household on training and subsidy for on-site use of organics in mulching, worm farms, and composting was found by Shoalhaven Local Government to be 1/6 the cost and 1/10 the GHG of centralised composting. The results of the trial show several positive triple bottom line benefits were gained:

• Over 90% of the project participants have produced compost for their gardens within the trial period.

• Waste audits show a 25 per cent reduction of garbage in the bin, representing an annual saving to landfill of 133kg per household. Across the city this would mean a projected annual reduction of 6,251 tonnes of waste going to landfill each year.

• 83% of trial participants talked about their compost trial experience with family, friends, and neighbours and in their workplace.

• 80% of participants said they gained a heightened awareness which prompted the implementation of other sustainable changes in the households, including further recycling, worm farms, and conserving electricity and water (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2006399_org_lgovmgtcost.pdf).


23

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2006399_org_lgovmgtcost.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2006399_org_lgovmgtcost.pdf



24

Collection Systems

As a rule of thumb, collection represents about two thirds of the total cost of the waste management systems used by Local Government. This is particularly so in low density regions like LMCC. Much effort goes into optimising the other elements but often it is expected that contractors or staff will ensure that the most cost-effective collection configuration is utilised. This is not necessarily so. Encouraging residents to sort and/or deliver is usually the best option though it can lead to other issues like increased transport pollution and fossil fuel use, reduced yield, less predictable volumes and illegal dumping. The headlong rush into separate collection for recyclables and now to organic waste should be questioned. It is now clear that the old bottle bank at the scout hut ensured a far better and cheaper recycling outcome than the 30% recovery rate from kerbside systems. Workplace Health and Safety requirements and labour costs have now made the kerbside MGB ubiquitous as a collection container. Unless there is high density housing (not yet a feature of Lake Macquarie), the MGB offers the best practice. The use of robotic arms on trucks now make this the industry standard for all but the most specialised situations such as heritage or high visual amenity areas or very narrow streets. Sorting technology has improved and the recent SAWT plant in Sydney has shown that separate recycling bins may not be necessary in the near future. The switch to a centralised sort does disenfranchise the resident and that is a major concern. Social marketing research has shown that household recycling leads residents to self-identify as caring for the environment and thus more likely to engage in other sustainable initiatives. This is borne out by the Shoalhaven research on their home composting program. It is also worth noting the linkage between collection systems and charging regimes. Bin size choice is now coming to be accepted as a simple way to reward those who are responsible waste managers and to provide disincentives to the waste generators. This, of course, reduces collection costs.


25

Waste Management Project: “Wet / dry” split collection

A novel two-bin waste collection trial undertaken by Shoalhaven City Council, south of Sydney involved using two bins, one for organics (food and garden) and one for waste and recyclables with recyclables contained in a easily identifiable bag for later separation.

Location: Shoalhaven, NSW


The “Get to the Point” trial covered 720 homes within Shoalhaven’s boundaries on the NSW south coast. Two bins were used, the first a “wet” bin for all organic material, from lawn clippings and leaves through to food waste, dirty paper and even soiled nappies. The second “dry” bin was used to collect traditional recyclable material (such as bottles, cans and paper) but, interestingly, also for bags of residual waste. Those rubbish bags were later manually removed at the materials recycling facility. Trial results suggest an 80% diversion from landfill could be achieved in regional areas without using high-tech disposal facilities. Just as importantly, the collection costs and impacts have been minimised and bin volumes have not needed to increase. Experience overseas (particularly Chicago’s Blue bag system) has shown that this method, while cost-effective, diverts less than half the recyclate as the dedicated yellow top MGB.

Waste Management Project: Vacuum-based collection

These systems use a network of underground pipes to centralise waste and recyclables into a common collection point. They use vacuum to suck the waste through the pipes to a usually an out-of-sight depot underground.


26

Location: Various in Europe


The vacuum systems are most cost-effectively installed at the time of development but are most often used in Cities that wish to preserve a heritage appearance, high urban density or an extremely high standard of kerbside amenity. The Scandinavian versions have swipe card access for householders to make payment simple. Strong social norms ensure that illegal dumping is not an issue in the high income sites where the underground systems are installed.

Waste Management Project: Natural or landfill gas powered collection vehicles have been used in a number of jurisdictions to reduce the pollution from collection vehicles.

Location: various


The use of gas-powered collection vehicles is largely symbolic, having a powerful public imagery in using landfill gas to power the collection of the waste. The levels of pollution from modern diesels and the cost premium of dedicated fueling facilities, engines and reliability risks have ensured this option has not been popular and most Local Governments have chosen to spend their money of more cost-effective services.


27



28

Recycling Australia is widely considered to have one of the world’s best systems in terms of participant convenience and yield. The use of MGB’s for packaging waste is now firmly entrenched in the Australian psyche and changing that incurs some acceptance risk and a cost to re-educate. Where Australia is far less effective is with recycling its non-packing waste. Poor national and state legislation has not addressed the issues of extended producer responsibilities or advanced recycling fees except in a few isolated cases.

Deposit and refund schemes on packaging or other specific products can be very cost-efficient as the products are delivered back to a central consolidation point at no cost to Council to claim the refund. South Australia has run one successfully for many years in spite of absence of National scheme. Other States have seen a national approach as a necessary pre-condition and considerable controversy still exists about whether these schemes deliver the most cost-effective outcome. Products like car batteries, mobile phones and e-waste, packaging items, etc have a deposit embedded in purchase price to fund a refund sufficient to motivate return to a designated point.

South Australia’s experience is that “refund kiosks” have evolved to receive the material and administer refunds. The profits derived in returning goods to manufacturers or their agents, funds staffing. The schemes have proved particularly appropriate for specific goods such as glass which is largely lost to breakage in the kerbside system or toxic products like car batteries that must be removed from kerbside. There has been considerable controversy about these schemes and their overall cost-effectiveness and the internet provides adequate views on either side for those interested in further research.

There appears to be no scope for such schemes at a Local Government level, unless voluntarily adopted by local traders. This is unlikely, as consumers would be likely to shop in adjoining jurisdictions without the added costs.


29

Waste Management Project: Increased Household Sorting

The City of Yokohama managed a 30% reduction in household waste over three years by instituting a major change to how household recycling was collected (www.cjc.or.jp/modules/incontent/waste2007).

Residents are now sort into ten separate categories to facilitate recycling. They are required to cut open liquid paper board containers, wash them, stack them flat and tie them into bundles. Umbrellas must have the cloth covering removed and the metal is recovered separately.

Location: Yokohama, Japan


The very tight social structure of Japanese society creates significant pressure to conform to the system. Neighbours will express disapproval if your recycling is contaminated or poorly presented. Neighbourhoods have been known to ask landlords to evict non-conforming tenants as they reflect badly on the rest of the street. Coupled with a long history of recycling, and Federal government initiatives such as advanced recycling fees paid upon purchase to ensure recycling is viable, the system has had spectacular success. It is highly doubtful that any other society would have the cohesion and focus of the Japanese.


30

http://www.cjc.or.jp/modules/incontent/waste2007

Transfer Station Resource Recovery (Dirty MRF)

A significant volume of waste arrives at Awaba from self-delivered vehicles. These are usually residents or opportunistic commercial vehicles that will balance disposal costs with transport costs to a cheaper but more distant option. A number of “dirty Material Recovery Facilities” have been attempted to recover the resources embedded in these streams. Sometimes, the technology has been brought to play on the mixed waste domestic stream as well, in the manner of the SAWT AWT plant in Sydney. Dirty Materials Recovery Facilities generally combine a number of screening / sorting techniques to divide the self-delivered and commercial residual waste into recyclable material streams and non-recyclable residual waste. The residual waste is disposed to landfill.

The facilities employ conveyor systems, bag splitters, screens or trommels to split the waste into different size fractions and magnets, eddy current separators, handpicking or other sorting techniques such as air classifiers to divide the waste stream into the required constituent streams. These MRF’s have a significantly lower recovery rate than household recyclable MRFs (clean MRFs) because they are treating a more complex, unsorted and largely residual waste stream. In addition, the process produce recyclate from dirty MRFs is of lower quality than that produced a clean MRF s. However, the recyclate product is saleable in the Australian market and is currently being exported. The Dirty MRFs strongly resemble MRFs designed for domestic kerbside recycling schemes but are more robust and complicated due to the differences in input waste materials.

Whereas kerbside MRF’s are designed for a limited number of recyclable streams (newspaper, cardboard and containers), Dirty MRF’s must be able to process the full range of self-delivered waste. These streams include organics (above), as well as recoverable recyclates and residual streams. Dirty MRFs will typically recover around 50% of material as recyclables with the remainder destined for landfill.


31

While the technology is available, the costs, the inability to require self-separation and the focus on financial viability (rather than the triple bottom line assessment that is often employed for kerbside waste) means that “dirty MRFing” has yet to achieve any significant penetration into most waste management systems.

Waste Management Project: Dirty MRF’s

The major dirty MRFs in Australia are all located in Sydney and are relatively small in commercial terms and are not integrated into the domestic systems.

Location: There are three MRF’s in Sydney located at Camellia (SITA), Wetherill Park (SITA) and Seven Hills (Galloways).


They process 20,000, 15,000 and 10,000 tonnes respectively. A recent assessment by SITA Environmental Solutions quoted in WME magazine (http://www.wme.com.au/magazine/) found that a “dirty MRF – a large centralised facility to separate C&I for recycling using heavy machinery and mining technology – was still around $70-80 per tonne short of viability” with the depressed commodity prices available today. This is in spite of a $60/tonne disposal levy in NSW. Changes to commodity prices may assist viability but the inherent market volatility will still make investment in costly infrastructure problematic. However, the opportunity costs of landfill need to be incorporated and this could see opportunistic recovery for high volume, high carbon (cardboard and timber) or high value (metals) become viable as add on to existing Transfer Stations. Brisbane City Council recently studied the feasibility of shredding mixed waste and removing metals. The main value that emerged was denser waste for transport and landfilling compaction but the low airspace value in Queensland rendered the project unviable in a strict financial sense.


32

http://www.wme.com.au/magazine/

Waste Management Project: Integrated Dirty MRF

One of the integrated dirty MRF’s is the facility located at the old Noyelles –Godault Metal Europe zinc processing.

Location: Agora, France


The SITA Agora Precinct includes:

• A recycling center for processing 50,000 tonnes per year of non-hazardous industrial waste;

• A unit for dismantling electronic equipment that has reached the end of its useful life;

• A wood, plastic, and tire recovery platform: crushing of 10,000 metric tons of wood and woody products, recycling of 20,000 metric tons of tires, crushing of 35,000 metric tons of plastic;

• A composting facility: annual tonnage demand of 130,000 metric tons of sludge and food product residues from industrial production lines.

Waste Management Project: Dirty MRF’s with Waste to Energy

There are currently several operational dirty MRFs in England. These are often associated with waste to energy or RDF facilities for the disposal of the residual stream.

• In 2008, Bywaters opened a 7 million MRF in East London that can process 250,000 tonnes per year of dry recyclables, most of which comes from businesses.

• Greenstar opened a 300,000-tonne capacity MRF in Aldridge near Walsall, which targets commercial customers in 2008.

• Weir Waste Services operates a Commercial Waste MRF in the West Midlands of the UK. The materials recycled include cardboard, timber waste, green waste, ferrous and non ferrous metals, rigid and soft plastics including drinks bottles, glass bottles and mixed papers. Once segregated, the majority of the materials are baled and distributed for onward processing at the appropriate processing plants.


33

• Premier Waste Management's £3 million commercial and industrial MRF has

a 100,000 tonnes per annum capacity and the company plans to increase this. The MRF uses a combination of picking stations, screens, magnets and separators to extract cardboard, paper, plastics, wood and metal from the waste.

Location: United Kingdom


Dirty MRFs have had limited success in the UK, largely due to poor levels of income from recyclate and the volatility of the recycling market. Having said that, the plants themselves operate effectively. They have suffered due to early pricing being below the required thresholds for return on capital. This problem is being resolved with new contracts.


34

Landfill / Disposal

In keeping with the scope of the work, no attempt will be made to examine the technical aspects of incineration or waste to energy. However, it should be noted that modern thermal plants have improved enormously and now have very little identified environmental impact from their emissions. That said, the very low energy costs of coal currently mitigate any widespread take-up of waste to energy plants. The implementation of an emissions trading scheme may fundamentally alter that situation.

“Environment Agency estimates that during the Millennial celebrations in London the emissions from one 15 minute, 35 ton firework display equalled 120 years of dioxin emissions from the SELCHP waste incinerator.” (APSWG briefing on Energy from Waste; UK Environment Agency 2000)

However, the issue of required volumes over the 25-35 year life of one of these facilities’ still concerns those looking to a more sustainable society. The most common waste to energy plants are installed in specific situations rather than for mixed waste. The absence of requirement for widespread urban heating in Lake Macquarie reduces the ability to maximise thermal efficiencies. However, if LMCC identified a specific industrial need or synergy, the equation can quickly change. Landfill remains the likely disposal option of choice for LMCC. It is recognised that landfill remains necessary as a final disposal point, irrespective of the treatment technologies chosen. However, some thermal plants may only require minimal volumes and have a largely inert, though toxic, residual. A far more likely scenario is that there will be landfilling of some residual waste that will include a smaller proportion of organic waste than it does now. Most landfills are moving away from the old “dry tomb” model that endeavored to mummify the waste by denying access to moisture. While this minimised odour, leachate and gas generation, it means that the waste pile requires expensive active management for many decades after it has ceased receiving wastes. The gas production curve is also far flatter with longer and uneconomic “tails” that increase methane loss.


35

Waste Management Project: Semi-Aerobic landfill (Fukuoka method)

This technology uses the convection circulation from organic decay to maintain airflow through the waste pile. This maintains a largely aerobic atmosphere within the waste pile, reducing greenhouse gases, odour and leachate toxicity.

Landfill

Anaerobic Methane Fermentation

CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4

Leachate

Landfill

O2 O2

O2

Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate

Aerobic Microbial Degradation

Air

Leachate

Perforated Leachate Collection Pipe

CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2

CO2

Gas Venting Pipe Rain

Pipe End Always Open to Air

Leachate adjustment pond ↓ Treatment Facility

O2

Fig.2 Anaerobic Landfill structure (Conventional type) Fig.3 Semi-Aerobic Landfill structure (Fukuoka Method) Tafaigata landfill before 2003 Tafaigata landfill from 2003 onwards

Rain

��What is the Fukuoka Method ? CO2 CO2 CO2

Condition Rubbish dumped on the ground or in a hole stagnates with leachate in an anaerobic condition. Characteristics 1. Emits an offensive odor and high nutrient

leachate. 2. Aggravates Global Warming through the generation of Methane gas (CH4 ) 3. CH4 Gas has a 21 times stronger effect than

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 4. Long term decomposition is required under

anaerobic conditions before land can be reused. 5. Odorous and unsafe waste pile discourages

constraint tipping area

Function Leachate collection and gas venting pipes are set up, which provide fresh air automatically into the rubbish layer using convection effect of heat generated by fermentation in the rubbish. Characteristics 1. Immediate removal of leachate and flow of air makes

landfill in aerobic condition. and that makes leachate cleaner and less smell than conventional landfill.

2. Generation of Methane gas (CH4) is low and thus

effective for prevention of Global Warming and reduction of fire risk.

3. Fast stabilization and easy maintenance 4. Cost effective using local materials such as bamboo,

waste tyres, waste drums for pipes ( see Pic.2,3)

Local materials can be used for leachate collection pipes such as bamboo, waste tyres, etc .

Pic .3 using bamboo / China Pic .4 using waste tyres / Mexico Pic .5 Nakata landfill / Japan

Fukuoka Method is the standard method of landfill in Japan


36

Location: various (Fukuoka, Japan; Tafaigata, Samoa; etc)


The Fukuoka method represents minimal impact landfilling. Through the in situ composting of the organics, the negative impacts are minimised. While it is not currently part of the design, it is quite feasible to sort the stabilised wastes for recyclables and re-use the infrastructure, disposing of the waste as Class 2 inert waste.

The biggest issue with its adoption would be getting the regulatory agencies to understand its value as this is the opposite of the old “dry tomb” technology. So far, no one has done the whole of life calculations to compare the emissions against a bio-reactor landfill with gas capture and utilisation.

Waste Management Project: Bio-reactor landfill

Bio-reactor landfills are now the state of the art disposal technology and involve controlling the moisture in the waste pile to maximise organic waste decomposition.

Location: Woodlawn, Sydney; Swanbank, Ipswich, Australia


The bio-reactor approach, while difficult to retrofit, is relatively simple in a new facility. The design relies on leachate re-circulation to maintain a moist waste mass. The consequent anaerobic digestion maximises methane gas production which is largely captured by an extensive network of extraction wells for energy generation.

The issues arise in the efficiency of gas collection and the potential for odour. There is an emerging option to use very thick covers of compost to metabolise fugitive emissions.


37



38

Appendix 1 - MCC AWT Review Australia April 2010 Mike Ritchie & Associates ABN: 58 428 736 838 27 Barton Avenue HABERFIELD NSW 2045 Australia Tel: +61 408 663942 Mike Ritchie & Associates (ABN: 58 428 736 838) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

NB: Costings often do not include issues such a third bin costs, enforcement or education requirements which vary depending on the technology employed.


Appendix 1 – page i

NSW AWT Technologies

Arrowbio Description: The ArrowBio technology is a water-based separation method for processing mixed solid waste. Throughput: 90,000tpa at full capacity with two modules. Inputs: Municipal solid waste (MSW). Residence time: Not available. Saleable outputs: 10,000MWh excess energy, enough to power 1,700 homes. It avoids 33,000t CO2/yr when compared with a bioreactor landfill, equivalent to taking 8,000 cars off the road. Based on 90,000tpa throughput, about 10,000tpa organic material for fertiliser is produced. Diversion rate: 70% when fully operational. Capital cost: $50 million. Competitive once landfill costs… The facility will come at minimal extra cost to the local community as the site will sell recovered resources and substantially avoid existing government levies on the landfilling of waste. Footprint: 20,000m2. Reference plants: Tel Aviv, Israel and the Macarthur Resource Recovery Park in Camden, Sydney.


Appendix 1 – page ii

Biomass Solutions Coffs Harbour Description: The autoclave is steam pressurised to process MSW under controlled temperature, time and pressure. This results in a thermo-chemical reaction (steam hydrolysis) that converts the biomass fraction into a short. fibrous material, making it easy to separate from the remaining inorganic material and recyclables. Throughput: Each vessel can process 20,000tpa (50hrs/wk). Inputs: Municipal solid waste. Residence time: 2-3hrs/batch. Saleable outputs: With garden organics and food already removed in the organics collection, the residual is about 50% biomass and 20% recyclables. Biomass is currently being composted and used for rehabilitation, but the proposed future use will be as a renewable fuel. Diversion rate: About 70%. Capital cost: About $10m for 20,000tpa. Compost Turners Operating costs: $100-$125/tonne (incl capital over 20yrs). Footprint: Two vessels, enclosed tipping floor and odour control about 10,000m2. Reference plants: There are other facilities using a similar approach, but Coffs Harbour is the first commercial operation of its type in the world.


Appendix 1 – page iii

Biomass Solutions Coffs Harbour cont. Description: Organic feedstock is size reduced to <100mm and loaded into the composting bays. It is turned once daily for 21 days (5 days/wk). Process temperature is controlled automatically by the injection of under bed aeration and/or the addition of water. Finished product is allowed to cure for a further 28 days prior to sale. Throughput: Each bay will process about 3,750tpa Inputs: Source separated organics, food and/or biosolids. Residence time: 28 days in the bay then 28 maturation (outside building). Saleable outputs: “Grade A” compost and growing media. Diversion rate: 99% of garden organics/ food stream. Capital cost: About $10m for 22,500tpa. Operating costs: $100-125/tonne (incl capital over 20yrs). Footprint: 6 bays + odour control about 5,000m2, plus soil mix yard about 20,000m2. Reference plants: Process used extensively or biosolids composting in the US and a food waste processing facility in Finland.

Construction of CCRRF building completed Dec 2006


Appendix 1 – page iv

Remondis ORRF – Organics Resource Recovery Facility Description: There are two different process lines. One utilises mechanical mixing and in vessel composting to process domestic and commercial source separated organics (garden waste, food waste and biosolids). The other utilises mechanical separation and composting on an aerated static floor in order to render inert the organic fraction of mixed solid waste. Throughput: Source separated organics – 20,000tpa, expansion modules of 5,000tpa available. MSW and C&I – 21,000tpa, expansion modules of 2,500tpa available. Inputs: Domestic and commercial source separated organics, biosolids, residual MSW and C&I. Residence time: 31 days. Saleable outputs: 13,000tpa of high grade composts, 500tpa of steel. Diversion rate: Average of 55% since commencement in 2001. Capital cost: Combined plant capacity of 41,000tpa, approximately $10 million. Competitive once landfill costs… $75/t Footprint: 20,000m2. Reference plants: Port Macquarie ORRF for Port Macquarie Hastings Council, operational since 2001, no downtime or waste rejected during this period.


Appendix 1 – page v

SITA Advanced Waste Treatment (SAWT) SITA Environmental Solutions Description: Mechanical biological treatment with resource recovery. Throughput: Made up of 120,000tpa – 40,000t clean household organics (food and greenwaste) and 80,000t of residual waste. Can scale up this technology to bigger incoming tonnage. Inputs: 120,000tpa MSW, organics and residuals processed separately. Residence time: About 5 weeks. active composting in tunnels followed by several weeks of maturation. Saleable outputs: Up to 15,000tpa high grade compost and 20,000tpa medium grade. Greenhouse gas savings of 120,000 tonnes CO2/year compared to landfill. Diversion rate: Expected 94% diversion from landfill for the organic stream and 68% for the residual stream. Capital cost: $40-$50 million. Competitive once landfill costs… This technology will be considerably cheaper than the landfill alternative as levies continue to rise. Footprint: 50,000m2, including all infrastructure. Reference plants: SITA owns and operates several MBT plants globally, including Crobern in Germany (300,000tpa). It is also constructing the Mindarie AWT.


Appendix 1 – page vi

Global Renewables Eastern Creek – UR3R Description: Australian engineered mechanical/biological treatment. Unit operations include mechanical and hand sorting, energy recovery from the organic-rich fraction through anaerobic digestion, intensive enclosed composting, maturation and refining. Throughput: Feasible: 150,000-250,000+tpa, modules of 50,000tpa. Inputs: Can be configured for all MSW or source separated organics. Residence time: 12 weeks. Saleable outputs: 10% of material as recyclables (metals, glass, paper and plastics), compost 27%. Produces a surplus 10-20kWh of renewable energy for every tonne of MSW, and provides emission reduction units of 0.8t CO2e per tonne of MSW Diversion rate: 70% achieved at Eastern Creek Facility. Capital cost: $110m for 150,000tpa. Competitive once landfill costs… Depending on local issues, $120-160/t. Footprint: 50,000m2 for 200,000tpa. Reference plants: Operating: Eastern Creek, NSW – 175,000tpa. Under Construction: Thornton, Lancashire – 220,000tpa (275,000 incl. green waste) and Leyland, Lancashire –250,000tpa (305,000 incgreen waste).

l.


Appendix 1 – page vii

SITA Bedminster Drum Port Stephens Description: Mechanical and biological treatment. Throughput: 35,000tpa. Inputs: Port Stephens Council household waste (MSW). Residence time: 72 hours in digester then up to four weeks active composting on the aeration floor. Saleable outputs: Compost sold to farmers. Diversion rate: 65%. Capital cost: $40 million Competitive once landfill costs… This plant is competitive with landfill. Footprint: 30,000m2, including infrastructure. Reference plants: Cairns in Australia and several other sites internationally.


Appendix 1 – page viii

Earthpower Anaerobic Digester Description: Anaerobic Digester Throughput: 35,000tpa. Inputs: Food and organic liquid waste Sydney Residence time: 72 hours in digester Saleable outputs: Biogas energy and Digestate fertiliser sludge Diversion rate: 95%.of source separated waste received Capital cost: $40 million Competitive once landfill costs… This plant is competitive with landfill. Footprint: 15,000m2, including infrastructure. Reference plants: Earthpower proprietary information


Appendix 1 – page ix

Woodlawn Alternative Sorting & Processing FacilityWASP (proposed) Description: The proposed AWT facility adjacent to the Woodlawn Bio-reactor will employ dry mechanical separation techniques to process MSW through the following major stages; delivery and screening, separation into primarily inert and organic streams, and the recovery of recyclable materials. Throughput: Modular in nature but designed for an initial throughput of about 120,000tpa. Can be doubled. Inputs: Designed to cope with completely unsorted inputs with quality that could vary considerably. Residence time: Dependent upon the initial organic volumes as a percentage of total inputs. Saleable outputs: Proposed as the next step in resource recovery at the Woodlawn Eco-Precinct, its output will include mine site rehabilitation material (compost), refuse derived fuel (RDF) type material and metals. Diversion rate: Only residual materials that cannot be used as the three main categories of RDF, compost products and metals would end up in the Woodlawn Bioreactor landfill. Capital cost: Not supplied. Competitive once landfill costs… n/s Footprint: Approx 100,000m2. Reference plants: Simila

Other Australian AWT’s

r to a Veolia plant in Alexandria, Egypt.


Appendix 1 – page x

SITA Environmental Solutions Bedminster Drum, Cairns Description: Mechanical and biological treatment. Throughput: 110,000tpa. Inputs: Cairns and regional council household waste and C&I waste. Residence time: 72 hours in digester then up to four weeks. active composting on the aeration floor. Saleable outputs: Compost sold to cane farmers. There has been significant demand for this compost since SITA took over the plant from Diversion rate: Not supplied. Capital cost: Plant was built by another company but it suffered a number of design and operational problems. These have been resolved since SITA took over plant operations. Competitive once landfill costs… This plant is competitive with landfill. Footprint: 30,000m2, including infrastructure. Reference plants: Port Stephens in Australia and several other sites internationally.


Appendix 1 – page xi

AnaeCo Description: The DiCOM System combines a separation process that recovers marketable recyclable materials from MSW and a clean organic fraction. This fraction is treated using an advanced hybrid biological process that seamlessly integrates, within a closed vessel, the natural anaerobic and aerobic bioconversion cycles into a continuous automated system, producing biogas and compost. Throughput: 55,000tpa modules. Inputs: All MSW and some C&I. Residence time: 5 days loading, 14 days processing. Saleable outputs: 8,760MWh energy and 27,000tpa of compost from a 55,000tpa module. Diversion rate: 80-85% (estimated based on first project). Capital cost: Not supplied as currently involved in an ongoing tender. Competitive once landfill costs… Not supplied. Footprint: 2,000m2 for 55,000tpa module. Reference plants: First reference facility has just received engineering certification for first stage pilot operation for Perth’s Western Metropolitan Regional Council. (Source : WME Aug 2008)


Appendix 1 – page xii

SITA Mindarie Conporec Drum Description: Mechanical and biological treatment. Throughput: 100,000tpa. Inputs: Mindarie regional council household waste, Perth. Residence time: 72 hours in digester then up to four weeks. active composting on the aeration floor. Saleable outputs: Compost sold to farmers. Diversion rate: 70%. Capital cost: $80 million Competitive once landfill costs… This plant is subsidised by the gate fee paid by the regional Council. Footprint: 30,000m2, including Mindarie Conporec Drum infrastructure. Reference plants: Conporec Drums sites internationally.


Appendix 1 – page xiii

SITA Biowise Description: Odour controlled composting plant Throughput: 30,000tpa. Inputs: Food, grease trap, green waste Residence time: 4 weeks in biocells plus 8 weeks. active maturation. Saleable outputs: Compost sold to farmers. Diversion rate: 95% of received source separated wastes. Capital cost: $10 million Competitive once landfill costs… This plant is competitive with landfill. Footprint:20,000m2, including infrastructure. Reference plants: Owned and operated by SITA


Appendix 1 – page xiv

Appendix 2 - Waste Management in Developing or Non-anglophone Countries

The report has identified 10 examples of waste management innovations from the developing and non-anglo-speaking countries (identified with red text in the body of the Report). LMCC has asked for further examples to be identified and analysed as follows. In many cases, the specifics of the waste management option has little relevance to the systems and processes of LMCC but often times, under-lying principles can be of use in assisting LMCC to “ think outside of the box” in its analysis.

Waste Management Option : Public incentives Curitiba is a large city of ~2 million. It has long been known for its innovative approach to public transport and urban renewal. The ex-mayor, Jaime Lerner, combined a systems approach with a benign dictatorship which has transformed the city into one of the globe’s most sustainable. At one point, Lerner decided that the City Centre needed to be more pedestrian friendly so he organised work gangs to tear up the streets and transform them into a mall over a weekend to ensure that there could be no opposition. When the city returned to work, their urban centre had gone from car-focused to pedestrian focused. The close urban form of the slums made access for garbage collection impossible and conventional clean-up very expensive. Curitiba instituted two innovative programs. The “Garbage that is not Garbage” initiative involves curbside collection and disposal of recyclable materials that have been sorted by households. The “Garbage Purchase” program, designed specifically for low-income areas, seeks to clean up sites that are difficult for the conventional waste management system to serve by exchanging garbage bags collected by residents for bus tokens, parcels of surplus food, and children’s school notebooks. Another initiative, “All Clean,” temporarily hires retired and unemployed people to clean up specific areas of the city where litter has accumulated. Location: Curitiba, Brazil Impacts and Outcomes: Residents are encouraged to deliver their garbage and recycling to central points outside of the favelas in exchange for fresh produce grown on market gardens allocated to the poor on flood prone land. The farmers get an assured market and the slum dwellers get access to fresh food which reduces health costs. Finally, the city can collect the garbage and recycling at a much lower cost. Reportedly, 70% of the population recycle, a much high proportion compared to the rest of Brazil.



Costs: By utilizing shantytown people to collect trash in exchange for transportation passes and produce. No extra cost was directly incurred for the transport passes because the city pays, to this day, private companies that run the transportation system by kilometers run, not by passengers. The costs of the system are too complex to identify as it involves a complex series of cross-subsidies. For example, the flood prone land for farmers is public land. The purchase of the produce supports the farmers, which has a cost, but it reduces the social welfare costs. Similarly, the provision of public transport passes has no book value but the extra buses required are paid from a different budget and adds to the usability of the public transport by engendering more buses. Applicability: This system is more about clever use of incentives than waste management and the lessons can be applied to many LMCC programs. The principles utilised are:

• Establish incentives that are strongly valued by the potential recipients but are cheap to deliver.

• The incentives should add value to another facet of sustainability. • The cost is compared against the alternative, not the “do nothing” scenario. In other

words, the decision to carry out the initiative is already a given, the issue is how efficiently it can be delivered.

For example, LMCC could encourage self-delivery of e-waste by entering each recycler in a lottery to receive LMCC purchased solar panels. LMCC could reduce the costs of the panels by bulk purchase, add to its goals of sustainability and provide a significant incentive to the e-waste recyclers at a much cheaper price than having to collect e-waste off the kerb or worse still, recover it from a mixed waste stream.

Waste Management Option : Container Deposit System – Kaoki Mange (Send it back) The Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati found that they had a significant problem with broken glass from beer bottles littering their streets and beaches. Most people travel barefoot and children in particular were vulnerable to lacerated feet. The national government passed a law ra deposit on the bottles at the point of purchase which was redeemable on returnof the intact bottle. The deposit was sufficient to motivate the return of the bottles and fund consolidation and recycling. The costs drove beer importers to switch their imports to aluminium cans.

equiring



The deposit system was then extended to cans, plastic bottles, car batteries and the government is examining including plastic bags and vehicles. A recycling facility was funded by donors to manage the collected resources. Location: Tarawa atoll, Kiribati Impacts and Outcomes: The deposit system has had significant outcomes. The dangerous broken glass is almost been eliminated thus reducing health costs and trauma. The deposits are sufficient to fund the administrative costs and the transport subsidies necessary to fund recycling from a remote location. The more lucrative materials such as aluminium cans are used to cross-subsidise the unviable such as car batteries. The access to the refunds has created a source of income for the non-waged who exist on the periphery of the cash economy. These people still require some cash for material goods such as fuel to enable them to subsist as fishers. The recycling now employs approximately 10 people making it a significant employer in the context of Tarawa. Costs: The costs of the system are unquantifiable as the many studies carried out in Australia have shown. In essence, the deposits are insignificant within the purchase price of the goods and that deposit then funds the large majority of the costs of the system. The costs to the retailers in floor space are not of the same significance as those often raised in the Australian debate. Applicability: Container deposit systems can and do work successfully in Australia but are very difficult to establish in a small jurisdiction such as Lake Macquarie where most of the goods are purchase externally. There is fierce resistance from the manufacturers of packaging and the retailers who maintain there are more efficient ways to achieve the same outcomes. Unfortunately, those outcomes still elude us. The principles of the Kiribati example of use revolve around the notion that a policy should not be rejected just because it doesn’t completely solve the problem. For example, a tax on take-away plastic bags in LMCC would not eliminate the problem but it may decrease it sufficiently to be worthwhile.

Waste Management Option: Local remanufacturing : Rubber Recovery In Bamako, Mali, several workshops exist which recover the rubber material from tyres for production of secondary products. Rubber is manually re-worked by hand to make animal traction harness, rubber seat springs, shock-absorber bushings, V-belts for grain mills, sandals, and similar products etc. All products can be manufactured by hand using hand tools. Location: Bamako, Mali Impacts and Outcomes: The tonnages recycled and re-manufactured is small in waste terms. However, the employment and profits generated are significant within their context.



Just as importantly, the provision of vital components for other local enterprises provides a resilience against breakdown and a stronger more robust local economy. Costs: Each of these workshops is run by one owner-craftsman who employs a few labourers and/or apprentices handling 20 waste tyres per week, which equals approximately 2,000 kg of rubber. The workshops show a net profit of US$ 7.84 per ton of waste rubber per week. With a capacity of 2 ton per week, this equals an annual profit of US$ 815, which is retained by the owner. This is a little bit more than the annual minimum wage rate of US$ 750. So, the owner has a total earning of just over twice the minimum wage rate from this business. However, interest payments and the workshop rent still have to be deducted. Therefore, the conclusion is that rubber recovery in Bamako is only a profitable business because extremely low wages are paid to labourers. Applicability: The principle of importance for LMCC is that small scale, low tech, low volumes recycling is often ignored in the race to meet KPI’s based on tonnages to landfill. However, the positive impacts of these specialised operations need to be judged more holistically. For example, turning waste glass into pool filter media or paper into pet litter pellets may not manage all the recyclate collected but opportunities for local re-manufacturing should be explored before locking up all the materials for export to another region. Indeed, better outcomes may be achieved by forgoing the “best” price in favour of a less lucrative but local outcome.

Waste Management Option: Decentralised Composting of municipal waste Since the 1990’s and the rapid economic growth of India, waste volumes have out-stripped the capacity of local government’s management abilities. There is a trend towards smaller, manually operated composting and vermi-compost plants at community level, providing a more robust diversity and appropriate level of technology. Location: various, India Impacts and Outcomes: Such operations are more labour-intensive which delivers a better social outcome than larger more efficient centralised plants which often require foreign investment and or technology. In combination with primary waste collection, composting improves the precarious waste situation in the communities, and residents become less dependent on the poor municipal waste collection service and have local access to the finished products with reduced transport costs ( both to and from a centralised plant). The race to the bottom to produce cheap composts has the consequence of reducing the management of the organic waste which, in turn, increases the likelihood of odours and vermin and a subsequent reluctance of neighbourhoods to allow these facilities to set up nearby.



Costs: Despite the aforementioned advantages and a competitive price, decentralised composting encounters similar marketing problems as centralised composting plants in many urban areas. Compost is still not officially accepted as manure or soil conditioner, and is rarely financially competitive to heavily subsidised chemical fertilisers and traditional cow dung or poultry manure. Thus, the operations largely rely on collection fees to survive. The collection fees often exclude the poor who are often in the greatest need to have rubbish removed from their over-crowded housing. Applicability: The key lesson for LMCC is that markets for recycled materials are not simply price dependent. The usual mistake of waste managers is to see what they can make with their embedded resources, hopefully as cheap as possible. However, a normal business approach would first establish what products at what price and specifications, does the market, or potential market, require, before embarking on a manufacturing process. A number of AWT operators have experienced very poor acceptance for their products and now the industry standard is to usually rely on the gate fee rather than market viability. Some have been known to simply give their poor quality composts away rather than face trying to manufacture to market needs.

Waste Management Option: Unit Based pricing for waste disposal A study in the Philippines used an interesting methodology to assess the consequences of “polluter pays”. These systems are often applied to commercial waste but rarely to domestic waste as it is thought residents will illegally dump in others bins or the public spaces. This trial used purchased bags but provided a rebate for those not putting out the full amount (http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-64255-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html). Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Impacts and Outcomes: The researchers found that households, on average, reduced the total wastes they generated by 90 grams a day while the experiment was underway - a reduction of 6%. The reduction in the quantity of non-recyclable wastes or the wastes that they put out for collection was larger – 210 grams a day or a reduction of 24 %. Based on the results of the experiment, it was calculated that unit pricing – if implemented across the city – would result in a 3,305 ton annual reduction in the amount of waste that Olongapo City would have to dispose of. Although a few households admitted that they had burnt their garbage or disposed of it illegally, such cases were not widespread. Costs: In the short run, only variable costs, which account for 25-30% of total costs, would be avoided with this shift to a unit pricing system.



http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-64255-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Applicability: The use of a rebate is intriguing in that it may minimise the potential for illegal dumping (and the incentive to reduce) due to the “I’ve already paid for it” approach. Maroochy Shire in SE Qld attempted to provide a weight-based rebate for recycling – the more you put out, the more rebate. Unfortunately, issues with the weighing accuracy and mostly, the huge administrative costs in tracking and allocating rebates, made the system unworkable.



Appendix 3 - In-depth Analysis of Selected Options Lake Macquarie City Council advised that they would like further analysis carried out on:

1. Weight or volume based kerbside charges including info on associated contamination; 2. Charity or community-based involvement in resource recovery; 3. Institutional synergies with schools around composting & any examples of resource

recovery programs at schools; 4. Transfer stations - identification and review of different type/management/diversion,

recovery performance etc.; and 5. Cleaner Production in NSW.

These will be based more on potential application to Lake Macquarie than simply examples from elsewhere.

Weight or Volumebased charges and ramifications for contamination Both these systems are seen by some as a way of sending a price signal to waste producers to encourage reduction or shift volumes to recycling or organic waste bins. This is consistent with “user pays” and “polluter pays” principles which guide much Local Government charging regimes. The key concerns with implementing such a system are:

• Social equity between large families and small. • The degree to which the majority of residents actually consider waste charges in their

consumption choices and waste management practices. • The extent to which higher charges drive the less responsible residents to simply

utilise other inappropriate recycling bins to avoid paying the costs. This is particularly an issue given the very small volumes of contamination required to cause significant degradation of recycled resources.

It is somewhat difficult to directly link the two factors of pay-as-you-throw systems with contamination due to the presence of confounding factors. Much depends on other influences such as community engagement programs, public support for such systems and the introduction of a third bin. As mentioned in the main body of the Report, weight-based systems have not proved popular due to the administrative complexity and the legal issues regarding required sensitivities for bin-weighing equipment on collection vehicles. We are unaware of any Local Government who has pursued this option. Pricing for waste reduction appears to require cost increases that would be politically unacceptable. Across many commodities, consumers have shown they respond to major increases in cost but not to small increments.



The recent petrol price increases for example, only elicit strong trends to more fuel efficient cars when the price changes are radical. A recent Melbourne study showed that more moderate changes provide little stimulus for change. “Analysis suggests that the effect of introducing a unit price at the marginal rate during the data period would have been a reduction in the quantity of garbage averaging between 0.3% and 0.7% per year” (http://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/articles/28653-Unit-pricing-of-household-garbage). There is also the issue of bin security. Lockable bins add significantly to bin system costs. Finally, while weight is the standard metric for waste, the issue of concern to LMCC is primarily volume. Weight-based systems disproportionately focus on materials such as concrete and under-value the lightweight materials such as plastic. For these reasons, the volume-based systems are far preferable. The range of bin volumes is now quite wide with 80, 140 and 240 litre containers being the most popular. There is now a very recent addition of a 360 litre recycling bin that is being introduced to Brisbane to avoid weekly recycling collection. It is hoped that this may allow larger families and Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUDs) to accommodate the greater volumes of packaging now being produced domestically. Some Local Governments simply issue a second recycling bin to those who request them to achieve a similar effect. Collection costs are typically between 50 and 70% of total waste costs so any technology or policy that can reduce collection frequency is of great value. Providing an array of different bin volumes with varying volume-related charges is being seen increasingly as simply appropriate customer service. Some Local governments retain the “one size fits all” philosophy in the interests of administrative efficiency and the fact that the “lift cost” of different-volumed bins are very similar. However, those who do usually follow a larger bin standard to ensure that the large waste producers are accommodated while the lesser waste producers use only a portion of their allotted volumes. Public attitude surveys carried out in Brisbane in the 1990’s indicated a strong opinion amongst residents that they had paid for that bin volume and they were determined to utilise it. This is notwithstanding the fact that it had only been two decades since the residents went from a single 100 litre galvanised bin collected weekly to a 240 litre collected weekly and a 240 litre recycling bin collected fortnightly. Thus, the residents of Brisbane consistently would top up their waste bin with garden waste to the point that around 30% of the bin was green organics. Experiences in Australia point towards an integrated approach being the most successful. A combination of initiatives which allowed for variation, provided some financial rewards, and was coupled with a simple alternative behaviour showed most success. All require a strong, on-going and consistent public engagement campaign.



http://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/articles/28653-Unit-pricing-of-household-garbage


The Melbourne-based study by Dr Joe Picken from Hyder Consulting, referenced earlier, goes on to state... “The results indicated that moving from a 240 L to a smaller garbage bin caused diversion to recycling and an overall reduction in waste, while the shift to comingled recycling also increased materials recovery. It is, of course, unsurprising that forcing people to reduce the size of their garbage bin has a greater effect on waste quantities than merely encouraging them to do so. But what are the downsides to this authoritarian approach? Discussions with local government representatives identified none. No municipality reported substantial or ongoing problems with increased complaints, dumping or rejections due to compaction. Government data shows no major increases in recyclables contamination rates at these municipalities. This took some management effort — all respondents said that a significant community information campaign was needed before the change and, in responding to queries, after it. Also, all provided more garbage bin capacity on request to households that needed it. As a result, residents generally accepted and complied with the changes. Measured levels of satisfaction with domestic waste management in Melbourne increased slightly during the five-year review period, even though three-quarters of its residents were obliged to deal with municipality-initiated changes to their bin arrangements. On the other hand, in three Melbourne municipalities the most common garbage bin size is 80 L, and only one of these operates a unit pricing system. None of the three reported any major problems in establishing their systems, and their average garbage per capita in 2004/05 was 17% below the average. This suggests scope for further obligatory changes at other Melbourne local governments, particularly if recycling of additional materials becomes viable” (http://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/articles/28653-Unit-pricing-of-household-garbage). NB: It is recommended that LMCC should consider contacting Dr Joe Picken at Hyder Consulting to access this report in its full detail. The Sunshine Coast Regional Council has taken an explicit policy position to cross-subsidise recycling with waste disposal charges. The idea being to provide a stronger incentive to recycle than a simple cost-based charge (landfill is considerably cheaper in Qld). Similarly with their bin volumes where the 140L and 80L bins are disproportionately cheaper than the 240L waste bins. This approach has provided flexibility for waste producers while still maintaining incentives to sort and recycle. There does not appear to be sufficient incentive to push up contamination. However, anecdotal evidence is that contamination rises during the Christmas holiday period. It is unclear whether this is because waste volumes increase beyond the capacity of the waste bins or the influx of “untrained” and less caring holiday makers. In reality, it is probably a combination of both factors.





The final issue of relevance is the “standard service”. The cost to Council of bin size changes is substantial and is usually accompanied by a significant cost penalty to prevent unnecessary “churn” by residents whose volumes fluctuate with seasons and personal situations. The Sunshine Coast for example charges $70 to change your bin size. This means that getting the standard bin service right is vital as the majority of people will opt for it with little subsequent change. The key feature, assuming a move to a garden or organics 240L collection is included, would be whether a 140L residual bin becomes the standard with an apparent price penalty to increase capacity to 240L or the reverse in a 240L standard with a 140L receiving a substantial price “reward” for choosing the smaller bin. The recent experiences of Penrith Council, has suggested the former due to the extreme contamination they have engendered with their bin volume changes. However, it needs to be remembered that the Penrith Council appears to have placed insufficient emphasis on education and public attitude research as well as having serious implementation glitches. Other Councils have varied bins with very positive results. The decreasing persons per household in urban dwellings plus the demographics of Lake Macquarie suggest that 140L residual bin could be combined with a garden / organics service successfully if the preparation was sufficient and the public informed and supportive. The conclusions and recommendations relevant to LMCC appear to be that a new bin configuration should have the following characteristics:

1. Disposal bin costs to cross-subsidise recycling bins; 2. Sliding scale of charges for choice of bins with larger bins subsidising smaller bins; 3. Price incentive to be sufficient to encourage waste reduction and recycling but not at a

level that will drive contamination; 4. Residual waste volume in the standard bin to be decreased to 140L if organics (garden

and or food) recycling bin introduced; 5. Explore the possibility of providing the new 360L recycling bin for those who request

it ( particularly MUDs and SME’s); 6. If no expansion of bin volume, retain the 240L waste residual bin; and 7. LMCC should conduct a series of public attitude surveys to establish the current

perceptions of the waste service, bin volumes, recycling information, and all other aspects of service delivery. Having established the current situation, further surveys of public attitude to likely changes including willingness to pay for the likely system should be conducted.

Charity or communitybased involvement in resource recovery Many Local Governments act in partnership with charities or the NGO sector to deliver resource recovery programs. Indeed, a number of charities operate their own recovery and second hand businesses almost completely independently of government. St Vincent De Paul, the Endeavour Foundation, Lifeline and others recover used clothing, household goods, books and other materials for resale to help fund their community work.



Some make use of volunteer labour from supporters and others utilise Government labour programs for groups such as the disadvantaged and long term unemployed. Many have retail outlets and a wide network of un-staffed drop-off bins in public places for soliciting second hand goods. Some even will collect at call if the goods offered can provide sufficient profit to fund the collection. This powerful combination of good works, established collection and sales infrastructure, experienced management and not-for-profit financial structure provides an obvious complement to Local Government’s waste services. The outcomes achieved often have much wider triple bottom line outcomes than simply “waste management”. Foodbank organisations, for example, have over-come old health regulations to now collect and distribute excess commercial food to the poor and homeless. While the “waste” outcomes are tiny in terms of tonnes to landfill, the social outcomes are enormous. Hobart has a community-based tip shop operator that focuses on building materials from the C&D stream. Canberra had a mix of NGO’s and commercial licensed operators at the tip face which caused conflict and opted to move to an exclusive model. However, Government procurement requirements, the “silo’s” of government administration, increased management costs and the difficultly Local Government has in quantifying the value of community outcomes have reduced the partnerships with NGO’s in what should be an Australia–wide mutually beneficial relationship. There are a number of other confounding factors which limit the outcomes. The charity sector operates in a fiercely competitive atmosphere. While there has been some market segmentation around key commodities for re-sale and some geographical rationalisation, the reality is that for every happy partnership between Local government and an NGO, there are a number of similar excluded NGO’s knocking on the door for a piece of the action. While this ensures some competitive tension when governments go to tender, it also means that Governments need to be focused on wider social outcomes than the simple cheapest price. As mentioned before, these social outcomes are sometimes very difficult to quantify. Another issue which is not confined to NGO’s but makes some of the normal remedies difficult, is that of managerial competence. Many local NGO’s are driven by a few committed and very competent individuals. As NGO’s often pay lower wages than their commercial counterparts, there is often a limit to the tenure of these special individuals. “Burn-out” is common and can have devastating effects on the smaller NGO’s particularly who often don’t have the financial wherewithal to maintain the depth of leadership to seamlessly carry on when key personnel leave. While this occurs with many small businesses as well, Governments tend to be more ruthless with commercial bodies that fall short of their required service delivery. Charities and NGO’s tend to have well-deserved community support and so “disciplining” them can be more difficult.



Finally, it must be remembered that, like SME’s, just because governments may want to have NGO involvement, there is no guarantee that NGO’s will see it the same way and may simply choose to remain relatively independent of the often dysfunctional and administratively heavy requirements of government. All these issues are surmountable but should be taken into account in the design, tendering and monitoring of any service delivery involving NGO’s. The recently amalgamated Sunshine Coast Council offers an interesting case study as there were three very different approaches used in the original shires.

• Noosa used community groups as resource recovery agents at the Transfer Station and to deliver waste education. The prevailing philosophy was that the LG provided an opportunity for the NGO’s to earn money by providing the facilities and a minimal financial support;

• Maroochy contracted small scale commercial operators to recover resources at the Transfer Stations. This contract was tendered as lowest cost with all the emphasis on gaining viable recyclates rather than on any wider outcomes; and

• Caloundra utilised a number of NGO’s who were placed on a profit share system, a tendered labour cost, tip shop facilities and heavy equipment provided by Council, and support to carry out strong intervention, education and training programs for the disadvantaged.

The experience of these three divergent approaches is that the Caloundra model has delivered the most expensive but comprehensive waste service. There have been significant social outcomes and, in some cases, operating surpluses have been returned to other local not-for-profits to further cement the community connection or to hold a “sustainability fair” to further reach out with a message of waste minimisation. The successes of the Caloundra system have varied with the different NGO’s and the dependence on key personnel remains a vulnerability. In the past, a once vibrant NGO failed due to personnel changes and the situation was handled more as a commercial situation rather than a partnership. It is recognised that earlier intervention would have been beneficial for all. Council has reviewed the system and now intends to write longer term (5 year) and contracts renewable based on pre-agreed KPI’s. Council also intends to link one larger Transfer Station to smaller satellite stations that only operate on weekends but need staffing to control and minimise the wastes being disposed. It is also thought that the operation of heavy machinery (such as wood mulchers) will be kept separate. The arrangement of meeting base labour costs coupled with shared profit is considered successful as it provides the necessary certainty to the NGO through the fluctuations of commodity prices, yet provides an incentive for both parties (Council and the NGO’s) to seek to increase the volume and types of resource recovery.



The Noosa example has not had the same model and the income to the NGO was almost entirely derived from sales so the community group has suffered and benefitted as commodity resale values have fluctuated. Because they were involved out of a philosophical commitment to waste reduction, they have continued to recover resources that weren’t viable and these are subsidised from the more valuable. This has occasionally placed them in conflict with the major site contractor who is also looking to pick the most lucrative recyclates out as well. This model has been the lowest cost to Council of the three approaches. The Maroochy experience has recovered the least and has no tip shop. The contractor has a tendered rate to operate the Transfer Station which was very low but means that the focus is entirely on materials that can return a reasonable profit. Thus, the marginal and commercially unviable are sent to landfill as there is no incentive to recover. Nor is there much in the way of community education or wider involvement. However, the system is predictable and easily managed and could be improved with the addition of incentives or a better split between base costs and recycling income or wider KPI’s. It is unlikely that this arrangement could ever deliver the wider community involvement or training programs seen in the NGO service deliverers. The current thinking of the Sunshine Coast Council is for:

• A flexible Expression of Interest process rather than fixed scope tendering to better tailor the outcomes to the practical realities of the interested parties as well as the Council;

• Expressions of Interest process to be open to NGO’s and commercial operators but with the tender requiring wide outcomes such as waste education and intervention at Transfer Stations and cognisence taken of other social deliverables such as training opportunities for the disadvantaged;

• Contract to be more of a “partnering” approach with capital provision by the LG and labour by the contractor with shared profits from resource sales;

• Lengthen the contract terms to 5 years with extensions dependent on meeting KPI’s; • KPI’s to be monitored more closely and at lesser intervals with early intervention to

prevent service collapse in the case of NGO’s faltering; • Bundle Transfer Stations to utilise labour flexibility for part time sites; • Encourage web-based resale from the Tip Shops to capture better collectible prices

and widen the potential buyers from the decreasing proportion of residents who self-haul to Transfer Stations;

• Better publicity of the operations and outcomes to build community and Council investment in the system; and

• Flexibility of contracts to allow for trialing other services such as “at call” kerbside large item collections and expansion of resources recovered.


Appendix 3 – page vii

These learnings are directly applicable to Lake Macquarie, particularly regarding possibilities of a Transfer Station come re-sale shop on the eastern side of the Lake for those residents for whom Awaba and Teralba are too distant. The existence of retail outlets already operated by charities should not be ignored as an alternative or additional to tip shops. These facilities are usually well located and could act as drop off points for items such as e-waste as well as resale of household items. They could often operate at a much lower cost to that of Council-owned facilities. The experience from elsewhere indicates that the most appropriate roles relate to outcomes chosen and the skill set of the potential operators. Community groups tend to be better at intervening at the gate house to ensure strong recycling and operating tip shops. They are ethically committed and generally better at handling the public than commercial operators or Council staff. However, they are limited when it comes to the very specific skills needed for some machinery such as loaders, shredders etc. If Lake Macquarie wishes to pursue these possibilities, a market sounding exercise with local NGO’s and national charities likely to wish to participate would allow parties to mutually explore the hurdles to such a partnership. The learnings from the Sunshine Coast are a good place to begin to conversations. It is vital for LMCC to understand that the focus, raison d’etre, and skills of the NGO’s will determine whether their involvement in waste systems is sensible. While the proposals from government may make sense from all public policy perspectives, NGO’s function more intuitively and may simply not wish to grow or include these wider outcomes in their scope. NGO’s run on the goodwill of key personnel and members and supporting public. If those people do not share the same analysis as the LG, it may take quite some time to develop a common position which may involve the LG being the one who changes its analysis and preferred outcomes. Sometimes, it is also a matter of slowly exploring the situation and allowing the NGO to grow its skill base and administrative systems in a partnership and at a pace the NGO can accommodate. This may sit uneasily with a LG who is used to tendering to qualified commercial competitive entities. A conversation with LMCC’s purchasing section to establish how best to “partner” will also be very useful at an early stage.

Institutional synergies with schools around composting & any examples of resource recovery programs at schools Establishing “better practice” in this topic is somewhat meaningless. Working with schools is a valuable and worthwhile undertaking but the fruit will only come after a full partnership is established. Schools have an enormous social agenda and are straining under the load. LMCC would need to establish the curricula linkages, the existing programs and community inter-actions, site constraints and school’s desires.


Appendix 3 – page viii

Most of the successful examples follow the pattern of committed individuals (usually teachers, ground staff or parents) who actions are later augmented by Local Government assistance. The programs are of an educative nature, not a waste management one. Waste is simply the subject used to covey a raft of issues about sustainable and responsible living. Many of the successful programs involve school gardens, which leads to composting and healthy tuck-shop food which leads to waste separation which leads to waste minimisation and recycling in general. In other words, the outcomes extend far beyond “waste” and need to if the schools and their students are to have enthusiasm and the program to be sustainable. The State education department is the first place to see what is in the curricula already and what programs can be augmented by LMCC.

As for synergies with external bodies in the manner of the Eumundi School mentioned earlier, those are serendipitous and each school will have some unique opportunities and constraints.

The Gould League in Victoria (http://www.gould.org.au/html/schools.asp) has established the Australian benchmark for this type of school engagement. Their programs, such as “waste wise schools”, have the support of both the Education Department and Local Governments in places. They have shown that “waste wise schools’ have lower absentee rates, presumably because children feel more a part of a school community and it provides a non-academic and non-sport opportunity for involvement.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Gould League is largely confined to Victoria but would probably be available for consultancy work rather than a permanent role in Lake Macquarie. EnviroCom is a private sector company based in Queensland that has a very high reputation for working with schools in the waste arena and who may also be worth exploring.

It is recommended that, if LMCC is serious about pursuing this worthwhile inter-action with its education institutions, it should consider the following:

1. Contact schools and other educational bodies in the region, including the State

Department and private school state governing bodies, to establish what they are doing and how they perceive you can assist in their work.

2. Engage the Gould League or EnviroCom (or appropriate local organisation with experience) to review that information and to follow up with specific schools (or all schools) to establish the points of best fit between the education system and LMCC within budgetary constraints.

3. Determine how best to finance and engage with specific schools, as a pilot program, or become involved with all schools in the region to assist with getting waste, recycling and sustainability messages embedded in the emerging generations.


Appendix 3 – page ix

http://www.gould.org.au/html/schools.asp

Transfer stations identification and review of different type/management/diversion, recovery performance etc. LMCC is contemplating the construction of a transfer station on the eastern side of the Lake as a customer service to those for whom the Teralba and Awaba facilities are too far to access conveniently. The concept of a “best practice” Transfer Station has some validity and designs are fundamental to safe and easy resource recovery. The difficulty in this particular case is that LMCC will need to work through the specifics of probable uses for the proposed facility. For example, the fundamental issue will be whether the facility is used for “bulking up” the collected kerbside waste for transport to Awaba or some other centralised waste sorting or disposal facility. To establish this will involve a detailed logistical study of costs, truck routes and volumes collected. This will be best done when the Council makes a decision on the future waste treatment options and their location. For example, there could well be a source separated organic stream and a residual stream emerging from the kerbside system which would require a far more complicated layout than a simple two bin system. As well as the role of increasing density, Transfer Stations have often been used as a focal point for public inter-action with the waste system. Drop-off points for various materials such as e-wastes, tyres, household hazardous goods and bulky wastes as well as tip shops to facilitate re-use of household appliances. As mentioned previously, LMCC needs to liaise with the charity sector to establish whether a tip shop front is a sensible option or whether it is better to utilise the existing retail outlets of the charities. In other words, there is a considerable volume of work and data required before any consideration of “best practice” transfer stations is useful. At that point, site and neighbourhood constraints also will emerge.


Appendix 3 – page x

Appendix 4 - Cleaner Production in NSW Mike Ritchie & Associates ABN: 58 428 736 838 27 Barton Avenue HABERFIELD NSW 2045 Australia Tel: +61 408 663942 Taking a holistic approach to material use natural resources are thought of as nutrients that circulate continuously. This involves sustainable manufacturing, use and eventually recycling (as opposed to disposal). Cleaner production is a preventive initiative that aims to minimise waste and GHG emissions while maximising product output. According to NSW DECCW cleaner production goes beyond meeting regulatory obligations and “Cleaner production involves reducing environmental impacts along the entire life cycle of a product/service by conserving resources (raw materials, energy and water), eliminating toxic raw materials and reducing the quantity and toxicity of all emissions and wastes.”1

Cleaner production is also a way of maximising the economic value of resources during their lifetime through reuse, recycling and energy recovery. The Victorian EPA recognises cleaner production as the basis for industry’s approach to waste avoidance2

Elements of cleaner production • documentation of consumption (to better understand material and energy flows);

• using indicators (to identify losses from poor planning, poor education and training, mistakes);

• reusing or recycling 'wastes' rather than sending them to landfill;

• reducing or reusing packaging;

• new low waste processes technologies;

• reducing energy use:

1 NSW DECCW, 2008. Cleaner production and efficient resource use.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/cleanerproduction.htm

2 Vic EPA, 1998. Industrial Waste Strategy, Zeroing in on Waste, Pathways for cleaner production for Victorian Industries. EPA Information Bulletin, publication 609. http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/publications.nsf/d85500a0d7f5f07b4a2565d1002268f3/7afa39d879233ab74a25663900157244/$FILE/609.pdf



http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/cleanerproduction.htm

o turning off equipment when not in use,

o maintaining equipment and checking for wasteful compressed air leaks, and

o improving control and automatisation;

• installing water saving devices and checking for leaks;

• increasing the useful life of auxiliary materials and process liquids; and

• substituting raw and auxiliary materials (e.g. with renewable materials and energy).

Benefits

In addition to the environmental benefits, the implementation of cleaner production programmes can also lead to reduced business operating costs. NSW DECCW has put together a “Self help” guide to assist small to medium enterprises in identifying potential Profits from Cleaner Production3.

Participation in NSW Over 420 organisations4 have participated in the Sustainability Advantage program run by NSW DECCW. The program brings together groups of companies to assist with sharing ideas and finding common solutions to common problems. There are seven Sustainability Advantage modules available with resource efficiency being the most relevant one for LMCC as it deals with waste management and resource efficiency. The resource efficiency module5 is directed towards waste reduction as well as lowering the use of raw materials, energy and water in order to improve a business’ bottom line while also improving environmental performance.

3 DECCW, 2000. Profits from Cleaner Production, A self-help tool for small to medium-sized businesses.

www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/selfhelptool.pdf

For a list of participating organisations visit DECCW, 2010. Active Sustainability Advantage partners: www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/SAPartners.htm

DECCW, 2010. Resource Efficiency, Sustainability Advantage. www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/SustAdvResource3

4 For a list of participating organisations visit DECCW, 2010. Active Sustainability Advantage partners: www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/SAPartners.htm



http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/selfhelptool.pdf

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/VJ6LA7D6/www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/SAPartners.htm

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/VJ6LA7D6/www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/SustAdvResou

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/VJ6LA7D6/www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/SAPartners.htm

Waste and waste related programs Enterprise Project More info

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/pumperdump.pdf http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/08382Pumperdump.pdf

Pumperdump Concrete recycling scheme ideal solution for waste

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/dunnage3f.pdf

Illawarra S & N Enterprise

Recycled timber dunnage a win for shipping industry

Council of Textile and Fashion Industries

Turning textile waste into profit

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/07409Textiles.pdf

City of Lithgow Regional businesses 'all in this together' with emphasis on waste management

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/07407Lithgow.pdf

Fairfield City Council and the Smithfield Wetherill Park Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Industrial estate cleans up over $1.2 million in savings (including avoiding landfilling through reprocessing and product stewardship)

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/fairfclust4f1.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1014SA_SydneyMrkts_cs.pdf

Sydney Markets Ltd Producing a more sustainable market

Pumperdump With funding from the NSW government Industry Partnership Program, Pumperdump have developed and introduced a new technology that separates waste concrete. The concrete separation unit dramatically reduces the amount of waste concrete the construction industry sends to landfill, and stops concrete wastewater from entering stormwater drains. The unit sits under the concrete pump hopper and collects the solid and liquid waste generated during the liquid pour. The waste is subsequently taken off site for recycling, ultimately diverting from landfill 80 tonnes of solid concrete per week and recycling 1,000L of water daily (2008 data). There is scope for extending the use of the Pumperdump technology in more construction sites and therefore additional environmental benefits can be attained.



http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/pumperdump.pdf



http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/08382Pumperdump.pdf















Illawarra S & N Enterprise Illawarra S & N Enterprise collects, reprocesses and resells timber used in shipping bulk cargo—cargo that does not get transported in shipping containers. Called ‘dunnage’, the timber is used to chock, support and distribute the weight of the cargo. Previously to this initiative, the timber was dumped as waste at sea. Besides proving that dunnage recycling is a viable alternative to dumping, in the duration of a year the initiative recycled enough timber to save the cutting of 50 trees and recovered 12 cubic meters of metal straps, cable and wires that would otherwise have been jettisoned overside.

Council of Textile and Fashion Industries Nine companies of various areas of the textiles industry took part in the program reducing energy and water consumption and minimising wastage. By converting waste to products, landfilling of textiles was reduced by 315 tonnes a year. This was achieved by methods such as re-dyeing old stock, cooperation between companies (one company’s waste became another’s raw material), improved manufacturing methods to reduce trim waste and more.

City of Lithgow Two of the biggest companies in Lithgow collaborated with a number of smaller enterprises to identify and implement their cleaner production opportunities and share experiences. This sharing and mentoring (especially from more experienced participants) was a major factor in the program’s success. Energy consumption and resource use were amongst the most popular initiatives along with reducing waste to landfill. In total, the participating companies diverted more than 50 tonnes of waste per year.

Fairfield City Council and the Smithfield Wetherill Park Chamber of Commerce and Industry Fairfield city has the largest industrial area in NSW. The 18 businesses housed in Smithfield Wetherill Park Industrial estate worked together for 18 months on reducing energy use, water consumption, raw material use and sourcing recycling content from waste. Through reprocessing and product stewardship 2,400 m3 of plastic drums were recycled instead of being landfilled as, through the program, local firm JohnsonDiversey discovered that the local recycling centre could reprocess the used drums and resell them to the company. Another company, Rmax, installed a granulating machine to reprocess waste from its plastics manufacturing process to produce lower grade products while melting machine was also installed to capture the remaining dust waste. This effectively eliminated the need for any waste to be sent to landfill while it created a new product line for the company. These, and other initiatives, resulted to 525 tonnes being diverted from landfill.

Sydney Markets Ltd. Sydney Markets have strived to improve their overall sustainability tackling issues such as water and energy use. However their focus was mainly on waste management and increasing recycling. In less than three years they managed to increase their recycling rate to 50% (from 15%).



A Green Point facility was constructed to enable tenants to sort, separate and divert recyclable streams and therefore enable source separation of six streams (organics, cardboard/paper, timber, steel, plastic and polystyrene). The recycling of approximately 6,000 tonnes per year has resulted to disposal costs savings of more than $2.5 million since 2005.

Other case studies Waste reduction and resource re-use/recycling are key elements of cleaner production methods therefore the following projects include elements of waste management without necessarily making it their main focus. Enterprise Project More info

Hawker de Havilland Aircraft manufacturer flying high with cleaner production

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/hawker.pdf

Rheem Australia Water heater company turns up the heat on cleaner production

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/rheem.pdf

Siemens Dematic Cleaner 'business as usual' for supply chain and logistics company

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/siemens.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/focus.pdfFocus Press Green printing reaps dividends

Vinidex Cleaner production a conduit for sustainability

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/vinidex.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/o3wash4f.pdfO3 Wash Ozone company cleans up the laundry http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/johnsondivers4f.pdfJohnsonDiversey Cleaning the way to a sustainable future

Universal Anodisers Cleaner way forward for anodising company

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/univanod4f.pdf

Licotec Liquid Composites: search for a 'better way' boosts efficiency

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/licotec3f.pdf

Thales Diving deed in search of a sustainable future

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/thales4f.pdf

Drury dairy farm Dairy gains for the environment through increased productivity

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/drury.pdf

Hurrell dairy farm Dairy profits from planning and innovation

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/hurrell.pdf

Austool Virtual Manufacturing: big saving opportunities for tooling industry

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/austool4f.pdf

Poultry Industry Major players working together (Energy, Water, Materials and Hatchery waste composting)

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/07408Poultry.pdf

Galvanizers Association of Australia

Galvanizing change across the industry http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/07411Galvaisers.pdf

Cameron's Nursery New facilities lead to water independence

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/08383CameronsNursery.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1011SA_DeBortoli_cs.pdf De Bortoli Wines Toasting sustainable success

MarquisGreener production now a permanent fixture

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1012SA_Marquis_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1013SA_Converga_cs.pdf Converga Maintaining a sustainable record http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1016SA_CarlingfdCrt_cs.pdf Carlingford Court Shopping for sustainable ideas http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1018SA_Rondo_cs.pdf Rondo Sealing unsustainable gaps http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1019SA_Ontera_cs.pdf Ontera Getting sustainability covered

Inghams Enterprises Pty Embracing sustainable change http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1020SA_Inghams_cs.pdf









http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/focus.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/focus.pdf



http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/o3wash4f.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/o3wash4f.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/johnsondivers4f.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/johnsondivers4f.pdf















http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/07411Galvaisers.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/07411Galvaisers.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1011SA_DeBortoli_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1012SA_Marquis_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1013SA_Converga_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1016SA_CarlingfdCrt_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1018SA_Rondo_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1019SA_Ontera_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1020SA_Inghams_cs.pdf

Enterprise Project More info Limited

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1021SA_Austral_cs.pdf Austral Bricks A greener industry brick by brick http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1022SA_GoodmnFldr_cs.pdf Goodman Fielder Sustainable practices on the rise http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/10173SA_Schindler_cs.pdf Schindler Lifts Australia Elevating the status of sustainability

TAFE NSW Northern Sydney Institute (NSI)

Practicing what it teaches http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1024SA_TAFEnthSyd_cs.pdf



http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1020SA_Inghams_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1021SA_Austral_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1022SA_GoodmnFldr_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/10173SA_Schindler_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1024SA_TAFEnthSyd_cs.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/sustainbus/1024SA_TAFEnthSyd_cs.pdf

Date post:	31-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	letram
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times

review of “best practice” waste management alternatives

Documents