Regional Waste Management Strategy · assessment of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) was undertaken. In addition, annualised cost estimates of the capital

Regional Waste Management

Strategy

South West Region

Prepared for the South West Regional Group

July 2015

Project Number TW14035

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page ii


Regional Waste Management Strategy

South West Region

City of Bunbury

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd

8/663 Newcastle St

Leederville WA 6007

Ph: 1300 251 070

www.talisconsultants.com.au

ABN: 85 967 691 321

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Description Date Author Reviewer

0a Internal Review 23/4/15 AU RC

1a Released to Client 29/4/15 AU RC

1b Amended following Client Review 10/7/15 AU RC

1c Amended following Client Review 23/7/15 AU RC

Approval for Release

Name Position File Reference

Ronan Cullen Director TW14035 – Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c

Signature

Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Talis Consultants Pty Ltd and

cannot be used, transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd.

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page iii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Acknowledgement The Bunbury-Wellington Group of Councils, Capes Regional Organisation of Councils, the

Warren Blackwood Group of Councils, collectively titled the South West Group, wish to

consider further regional collaboration on waste management policies and practices to lead

to more efficient and sustainable waste management outcomes.

The South West Group along with the South West Development Commission engaged Talis to

undertake the preparation of the first stage of the Regional Waste Management Strategy.

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page iv



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Executive Summary The Bunbury-Wellington Group of Councils, Capes Regional Organisation of Councils and the

Warren Blackwood Group of Councils, collectively titled the South West Group, wish to

consider further regional collaboration on waste management policies and practices to lead

to more efficient and sustainable waste management outcomes.

A regional approach supports the generation of greater economies of scale and therefore

provides the South West Group with the ability to cater and process larger quantities of

waste. By sourcing waste from a wider geographic area there is the very real potential for

the South West Group to move towards developing a cost effective regional waste

management solution and provide best practice services to residents that may not otherwise

have been possible.

Significant growth has been experienced across the South West Region particularly in the

LGAs along the coastline with a current total population of approximately 170,000. The draft

South West Regional Blueprint (the Blueprint) forecasts for that growth to continue with a

regional population of 500,000 by 2050. This presents both a challenge and opportunities in

relation to waste management systems across the South West.

The Regional Waste Management Strategy identifies and assesses Strategic Options within

the Region to assist the South West Group shift towards a more sustainable consumption

cycle, reducing the environmental footprint of the treatment of residues through best

practice disposal and to consider the long term waste management implications of the

forecasted population in 2050.

The LGAs of the South West Group currently provide and utilise a variety of waste

management infrastructure and services across the Region including:

Community education programs;

Reuse websites;

Refuse, recycling and/or organics kerbside collections;

Bulk verge collections;

Recycling stations and drop-off centres;

Composting facilities;

Waste transfer stations; and

Landfills.

The South West Group continues to rely heavily on landfills as the preferred option for waste

disposal although, there are concerns on the security of long term regional waste disposal

solutions. The continued improvement and implementation of resource recovery options

combined with a regional approach to a long term waste disposal solution will ensure that

the South West Group caters for the current and anticipated population growth within the

Region.

The South West Group currently generates a total of 124,608 tonnes of MSW per annum with

the BWGC accounting for 64,075 tonnes, the CAPEROC 37,334 tonnes and the WBGC 23,199

tonnes. The South West Group accepts and manages 38,977 tonnes of C&I waste and 42,747

tonnes per annum of C&D waste across the waste management infrastructure network.

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page v



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Therefore, the total waste accepted or managed by the LGAs of the South West Region is

206,332 tonnes per annum.

Considering the total waste generated within the South West Region, the South West Group

achieves a recovery rate of 39% through recycling, recovery and stockpiling of material.

However, diversion of MSW ranges from 0% through to 60% for individual LGAs and 0% to 6%

for C&I waste which represents significant opportunity for the LGAs to improve resource

recovery within both waste streams.

In accordance with the Adopted Growth Rates utilised for the purpose of this Regional Waste

Management Strategy, it is anticipated that a total of 286,000 tonnes per annum of waste will

be generated by the South West Group in 2030. Even though further projections to 2050 are

relatively unpredictable, the modelling suggests the South West Group will produce

approximately 448,900 tonnes in that year. However, the Blueprint focuses upon a population

of 500,000 in the year 2050 which would result in approximately 611,000 in that year. This is an

increase of approximately 400,500 tonnes over 35 years.

There has been, and will continue to be, significant transformation in the waste management

industry across WA. The most recent legislative drivers include clear guidance on the

significant increases in the landfill diversion targets by the Waste Authority, increases to the

landfill levy and review of the WARR Act. In addition, Merchant Resource Recovery Plants

(facilities that are funded, developed and operated by private industry) which are

underpinned by Waste Supply Agreements with waste generators and managers, have

shown strong indications that these plants are viable.

It is evident that recent reform in WA has influenced the waste management industry and will

continue into the future. In light if this reform, it is sensible for the South West Group to assess

its current situation and commence the process of developing a long term strategy for the

future which outlines optimum service delivery models for waste management governance,

operations and services.

As part of this Regional Waste Management Strategy a variety of potential Strategic Waste

Management Options (Strategic Options) were identified to assist the South West Group in

progressing towards a more sustainable waste management system. To determine the

feasibility of implementing each of the Strategic Options in the South West Region, an

assessment of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) was undertaken.

In addition, annualised cost estimates of the capital and operations of the various Strategic

Options were prepared. The following Strategic Options were investigated:

Waste Hierarchy Strategic Option

Avoid, Reduce, Reuse

Integrated Waste Education Program

Earth Carers

Influencing Commercial Practices

Regional Education Officer

Reuse Shops

Free Trade Website

Recycle Greenwaste Mulching

Scrap Metal Recycling

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page vi



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Waste Hierarchy Strategic Option

Mattress Recycling

Kerbside Recycling – Weekly vs Fortnightly

C&I Waste Collections

Recycling Station Network

C&D Waste Processing

Clean MRF

Modern Community Recycling & Drop-Off Centres

Recover and Treat

Organics Bin

Dirty MRF

Windrow Aeration

Forced Aeration

Mechanical Aeration

Anaerobic Digestion

Special Waste Processing

Solid Recovered Fuel / Refuse Derived Fuel

Combustion

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Solid Recovered Fuel

Dispose Waste Transfer Station

Regional Landfill

In order to successfully implement any of the Strategic Options, consideration of support

structures and framework necessary to facilitate the Strategic Options are required. These

include:

Government legislation and policy;

Material volumes;

Financial mechanisms;

Markets for end products;

Infrastructure and service requirements;

Community support; and

Regional Approach.

These support structures are often greatly beneficial to the implementation of Strategic

Options, such as Organic Waste Processing, and in many cases are essential to their success.

This is particularly important for large scale resource recovery and alternative waste

treatment (AWT) initiatives such as Mechanical Aeration, Anaerobic Digestion, Combustion,

Gasification and Pyrolysis which depend on the support structures to be viable. However, it

was recognised that currently there is a range of support structures currently missing from

some of the more advanced Strategic Options. The key items currently missing which support

these large scale infrastructural projects that would require significant financial commitments

from the South West Group, include:

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page vii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Lack of Volumes;

Cost of Services;

Markets; and

Infrastructure and Services.

A sustainable waste management system requires initiatives from across all levels of the

Waste Management Hierarchy. Therefore, the Strategic Options presented were not

considered in isolation but as part of an integrated system of Clusters, which group

complimentary Strategic Options. The following proposed Clusters cover the various levels of

the Waste Management Hierarchy and have the potential to achieve a range of landfill

diversion rates at varying costs:

Cluster 1: Clean Streams Recycling;

Cluster 2: Biological AWT; and

Cluster 3: Thermal AWT.

The key ethos behind Cluster 1 is the source separation of as much of the clean materials

from the various waste streams as possible to maximise the proportion of landfill diversion for

the various separated materials. In particular, the continuation and expansion of organics

processing currently being undertaken by LGAs within the South West, such as windrow and

forced aeration, to produce quality composts. Cluster 1 may achieve a landfill diversion rate

between 20% and 50% of the targeted waste streams.

Cluster 2 utilises waste processing via a Biological AWT system. The feedstock for the AWT

would be organic waste that may potentially be sourced from the third kerbside bin (organic

waste) or recovered from the refuse streams. This material would then be processed at an

aerobic or anaerobic AWT facility. Cluster 2 could divert approximately 75% of the targeted

waste streams from landfill.

Cluster 3 utilises a thermal Energy-from-Waste system as the main downstream process. This

Cluster is not reliant on clean streams of source separated materials. However, this Cluster

compliments Cluster 1 and utilises the residue material to generate electricity, heat or steam.

This is because a thermal AWT can accept feedstock’s from all the key mixed waste streams.

Even the lowest performing version of this cluster can deliver a landfill diversion rate of over

80%, with high performing systems capable of diverting over 95% of waste from landfill.

In order to further understand Waste-to-Energy technologies, a summary of the technology

providers within WA, Australia and internationally were identified. In addition, the following

relevant international Waste-to-Energy facilities were identified to provide information

regarding relevant facilities:

Fernbrook Bio Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility (UK);

Entech Gasification Plant (Poland);

Martin Grate Combustion Facility (Japan); and

EMRC Pyrolysis (Hazelmere, WA).

The establishment of a Waste-to-Energy facility in the South West Region would assist the

South West Group in:

Diverting waste from landfill thereby increasing the useful life of existing landfills;

Meeting the waste diversion targets adopted by the Waste Authority;

Reducing the environmental impacts of landfilling;

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page viii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Increasing the amount of resources recovered from waste; and

Generating renewable energy.

However, there are particular support structures for a Waste-to-Energy facility which are

currently lacking within the South West region including waste quantities, costs compared to

landfilling, markets for energy and connection to the grid. These challenges must be

overcome in order to develop a sustainable Waste-to-Energy facility in the South West.

There is a range of Waste-to-Energy technologies however, Talis has broadly assessed the

following relevant technologies against the support structures to determine the most suitable

technology for further consideration by the South West Group:

Anaerobic Digestion (AD);

Combustion; and

Gasification / Pyrolysis.

Although gasification is likely to be the most suitable technology for the South West Region,

there remain a number of challenges (costs, tonnages, markets) to the traditional delivery of

Waste-to-Energy facilities in the South West. However, Talis recognises that a Waste-to-Energy

opportunity exists with the Worsley Alumina bauxite mine and refinery, through the direct sale

of heat and/or electricity.

Worsley Alumina has considered the operation of a Waste-to-Energy facility located at its site

near Collie, to assist in the powering of the refinery. It is anticipated that if the project were

feasible, the South West Group would enter into a Waste Supply Agreement with the

developer of the Waste-to-Energy facility. The developer may be Worsley Alumina or a

specific Waste-to-Energy provider.

Discussions with Worsley Alumina are ongoing with the aim to develop an agreement to

investigate the feasibility of such an undertaking in partnership with Worsley Alumina.

To provide some guidance to the South West Group in relation to the key tasks required to

assist in the delivery of a Waste-to-Energy facility, the following preferred tasks have been

broken down into two distinct phases, with the first further concentrating on the opportunity

with Worsley Alumina. The second phase would be an alternative direction if the Worsley

Alumina opportunities do not come to fruition.

Based on where discussion have progressed to at this stage, Talis recommends that a

workshop be organised with Worsley Alumina to discuss the findings of the Regional Waste

Management Strategy and also the scope of the Feasibility Assessment moving forward.

To further pursue the Waste-to-Energy opportunities at Worsley Alumina the following tasks

should be undertaken:

Feasibility Assessment focussing on both utilising the current Multi-Fuel Combustion

Furnace and a purpose built Waste-to-Energy facility at the site. The Feasibility

Assessment should include, but not be limited to:

o Technical aspects of the project:

- Design and engineering requirements;

- Operational factors;

- Supporting off-site infrastructure;

o Environmental performance;

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page ix



South West Region

City of Bunbury

o Approval path and likelihood;

o Financial aspects including capital and operational cost profiles;

o Funding opportunities;

o Commercial and Contractual models; and

o Governance Model for the LGAs.

SRF is a waste derived fossil fuel replacement and may be a more suitable fuel source for the

Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace than straight MSW or C&I waste. In particular, the use of the

higher calorific value SRF could be considered by the South West Group to assist in achieving

the potentially stringent environmental conditions imposed by the EPA and DER if the Multi-

Fuel Combustion Furnace at the Worsley Alumina site is utilised.

In the interim, the South West Group could also explore other opportunities of a similar nature

including other major mining, processing and heavy industry organisations within the South

West Region that have a high energy, heat or steam demands and may require alternative

fuels, such as SRF or RDF.

If there is a lack of appetite from Worsley Alumina or other heavy industry facilities and if

significant challenges arise from the Feasibility Assessment, the South West Group should

further pursue Waste-to-Energy through the following means:

Undertake a Site Selection Study to determine a preferred location for a Waste-to-

Energy facility within the South West Region with a key focus on other high energy

consumers and grid connection locations;

Establish formal Regional Councils or Regional Subsidiaries for the management and

ownership of waste;

Prepare Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between LGAs and/or Regional

Councils for the development of a Waste-to-Energy facility;

Preparation of Public Tender Documentation for long term contracts for the

acceptance of South West waste at a Waste-to-Energy facility.

Access to best practice long term waste disposal services is a key principle that underpins

any successful Resource Recovery strategy. If a Waste-to-Energy facility is established, there is

typically always a residue even from the most advanced technologies, in addition to annual

maintenance shutdowns when waste cannot be processed. Therefore, implementing a

strong waste disposal strategy is a key element in an advanced integrated waste

management system.

Currently, the predominant management option for the majority of waste generated within

the South West is disposal, with most LGAs operating a local landfill. Enforcement of the Best

Practice Landfill Guidelines presents significant financial challenges to the viability of these

facilities. Therefore, Talis recognises the potential for a Regional Landfill facility, engineered

and operated to best practice standards to provide long term security to the LGAs in the

region.

To determine the most suitable approach for the South West Group regarding the

development of landfills within the Region, a financial assessment of the aspects of

establishing a Local or Regional Landfill was undertaken. It was identified that for a LGA to

develop a best practice landfill by itself catering for 15,000 tonnes per annum, it will cost

approximately $150per tonne of waste, considering both capital and operational costs. The

total cost per tonne to develop, own and manage a Regional Landfill by all within the South

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page x



South West Region

City of Bunbury

West Group would cost $28 per tonne of waste. The difference between a Local Landfill and

Regional Landfill cost is therefore $122 per tonne. The significant savings generated within the

Regional Landfill model arise from the economies of scale that are produced when the

capital and operational costs are spilt amongst a group of LGAs. In particular, the savings

achieved via the split of the operational costs are far greater than the capital costs across

the life of the landfill.

To identify the most preferred area for the development of a Regional Landfill in the South

West Region, Talis utilised two approaches to determine a suitable location to concentrate

further site investigation works:

1. Method 1 – Equidistance Model; and

2. Method 2 – Hypothetical Regional Site Model.

The Equidistance Model demonstrated that a Regional Landfill, located so that each LGA

within the South West travels the same total distance per annum, cannot exist. This occurs

because there will always be a situation where a participant will be required to travel further

than another participant due to the variances with the volume of waste that the LGAs

generate and their individual location.

Therefore, Talis investigated a variety of hypothetical landfill locations to determine a

preferred area for a regional facility utilising the Hypothetical Regional Site Model. The model

determined the distance to each of the five Hypothetical Locations from each population

node. The total annual distance travelled to and from each Location was calculated based

on the number of trips required to transport the annual quantity of waste produced by each

LGA. The Model identified Location 2 (inland from Capel) as the most suitable location for a

regional landfill based on the distances travelled by each LGA to the facility. Location 2 was

chosen because of its proximity to the major waste generating areas within the South West

and its central location to the participating LGAs.

The Equidistance and Hypothetical Regional Site Models showed that the South West Group

covers a large geographic area and as such is limited by the tyranny of distance. In order to

overcome this, with regards to waste management, the South West Group should consider

the development of a network of Local, Sub-Regional and Regional infrastructure and

services that combine to form a Regional Waste Management System that is efficient, cost

effective and achieves environmental desires.

Local Strategic Options that involve the development of waste management infrastructure

include the implementation of Reuse Shops, Recycling Stations and Community Recycling &

Drop-Off Centres and WTSs in the larger areas. Local waste management services include:

Greenwaste Mulching;

Scrap Metal Recycling;

Kerbside Refuse and Recycling;

C&I Waste Collections;

C&D Waste Processing; and

Organics Bin.

The infrastructure that could form the Sub-Regional waste management network includes

Mattress Recycling, Forced Aeration Organic Processing (MAF) and WTSs. These Sub-Regional

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xi



South West Region

City of Bunbury

facilities accept material from the Local initiatives for processing or in terms of the WTS,

consolidate material to feed Regional initiatives.

The Regional Strategic Options that focus on the downstream treatment or disposal of large

volumes of waste include Dirty MRF, Special Waste Processing, Thermal Waste-to-Energy and

Regional Landfill.

The Strategic Options which could be implemented at a Regional level include:

Integrated Waste Education Program;

Earth Carers;

Influencing Commercial Practices;

Regional Education Officer; and

Free Trade Website.

The Regional Waste Management System requires further consideration and investigations to

determine which of the Strategic Options is feasible and which apply to each of the LGAs.

This will ensure that the network of waste management infrastructure and services is formed

to create a successful Regional Waste Management System.

To assist in the implementation of Strategic Options, the South West Group may wish to

investigate funding opportunities from State and Federal sources.

Based on works undertaken as part of this study and the associated findings, Talis

recommends the following:

1. The South West Group accepts the Regional Waste Management Strategy.

2. Undertake a detailed assessment of the Strategic Options contained within

Clusters 1 and 3 to assess their technical and financial viability.

3. Organised a workshop with Worsley Alumina to discuss the findings of the

Regional Waste Management Strategy and also the scope of the Feasibility

Assessment moving forward.

4. Undertake a Feasibility Assessment of the Waste-to-Energy Opportunities at

Worsley Alumina focussing on both utilising the current Multi-Fuel Combustion

Furnace and a purpose built Waste-to-Energy facility. The Feasibility Assessment

should include:

Technical aspects of the project:

o Design and engineering requirements;

o Operational factors;

o Supporting off-site infrastructure;

Environmental performance;

Approval path and likelihood;

Financial aspects including capital and operational cost profiles;

Funding opportunities;

Commercial and Contractual models; and

Governance Model for the LGAs.

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

5. Following discussion with Worsley Alumina, it is recommended that the South West

Group explore other opportunities of a similar nature including other major heavy

industrial organisations within the South West Region that may require alternative

fuels for either heat, steam or electricity production.

6. If there is a lack of appetite from Worsley Alumina or other heavy industrial

organisations, the South West Group should further pursue Waste-to-Energy

through the following means:

Undertake a Site Selection Study to determine a preferred location for a

Waste-to-Energy facility within the South West Region with a key focus on

other high energy consumers and grid connection locations;

Establish formal Regional Councils or Regional Subsidiaries for the

management and ownership of waste;

Prepare Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between LGAs and/or

Regional Councils for the development of a Waste-to-Energy facility;



7. Further progress the Waste Disposal Strategy concept of a Regional Landfill by

undertaking the following:

Site Selection Study focussing on the Optimum Location identified within the

Regional Waste Management Strategy;

Undertake a Technical and Financial feasibility assessment of the Preferred

Sites.

8. If a Preferred Site is deemed feasible, further progress the establishment of a

Regional Landfill at the site.

9. Based on the outcomes of Recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5, undertake a planning

exercise for the Local, Sub-Regional and Regional waste management

infrastructure based on the outcomes of:

Optimum Location for a Regional Landfill;

Site Selection Study; and

Feasibility Assessments.

10. The South West Group undertakes a collaborative approach to waste

management services including but not limited to:



Regional Education Officer;

Free Trade Website; and

Regional waste management service contracts.

11. The South West Group considers the development of a formal governance

structure including a Regional Waste Management Working Group for the

procurement and management of waste management related activities within

the South West Region.

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xiii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

12. Apply for funding to support the implementation of Strategic Options and the

Waste Disposal Strategy.

13. The LGAs assess their current waste data gathering and reporting frameworks to

ensure that the sources and generators of waste are recorded.

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xiv



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iii

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

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Scope of the Report .................................................................................................................. 4

2 The South West Region .................................................................................................................. 5

3 Demographics ............................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Recorded Population ............................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Growth Rates .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.3 Population Projections .............................................................................................................. 9

4 Waste Management Hierarchy .................................................................................................. 11

4.1 Waste Management Hierarchy ............................................................................................ 11

4.2 Hierarchy Groupings ............................................................................................................... 11

4.2.1 Avoid, Reduce, Reuse ........................................................................................................ 12

4.2.2 Recycle.................................................................................................................................. 13

4.2.3 Recover and Treat .............................................................................................................. 13

4.2.4 Dispose .................................................................................................................................. 13

5 Current Situation .......................................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Avoid, Reduce, Reuse ............................................................................................................ 15

5.1.1 Community Education ....................................................................................................... 15

5.1.2 Reuse Websites .................................................................................................................... 15

5.2 Recycle ...................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2.1 Kerbside Collections ........................................................................................................... 16

5.2.2 Community Recycling Centres ......................................................................................... 16

5.2.3 Materials Recovery Facility ................................................................................................ 16

5.2.4 Vergeside Collections......................................................................................................... 17

5.2.5 Bulk Materials Processing ................................................................................................... 17

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xv



South West Region

City of Bunbury

5.3 Recovery and Treat ................................................................................................................ 17

5.3.1 Organics Bin (3rd Kerbside MGB) ..................................................................................... 18

5.3.2 Forced Aeration Composting ........................................................................................... 18

5.3.3 Windrow Aeration Composting ........................................................................................ 18

5.4 Dispose....................................................................................................................................... 19

5.4.1 Waste Transfer Stations ....................................................................................................... 19

5.4.2 Landfills .................................................................................................................................. 20

5.4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 22

6 Waste Data ................................................................................................................................... 23

6.1 Current Waste Generation .................................................................................................... 23

6.1.1 MSW ....................................................................................................................................... 23

6.1.2 C&I .......................................................................................................................................... 25

6.1.3 C&D ........................................................................................................................................ 26

6.1.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 27

6.2 Recovery Rate ......................................................................................................................... 27

6.2.1 Total Waste ........................................................................................................................... 28

6.2.2 C&D ........................................................................................................................................ 29

6.2.3 Total Recovery Rate ............................................................................................................ 29

6.3 Waste Streams and Composition ......................................................................................... 30

6.3.1 MSW ....................................................................................................................................... 31

6.3.2 C&I .......................................................................................................................................... 35

6.3.3 C&D ........................................................................................................................................ 36

6.3.4 Potential Total Recovery Rate .......................................................................................... 36

6.4 Waste Projections .................................................................................................................... 37

7 Legislative Framework ................................................................................................................ 41

7.1 National ..................................................................................................................................... 41

7.1.1 National Waste Policy ......................................................................................................... 41

7.1.2 Emissions Reduction Fund .................................................................................................. 41

7.2 State ........................................................................................................................................... 42

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xvi



South West Region

City of Bunbury

7.2.1 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act ........................................................... 42

7.2.2 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act ................................................. 42

7.2.3 Western Australian Waste Strategy .................................................................................. 44

7.2.4 Industry Regulation Licencing ........................................................................................... 45

7.3 AWT Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 46

7.3.1 Performance (Environmental and Health) of Waste-to-Energy Technologies ........ 46

7.3.2 Waste Authority – Waste-to-Energy Position Paper (Thermal Treatment) ................ 46

7.3.3 WMAA AWT Technologies Draft Guidelines Document .............................................. 47

8 Waste Management Industry in WA .......................................................................................... 48

8.1 Landfill Diversion Targets ........................................................................................................ 48

8.2 WARR Act Review .................................................................................................................... 48

8.3 Best Practice Landfill Guidelines ........................................................................................... 48

8.4 Merchant Plants ....................................................................................................................... 49

9 Strategic Waste Management Options ..................................................................................... 50

9.1 Avoid, Reduce, Reuse ............................................................................................................ 51

9.1.1 Integrated Waste Education Program ............................................................................ 51

9.1.2 Earth Carers .......................................................................................................................... 52

9.1.3 Influencing Commercial Practices .................................................................................. 53

9.1.4 Regional Education Officer ............................................................................................... 54

9.1.5 Reuse Shops .......................................................................................................................... 55

9.1.6 Free Trade Website ............................................................................................................. 57

9.2 Recycle ...................................................................................................................................... 58

9.2.1 Greenwaste Mulching ........................................................................................................ 58

9.2.2 Scrap Metal Recycling ....................................................................................................... 59

9.2.3 Mattress Recycling .............................................................................................................. 59

9.2.4 Kerbside Recycling .............................................................................................................. 60

9.2.5 C&I Recyclables Collections ............................................................................................. 62

9.2.6 Recycling Station Network ................................................................................................ 62

9.2.7 C&D Waste Processing ....................................................................................................... 64

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xvii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

9.2.8 Clean Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) ........................................................................ 65

9.2.9 Modern Community Recycling and Drop-off Centres ................................................ 66

9.3 Recover and Treat .................................................................................................................. 68

9.3.1 Organics Bin (3rd Kerbside MGB) ...................................................................................... 68

9.3.2 Dirty MRF ................................................................................................................................ 69

9.3.3 Organic Waste Processing ................................................................................................ 70

9.3.4 Special Waste Processing .................................................................................................. 75

9.3.5 Thermal Energy from Waste ............................................................................................... 76

9.3.1 Solid Recovered Fuel .......................................................................................................... 80

9.4 Dispose....................................................................................................................................... 83

9.4.1 Waste Transfer Station ........................................................................................................ 83

9.4.2 Regional Landfill .................................................................................................................. 85

9.5 Strategic Options Summary ................................................................................................... 87

10 Support Structures for Strategic Options ................................................................................ 88

10.1 Government Legislation and Policy ..................................................................................... 88

10.1.1 Landfill Levy ...................................................................................................................... 88

10.1.2 Diversion Targets .............................................................................................................. 88

10.1.3 Emissions Reduction Fund .............................................................................................. 89

10.1.4 South West Regional Blueprint ...................................................................................... 89

10.2 Material Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 89

10.3 Cost of Service ......................................................................................................................... 89

10.4 Markets ...................................................................................................................................... 90

10.5 Infrastructure and Service Requirements ............................................................................ 90

10.6 Community Support ................................................................................................................ 90

10.7 Regional Approach ................................................................................................................ 91

10.8 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 91

11 Clusters – Integrated Solutions ............................................................................................... 94

11.1 Cluster 1 – Clean Streams Recycling ................................................................................... 94

11.3 Cluster 2 – Biological AWT ...................................................................................................... 96

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xviii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

11.4 Cluster 3 – Thermal AWT ......................................................................................................... 98

11.5 Prioritised Cluster(s) ................................................................................................................ 100

11.5.1 Cluster 1: Clean Streams Recycling ........................................................................... 100

11.5.2 Cluster 3: Thermal AWT ................................................................................................. 100

12 Waste-to-Energy Technology Providers & Facilities ........................................................... 102

12.1 Technology Providers ............................................................................................................ 102

12.1.1 WA Market ...................................................................................................................... 102

12.1.2 Australian Market .......................................................................................................... 103

12.1.3 International Market ..................................................................................................... 104

12.2 Waste-to-Energy Facilities .................................................................................................... 106

12.2.1 Fernbrook Bio AD Facility (Kettering, UK) .................................................................. 106

12.2.2 Entech Gasification (Poland) ...................................................................................... 106

12.2.3 Martin Grate Combustion (Japan) ............................................................................ 107

12.2.4 EMRC Pyrolysis (Hazelmere, WA) ................................................................................ 108

13 Waste-to-Energy in the South West ...................................................................................... 109

13.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 109

13.2 Challenges for Waste-to-Energy in the South West ........................................................ 110

13.3 Assessment of Waste-to-Energy Technologies for the South West .............................. 111

13.3.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) ........................................................................................... 111

13.3.2 Combustion .................................................................................................................... 112

13.3.3 Gasification / Pyrolysis .................................................................................................. 112

13.4 Worsley Alumina .................................................................................................................... 113

13.5 Scope of Works Moving Forward ........................................................................................ 115

14 Waste Disposal Strategy ........................................................................................................ 117

14.1 Local vs Regional Landfill ..................................................................................................... 117

14.2 Optimum Location ................................................................................................................ 119

14.2.1 Method 1 - Equidistance Model ................................................................................. 119

14.2.2 Method 2 - Hypothetical Regional Landfill Locations ............................................ 122

14.2.3 Optimum Location for a Regional Facility................................................................ 125

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xix



South West Region

City of Bunbury

14.3 Commercial Landfill Operations ......................................................................................... 126

15 Regional Waste Management System ................................................................................ 128

15.1 Local......................................................................................................................................... 128

15.2 Sub-Regional .......................................................................................................................... 129

15.3 Regional .................................................................................................................................. 129

15.4 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 130

16 Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 131

16.1 Royalties for Regions ............................................................................................................. 131

16.1.1 Country Local Government Fund .............................................................................. 131

16.1.2 Regional Grants Scheme ............................................................................................. 132

16.1.3 Community Chest Fund ............................................................................................... 132

16.2 National Stronger Regions Fund ......................................................................................... 133

16.3 Australian Renewable Energy Agency ............................................................................. 133

16.4 Australian Packaging Covenant ........................................................................................ 134

16.5 Community Grants Scheme ................................................................................................ 134

16.6 Better Bins Program ............................................................................................................... 135

17 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 137

17.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 137

17.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 142

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 144

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 145

References ......................................................................................................................................... 147

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xx



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Tables Table 3-1: LGA populations in 2014

Table 3-2: Growth rates

Table 3-3: Comparison of proposed Population Projections

Table 5-1: Community Recycling Centres in the South West Group

Table 6-1: MSW Generation

Table 6-2: C&I waste accepted at LGA facilities in the South West Region

Table 6-3: C&D waste accepted at LGA facilities in the South West Region

Table 6-4: Total waste accepted at LGA facilities in the South West Region

Table 6-5: MSW and C&I Recovery Rates

Table 6-6: Total Waste Recovery Rate for each LGA

Table 6-7: Summary of 2 and 3 Bin Systems Composition

Table 6-8: Comparison of Current and Potential Recovery Rates

Table 6-9: Summary of Waste generation projections (Adopted Growth Rates)

Table 7-1: Future landfill levy increases

Table 7-2: Potential Landfill Levy Liability

Table 7-3: Waste Strategy Landfill Diversion Targets

Table 7-4: Performance of LGAs against current landfill diversion targets

Table 9-1: Integrated Waste Education Program

Table 9-2: Earth Carers SWOT

Table 9-3: Influencing Commercial Practices SWOT

Table 9-4: Regional Education Officer SWOT

Table 9-5: Community Reuse Shop SWOT

Table 9-6: Free Trade SWOT

Table 9-7: Greenwaste Mulching SWOT

Table 9-8: Scrap Metal Recycling SWOT

Table 9-9: Mattress Recycling SWOT

Table 9-10: Kerbside Recycling SWOT

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xxi



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Table 9-11: C&I Recyclables Collections SWOT

Table 9-12: Recycling Station Network SWOT

Table 9-13: C&D Waste Processing SWOT

Table 9-14: Regional Clean MRF SWOT

Table 9-15: Community Recycling and Drop-off Centre SWOT

Table 9-16: Source Separated Organics SWOT

Table 9-17: Dirty MRF SWOT

Table 9-18: Windrow Aeration SWOT

Table 9-19: Forced Aeration SWOT

Table 9-20: Mechanical Aeration SWOT

Table 9-21: Anaerobic Digestion SWOT

Table 9-22: Biodiesel from Cooking Oil

Table 9-23: Diesel from Waste Plastics SWOT

Table 9-24: Conventional Combustion SWOT

Table 9-25: Gasification SWOT

Table 9-26: Pyrolysis SWOT

Table 9-27: SRF SWOT

Table 9-28: Waste Transfer Station SWOT

Table 9-29: Landfill SWOT

Table 9-30: Summary of Strategic Options

Table 10-1: Evaluation of Strategic Option Support Structure Requirements

Table 14-1: Local Landfill cost breakdown over 20 years

Table 14-2: Regional Landfill cost breakdown over 20 years for each LGA

Table 14-3: Residue Waste Generation per Population Node per annum

Table 14-4: Number of Trips Required for a Population Node

Table 14-5: Total distances Travelled by each LGA to Hypothetical Location Sites

Table 14-6: Total Average Distance travelled by all LGAs Ranked

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xxii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Diagrams Diagram 1-1: Participants of the South West Group

Diagram 1-2: Sustainable Waste Management Cycle

Diagram 3-1: Recorded population for each Local Government Authority from 2003 to 2013

Diagram 3-2: Projected population growth to 2034

Diagram 4-1: Waste Management Hierarchy

Diagram 4-2: Waste Hierarchy Groupings

Diagram 6-1: Waste treatment methods of total waste

Diagram 6-2: Typical Rural Refuse Bin Composition (Two Bin System)

Diagram 6-3: Typical Rural Recycling Bin Composition (Two Bin System)

Diagram 6-4: Refuse Bin Composition (Three Bin System)

Diagram 6-5: Recycling Bin Composition (Three Bin System)

Diagram 6-6: Full Organics Bin Composition (Three Bin System)

Diagram 6-7: Typical C&I Waste Stream Composition

Diagram 6-8: Typical C&D Waste Stream Composition

Diagram 6-9: Waste generation projections utilising the growth from the Blueprint

Diagram 6-10: Comparison of proposed waste projections

Diagram 9-1: Education, reuse, recycling in accordance with waste hierarchy

Diagram 9-2: Concept Waste Transfer Station Layout and Internal Layout (Inset)

Diagram 14-1: Total Average Distance travelled by all LGAs to each Hypothetical Location

Plates Plate 9-1: Reuse Centre at Hopkinson Road Landfill, City of Armadale

Plate 9-2: A Recycling Station Bank

Plate 9-3: Sealed hardstands present a clean and well-organised facility

Plate 9-4: Informative and consistent signage makes disposal simplistic

Plate 9-5: Mobile Aerated Floor composting system

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015 | Page xxiii



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Plate 9-6: Bioplex PG3 Mobile Portagester

Plate 9-7: Phoenix Energy

Plate 9-8: OE Gasification plant in Norway

Figures Figure 1: Theoretical distance radii of each population node

Figure 2: Hypothetical Regional Waste Management Facility Locations and Preferred Zone for

Regional Facility

Appendices Appendix A: Waste Projections

Appendix B: Details of Strategic Options

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015| Page 1



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY

1 Introduction

The Bunbury-Wellington Group of Councils, Capes Regional Organisation of Councils and

the Warren Blackwood Group of Councils, collectively titled the South West Group, consist of

the Local Government Authorities (LGAs) shown in Diagram 1-1. Across the Region, a number

of LGAs have successfully delivered collaborative initiatives on waste management activities.

Arising from these initiatives, the South West Group wish to consider further regional

collaboration on waste management policies and practices.

Diagram 1-1: Participants of the South West Group

It is widely regarded that regional collaboration is an effective solution for efficient waste

management systems. Through collaboration, greater volumes of waste are generated,

presenting economies of scale to support options that may not be feasible at an individual

LGA level. These collective options can provide best practice services and/or support

compliance with Government legislation and policies. These merits are well recognised by

members of the South West Group with a number of members facing similar waste

management challenges.

Significant growth has been experienced across the Region particularly in the LGAs along

the coastline. The draft South West Regional Blueprint (the Blueprint) forecasts for that to

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c July 2015| Page 2



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY continue with a regional population of 500,000 by 2050. This presents both a challenge and

opportunities in relation to regional Strategic Options across the South West.

The Blueprint was developed by the South West Development Commission and Regional

Development Australia (South West) with the objective to provide clear guidance for

development in the South West Region. The Blueprint focuses on four Regional Imperatives

namely Infrastructure, Industry and Business, Community, and People and Place which are

outlined as the themes targeted for successful growth. The drivers, in which this successful

growth is to be measured, are population, productivity and jobs growth all of which

traditionally lead to waste generation.

The Blueprint identifies waste management related issues within the Regional Imperative

related to Infrastructure. The mission specified within the Blueprint for Infrastructure is to

“develop distance neutral infrastructure that is linked to world opportunities and respects our

environment”. The development of waste management infrastructure requires long-term

planning as these types of facilities involve environmental, social and financial aspects. A key

requirement of the Regional Strategy is to ensure that waste management services are put in

place to cater for current and future demand which aligns with the overarching

development objectives of the Region. Therefore, the Blueprint has had a significant

contribution on the development of the Regional Waste Management Strategy which is

evident throughout.

The City of Bunbury, on behalf of the South West Group, commissioned Talis Consultants Pty

Ltd (Talis) to prepare this Regional Waste Management Strategy which identifies and assesses

more sustainable Strategic Options for long term regional waste management solutions.

1.1 Background

Current consumption patterns, particularly within the developed world, are generating high

volumes of materials which have traditionally been regarded as waste and disposed of to

landfill. Landfilling waste results in a loss of materials and energy from the supply chain and

putrescible landfills generate methane, a harmful greenhouse gas. In essence – traditional

waste management practices are wasteful.

With an increasing global population and growing demand for resources, these traditional

waste management practices are not sustainable. A fundamental change in current

consumption patterns and waste management systems, as shown in Diagram 1-2, is required

to ensure that our natural resources are preserved for future generations. As robust as our

earth has been, the current level of consumption and wasteful waste management

practices cannot be sustained. The ‘do nothing’ option is not an option.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently published the first Australian Waste Account which

identified that, between 1997 and 2012 Australia’s population rose by 22% while waste

generation increased by 145%. As identified within the State Waste Strategy (2012), in

Western Australia in 2008/09, a total of almost 5.4 million tonnes of solid waste was disposed

of to landfill. Although the quantity of material diverted from landfill has been increasing for

a number of years, landfilling still accounts for 68% of the total waste generated. As a result,

Western Australia recorded the lowest recovery rate of any mainland State with 32%. This

illustrates that West Australians currently have a high reliance on landfill, a wasteful practice

as outlined previously.


South West Region

City of Bunbury

TW14035 - Regional Waste Mgt Strategy.1c


July 2015 | Page 3

Diagram 1-2: Sustainable Waste Management Cycle

July 2015| Page 4



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 4

1.2 Objectives

Talis has developed this Regional Waste Management Strategy to:

Assess strategic options for long term regional waste management solutions that provide

more sustainable solutions for current and future generations.

Improving current waste management systems is a vital part in the pursuit of a sustainable

society. As shown in Diagram 1-2, traditional waste materials are captured and re-introduced

onto the consumption system. There is still a requirement for some residual wastes to be

disposed of to modern, best practice landfills.

The Regional Waste Management Strategy identifies and assesses a variety of initiatives

within the South West Region to shift towards a more sustainable consumption cycle,

reducing the environmental footprint of the treatment of residues through best practice

disposal of residue and to consider the waste management implications of the forecasted

population in 2050.

1.3 Scope of the Report

To achieve the objective of the project, this report contains the following sections:

Chapter 2 – The South West Region;

Chapter 3 – Demographics;

Chapter 4 - Waste Management Hierarchy;

Chapter 5 – Current Situation;

Chapter 6 – Waste Data;

Chapter 7 – Legislative Framework;

Chapter 8 – Waste Management Industry in WA;

Chapter 9 – Strategic Waste Management Options;

Chapter 10 – Support Structures for Strategic Options;

Chapter 11 – Clusters - Integrated Solutions;

Chapter 12 – Waste-to-Energy Technology Providers and Facilities;

Chapter 13 – Waste-to-Energy in the South West;

Chapter 14 – Waste Disposal Strategy;

Chapter 15 – Regional Waste Management System;

Chapter 16 – Funding Opportunities; and

Chapter 17 – Conclusions and Recommendations.

July 2015| Page 5



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 5

2 The South West Region

The South West Region of WA is located approximately 100 kilometres from Perth. The region

covers 24,000 square kilometres and includes 12 LGAs with a combined population of 160,000

people. Fronting the Indian and Southern oceans, the South West is the most populous and

economically diverse of WA’s regional areas.

The South West Region has been inhabited by the areas traditional owners, the Noongar

people, for 45,000 years who have widespread cultural and heritage links to the region.

The South West Region was settled in the 1800s by Europeans establishing farms and forestry

throughout the region. The first settlement in the South West Region was Augusta with

Busselton established shortly after. Towns were established and grew based on economic

factors surrounding the local industry and the number of settlers. Over the years there has

been significant mineral finds in the region diversifying the economy. The economy of the

South West Region has been further diversified by the increase in the number of tourists

visiting the area.

The South West Region consists of three key Regional Groups comprising of the following

LGAs:

Bunbury Wellington Group of Councils;

o City of Bunbury;

o Shire of Boyup Brook;

o Shire of Capel;

o Shire of Collie;

o Shire of Dardanup;

o Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup;

o Shire of Harvey;

Capes Regional Organisation of Councils:

o City of Busselton;

o Shire of Augusta-Margaret River;

Blackwood River Group of Councils:

o Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes;

o Shire of Manjimup; and

o Shire of Nannup.

The South West Region has five main population nodes made up of the following cities and

towns:

Greater Bunbury;

Busselton;

Collie;

Manjimup; and

Margaret River.

The economy of the South West Region is diverse with the following industries comprising

most of the activity:

Mining and minerals;

Power generation;

July 2015| Page 6



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 6

Agriculture;

Forestry;

Fishing and aquaculture;

Retail and commerce;

Building and Construction;

Viticulture; and

Tourism.

The South West has access to international markets through the Bunbury Port and Fremantle

Port which are accessible via rail or road freight. International and national markets for

waste derived products are generally limited to resources which have a high value to offset

the cost of transportation.

The region also has a number of local markets for waste derived products including, but not

limited to, organics, recycled building products and packaging recyclables.

The South West Region has a number of transportation modes and routes based on road, rail

and sea which underpin the region’s export orientated economy. The region is serviced by a

Port Facility in Bunbury providing world-wide distribution of products from the South West. The

port is serviced by road and rail links to the region including the Claisebrook-Picton (Perth-

Bunbury) South West Main Railway Line. This Railway line transports passengers and

commodities between Perth and Bunbury and passes through several settlements including

Collie.

The region also has a significant road network throughout the region including a number of

highways and other major roads which facilitate the movement of commodities and people.

July 2015| Page 7



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 7

3 Demographics

Demographic data was gathered to obtain an understanding of the current population

trends for each of the LGAs within the South West Group and future growth projections. The

data was sourced from:

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS);

WA Department of Planning - WA Planning Commission (WAPC);

South West Development Commission (SWDC); and

Participating LGAs.

The following section presents the key findings on the current and future demographics

across the South West Region.

3.1 Recorded Population

Population data published by the ABS was utilised to illustrate recorded population of the

South West Group including current population estimates. Diagram 3-1 shows the population

growth of the LGAs from 2003 to 2013.

Diagram 3-1: Recorded population for each Local Government Authority from 2003 to 2013

It can be seen from Diagram 3-1, the total population increased from 132,031 to 169,682 from

2003 to 2013. This resulted in an average annual growth rate of 2.04% across the South West

Region. The population of the various LGAs increased over the last recorded 10 year period

apart from the Shire of Manjimup which slightly decreased. This has culminated in the

following populations across the various LGAs as shown in Table 3-1.

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Po

pu

lati

on

Shire of Nannup

Shire of Manjimup

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes

City of Busselton

Shire of Augusta – Margaret River

Shire of Boyup Brook

City of Bunbury

Shire of Capel

Shire of Collie

Shire of Dardanup

Shire of Donnybrook Balingup

Shire of Harvey

July 2015| Page 8



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 8

Table 3-1: LGA populations in 2014

LGA Population

City of Bunbury 33,092

Shire of Boyup Brook 1,630

Shire of Capel 16,122

Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup 5,624

Shire of Collie 9,882

Shire of Dardanup 13,899

Shire of Harvey 24,230

Shire of Augusta Margaret River 13,524

City of Busselton 35,353

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes 4,650

Shire of Manjimup 9,443

Shire of Nannup 1,357

TOTAL POPULATION 168,806

3.2 Growth Rates

In relation to demographics, a growth rate refers to the change in population on an annual

basis over a set timeframe. Recorded and projected growth rates were sourced from the

ABS, WAPC, SWDC and advice from participating LGAs.

The ABS releases Estimated Resident Populations (ERP) data for regions in which detailed

estimations are made for the populations of each LGA in a specific year and region over a

designated period. Other recorded growth rate data has been compiled from the SWDC

population statistics and publications generated by specific LGAs.

Table 3-2 below represents the recorded, projected and adopted growth rates utilised for

this study.

Table 3-2: Growth rates

LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

AUTHORITY

RECORDED PROJECTED GROWTH RATES ADOPTED GROWTH

RATES

ERP

2001-

2011

Other

Data

2006-

2011

WAPC

2026

Other Data

2012-2022 2023-

2050 2011

-16

2016-

21

2021-

26

City of Bunbury 0.6% 0.5% 1.0%

1.0% 0.5%

Shire of Boyup

Brook -0.2% 0.5% 0.8%

0.5% 0.3%

Shire of Capel 7.7% 6.7% 4.3%

4.0% 2.0%

Shire of

Donnybrook

Balingup

1.4% 3.8% 1.1%

2.0% 1.0%

Shire of Collie 0.3% 0.5% 0.0%

3.0% 1.5%

Shire of Dardanup 3.5% 5.4% 3.7% 5.8% 3.5% 1.8% 4.7% 2.4%

Shire of Harvey 2.5% 2.8% 2.5% 1.98% 1.98% 1.98% 2.3% 1.2%

July 2015| Page 9



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 9

Shire of Augusta –

Margaret River 1.7% 3.9% 2.2%

2.7% 2.7%

City of Busselton 3.2% 4.1% 3.5%

3.1% 3.1%

Shire of

Bridgetown-

Greenbushes

0.7% 0.0% 1.4%

1.5% 0.8%

Shire of Manjimup -0.8% -0.3% 0.5%

0.2% 0.1%

Shire of Nannup 0.7% 0.2% -0.9%

0.6% 0.3%

Regional Average 1.8% 2.3% 1.7%

2.1% 1.3%

* Note: Sources of Other Data include WAPC, SWDC and specialist demographic studies commissioned by the LGAs

From Table 3-2 it can be seen that the population growth rates are varied between each of

the LGAs. This variance in recorded growth resulted in individual growth rates adopted for

each of the LGAs being utilised within the forecasting models. Due to the recent significant

population growth in the South West Region and an anticipated slowing of this growth in the

near future, Talis proposed that two different growth rates for each LGA be adopted in the

forecasts for different periods.

3.3 Population Projections

Utilising the adopted growth rates, Talis generated population projections for each of the

LGAs which are shown in Diagram 3-2.

Diagram 3-2: Projected population growth to 2034

As can be seen in Diagram 3-2, it is forecasted that the population across the South West

Group could rise to 219,965 by 2024 and 376,356 by 2050. This is an increase of 207,550 in 36

years from 2014.

However, the Blueprint focusses on the implications of a regional population of 500,000 by

2050. Therefore, a comparison was made between the projected population generated by

Talis and the proposed population within the Blueprint and presented in Table 3-3.

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Shire of Nannup

Shire of Manjimup


City of Busselton

Shire of Augusta Margaret River

Shire of Harvey

Shire of Dardanup

Shire of Collie

Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup

Shire of Capel


City of Bunbury

Second Period First Period

July 2015| Page 10



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 10

Table 3-3: Comparison of proposed Population Projections

It can be seen from Table 3-3 that the forecasted population generated for the purpose of

this study is approximately 125,000 less than the forecast of 500,000 proposed within the

Blueprint. This difference between the forecasted populations will have a significant impact

on the anticipated waste quantities generated within the South West Region in the future. It is

therefore, important to understand the implications of both forecasts upon the waste

management services within the South West Region. This analysis is further detailed within the

Waste Data section (Section 6).

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

20

38

20

40

20

42

20

44

20

46

20

48

20

50

Po

pu

lati

on

Pro

ject

ion

THE BLUEPRINT

TOTAL POPULATION

July 2015| Page 11



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 11

4 Waste Management Hierarchy

The Strategic Waste Management Options (Strategic Options) identified for assessment as

part of this Regional Waste Management Strategy have been considered in the context of

the Waste Management Hierarchy. The following section describes the Waste Management

Hierarchy and the groupings utilised to classify Strategic Options.

4.1 Waste Management Hierarchy

The Waste Management Hierarchy (Diagram 4-1) is an internationally adopted principle and

concept which lists waste management options in order of preference according to their

sustainability and environmental impacts.

Diagram 4-1: Waste Management Hierarchy

The Waste Management Hierarchy has been adopted within this report as the basis for

classifying and assessing the various Strategic Options. As shown in Diagram 4-1, options

which achieve outcomes higher up the Waste Management Hierarchy are preferred over

those located further down the Hierarchy. Notwithstanding this, Talis has identified and

assessed options from each level of the Waste Management Hierarchy.

4.2 Hierarchy Groupings

The following sections provide a description of the various levels of the Waste Management

Hierarchy. For the purposes of this project, Talis has grouped the levels of the Hierarchy which

are similar and/or complementary which are shown in Diagram 4-2.

July 2015| Page 12



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 12

Diagram 4-2: Waste Hierarchy Groupings

4.2.1 Avoid, Reduce, Reuse

The most preferred practice in the Waste

Management Hierarchy is waste avoidance and is

associated with more sustainable design, production

and consumption practices. Once waste is

generated, the next step in the Hierarchy is to

minimise the quantity as much as possible. Due to

their links with economic growth and consumerism,

waste avoidance and reduction are the most

challenging aspects of waste management.

The Western Australian Waste Strategy (2012) defines reuse as “recovering value from a

discarded resource in its original state without reprocessing or remanufacture”. Reuse can

be achieved by an individual generator (such as reusable shopping bags), or through the

transfer of items or materials from a generator to another user such as through garage sales

or second hand shops.

Local governments can support the ‘avoid, reduce and reuse’ levels of the Hierarchy by

providing education to the community and other waste generators on the benefits, including

both financial and non-financial. Local governments are also able to facilitate reuse by

establishing Reuse Shops at waste management facilities to capture materials which would

otherwise be processed at lower levels of the Waste Management Hierarchy such as

disposal.

July 2015| Page 13



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 13

4.2.2 Recycle

Recycling is defined in the Western Australian Waste

Strategy (2012) as “a set of processes (including

biological) that converts solid waste into useful

materials or products”. Utilising recycled products in

manufacturing has significant environmental benefits

as it reduces the demand for raw materials. In

Western Australia, recycling has been widely

adopted at a household level for packaging

materials (paper, cardboard, glass, plastics and

metals) and household hazardous wastes (oils,

batteries and electronic wastes). There are however, significant opportunities to increase

recycling in the Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and Construction and Demolition (C&D)

sectors including initiatives such as greenwaste mulching and inert waste crushing.

Local governments have a significant role to play in the implementation of recycling

practices including in the collection, sorting and sale of materials, as well as education to

encourage waste generators to utilise recycling systems.

4.2.3 Recover and Treat

Recovery of materials involves the physical,

chemical or biological processing of waste to

generate products or energy. In contrast to

recycling, the products generated from

recovery processes are not necessarily similar to

the original waste materials such as the

compost generated from processing organic

waste. Recovery of waste is commonly

undertaken at an Alternative Waste Treatment

(AWT) facility. A range of technologies are

available which generate products and/or

electricity or heat from a sorted or mixed waste stream.

Treatment involves the processing of waste to alter its form and is commonly used in

reference to reducing the hazardous properties of waste materials. There is a range of

processing available including the bioremediation of contaminated soil.

4.2.4 Dispose

The least preferred level of the Waste Management

Hierarchy is disposal which typically involves the

landfilling of waste. In addition, it can include

incineration without any energy or heat recovery.

While it is inevitable that a small portion of waste will

require disposal, it is located at the bottom of the

Waste Management Hierarchy and should be

treated as a last resort.

As mentioned previously, waste disposal to landfill is

July 2015| Page 14



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 14

the predominant method of managing waste within Western Australia. Potential

environmental impacts such as soil and water pollution and greenhouse gas generation may

be minimised through the construction of best practice landfill facilities. However, landfilling

inevitably results in a loss of materials and energy.

July 2015| Page 15



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 15

5 Current Situation

The LGAs of the South West Group provide a variety of waste management services across

the Region. The following section outlines the waste management activities undertaken by

the LGAs within each of the Waste Management Hierarchy groupings.

5.1 Avoid, Reduce, Reuse

Many of the LGAs within the South West Group accept reusable materials at their respective

waste management facilities frequently referred to as Tip Shops. The items are generally

stored near the front of the site with any more valuable items stored undercover if possible.

These reusable items tend to be available for sale to the community at minimal or no cost. It

is common practice for any items that are not sold within a reasonable timeframe to be

recycled or disposed of to landfill. The Bunbury Harvey Regional Council has a ‘Trash and

Treasure shop’ at its Stanley Road Waste Management Facility which is anticipated to the

largest in the South West Region.

5.1.1 Community Education

All the LGAs provide details of the waste and recycling services available to residents via

their respective websites. As a minimum the information provided includes:

Kerbside collection information;

Location of the waste management facility;

Opening hours; and

Accepted materials.

In addition, some LGAs provide or utilise the following waste management education tools:

Kerbside collection calendars/flyers;

Visits from community groups;

Flyers with information regarding Waste Management Facilities;

Press releases, adverts, posters etc with new projects/grants/issues;

Signage at Waste Management Facilities and collaboration with site operators on

recycling projects; and

Collaboration in a Regional Waste Education Officer program.

5.1.2 Reuse Websites

There are a number of websites utilised within the South West Region to facilitate waste

minimisation and reuse. These include:

Gumtree:

An Australia-wide website for the advertisement of goods, services, accommodation

and employment including sale and exchange of second hand items;

Local social media websites enabling members to advertise, purchase and

exchange goods such as:

o South West Free Stuff;

o Collie buy sell swap & trade;

o Buy and Sell Bunbury;

o Buy and Sell Second Hand Bunbury;

o Busselton Community Buy and Sell Page;

July 2015| Page 16



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 16

o Margaret River Buy, Sell, Swap;

o Nannup buy sell swap or free; and

o Donnybrook WA Buy and Sell.

5.2 Recycle

The majority of LGAs provide at least one of the following recycling services:

Kerbside collections;

Recycling stations; and

Bulk recyclables drop-off.

The materials collected through these systems are sorted or processed and taken off-site for

recycling. The following sections provide greater detail of the recycling services provided

within the South West Group.

5.2.1 Kerbside Collections

All the participating LGAs currently provide a kerbside commingled recyclables collection

service. The service is either provided across the entire LGA or instead selected higher

population dense areas. Typically kerbside commingled recycling is collected in 120L, 240L or

360L MGBs on a fortnightly basis.

5.2.2 Community Recycling Centres

It is typical for LGAs to accept a variety of materials at their waste management facilities

which are consolidated for recycling. Recyclable packaging materials are commonly

dropped off free of charge at waste management facilities across the South West Region.

Loads sorted into glass, cardboard, mixed paper and other recyclables (numbered plastics

and aluminium cans) are consolidated and sent off site for recycling. These facilities are

commonly called Community Recycling Centres. In addition, LGAs also accept other

materials including old chemical drums (through the Drum Muster program), mattresses, e-

waste (TVs and computers etc), scrap metal, white goods, waste motor oil and oil filters, tyres

and gas bottles. Many LGAs also collect mobile phones (through the Mobile Muster program)

and household batteries at their administration offices and/or through local schools.

5.2.3 Materials Recovery Facility

There is currently one materials recovery facility (MRF) located within the South West Region.

The Warren Blackwood Waste MRF is located on Gandy Street in Manjimup and caters for

the Shire’s of Augusta-Margret River, Boyup Brook, Bridgetown-Greenbushes, Donnybrook-

Balingup, Manjimup and Nannup.

Previously, the Perthwaste MRF was located on Giorgi Rd in Picton however, it has now been

relocated to Bibra Lake within the Perth Metropolitan Area.

The MRF processes recyclable materials collected within the South West. The commingled

recyclables are typically sorted into the following material types:

Cardboard;

Mixed Paper;

Newspaper;

Mixed Glass;

July 2015| Page 17



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 17

PET Plastic;

HDPE Plastic;

LDPE Plastic;

PVC;

Polystyrene;

Mixed Plastic;

Steel Cans; and

Aluminium Cans.

The sorted materials are baled and/or stockpiled prior to transportation off site for recycling.

5.2.4 Vergeside Collections

Vergeside collections are a service provided by LGAs that facilitate the collection of bulk

hard and greenwaste from residential premises.

The following LGAs currently provide bulk vergeside collection services:

Bunbury – 2 hard and 2 greenwaste per annum;

Capel - 1 hard and 2 greenwaste per annum;

Dardanup - 1 hard and 1 greenwaste per annum;

Bridgetown – 1 hard waste per annum; and

Manjimup – 1 hard waste per annum.

Vergeside collections of hardwaste (such as furniture, whitegoods, e-waste and mattresses)

and greenwaste, only occurs within five LGAs. It is anticipated that due to access to drop-off

facilities and/or the high cost of offering this service, vergeside collections have typically not

been implemented within the South West Region.

5.2.5 Bulk Materials Processing

Greenwaste brought to waste management facilities within the South West Region is

stockpiled, shredded and/or composted. It is rare for greenwaste to be burnt even though

some licences may still permit this activity. Mulching is typically undertaken by the LGA or a

contractor on a periodic basis. Mulch is either utilised by the LGA or sold/given away to the

community.

Another bulk material that is commonly identified by LGAs as suitable for processing is C&D

waste, such as concrete and bricks. C&D processing is a costly exercise with most

contractors suggesting that a sufficient volume (approximately 10,000m3) needs to be

achieved before processing is a viable option. Once processed, these recycled building

products have a variety of applications including use as road base, drainage aggregate or

fill material.

5.3 Recovery and Treat

The recovery and treatment of waste within the South West Region is becoming more wide

spread as public demand increases, technology improves and efficiencies are recognised.

The following recovery or treatment activities are currently undertaken within the South West

Region:

Organics Bin (3rd Kerbside MGB);

Windrow Aeration; and

July 2015| Page 18



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 18

Forced Aeration Composting.

These are discussed in greater detail below.

5.3.1 Organics Bin (3rd Kerbside MGB)

The implementation of source separated organics is most commonly through the utilisation of

a targeted kerbside collected MGB which accepts greenwaste or food waste or a

combination of the two. The primary objective of source separates organics collection is to

generate clean streams to divert these materials from landfill. This process facilitates a

greater end use for the organics via composting or similar. In addition, removal of the

organics within the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream minimises the generation of leachate

within landfills. Therefore, benefits of introducing a source separated organics system can be

the production of a quality product, minimisation of groundwater contamination from landfill,

increased recovery rate, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and increased landfill life

expectancy.

The City of Bunbury together with the Shires of Harvey, Collie, Capel, Dardanup and

Donnybrook-Balingup have implemented a source separated organics third MGB system

which accepts full organics (greenwaste and food waste). The materials collected are

processed at the Bunbury Wellington Organics Recovery Facility (BWORF) near Dardanup.

The Organics Bin is typically collected weekly with the general waste and recycling bins

collected fortnightly.

5.3.2 Forced Aeration Composting

As previously outlined, the BWGC currently operate an organics processing facility on Banksia

Road in Crooked Brook near Dardanup. The BWORF accepts all the source separated

organic waste from the third MGB system implemented by the City of Bunbury and the Shires

of Harvey, Collie, Capel, Dardanup and Donnybrook-Balingup. In addition, bulk clean

greenwaste is accepted from verge collections and drop-off sources. Approximately 1,000

tonnes per month of organic waste is currently being received at the BWORF.

The BWORF processes the organic waste in static piles with a forced aeration (C-Wise mobile

aeration floor) system followed by final processing in open windrows to generate a high

quality compost product. The compost has been tested and meets Australian Standard

AS4454. The compost is sold and funds raised are reinvested back into managing and

improving the facility.

5.3.3 Windrow Aeration Composting

Windrow aeration composting is a simple system, through which material is left in windrows

which are turned regularly to increase airflow. The Shire of Manjimup currently undertakes this

process at its Manjimup Recycling and Refuse Centre. The Shire’s contractor accepts

Greenwaste at the site and mulches it via a tub grinder and places it in windrows. The

windrows are turned via excavator approximately four times over a period of weeks in order

to increase airflow and ensure the biodegradation process continues until compost is

produced.

July 2015| Page 19



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 19

5.4 Dispose

Historically, the disposal of waste directly to landfill or via a waste transfer station has been

the preferred option for the LGAs of the South West Group to manage materials regarded as

waste. Currently, the South West Group continue to operate these types of facilities for waste

transfer and/or disposal, however the number of landfills in the South West Region is slowly

declining as capital and operational costs and regulation increases. Several landfills have

been converted into waste transfer stations because of these reasons.

5.4.1 Waste Transfer Stations

Waste transfer stations (WTSs) provide facilities for the local communities nearest them to

drop-off of waste and recyclables. Some LGAs within the South West Group utilise these

facilities to facilitate the consolidation of waste and/or recyclables before being transported

to another destination for further treatment and/or disposal. WTSs provide a disposal location

within close proximity to where the wastes are generated and are commonly jointly

operated as a Community Recycling Centre. The WTS allows for the consolidation of large

volumes of waste material for efficient transportation to regional processing or disposal

facilities that generally accept material for a variety of sources.

It must be noted that these facilities are also referred to as Community Recycling Centres

however, for the purpose of this study, a WTS refers to a purpose built facility which

consolidates large volumes of waste material and utilises bulk waste haulage vehicles to

travel long distances, similar to the City of Mandurah’s Gordon Road facility or waste transfer

stations in the metropolitan area. A community Recycling Centre is a smaller local

community based facility as described within Section 5.2.2.

Due to the significant area that is covered by the South West Group and the number of

smaller, more isolated, communities, there exists a Community Recycling Centre in nearly

every LGA. Table 5-1 shows which LGAs currently have a Community Recycling Centre and

where they are located.

Table 5-1: Community Recycling Centres in the South West Group

Sub-Regional

Group LGA Community Recycling Centre Location

Bunbury Wellington Group of Councils

City of Bunbury Bunbury Waste Depot - McCombe Rd, Davenport


Boyup Brook Transfer Station - Jayes Road, Boyup Brook

Transfer Station - Boyup Brook-Arthur River Road, Boyup Brook

Shire of Capel Capel Waste Transfer Station – Range Road, Capel

Shire of Donnybrook – Balingup

Balingup Waste Transfer Station - South Western Highway, Balingup

Shire of Collie Waste Transfer Station - Coalfields Hwy, Collie East

Shire of Dardanup Dardanup Waste Transfer Station and Recycle Tip Shop, Banksia Road, Dardanup

Shire of Harvey Stanley Road Community Drop-Off Facility

July 2015| Page 20



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 20

Sub-Regional

Group LGA Community Recycling Centre Location

Capes Regional Organisation of Councils


Cowaramup Transfer Station - Cowaramup Bay Road, Cowaramup

Kudardup Transfer Station - Poole Road, Kudardup

Rosa Brook Transfer Station - Bessell Road,

Rosa Brook

Alexandra Bridge Transfer Station - 1252 Brockman Highway, Courtnay

East Augusta Transfer Station - Pericles Street, East Augusta

City of Busselton Waste Transfer Station - Rendezvous Road, Busselton

Warren Blackwood Group of Councils


Bridgetown Transfer Station - Boyup Brook Road, Bridgetown

Greenbushes Transfer Station - Behind Old Roadboard Building, Greenbushes

Shire of Manjimup

Pemberton – Pemberton Northcliffe Road, Pemberton

Northcliffe - Pemberton Northcliffe Road, Northcliffe

Walpole - Plain Rd, Walpole

Shire of Nannup Beggars Road Landfill Community Drop-Off Facility

It can be seen from Table 5-1 that nearly every LGA within the South West Group has a

Community Recycling Centre. It must be noted that these facilities are dedicated

Community Recycling Centres or small waste transfer stations and are not combined with

any landfill operations at the same site.

5.4.2 Landfills

As previously mentioned, the South West Group continues to rely on landfilling for the majority

of waste disposal requirements. It is recognised that landfilling is the least preferred method

for waste disposal in the South West Region however, following resource recovery it is typical

that a small portion of residue waste will always require landfilling.

The following landfill facilities are currently accepting waste for disposal across the South

West Region:

Stanley Road Waste Disposal Facility – Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council;

Richardson Road landfill - Shire of Harvey;

Gibbs Road landfill - Shire of Collie;

Donnybrook Putrescible Landfill Site: Goodwood Road - Shire of Donnybrook-

Balingup;

Vidler Road landfill - City of Busselton;

Davis Road Landfill - Shire of Augusta-Margaret River;

Bridgetown-Boyup Brook Road Landfill - Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes;

Manjimup Recycling and Refuse Centre – Shire of Manjimup;

Windy Harbour – Shire of Manjimup; and

July 2015| Page 21



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 21

Beggars Road Landfill – Shire of Nannup.

Currently, these landfills are not adhering to best practice siting and design standards set out

in the Victorian Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) Best Practice Environmental

Management (BPEM) for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills

Guidelines (Best Practice Landfill Guidelines), and are therefore, becoming progressively

scrutinised by the Department of Environment Regulation (DER).

In addition, several of the landfills are approaching the end of their operational lives due to

the exhaustion of the available void space at the facilities. It is important to understand the

expected landfill life across the South West Group in order to secure long term waste

disposal.

The largest of the Local Government Authority owned landfills is the Stanley Road facility.

Based on current landfill volumes, it is anticipated that the current landfill cells will be full by

the end of 2016.

The Shire of Harvey’s Richardson Road landfill accepts approximately one third of the Shire’s

waste while the remainder is taken to Stanley Road. It is anticipated that the Shire will

continue to landfill at Richardson Road for the next three years, however this may quickly

reduce if the BHRC’s Stanley Road Landfill closes as soon as predicted.

The Shire of Collie currently disposes of its waste at the Gibbs Road landfill. It is anticipated

that the Gibbs Road landfill will be utilised for disposal for the next 20 years, however this is

dependent on approval from the DER for the extension of the existing landfill cells.

The Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup is hoping to expand the landfill at its Donnybrook Waste

Management Facility. This could provide waste disposal services to the Shire for the next 15

years, however this is also relying on approval from the DER. The Shires of Collie and

Donnybrook-Balingup propose landfill expansions that include clay lined landfill cells.

The City of Busselton is in a similar position to the Shires of Collie and Donnybrook-Balingup

where the Vidler Road Landfill has limited lifespan. The City of Busselton is currently

progressing approvals for a new lined cell which will extend its operational life to

approximately 15 years however, the site is not ideal for long term waste disposal due to its

distance from Busselton. In addition, Vidler Road does not conform with the EPA separation

distances for landfills from houses, referred to as sensitive receptors. Currently, there are two

houses within 500m of the landfill with further development planned.

The Davis Road facility located within the Shire of Augusta-Margret River recently obtained

conditional approved to construct clay lined cells that will provide short term (5 years) waste

disposal services for the Shire of Augusta-Margret River.

The Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes is in the process of developing approval

documentation for an expansion of its Bridgetown Waste Disposal Site. The site is located in a

clay deposit, which can be suitable for landfilling purposes if the clay can demonstrate

appropriate permeability characteristics. Therefore, the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes is

seeking approval for a clay lined landfill cell. This expansion will provide the Shire of

Bridgetown-Greenbushes with several more years of landfill life.

The Shire of Manjimup bought additional land adjacent to the Manjimup Recycling and

Refuse Centre in 2011 with the view to extending the footprint and lifespan of its landfill. The

July 2015| Page 22



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 22

present tipping area without the new extension area has an estimated life of approximately

20 years. In addition, the Shire of Manjimup operates a registered landfill at Windy Harbour

which accepts small quantities of waste materials for disposal.

The Beggars Road Landfill owned by the Shire of Nannup is a registered landfill which caters

for the Shire’s requirements and has an anticipated landfill life of between 15-20 years.

5.4.3 Summary

As outlined within this section, the South West Group continues to rely heavily on landfills as

the preferred option for waste disposal with many LGAs still operating waste disposal facilities.

However, the South West Group is yet to secure a long term regional waste disposal solution

which is a significant concern considering the anticipated population growth within the

Region.

A Regional Landfill Viability Study was recently undertaken for the BWGC on a site owned by,

and within, the Shire of Dardanup. A portion of the site was previously used as a landfill and

was considered appropriate for the siting of a regional landfill. However, the site was recently

sold to a private entity and has therefore become unavailable for consideration as a

regional landfill for the LGAs. Other investigations have not yet identified a suitable site for

the establishment of a new regional landfill facility.

Transpacific Industries currently own and operate the Banksia Road landfill which is the only

landfill that complies with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines in the Region. The City of

Busselton has received approval for new lined landfill cells at its Vidler Road Landfill and will

become the only other landfill that complies with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines once

constructed. In the event that all the LGA owned landfills across the South West Region

cease accepting waste due to limited capacity or regulatory enforcement. The Transpacific

Industries’ Banksia Road Landfill and the City of Busselton’s Vidler Road Landfill will become

the sole best practice Regional Landfills suitable to cater for the landfilling requirements

across the Region. This would put Transpacific Industries in a position of monopoly within the

Region for this critically important LGA service as it is anticipated that the City of Busselton

would not have the capacity to cater for the Region. Therefore, it is important that a long

term regional waste management solution is identified to cater for future demand within the

South West Region.

July 2015| Page 23



South West Region

City of Bunbury

Month YYYY



July 2015 | Page 23

6 Waste Data

The following section presents data on the current waste management systems across the

South West Region, including:

Current quantities of the various waste materials generated and treated in the South

West;

Recovery rates for the key waste streams;

Typical compositions of the key waste streams; and

Projections of future waste generation within the South West Region.

6.1 Current Waste Generation

Data on the waste currently generated by the South West Group has been typically taken

from the 2013-14 financial year. In some instances data from previous years was utilised and

extrapolated to the 2013-14 financial year.

All waste generated by the South West Group is processed in one of the following methods:

Recycled via a private contractor MRF;

Recovered for composting;

Stockpiled on site for recycling;

Stockpiled for future recovery or treatment;

Utilised as landfill cover; and

Disposed of to landfill.

For the LGAs that do not have a weighbridge, data is recorded by the gate staff based on

volumetric estimates or unit quantities. For the materials collected by a contractor, the

weighbridge data is typically provided.

6.1.1 MSW

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is generally defined as residential waste typically managed by

LGAs which include the following:

Kerbside or bulk vergeside collections, or dropped off waste;

Waste from public places including from road verges, reserves, beaches, litter bins,

events and street cleaning; and

Incidental commercial waste collected via kerbside collections.

The MSW generated by the South West Group is shown in Table 6-1 and further outlined

within the following section.


South West Region

City of Bunbury



July 2015 | Page 24

Table 6-1: MSW Generation

Sub-Regional

Group LGA

Kerbside

Refuse

Kerbside

Recycling

Kerbside

Organics

Drop-Off

Refuse

Drop-Off

Recyclables Greenwaste

Scrap

Metal Misc. TOTAL


City of Bunbury 6,346 3,676 5,935 817 - 922 213 120 18,029


416 - - 312 - - 30 1 758

Shire of Capel 3,609 1,294 1,496 1,141 187 598 224 50 8,550

Shire of Donnybrook – Balingup

5,254 342 493 818 23 956 228 - 8,180

Shire of Collie 3,080 703 - 3,585 12 1,310 125 47 8,862

Shire of Dardanup 4,477 1,044 - 1,277 5 536 287 12 7,638

Shire of Harvey 8,808 2,406 - - 15 480 303 47 12,059



4,257 881 - 6,758 391 1,048 1,967 1 15,303

City of Busselton 12,067 3,901 - 2,378 203 1,875 1,302 305 22,031



7,989 741 - - - - 60 5 8,795

Shire of Manjimup 11,393 833 - - 95 1,046 - - 13,367

Shire of Nannup 932 75 - - - 29 - - 1,036

TOTAL 68,628 15,896 7,924 17,086 947 8,800 4,739 251 124,608


31,990 9,465 7,924 7,950 258 4,802 1,410 277 64,075


16,324 4,782 - 9,136 594 2,923 3,269 306 37,334


20,314 1,649 - - 95 1,075 60 5 23,199

* Misc. = Miscellaneous wastes including asbestos, liquid waste and E-waste


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 25

July 2015 | Page 25

It can be seen from Table 6-1 that a total of 124,608 tonnes of MSW is generated by the

South West Group. The largest source of MSW is the kerbside refuse which generates 68,028

tonnes per annum. Refuse that is brought (self-hauled) by the community to each of the LGA

facilities whether it is a landfill or waste transfer station, is classified as Drop-Off Refuse. This is

the second largest MSW stream with approximately 17,086 tonnes per annum accepted

across the South West Group facilities. Annual kerbside recycling generates 15,896 tonnes.

The BWGC generates the most MSW with 64,075 tonnes per annum with the CAPEROC and

WBGC generating 37,334 and 23,199 tonnes respectively.

In a similar manner to Drop-Off refuse, Drop-Off Recyclables are accepted and stored at

waste management facilities across the South West prior to being transported to a MRF for

sorting. Drop-Off Recyclables include commingled recyclables and source separated paper,

cardboard, aluminium and steel cans, glass and plastics.

Greenwaste is typically separated from the MSW stream and stockpiled prior to processing.

Typically greenwaste is mulched periodically and utilised on gardens or in composting

processes. The process of greenwaste burning continues at some sites however, it is

becoming more uncommon.

Scrap metal and white goods are typically stockpiled in preparation for collection by a

metal recycler who transports the materials to Perth for recycling in overseas markets. The

commodity price for scrap metal significantly affects the revenue generated from the sale of

the scrap metal to the recyclers. It must be noted that some LGAs did not receive a scrap

metal collection in the 2013-14 period and therefore, had small volumes or did not register

any scrap metal as it was not quantified via a contractor.

The miscellaneous materials that have been recorded and accepted at waste

management facilities across the South West Region include the following:

Asbestos;

Waste Oils / liquid waste; and

E-waste.

There are relatively small quantities of miscellaneous waste materials accepted by the LGAs

of the South West Group.

It must be noted that other waste materials are collected however, the quantities are

generally quite minimal and have not been itemised within this study. This includes waste

material collected via initiatives such as Drum Muster and Mobile Muster which continue to

accept quantities of agricultural drums or mobile phones across the South West Region

which would typically become part of the MSW stream. These initiatives are valuable and

should be supported by all the LGAs, if not already.

6.1.2 C&I

C&I waste can be defined as waste generated from, or as the direct result of, commercial

and industrial operations and that is not MSW or C&D waste. For the purpose of this study,

public place and special event waste has been classified as C&I waste.

The C&I waste accepted by LGAs within the South West Group is detailed in Table 6-2.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 26

July 2015 | Page 26

Table 6-2: C&I waste accepted at LGA facilities in the South West Region

Sub-Regional Group LGA Quantity (tonnes)



Shire of Boyup Brook -

Shire of Capel -


Shire of Collie -

Shire of Dardanup 23

Shire of Harvey 113


Shire of Augusta-Margaret River 1,978



Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes -

Shire of Manjimup -

Shire of Nannup -

TOTAL 38,997

From Table 6-2 it can be seen that a total of 38,997 tonnes of C&I waste is taken to and

accepted at waste management facilities under the jurisdiction of the LGAs of the South

West Group. It is anticipated that the remainder of C&I waste generated within the South

West Region would be taken to the Transpacific Industries’ Banksia Road Landfill by private

contractors.

6.1.3 C&D

C&D waste is generated as a result of construction, refurbishment or demolition activities and

is typically comprised of concrete, bricks and soil/sand. Most LGAs either stockpile this

material in preparation for recycling or utilise it for covering landfill waste. The following table

(Table 6-3) shows the tonnes of C&D waste received by the LGAs of the South West Group at

their respective waste management facilities.

Table 6-3: C&D waste accepted at LGA facilities in the South West Region




Shire of Boyup Brook 32

Shire of Capel 229


Shire of Collie 299

Shire of Dardanup -

Shire of Harvey 141







Shire of Nannup -

TOTAL 42,747

It can be seen from Table 6-3 that 42,747 of C&D waste is generated within the South West

Region and taken to waste management facilities owned and/or operated by the LGAs.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 27

July 2015 | Page 27

In addition, Table 6-3 shows that some LGAs have no recorded C&D waste and some have

very low volumes. It is anticipated that this is caused by inaccurate data recording practices

whereby different types of waste materials and streams are not delineated, as opposed to

no quantities of C&D waste accepted. Generally, the recording of data is focussed more

upon the financial administration aspects of the waste facility, rather than clear classification

of the waste type, stream and source. Proper recording of the waste accepted at all waste

management facilities across the South West Region ensures that accurate planning

exercises, such as this Regional Waste Management Strategy, can be undertaken.

It is recommended that each LGA assess its data recording practices to include the type,

stream and source of waste to ensure that waste data is recorded more accurately. To

further expand this concept, the South West Group may consider the establishment of a

regional waste reporting framework and waste classification system similar to the

metropolitan regional councils.

6.1.4 Summary

In summary, the total MSW, C&I and C&D waste managed by each of the LGAs within the

South West Group are shown in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4: Total waste accepted at LGA facilities in the South West Region




Shire of Boyup Brook 790

Shire of Capel 8,779


Shire of Collie 9,161

Shire of Dardanup 7,661

Shire of Harvey 12,313







Shire of Nannup 1,036

TOTAL 206,332

MSW 124,608

C&I Waste 38,977

C&D Waste 42,747

Total 206,332

From Table 6-4 it can be seen that a total of 206,332 tonnes per annum of MSW, C&I and

C&D waste is accepted at LGA waste management facilities within the South West Region.

6.2 Recovery Rate

Recovery rate is defined as the proportion of total waste generated that is recovered, either

through reuse, recycling or treatment, and is therefore diverted from landfill. The recovery

operations within the South West Region currently include the recycling via a contractor MRF,

composting of organics and stockpiling of other recyclables and C&D waste. The total


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 28

July 2015 | Page 28

recovery rate, and those achieved for the MSW, C&I and C&D waste streams are presented

in the following sections.

6.2.1 Total Waste

The treatment methods for the total waste accepted at waste management in the South

West Region are shown in Diagram 6-1.

Diagram 6-1: Waste treatment methods of total waste

As shown in Diagram 6-1, the South West Group achieved a recovery rate of 39% through

their recycling, recovery and stockpiling of materials.

Table 6-5 represents the recovery rates for MSW and C&I waste for each of the LGAs within

the South West Group.

Total Recovered

39%

Total Disposed

61%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 29

July 2015 | Page 29

Table 6-5: MSW and C&I Recovery Rates

Sub-Regional

Group LGA

MSW

Recovery Rate

C&I

Recovery Rate


City of Bunbury 60% 0%

Shire of Boyup Brook 4% 0%

Shire of Capel 44% 0%


25% 0%

Shire of Collie 24% 0%

Shire of Dardanup 25% 0%

Shire of Harvey 27% 0%


Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

28% 6.21%

City of Busselton 34% 0%



9% 0%

Shire of Manjimup 15% 0%

Shire of Nannup 10% 0%

TOTAL 32% 0.32%

As shown in Table 6-5, the recovery rates for MSW range from 0% through to 60%. In addition,

the total MSW recovery rate across the 12 LGAs is 32%. This represents a significant

opportunity for the LGAs that are not achieving approximately 60% to improve resource

recovery within the MSW waste stream.

It can also be seen from Table 6-5 that the recovery rates for C&I Waste are significantly

lower than the MSW recovery rates with an average C&I waste recovery rate across the 12

LGAs of 0.32%. It must be noted that several of the LGAs do not accept any C&I waste

however opportunities exist for improvement.

6.2.2 C&D

The LGAs of the South West Group currently stockpile all separated clean inert C&D waste for

future recycling. Therefore, theoretically the LGAs have a recovery rate of 100% for C&D

waste. However, it is anticipated that loads of mixed C&D waste are currently classified as

C&I waste and being disposed of to landfill. The recovery rate for this waste stream is

therefore in reality unknown. It is recommended that the South West Group develop or utilise

an existing waste classification system so that the mixed C&D waste volumes can be

identified. This may require consultation with the waste handler in relation to the

generator/source of the waste. This data will allow for greater accuracy in the data

gathering process and assist with further waste management and resource recovery

decision making processes in the future.

6.2.3 Total Recovery Rate

To calculate the total recovery rate, the MSW, C&I and C&D waste streams must be

combined to determine the total waste recovered and disposed. Therefore, the total tonnes


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 30

July 2015 | Page 30

of recovered and disposed waste by the LGAs of the South West Group are shown in Table

6-6.

Table 6-6: Total Waste Recovery Rate for each LGA

Sub-Regional

Group LGA

Recovered

(tonnes)

Disposed

(tonnes)

Total

Recovery Rate


City of Bunbury 32,018 33,176 49%

Shire of Boyup Brook 62 728 8%

Shire of Capel 4,029 4,750 46%


3,591 7,264 33%

Shire of Collie 2,449 6,712 27%

Shire of Dardanup 1,884 5,777 25%

Shire of Harvey 3,387 8,926 28%


Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

6,700 12,871 34%

City of Busselton 15,739 24,329 39%



4,306 7,989 35%

Shire of Manjimup 7,215 11,393 39%

Shire of Nannup 104 932 10%

TOTAL 81,485 124,847 39%

The data within Table 6-6 shows that total recovery rates for each of the LGAs range from

10% to 49%. In addition, this equates to a total waste recovery for the South West Group of

39%.

6.3 Waste Streams and Composition

In addition to the quantitative data, an understanding of the composition of the waste

generated within the South West Region is an important aspect in the consideration of

potential Strategic Options. Talis has utilised a combination of local compositional data and

other data from areas of Western Australia to provide an indication of the types and

proportions of materials generated from each waste stream. This data has been utilised to

estimate the current and potential future waste recovery rates. The following waste types

have been utilised within the compositional data:

Paper and Cardboard;

Food/Kitchen Waste;

Greenwaste;

Wood;

Glass;

Plastics;

Ferrous Metals;

Non-Ferrous Metals;

Hazardous waste;

Inert waste; and


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 31

July 2015 | Page 31

Refuse.

In addition, there are three different kerbside waste collection systems implemented within

the South West Region. Firstly, a single bin system accepts all waste types in one kerbside

collected MGB. Secondly, the two bin system utilises a refuse and a dry recyclables kerbside

MGB. This approach is the most common throughout the South West Region. Thirdly, a three

bin system which, in addition to the refuse and dry recyclables MGB, utilises a kerbside full

organics MGB accepting garden and food waste. At this stage, only three LGAs are currently

utilising the three bin system. Due to the different systems, the waste compositional data from

each system is different. However, for the purposes of this study, a single bin system has not

been investigated as it is considered the least preferred and most LGAs have moved away

from this system.

6.3.1 MSW

In order to analyse and compare the composition data from the two and three bin systems,

Talis has utilised Kerbside Refuse, Kerbside Recycling and Kerbside Organics as the sources of

MSW.

6.3.1.1 Two Bin System

To obtain a typical composition for sources of MSW which utilise a two bin system, Talis has

utilised data from the following three sources:

Domestic kerbside waste audits conducted for the City of Bunbury, which has a

kerbside collection system for recyclables (Dallywater Consulting 2011);

A review of kerbside recycling collection systems within Western Australia prepared

for the DER (Cardno 2008). The review included an investigation into the composition

of MSW in the Perth Metropolitan Area and regional areas. The results of

compositional audits undertaken in the City of Greater Geraldton (no kerbside

recycling), Shire of Dardanup (with kerbside recycling) and Town of Port Hedland (no

kerbside recycling) were combined to produce a typical composition of MSW in

regional areas; and

Kerbside waste audits undertaken for the Shire of Broome, which also has a kerbside

collection system for recyclables (APC Environmental Management 2012).

Arising from the review, a typical composition of a kerbside collected refuse bin and

Recycling Bin within a rural area was determined and is illustrated in Diagram 6-2 and 5-3.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 32

July 2015 | Page 32

Diagram 6-2: Typical Rural Refuse Bin Composition (Two Bin System)

Diagram 6-3: Typical Rural Recycling Bin Composition (Two Bin System)

As shown in Diagram 6-2, the refuse bin contains mainly refuse, food/kitchen waste, paper

and cardboard and greenwaste. Putrescible materials (including paper and cardboard,

food/kitchen waste, greenwaste and wood) represent approximately 60% of the MSW

stream. Diagram 6-3 shows that a typical recycling bin contains approximately 49% of paper

and cardboard, 29% glass and 12% refuse.

6.3.1.2 Three Bin System

The composition data for the three bin system was provided by the City of Bunbury following

a waste audit (Dallywater Consulting 2014) undertaken in late 2014. The following diagrams

show the composition of each kerbside bin utilised as part of the three bin system.

Paper and Cardboard, 21.8%

Food/Kitchen Waste, 21.9%

Greenwaste, 14.3% Wood, 1.1%

Glass, 11.0%

Plastics, 2.3%

Ferrous Metals, 1.9%

Non-Ferrous Metals, 1.3%

Hazardous, 0.4%

Refuse, 24.0%

Inert 0%

Refuse 22%

Paper and Cardboard 44%

Food/Kitchen Waste 0%

Greenwaste 0%

Wood 0%

Glass 26%

Plastics 3%

Ferrous Metals 3%

Non-Ferrous Metals 2%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 33

July 2015 | Page 33

Diagram 6-4: Refuse Bin Composition (Three Bin System)

Diagram 6-5: Recycling Bin Composition (Three Bin System)



Greenwaste, 8.6% Wood, 1.3%

Glass, 6.8%

Plastics, 2.7%



Hazardous, 0.5%

Inert, 1.3%

Refuse, 49.3%



Greenwaste, 0.7%

Glass, 23.7%

Plastics, 4.8%



Hazardous, 1.7%

Refuse, 16.0%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 34

July 2015 | Page 34

Diagram 6-6: Full Organics Bin Composition (Three Bin System)

It can be seen from Diagram 6-4 that the greatest component of the refuse bin composition

is refuse at 49.3%, followed by food and kitchen waste which comprises approximately 16%

of the refuse bin in a 3 bin system. The composition of the recycling bin shown in Diagram 6-5

is dominated by paper and cardboard which has 48%. Glass is the second most prominent

component within the recyclables bin with 23.7%. Diagram 6-6 shows that 83.1% of the

organics bin is comprised of greenwaste and 12.1% of food/kitchen waste.

6.3.1.3 Bin System Comparison

A summary of the compositional analysis of the two different bin systems is provided in Table

6-7.

It must be noted that the compositional data obtained for the Two and Three Bin systems

detailed below are from a range of kerbside collection systems in operation across Western

Australia, covering numerous LGAs. Therefore, there are challenges in directly comparing the

different datasets and Bin systems, as slight discrepancies between the compositional values

of each exist which is evident below. However, the data has been provided to demonstrate,

at a general level the variations in performance of the systems, including overall and

material capture rates.

Table 6-7: Summary of 2 and 3 Bin Systems Composition

Waste Type 2 Bin System 3 Bin System

Refuse Bin Recycling Bin Refuse Bin Recycling Bin Organics Bin

Paper and Cardboard

21.8% 49.0% 11.0% 48.1% 1.3%

Food/Kitchen Waste

21.9% 0.0% 15.9% 1.9% 12.1%

Greenwaste 14.3% 0.0% 8.6% 0.7% 83.1%

Wood 1.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Glass 11.0% 29.0% 6.8% 23.7% 0.0%

Plastics 2.3% 4.0% 2.7% 4.8% 0.0%



Greenwaste, 83.1%

Refuse, 3.5%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 35

July 2015 | Page 35

Ferrous Metals 1.9% 3.0% 1.8% 2.1% 0.0%

Non-Ferrous Metals

1.3% 2.0% 0.8% 1.3% 0.0%

Hazardous 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 1.7% 0.0%

Inert 0.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Refuse 24.0% 12.0% 49.3% 16.0% 3.5%

It can be seen from Table 6-7 that the refuse bin composition between the two systems varies

with paper and cardboard, food/kitchen waste, greenwaste and glass all with significantly

higher compositional percentage within the refuse bin of the two bin system. The recycling

bin composition of both systems is relatively similar.

The comparison of the Bin systems shows that recycling performance levels are increased

with a Three Bin System in addition to an increase in material capture rates. The

implementation of a Three Bin System results in greater resource recovery which stems from

greater opportunities to recycle via a third MGB. A third bin also creates more involvement of

the community in the decision making process and can assist with further behavioural

changes towards recycling.

6.3.2 C&I

The C&I waste stream generally contains similar materials as MSW but in different proportions.

In 2007, the DER commissioned compositional audits of the C&I and C&D waste streams

received at a number of waste management facilities. Although the audits were conducted

at facilities within the Perth Metropolitan Area, the composition is anticipated to be

comparable to the C&I waste stream within the South West Region due to the similarity in

commercial operations undertaken and the C&I waste and recycling collection services

provided. The typical composition of the C&I waste stream is shown in Diagram 6-7.

Diagram 6-7: Typical C&I Waste Stream Composition

Source: Disposal Based Audits of the C&I and C&D Waste Streams (Golder Associates, 2007)

Paper and Cardboard

19%

Food/Kitchen Waste 27%

Greenwaste 5%

Wood 15%

Glass 1%

Plastics 11%

Ferrous Metals 4%

Non-Ferrous Metals 1%

Hazardous 0% Inert

7%

Refuse 10%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 36

July 2015 | Page 36

As shown in Diagram 6-7, the C&I waste stream consists mostly of food/kitchen waste, paper

and cardboard and wood waste. The C&I waste stream contains a higher proportion of

putrescible materials (paper and cardboard, food/kitchen waste, greenwaste and wood)

than MSW with 66%.

6.3.3 C&D

As mentioned previously, the compositional audits commissioned by the DER also included

the C&D waste stream. The C&D stream is generally consistent in composition in both

metropolitan and regional areas and contains mostly inert materials such as concrete, bricks

and soil/sand. If uncontaminated, this material has a high potential to be recycled into

products such as road base and aggregates. The typical composition of the C&D stream

recorded from the DER audits is shown in Diagram 6-8.

Diagram 6-8: Typical C&D Waste Stream Composition

Source: Disposal Based Audits of the C&I and C&D Waste Streams (Golder Associates, 2007)

As shown in Diagram 6-8, the C&D waste stream contains approximately 94% inert waste,

with only small quantities of other materials. This outlines the high potential for landfill diversion

that is achievable within this stream.

6.3.4 Potential Total Recovery Rate

Based on the compositions presented in the previous sections, Talis has calculated the

potential recovery rates that may be achieved for each of the key waste streams across the

entire South West Region. Talis has categorised these into material recovery and energy

recovery. For the potential material recovery rate, it was assumed that paper, cardboard,

glass, plastics and metals are recyclable, while greenwaste, inert waste and 50% of the wood

received (assumed to represent the untreated portion) are available to be processed for

bulk processing recovery. For the energy recovery rate, all potential combustible materials

were calculated across the various waste streams and excludes recovery of glass, metal and

Paper and Cardboard 0.3%

Greenwaste 0.5%

Wood 1.6%

Plastics 0.3%

Ferrous Metals 1.4%

Non-Ferrous Metals 0.0%

Hazardous 0.2%

Inert 93.4%

Refuse 2.2%

Other 6.5%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 37

July 2015 | Page 37

hazardous materials. The comparison of the current and potential material and energy

recovery rates are shown in Table 6-8.

Table 6-8: Comparison of Current and Potential Recovery Rates

Stream Current Total

Recovery Rate

Potential Material

Recovery Rate

Potential Energy

Recovery Rate

MSW – 2 Bin System 25% 43% 75%

MSW – 3 Bin System 54% 47% 81%

C&I 0.5% 55% 88%

C&D Unknown* 97% 5%

TOTAL 39% 64% 69%

* Clear data on the waste stream not currently recorded.

As shown in Table 6-8, the current recovery rates for the two bin and three bin systems vary

significantly with the recovery rate for the three bin system (54%) more than double that of

the two bin system (25%). The two bin system recovery rate can also achieve a significant

improvement if it were to achieve the potential material recovery rate of 43%, however the

three bin system already exceeds the calculated figure of 47% for its potential material

recovery rate. The potential material recovery rate is dependent on the organic materials

including greenwaste and the organic fraction of the mixed refuse streams and since the

three bin system extracts this portion plus more, it achieves a higher recovery rate. The

potential energy recovery rates are much higher than the current or material recovery rates

due to the broad acceptance of most waste streams by facilities that generate energy from

waste.

As outlined previously, it is anticipated that data related to C&D waste is inaccurately

collected with only clean inert streams recorded. Therefore, the current recovery rate of the

total stream is unknown. However, based on the compositional data shown in this report,

97% of these materials could be recycled.

Assessing the total waste generated by the South West Group, the current recovery rate is

39% as outlined within Section 6.2. The potential material and energy recovery rates are

similar at 64% and 69% respectively. The potential energy recovery rate of 69% seems low

however, a substantial portion of the waste stream is comprised of inert materials which are

not suitable for energy recovery and therefore reduces the overall potential recovery rate for

energy from waste projects. Therefore, to achieve higher recovery rates a combination of

both material and energy recovery is required, which is similar to modern high performing

integrated waste management systems.

6.4 Waste Projections

Based on the quantities of MSW, C&I and C&D waste managed by each of the LGAs within

the South West Group in the 2013-14 financial year, Talis has projected waste generation for

each LGA of the South West Group to 2050. These have firstly been based on the Adopted

Growth Rates as contained within Table 3-2 (Section 3) and then in accordance with the

growth forecasted within the Blueprint. For both waste generation projections it was assumed

that it would increase proportional with the growth projections.

To assist in the assessment of potential Strategic Options, Talis has projected the quantities of

each of the following waste streams (as detailed in Section 6.1):


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 38

July 2015 | Page 38

MSW:

o Kerbside Refuse;

o Kerbside Recycling;

o Kerbside Organics;

o Drop-Off Refuse;

o Drop-Off Recyclables;

o Greenwaste;

o Scrap Metal;

o Miscellaneous;

C&I Waste; and

C&D Waste.

The detailed annual waste generation projections for each waste stream including refuse

and recyclables is provided in Appendix A. This detailed model is broken down into each of

the LGAs within the South West Group. A summary of the total waste projections for each

LGA has been developed in 5 year intervals and is presented in Table 6-9.

Table 6-9: Summary of Waste generation projections (Adopted Growth Rates)

LGA 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

City of Bunbury 65,846 69,205 72,474 74,823 77,256 79,780 82,396 85,109

Shire of Boyup

Brook 794 814 835 856 877 898 921 943

Shire of Capel 9,130 11,108 13,508 16,396 19,905 24,170 29,354 35,656

Shire of

Donnybrook 11,072 12,225 13,464 14,691 16,036 17,512 19,132 20,910

Shire of Collie 9,436 10,939 12,675 14,660 16,959 19,622 22,705 26,276

Shire of Dardanup 8,021 10,091 12,696 15,968 20,085 25,263 31,778 39,974

Shire of Harvey 12,596 14,113 15,809 17,692 19,802 22,164 24,809 27,772

Shire of Augusta

Margaret River 20,099 22,963 26,235 29,974 34,245 39,124 44,699 51,068

City of Busselton 41,310 48,123 56,059 65,304 76,073 88,619 103,233 120,257

Shire of

Bridgetown-

Greenbushes

12,480 13,444 14,453 15,409 16,434 17,531 18,706 19,966

Shire of Manjimup 18,640 18,799 18,954 19,093 19,233 19,374 19,517 19,660

Shire of Nannup 1,042 1,074 1,106 1,140 1,175 1,210 1,247 1,285

TOTAL 210,467 232,898 258,269 286,006 318,080 355,267 398,496 448,875

MSW 127,457 143,025 161,083 182,083 206,561 235,163 268,663 307,991

C&I 39,619 43,041 46,701 50,133 54,012 58,406 63,396 69,075

C&D 43,392 46,833 50,485 53,790 57,507 61,699 66,438 71,808

TOTAL 210,467 232,898 258,269 286,006 318,080 355,267 398,496 448,875

As shown in Table 6-9, in accordance with the Adopted Growth Rates, it is anticipated that in

total, approximately 210,500 tonnes will be generated this year (2015), rising to 286,000

tonnes by 2030. Further projections to 2050 are relatively unpredictable however, the


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 39

July 2015 | Page 39

modelling suggests the South West Group will produce approximately 448,900 tonnes

annually.

However, the Blueprint focuses upon a population of 500,000 in the year 2050 which results in

greater waste generation. Utilising a calculated annual growth rate of 3.06% as outlined

within Section 3, the total waste generated of 210,467 was projected to 2050. Diagram 6-9

shows the results of this modelling for each waste stream.

Diagram 6-9: Waste generation projections utilising the growth from the Blueprint

It can be seen from Diagram 6-9 that the total waste generated within the South West

Region will increase from 210,467 in 2015 to approximately 611,000 in 2050 in accordance

with the Blueprint. This is an increase of approximately 400,500 tonnes over 35 years.

A comparison between the Blueprint and Talis’ modelled waste generation projections is

shown in Diagram 6-10.

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Ton

ne

s C&D

C&I

MSW


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 40

July 2015 | Page 40

Diagram 6-10: Comparison of proposed waste projections

It can be seen from Diagram 6-10 that the difference in projected waste tonnages becomes

significant nearer to the year 2050 up to a maximum of 162,000 tonnes. This large difference

in projected waste generation places uncertainty on the requirements of waste infrastructure

and initiatives in to the future. However, it must be noted that over a 35 year period events

may occur which alter the demographics of the South West Group and therefore, increase

or decrease the projected waste generation.

For the purposes of the Regional Waste Management Strategy and the evaluation of the

various Strategic Options, Talis has utilised the Waste Generation Projections arising from the

Adopted Growth Rates which are assumed to be more realistic. However, due consideration

has been given to the waste generations arising from the Blueprint. This is particularly relevant

for the more significant Strategic Options that require significant volumes, capital and term

(timeline) commitments.

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

20

38

20

40

20

42

20

44

20

46

20

48

20

50

Tota

l Was

te P

roje

ctio

n (

Ton

ne

s)

BlueprintForecast

AdoptedGrowth RatesForecast


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 41

July 2015 | Page 41

7 Legislative Framework

There are a number of federal and State regulations, policies and guidelines relating to

waste management which may have an impact on the South West Group either currently or

in the future. These documents have been reviewed and assessed in terms of their potential

implications on the South West Group’s waste management current and future policies and

practices.

7.1 National

7.1.1 National Waste Policy

The National Waste Policy – Less Waste More Resources was released by the Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in November 2009 and

provides a direction for waste in Australia to 2020 with a view to reduce waste generation

and manage waste as a resource to deliver economic, environmental and social benefits.

The National Policy sets eight outcomes for waste management by 2020. To achieve these

outcomes, the Policy identifies six key directions which are supported by a series of

objectives.

One of these objectives is “to enhance biodegradable (organic) resource recovery and

reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills”. The National Policy identifies a number of

initiatives to reduce disposal of biodegradable waste to landfill including beneficial reuse,

Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) technologies, Waste-to-Energy facilities and bio-digesters.

The National Policy also recognises the important role of LGAs in providing waste

management services and infrastructure. The objective to “support improved waste

management and reuse of waste in regional, remote and Indigenous communities” is

supported by Strategy 14 which involves “State and territory and local governments to work

together to identify regional and remote waste and resource recovery actions to build

capacity and ensure an appropriate suite of services is available to communities”.

7.1.2 Emissions Reduction Fund

The Emissions Reduction Fund is proposed to reduce emissions by providing incentives for

businesses, land owners, state and local governments, community organisations and

individuals to adopt new practices and technologies which reduce emissions. Legislation to

implement the Emissions Reduction Fund came into effect on 13 December 2014.

There are a number of activities which are eligible to earn Australian Carbon Credit Units

(ACCUs) under the scheme. One ACCU is earned for each tonne of carbon dioxide

equivalent (tCO2-e) stored or avoided by a project. ACCUs can be sold to generate

income, either to the Government through a carbon abatement contract, or on the

secondary market.

The potential waste management activities that may earn ACCUs as part of the Emissions

Reduction Fund are AWT and landfill gas capture. LGAs and/or private industry that

undertake these types of projects in accordance with the approved Waste and Wastewater

Sector emissions reduction, methods can then sell the resulting emissions reductions to the

Clean Energy Regulator.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 42

July 2015 | Page 42

AWT describes a range of activities that process mixed or clean solid waste that would have

gone to landfill into products such as compost, fuel or biogas, and increase recovery of

resources including plastics, glass and metals.

The AWT method provides an incentive to develop new AWT facilities or expand existing AWT

facilities to increase the capacity of waste that can be processed. It enables existing Carbon

Farming Initiative AWT projects to transition to the emissions reduction fund and continue to

generate emissions reductions for processing mixed solid waste that would have gone to

landfill. All eligible projects will be able to receive ACCUs for emission reductions for the

processing of eligible waste for a seven-year crediting period.

The Landfill Gas Determination provides an incentive to install new landfill gas collection

systems, upgrade existing systems or recommence operation of non-operational systems. The

methane in the collected gas is then destroyed through combustion. ACCUs are given for

the destruction of emissions from waste deposited before 1 July 2012 and after 30 June 2014

(periods before and after the carbon tax).

7.2 State

7.2.1 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 came into force in July 2008. Some

of the key requirements include:

Legislative frameworks for waste avoidance and resource recovery systems;

The establishment of the Waste Authority;

Development of the State Waste Strategy;

Provision of MSW services by LGAs;

Levies on waste; and

The WARR Levy Act.

The primary objective of the WARR Act is “to contribute to sustainability, and the protection

of human health and the environment, in Western Australia and the move towards a waste

free society by:

Promoting the most efficient use of resources, including resource recovery and waste

avoidance;

Reducing environmental harm, including pollution through waste;

The consideration of resource management options against the following hierarchy:

o Avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption;

o Resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy

recovery); and

o Disposal.

7.2.2 Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act

The WARR Levy Act 2007 requires the payment of a levy per tonne of waste disposed of to

landfill. The levy currently applies only to waste received at metropolitan landfills, or non-

metropolitan landfills which receive metropolitan waste. Initially, the levy was set at $3 per

tonne for putrescible waste and $1 per tonne for inert waste. In 2009, these rates were

increased to $28 and $12 respectively. A recent review of the landfill levies undertaken by


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 43

July 2015 | Page 43

the Waste Authority resulted in the development of a five year schedule of landfill levy

increases as shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1: Future landfill levy increases

Period Putrescible Waste

($/tonne) Inert Rate($/m3)

Approx. Inert

Rate($/tonne)

Current to 30 June 2016 55 60 40

1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 60 75 50

1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 65 90 60

1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 70 105 70

1 July 2019 onwards 70 105 70

It can be seen from Table 7-1 that the levy on putrescible waste will increase from $55/tonne

currently up to $70/tonne in July 2019. The inert rate will rise from $40/tonne to $70/tonne over

the same four year period.

As outlined previously, the levy only applies to metropolitan waste and metropolitan landfills

however, it is anticipated that it may be extended to regional landfill facilities in Western

Australia in the future, particularly those in the larger regional centres.

If the landfill levy were applied to waste generated within the South West Region, the cost to

dispose of putrescible waste would increase significantly. The potential landfill levy costs

incurred, based on 2014 levy fees and waste tonnages, is shown in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2: Potential Landfill Levy Liability

MSW C&I C&D Total

Landfill levy per tonne $55 $55 $40

City of Bunbury $991,595 $1,429,725 $846,800 $3,268,120

Shire of Boyup Brook $41,690 $6,215 $5,640 $53,545

Shire of Capel $470,250 $0 $1,296 $471,546

Shire of Donnybrook $449,882 $0 $9,160 $459,042

Shire of Collie $1,036,805 $0 $11,960 $1,048,765

Shire of Dardanup $420,079 $63,932 $60,520 $544,531

Shire of Harvey $663,246 $1,265 $0 $664,511

Shire of Augusta

Margaret River $841,665 $108,790 $91,600 $1,042,055

City of Busselton $1,211,699 $533,830 $333,252 $2,078,781

Shire of Bridgetown-

Greenbushes $483,751 $0 $140,000 $623,751

Shire of Manjimup $735,194 $0 $209,636 $944,830

Shire of Nannup $56,980 $0 $0 $56,980

Total Cost $7,402,835 $2,143,735 $1,709,880 $11,256,450

It can be seen from Table 7-2 that if the landfill levy was imposed on the total waste

generated in the South West Region and there was no resource recovery being undertaken,


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 44

July 2015 | Page 44

it would create approximately $11.3 million in revenue for the State Government, to the

detriment of the South West Group.

7.2.3 Western Australian Waste Strategy

The Western Australian Waste Strategy – Creating the Right Environment was released by the

Waste Authority in March 2012. The State Waste Strategy contains five Strategic Objectives

relating to knowledge, infrastructure and incentives which aim to move Western Australia

towards a low-waste society over the next ten years.

In addition to the Strategic Objectives, the State Waste Strategy contains targets for landfill

diversion in the MSW, C&I and C&D sectors. These targets are shown in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3: Waste Strategy Landfill Diversion Targets

Waste Stream Region 2015 2020

MSW Metropolitan area 50% 65%

Regional centres* 30% 50%

C&I State wide 60% 75%

C&D State wide 55% 70%

* Regional centres include Albany, Avon, Busselton, Geraldton, Greater Bunbury, Kalgoorlie, Karratha and Peel.

As Busselton and Greater Bunbury are identified as regional centres the diversion target for

MSW does apply to these areas. However, those LGAs that are not part of a regional centre

would not contribute to achieving Strategy targets for MSW, however would be included in

the targets for the C&I and C&D sectors. Furthermore, these are the first targets to be

released in Western Australia on the diversion of waste from landfill. How these evolve from

here is something that is unknown, which may include legislative requirements associated

with the targets and an increase in the geographical coverage of the targets.

Table 7-4 assesses the current LGA recovery performances against the 2015 Waste Strategy

Landfill Diversion Targets across the three key waste streams.

Table 7-4: Performance of LGAs against current landfill diversion targets

MSW C&I C&D

Diversion Target 2015 30% 60% 55%

City of Bunbury 60% 0% Unknown

Shire of Boyup Brook 4% 0% Unknown

Shire of Capel 44% 0% Unknown

Shire of Donnybrook 25% 0% Unknown

Shire of Collie 7% 0% Unknown

Shire of Dardanup 25% 0% Unknown

Shire of Harvey 27% 0% Unknown

Shire of Augusta Margaret River 28% 6.2% Unknown

City of Busselton 34% 0% Unknown

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes 9% 0% Unknown

Shire of Manjimup 15% 0% Unknown


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 45

July 2015 | Page 45

Shire of Nannup 10% 0% Unknown

Overall Diversion 32% 0.32% Unknown

From Table 7-4 it can be seen that the Cities of Bunbury and Busselton and the Shire of Capel

exceed the 30% MSW landfill diversion target. In addition, the overall diversion of 32% for MSW

exceeds the diversion target for 2015.

No LGAs perform well against the C&I waste diversion target and the realistic C&D diversion

rate is unknown however, it is anticipated that most LGAs would perform well if inert materials

are stockpiled regularly.

7.2.4 Industry Regulation Licencing

The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) has objectives which include the prevention,

control and abatement of pollution and environmental damage. In addition, the EP Act

delivers regulation and compliance to assist in the promotion of best practice.

As part of the requirements of the EP Act, operators who seek to develop a Prescribed

Premise in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 (EP

Regulations) must obtain a Works Approval for construction, and a Licence (or registration)

for operation of facilities. The Works Approval and Licence provides for ongoing supervision

by the DER who is the regulator.

The DER has recently implemented the 'Re-Engineering for Industry Regulation and

Environment (REFIRE)' program to increase the stringency of licencing prescribed premises

across the State. The REFIRE program aims to improve the DER’s regulation licensing business

and guarantee consistency and transparency.

Through the REFIRE program, all Works Approvals and licences are generated from a generic

template which has a set of standard conditions. However, each Works Approval or Licence

can have site specific conditions added if required. This approach aims to provide

consistency across industry while maintaining the flexibility to include site specific controls

where necessary. The application process for a Works Approval or Licence has been made

simpler through the development of a new guide to licensing and a standard application

form.

The implementation of the REFIRE program also included a new Licensed Premises Risk

Appraisal (LPRA) procedure which is utilised to rate risk associated with each prescribed

premise across the State. The LPRA approach creates a list of premises that are ranked in

terms of regulation priority. This enables a targeted approach to site regulation, the review of

licences and compliance inspections at sites which may require it more than others.

The DER commenced the conversion of all current licences into the REFIRE format in 2013 in

which many of the South West Group waste management facilities have been converted.

Conversions are continuing to be progressed based on industry sectors, licence renewals

and industry groups. New licences for waste management facilities have in particular seen

new conditions relating to Improvements which has allowed the DER to impose greater

stringency in accordance with the overall objective of the REFIRE program via targeted

improvements to site management and/or operations. For landfill facilities, this has included

studies or works to comply with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines such as hydrogeological

investigations or Closure Plans.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 46

July 2015 | Page 46

7.3 AWT Guidelines

The State Government and the Waste Management Industry has released position papers

and guidance documents regarding the development of AWT technologies which are

relevant when determining the long term waste management services for the South West

Group.

7.3.1 Performance (Environmental and Health) of Waste-to-Energy Technologies

In November 2011, the Minister for Environment requested that the Environmental Protection

Authority (EPA) and the Waste Authority investigate the environmental and health

performance of Waste-to-Energy technologies internationally.

The report focussed on thermal Waste-to-Energy treatment of mixed non-hazardous and low-

level hazardous MSW. The report utilised three investigative approaches including:

An international review of legislation and policy together with a scientific

understanding of Waste-to-Energy technologies;

15 case studies relating to modern Waste-to-Energy plants using the following

selection criteria:

o Facilities with higher than normal thermal efficiency;

o Facilities achieving low environmental impacts;

o Facilities gaining acceptance via innovative architectural treatments;

o Facilities employing best practice furnace design;

o Facilities employing alternative thermal technologies, such as fluidised bed and

gasification; and

A literature review from the last 15 years of potential environmental and health risks

associated with emissions from Waste-to-Energy facilities processing MSW.

The report outlines that there appears to be no convincing evidence that excess risk of

illnesses is associated with Waste-to-Energy facilities. It is evident that newer, well operated

facilities seem more effective in mitigating potential risks from exposure to emissions. In

addition, the report quotes a UK Health Protection Agency 2009 report which states:

‘...while it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated

municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of

those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable.’

7.3.2 Waste Authority – Waste-to-Energy Position Paper (Thermal Treatment)

The Waste Authority released a position paper in May 2013 relating to thermal treatment of

MSW via Waste-to-Energy technologies. The position paper outlines a variety of key

conclusions including:

The waste management service should be specific to a particular waste stream and

no single waste management process or technology is suitable for all waste streams

and all circumstances;

Energy recovery from waste is a recognised option at the lower end of the waste

hierarchy;

That Waste-to-Energy technologies should be utilised following reasonable efforts to

avoid, reuse, reprocess and recycle waste;


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 47

July 2015 | Page 47

Waste-to-Energy processes are the preferable option to landfill for the management

of residual waste; and

Waste-to-Energy technologies have the potential to divert substantial volumes of

waste from landfill and produce a beneficial product.

7.3.3 WMAA AWT Technologies Draft Guidelines Document

In 2010, the Waste Management Association of Australia, supported by the Waste Authority,

released the AWT Technologies Draft Guidelines Document – Discussion Paper. The purpose

of the Discussion Paper was to identify gaps in areas such as policy, regulations, standards

and definitions which need to be addressed in the preparation of guidelines for AWT in WA.

The Discussion Paper investigated the viability of using AWT technologies in regional WA. It

was identified that systems that are able to economically process small waste quantities are

available for source separated waste streams, however for mixed waste streams the pre-

processing (sorting or screening) required increases the cost and therefore these systems are

unlikely to be feasible.

The Discussion Paper contained a number of conclusions and associated recommendations

in relation to the preparation of guidelines for AWT technologies within WA including:

There is a lack of awareness in the wider community about waste management,

State strategies and future developments. While a number of regional and local

governments are very active in this arena, a State-wide approach is required under

solid leadership;

WA has a number of specific factors generally due to its geographic size, relatively

small population and distance from interstate and international markets, that mean

measures adopted by other jurisdictions may not be directly applicable;

Due to the very low cost of waste disposal in regional and rural areas of WA the

processing of the majority of wastes for recycling and recovery is uneconomic when

compared to disposal; and

As the cost and process required to achieve connection to any of the electricity grids

in WA is expensive and complex, this is a barrier to energy generating technologies,

especially smaller scale systems that could be utilised in regional areas.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 48

July 2015 | Page 48

8 Waste Management Industry in WA

There has been, and will continue to be, significant transformation in the waste management

industry across WA. These most recent shifts from the norm include the introduction of landfill

diversion targets by the Waste Authority, clear guidance on increases to the landfill levy,

review of the WARR Act and strong indications that merchant resource recovery plants are

viable. These changes to the waste management industry will collectively have a significant

impact on the services provided by local and regional governments now and into the future.

8.1 Landfill Diversion Targets

The Waste Authority released the State Waste Strategy in 2012 which outlined the Waste

Authority’s adopted landfill diversion targets for the metropolitan and rural areas of the State.

These targets have for the first time set performance standards for waste management

activities and have focused LGA and Regional Councils to achieve more sustainable

outcomes. As part of the introduction of the diversion targets, the Waste Authority provided

significant funding to LGAs via the Regional Investment Plans to assist LGAs achieve the

diversion targets. In addition, the Waste Authority has recently released the Better Bins

Program to support the role out of their preference on source separation systems.

8.2 WARR Act Review

The current review of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act) is

another aspect of recent ongoing waste management reform in the State. The discussion

paper released by the State Government, proposes three major reforms including collection

and processing of waste, governance of waste groups and infrastructure planning. Firstly, the

discussion paper proposes to link kerbside collection systems and processing infrastructure by

allocating control of collection systems to regional local governments. Secondly the

discussion paper aims to improve governance structures by removing the inefficiencies

associated with the use of waste management infrastructure, transport, land-use and

markets. Lastly, the review proposes to establish statutory regional local government waste

plans and LGA waste plans. The plans would be required to align waste services and

contracts with a State waste infrastructure plan, the Waste Strategy targets or codes of

practice. Hence the review also outlines the development of a State waste infrastructure

plan which is linked to regional and local government waste plans and includes the

requirements for landfilling waste. It must be noted that the WARR Act Review is currently

targeting the Perth and Peel regions however, it is anticipated that any changes made to

the WARR Act may be included and applied to any waste related legislative changes within

major regional centres or state-wide in the future.

8.3 Best Practice Landfill Guidelines

As outlined previously, the State Government regulation of Prescribed Premises is becoming

more stringent facilitated through the REFIRE program. A key aspect of this is more consistent

approach to specifying standards. The DER has adopted a more holistic approach to the

adoption of the Victorian EPA’s Best Practice Landfill Guidelines across the State. The DER’s

view is that these best practice standards should apply to both old and new landfills, which is

having significant ramifications for the owners and operators of these facilities. This holistic

approach to compliance with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines has resulted in many of


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 49

July 2015 | Page 49

the LGAs in rural areas commencing costly exercises to achieve compliance to ensure that

long term disposal services can be provided to their communities.

Across the State, larger established rural landfills such as 7 Mile Waste Disposal Facility (City of

Karratha) and Meru Waste Management Facility (City of Greater Geraldton) have

commenced construction or planning of lined landfill cells similar to the process commenced

by the City of Busselton at its Vidler Road Landfill. These waste disposal facilities are required

to line future landfill cells in order to continue operations. In addition, the Shires of Broome,

Ashburton and Esperance are all in the early stages of developing new landfill sites which will

all be developed in accordance with the best practice principles outlined within the Best

Practice Landfill Guideline. It is therefore evident that the DER are enforcing the Best Practice

Landfill Guidelines across the State, particularly the larger regional centres, which has been

recently experienced by many of the LGAs within the South West Group. This is significantly

increasing the cost of waste management services within these areas. However, this cost

increase presents the opportunity for more sustainable waste practices such as resource

recovery, which can be either attractive or cost neutral to best practice landfilling costs.

8.4 Merchant Plants

The private waste industry has undergone a significant transition and development over the

last 5 years which is mainly underpinned by the increases in the Landfill Levy. Currently, a

number of parties are proposing to develop Merchant Plants .i.e. resource recovery facilities

developed independently by the private sector. This is a significant change from the existing

resource recovery facilities in the State which were the traditional Public Private Partnership

(PPP) contract arrangement. Currently there are two Merchant Plants being developed

within Perth and one in the Pilbara, all of which are concluding their pre-construction

activities including approvals and securing Waste Supply Agreements. The following facilities

are scheduled to commence accepting waste in the coming years:

New Energy Corporation Boodarie Waste-to-Energy - Port Hedland;

New Energy Corporation East Rockingham Waste-to-Energy - Rockingham; and

Phoenix Energy Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project - Kwinana.

The viability of these facilities in the Perth Metropolitan area is underpinned by their

competitive fee relative to landfill gates fees. Landfill gate fees are affected by progressive

increases in the landfill levy which is set to increase to $70 per tonne by 2018. In the Pilbara,

where there is no landfill levy, the facility is heavily dependent on the sale of electricity to

maintain its financial viability.

Therefore, it is evident that recent reform in WA has influenced the waste management

industry and will continue to do so into the future. In light of this reform, it is appropriate for

the South West Group to assess its current situation and commence the process of

developing a long term strategy for its waste management policies and practices.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 50

July 2015 | Page 50

9 Strategic Waste Management Options

Talis has identified a variety of potential Strategic Options across the various levels of the

Waste Management Hierarchy to assist the South West Group in progressing towards more

sustainable waste management systems.

To determine the feasibility of implementing each of the Strategic Options in the South West

Region, Talis has undertaken an assessment of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats (SWOT) associated with each Strategic Option. The SWOT analysis included

identification of the environmental, technical, social and financial impacts of each option as

well as the associated infrastructure, support services and capital requirements. In addition,

Talis has considered the financial and non-financial costs and benefits of each Strategic

Option if it were implemented on a local or regional scale.

The Strategic Options have been presented according to the Waste Management Hierarchy

groupings described previously and shown below.

The Capital and Operational costs for each Strategic Option have been aggregated and

are presented as annualised costs. A summary of the estimated tonnages and costs

associated with each Strategic Option is provided in Appendix B. In addition, Talis calculated

an estimated annual cost per tonne for the Strategic Options which directly accept or

process waste and have capital costs that exceed $1 million. The cost per tonne is based on

an Annualised Cost and the range of anticipated low and high annual waste tonnage for

projects of a regional and local scale.

It must be noted that these costs are only indicative and, require further investigation and

detailed feasibility assessments for future planning and budgeting purposes. A detailed

feasibility assessment of a Strategic Option would include but not be limited to:


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 51

July 2015 | Page 51

Demand analysis and available feedstocks;

Detailed conceptualisation of Strategic Option including services and/or

infrastructure; and

A detailed financial assessment including capital and operational expenditure.

9.1 Avoid, Reduce, Reuse

9.1.1 Integrated Waste Education Program

Providing waste education is a key factor in the success of a waste management system

and is required to support waste management services. The best performing waste

management systems are supported by strong waste education programs. Information

provided within a Waste Education Program should cover the following two key questions:

Why? Outlining the benefits of a sustainable waste management practices and

environmental justification for undertaking such activities; and

How? How the community can participate in waste management services provided.

Waste education usually focuses on initiatives at the top of the Waste Management

Hierarchy (avoid, reduce reuse and recycle) as well as informing on the particular services

provided. For maximum benefit, an education program should be directed not only at

specific groups such as schools but across the community and local businesses.

The majority of LGAs within the South West Group currently provide waste management

information via handouts and/or their respective websites. The BWGC currently employs a

Waste Education Officer which is funded by all members of the BWGC to develop and

promote waste education. These existing programs should be kept up-to-date in relation to

current services and, importantly, advanced in conjunction with the addition of new services

such as resource recovery initiatives.

There is also the potential for the South West Group to expand these programs to achieve

greater community awareness and involvement through the use of additional resources

including:

Additional education material at waste management facilities;

Increased frequency of pamphlets and newsletters distribution;

Develop a new waste education website for the South West Group;

Portable displays (for use at community events);

Static displays (at community centres and LGA offices); and

Waste Education Officer to service the South West Group.

Table 9-1: Integrated Waste Education Program

Internal External

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Advance the cultural

of recycling.

Improvement to

existing service.

Opportunity to

promote initiatives

preferred in the

Waste Management

Achieving full

community

engagement.

Cost and resources.

Cooperation

with local

community

groups and

businesses.

Community

support for

larger waste

Misinformation

leading to

confusion or

lack of

community

support.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 52

July 2015 | Page 52

Hierarchy.

Improved use of

waste management

services.

Greater ability to

promote waste

education via a

regional approach

initiatives.

The estimated costs associated with the implementation of an Integrated Waste Education

Program at a local or regional scale are shown below.

Project

Scale

Capital Cost Operational

Cost

Total Annualised Cost Cost per LGA

Low High Low High Low High

Local - - $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000

Regional - - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $8,300 $8,300

Notes: Operational cost includes resources to implement education initiatives.

9.1.2 Earth Carers

The Earth Carer Program was initiated by the Western Metropolitan Regional Council

(WMRC) in 2001 and is now being extended to the northern and eastern regions of Perth.

Earth Carers promote environmentally sustainable practices including waste management

initiatives by providing information, running talks and workshops and attending local festivals

and community events. Earth Carers engage with schools, residents and businesses to

encourage reduce, reuse and recycling activities. A key success of the Earth Carers model is

that the community become the messenger of the LGAs, promoting the various programs.

The South West Group could support the establishment of Earth Carers groups within the

region to promote the shift from the existing to a more sustainable waste management

system. The establishment of the Earth Carers groups would be facilitated by the Waste

Education Officer as it links well with the Integrated Waste Education Program. In addition,

the Earth Carer system could form the basis of a Community Reference Group which could

be created to assist with the siting and development of new waste management facilities.

This could help alleviate future issues with community concerns and opposition.

Table 9-2: Earth Carers SWOT

Internal External


Direct community

involvement – team

of waste champions.

Network of free

resources.

Practical measures for

waste avoidance

and reuse.

Opportunity to

promote Strategic

Options preferred in

the Waste

Management

Cost and resources.

Maintaining long

term commitment.

Management of

personalities.

Involvement

with local

businesses and

other

community

groups.

Provide

resources to

support other

Strategic

Options.

Improve

community

Control of

message –

inconsistent

message being

spread.

Potential for

conflict with the

LGAs.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 53

July 2015 | Page 53

Hierarchy. support for

Strategic

Options.

The estimated costs associated with supporting a local or regional Earth Carer program are

shown below.

Project Scale

Capital Cost Operational Cost



Local - - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Regional - - $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $1,700 $1,700

Notes: Operational cost includes resources to implement Earth Carers initiatives.

9.1.3 Influencing Commercial Practices

Providing information to commercial operators to improve their waste management

practices should be undertaken to:

Educate businesses to be smarter with their operations in relation to waste

management;

Inform businesses of the waste management services available; and

Obtain support for larger waste management initiatives.

Several of the LGAs within the South West Group currently take an active role in working with

local contractors to implement sustainable waste management initiatives such as improving

source separation. However, there is still significant potential to improve resource recovery

within the C&I and C&D streams within the region.

The South West Group could facilitate greater communication with the local commercial

sector, with a focus on practices from the upper tiers of the Waste Management Hierarchy.

This should include promoting the financial benefits of practices such as reducing oversupply,

reuse of materials and separating recyclable waste streams to reduce disposal costs. The

South West Group may wish to consider incorporating these activities into the role of the

Waste Education Officer who would run a campaign targeted towards commercial

operators.

Several LGAs within WA have implemented local Container Deposit programs, which involve

small reimbursements for the return of recyclable packaging materials to a designated

collection point. The Town of Port Hedland’s Cash for Trash scheme collects glass bottles,

plastic bottles and aluminium cans monthly at a local shopping centres and waste

management facility, while the City of Vincent has recently run a short-term Cash for Cans

program at local primary schools.

The South West Group may also implement a tax or ban on plastic bags to encourage the

use of reusable bags. This initiative has been implemented by the City of Fremantle through

the adoption of the City of Fremantle Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law in January 2013 which

bans the use of single use non-biodegradable plastic bags. Although the ban was imposed

by the City, it is important to recognise that initiatives such as this can only be successful with

the support of local businesses.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 54

July 2015 | Page 54

The South West Group could also influence commercial practices through its procurement

and approval processes. For tendered local government projects, the LGA could stipulate a

requirement to prepare a Waste Management Plan, with the focus on maximising the

diversion of materials from landfill. In addition, the LGA could also specify the requirement to

utilise recycled products in such projects, which will assist with the advancement of local

recycling markets. This can be particularly relevant to construction projects. Furthermore,

LGAs could condition the requirement for the preparation of Waste Management Plans for

proposals seeking planning approval. These Waste Management Plans should maximise the

diversion of materials from landfill, while also ensuring appropriate management systems are

in place for all waste arising. Similarly, this could have a significant impact on the larger

construction projects.

Table 9-3: Influencing Commercial Practices SWOT

Internal External


Involvement with

local businesses.

Opportunity to

promote initiatives

preferred in the

Waste Management

Hierarchy.

Targets a significant

proportion of the

waste stream.

Cost and resources.

Getting buy in from

the industry sectors.

Influencing

consumer

behaviour.

Increased

availability of

recycled

materials.

Potential for

new business in

the South West

Region.

Impacts on

charity

organisations

and small

businesses

currently

involved in

resource

recovery.

Cost estimates associated with influencing commercial practices at a local and regional

scale are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local - - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Regional - - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,700 $1,700

Notes: Operational cost includes resources to implement education initiatives in the C&I waste sector.

9.1.4 Regional Education Officer

As previously outlined, providing waste education is a key factor in the success of a waste

management system and the role of the Education Officer is paramount in the facilitation

and delivery of any integrated waste education program. A Regional Education Officer

would provide the means for the South West Group to present a consistent waste education

message across all the LGAs in the South West and develop closer partnerships between

regions, LGAs and communities.

The Regional Education Officer would be responsible for gaining community acceptance

and support for new waste management services to assist the South West Group move

towards a more sustainable waste management direction. In particular the Regional

Education Officer will manage the delivery of the Integrated Waste Education Program,

Earth Carers and Influencing Commercial Practices. It is important that engagement by the


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 55

July 2015 | Page 55

Regional Education Officer with the community is undertaken early to increase the chances

of success for both collection and infrastructure Strategic Options.

Table 9-4: Regional Education Officer SWOT

Internal External


One coordinated

person and

approach.

Involvement with

community groups,

local businesses and

LGAs.

Regional approach

to ensure that smaller

LGAs obtain services

that otherwise might

not be feasible.

Promotes new

Strategic Options.

Promotes the Waste

Management

Hierarchy.

Targets all waste

streams.

Cost and resources.

Spreading

resources evenly

amongst the South

West Group.

Influencing

consumer

behaviour.

Involvement with

local businesses

and other

community

groups.

Provide resources

to support other

Strategic

Options.

Improve

community

support for

Strategic

Options.

Potential for

mixed

messages,

due to

different

waste

systems.

Community

recognition

and interest.

Cost estimates associated with a Regional Education Officer are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local - - - - - - -

Regional - - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $8,300 $8,300

Notes: Operational cost includes the cost of the Regional Education Officer to implement education initiatives across the South West Region. This accounts for the labour component of the Integrated Waste Education Program, Earth Carers and Influencing Commercial Practices.

9.1.5 Reuse Shops

Many of the existing waste management facilities operated by LGAs in the South West

Group, have basic reuse facilities or areas where small quantities of reusable materials are

collected and stored and are generally available to the community for free or a minimal fee.

While this operation is valuable, these systems tend to be ad hoc and could be improved to

increase use of the service. An exception to the norm is the Bunbury-Harvey Regional

Council’s Reuse Shop at its Stanley Road Waste Management Facility which is a good

example of a modern reuse facility.

The South West Group could facilitate the development of a regional model for the

operation and establishment of dedicated Reuse Shops where reusable materials are

accepted, given minor improvements and presented for sale. Presentation is a key factor in

the success of a Reuse Shop, with attractive and well organised shops more likely to

encourage use and improve the quality of the items received. Reuse Shops generally


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 56

July 2015 | Page 56

include a shed for the storage of items that need to be held indoors, as well as a forecourt

area for larger, outdoor items. A consistent approach to the layout, signage and receptacles

at the Reuse Shops would ensure a greater uptake of the service and increase the reuse of

materials that may have traditionally been sent to landfill. An example of a successful Reuse

Shop run by the City of Armadale is shown in Plate 9-1.

Plate 9-1: Reuse Centre at Hopkinson Road Landfill, City of Armadale

Talis has recently designed a number of Community Reuse and Recycling Centres across the

State, which include Reuse Shops as part of modern integrated waste management facilities.

The operation of the Reuse Shop may be undertaken wholly or in part by community groups

such Earth Carers. This would increase support and awareness of the facility as well as

reduce operational costs to the LGA operating the Reuse Shop.

Table 9-5: Community Reuse Shop SWOT

Internal External


Improvement to

existing service.

Employment

opportunities.

Direct community

involvement.

Opportunity to

promote initiatives

preferred in the

Waste Management

Hierarchy.

Diversion of waste

from landfill.

Capital and

operational costs.

Maintaining

standards for items

and presentation.

Training

requirements from

staff.

Cooperation

with local

charities and

businesses.

Employment

and training

opportunities

for community

group.

Revenue

generating.

Occupational

Health and

Safety risks.

Impact on

existing

charities and

businesses.

Safety

standards for

reused goods.

The estimated costs to develop local Reuse Shops are shown below.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 57

July 2015 | Page 57

Project

Scale


Cost



Local $100,000 $250,000 $70,000 $80,000 $95,000 $80,000 $95,000

Regional - - - - - - -

Notes: Operated by a part-time employee and community members

9.1.6 Free Trade Website

The Free Trade website is a tool for the public and businesses which promotes the reuse of

household and commercial materials. The initiative was established in Dublin in 2006 and has

since expanded to cover all of Ireland (http://www.freetradeireland.ie/). Users of the

website are able to advertise used goods (such as household items, furniture and

construction materials) for others to collect and reuse free of charge. In addition, the

website could be used to advertise items held at the Reuse Shops across the Region.

There is a number of existing dedicated Facebook pages which facilitate the exchange of

reusable materials within and around the major regional centres of the South West Region. In

addition, Gumtree.com.au provides the same ability at a national scale. These websites are

utilised as a medium to buy, swap, sell and give away reusable items. However, a regional

approach by the South West Group to develop and promote the use of a Free Trade

Website would facilitate the pooling of all these reusable items into one easy to use website.

In doing so, the South West Group would increase the minimisation and reuse of waste

materials. In particular, the website would assist in providing the South West Group with

credits towards the landfill diversion targets for the MSW, C&I and C&D sectors as outlined

within the State Waste Strategy. The website may also be promoted as part of the operation

of the network of Reuse Shops across the region, which could be used as convenient drop-

off and collection locations.

Table 9-6: Free Trade SWOT

Internal External


Promotes reuse of

materials.

Attract younger

members of the

community to

participate.

Small proportion of

waste stream

targeted.

Links other

Strategic

Options.

Local business

opportunities

and

engagement.

Lack of

community

use/

participation.

The estimated costs to support the various reuse websites in the Shire are shown below.

Project Scale




Local - - - - - - -

Regional $10,000 $15,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,500 $170 $210

Notes: Capital costs are for initial website development. Operational cost includes maintenance of the website. Existing resources will be made available for frequent website updates.

http://www.freetradeireland.ie/


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 58

July 2015 | Page 58

9.2 Recycle

9.2.1 Greenwaste Mulching

Greenwaste mulching is a low cost solution that uses simple and proven technology which is

utilised across WA. There are a number of applications for mulch. Some LGAs provide it to

the community free of charge for their own personal use while others utilise mulch for their

own parks and maintenance works.

Depending on the ecological characteristics of the area, quality can be a key issue for the

mulch generated. In some areas, greenwaste may be mulched without any treatment,

while some LGAs treat the material through windrow composting or use the mulch as a

feedstock for more advanced biological treatment options. The need for and type of pre-

treatment required is determined by both the source of the material and local demand for

the potential products.

In order to potentially lower the mulching cost associated with Contractors fees, the South

West Group could procure the services of a Contractor and establish a regional contract in

which the Contractor undertakes mulching on behalf of all the LGAs in the South West

Group. It is anticipated that the Tendered Fee would be lower due to the number of LGAs

participating in the regional contract and hence provides additional guaranteed work for

the Contractor. Further consideration of this concept is required however, it is anticipated

that each LGA would pay the reduced fee to the Contractor based on the quantity of

greenwaste mulched. In addition, the Contractor may either be individually scheduled by

each LGA or continues to service each LGA on a rotational basis.

Table 9-7: Greenwaste Mulching SWOT

Internal External


Simple technology

with existing markets.

Low processing cost.

Improved diversion of

waste from landfill.

Reliable service.

Generally a low

value product.

Additional cost and

resources to current

operations.

Users concerns

about quality.

Engagement

with the

community with

mulch provided

back free of

charge.

Potential for

revenue for the

material.

Contamination.

Oversupply of

the market.

The estimated costs to continue with a local contract or establish a regional contract for

greenwaste mulching are shown below. Please note that operational costs for the

Greenwaste Mulching are dependent on the volume accepted, which is influenced by the

number of residents, kerbside and vergeside collection systems and WMFs. This applies to

other Strategic Options detailed within this Strategy which have a local operational cost

component.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 59

July 2015 | Page 59

Project

Scale


Cost



Local - - $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

Regional - - $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $12,500 $12,500

Notes: Works continue to be undertaken by a contractor as required.

9.2.2 Scrap Metal Recycling

The process of scrap metal recycling, for LGAs, has involved the stockpiling of scrap metals

at waste management facilities for an extended period until such time that sufficient

quantity is achieved to fill the contractor’s haulage vehicle. In some cases the scrap metal

stockpile may not be collected for several years.

Scrap metal recycling continued in WA through the global financial crisis however, sale

prices for metal are far more inconsistent in recent times. The scrap metal price is constantly

affected by supply and demand resulting in varied returns for LGAs. It is therefore, far more

common for LGAs to see poor returns from there scrap metal stockpiles.

In order for the South West Group to see a better return from their scrap metal, it is

anticipated that a regional collection contract would facilitate economies of scale to obtain

an increased return for the scrap metal. There will continue to be variances in the

commodity prices for recycled scrap metal, however, a regional approach may ensure that

a metal recycler had a guaranteed feed of scrap metal and therefore potentially providing

a greater return which may offset the varied scrap metal sale price.

Table 9-8: Scrap Metal Recycling SWOT

Internal External


Revenue generator.

Effective process with

existing markets.

Improved diversion of


Reliable service.

Varied product

value.

Additional cost and

resources to current

operations.

Contamination can

reduce revenue.

Requires large

area.

Free drop-off

by community.

Contamination.

Oversupply of

the market.

As the process of scrap metal recycling generates revenue for the LGAs, no capital or

operational costs estimates have been provided however, it is anticipated that if a regional

contract was developed for the recycling of scrap metal the LGAs would receive a greater

return for their recycled product.

9.2.3 Mattress Recycling

Mattresses have traditionally been landfilled and continue to be in the majority of rural WA.

Mattresses consume valuable airspace in landfills and cannot easily be compacted by

machinery at the tipping face. In addition, springs can get caught within the axles of the

landfill machinery and cause issues. However, in the Perth Metropolitan area, mattress

recycling has significantly improved in the last 5 years where there is now several companies

undertaking the exercise.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 60

July 2015 | Page 60

In the Perth Metropolitan area, mattresses are typically collected separately from the verge

collections by the recycler and hauled to a recycling depot. Other LGAs stockpile mattresses

at their waste management facilities and either haul the mattresses themselves to a recycler

or receive a bulk collection as required. The recycler typically charges per mattress to

recycle it and generates revenue from the sale of the individual components within the

mattress in particular the steel springs. In order to achieve greater efficiencies for both

transportation and sale of the steel springs, a steel press is utilised to bale the springs into

cubed blocks.

For mattress recycling to be a viable process within the South West Region, the South West

Group should consider the establishment of a regional Mattress Recycling Centre. The

Mattress Recycling Centre would be ideally located central to the LGAs of the South West

Group and receive mattresses from across the region. It is anticipated that mattresses would

be stockpiled under cover at each of the LGA waste management facilities until such time

that sufficient quantity can be transported to the regional facility. It is preferred that storage

of the mattresses is undercover to maintain and not degrade the economic value of the

components in the mattress. The collection and transportation process would become part

of the operations of the Mattress Recycling Centre. Transportation would typically be in hook-

lift bins, however further consideration of the transport efficiencies utilising other haulage

vehicles would need to be examined.

Table 9-9: Mattress Recycling SWOT

Internal External


Removes problematic

waste going to

landfill.

Encourage source

separation.

Generates revenue

from the sale of

recycled

components.

Increased availability

of recycling services.

Space

requirements at

waste

management

facilities.

Capital cost and

resources.

Preferred covered

storage.

Requires additional

collections.

Potential for

revenue for the

material.

Local

employment

generation.

Potential

problematic

waste funding.

Occupational

Health and

Safety risks.

Impact on

existing

businesses.

Lack of markets

for products.

The estimated costs to establish a regional Mattress Recycling Centre are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local - - - - - - -

Regional $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $8,750 $9,200

Notes: Capital costs include a building and small inner spring baling machine. Operational cost includes full time position and resources to undertake mattress recycling.

9.2.4 Kerbside Recycling

It is widely known that there are environmental benefits achieved from kerbside recycling,

with the majority of the benefit obtained from avoiding air and water pollution caused by

processing virgin resources and preventing recyclables from entering landfill. However,

kerbside recycling has traditionally been a costly exercise resulting in a financial burden


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 61

July 2015 | Page 61

upon LGAs. Low commodity prices, high processing costs and transportation costs have

resulted in Contractors charging LGAs high collection costs. Of particular relevance in WA,

the tyranny of distance affects the financial feasibility of implementing kerbside recycling

collections when markets for the collected materials are typically based out of Perth.

However, in spite of the financial expense of the service, kerbside collection of recycled

materials continues to become common place amongst LGAs within the South West Group.

This is mainly due to more communities becoming aware of the environmental impacts of

landfilling and in addition, greater expectation to receive kerbside recycling collections as

part of everyday services. All the LGAs have indicated that kerbside recycling is at least

undertaken in the larger townships of their communities. It is anticipated that all the LGAs

have some plan to implement or further expand their kerbside recycling practices over the

coming years.

To expand a kerbside recycling collection service in rural WA, it is typically assumed that a

greater geographic area is captured. However, recent research1 in the recycling industry has

shown that an increase in the frequency of kerbside collections of recyclable materials

actually results in an increase of recyclable material being collected. As a consequence of

this, the quantity of refuse collected as part of the weekly kerbside MSW collection tends to

reduce. In addition, some LGAs have reversed the frequency, by collecting refuse fortnightly

and recyclables weekly including the Town of East Fremantle and the Cities of Cockburn,

Fremantle and Melville. As an alternative approach to this, some LGAs have altered the size

of the mobile garbage bins (MGBs) by increasing the recycling MGB to 360L MGBs and

reducing the size of the refuse MGB to 120L.

These approaches to kerbside recycling assist in changing behaviours by providing more

opportunity to recycle and therefore, result in less waste going to landfill. The implementation

of new or alternative recycling collection systems must be considered in greater detail by

each LGA against environmental, social and economic aspects to determine the feasibility

within their respective LGA.

Table 9-10: Kerbside Recycling SWOT

Internal External


Reduces waste to

landfill.



Encourages source

separation.

Generates revenue

from the sale of

recycled

components.

Cost and resources.

Potential

contamination

issues.

Recognised for

Best Practice.

Greater

community

appreciation in

LGA.

Influencing

consumer

behaviour.

Lack of uptake

of additional

services.

Each kerbside collection program is unique to each LGA. Due to the specific nature of each

kerbside recycling program within the South West Group, Talis is unable to provide cost

estimates for any local or regional implementation of such a program. However, similar to the

1 The Impact of Alternate Weekly Collections on Waste Arisings (2012) - I.D. Williams & C. Cole


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 62

July 2015 | Page 62

Scrap Metal Recycling Strategic Option, it is anticipated that if a regional contract was

developed for kerbside recycling the LGAs would benefit from a lower collection cost.

9.2.5 C&I Recyclables Collections

Many of the LGAs offer a comingled recycling collection service to commercial premises

through either the existing Contractor or as part of in-house kerbside collections. When a

service such as kerbside recycling is offered to the commercial sector it is typically taken up

by local businesses. For those who offer this service, greater participation could be

encouraged through increased collection frequency, larger receptacles, marketing and

education. In addition, LGAs could also expand current services from offering only a

comingled service to including material specific collections including:

Paper (such as scrap paper from offices);

Cardboard;

Aluminium cans and/or glass (particularly at pubs and hotels); and

Food waste (from restaurants and other food outlets).

Collection of food waste as a separate stream would allow this material to be used as a

feedstock for other Strategic Options involving the processing of organics.

Table 9-11: C&I Recyclables Collections SWOT

Internal External


Complements existing

recycling services.

Increased collection

of materials.

Greater participation

by C&I sector.

Cost and resources.

Potential

contamination

issues.

Requires buy in

from waste

generators.

Existing waste

collection

contractual issues.

Links with other

Strategic Waste

Management

Initiatives.

Greater

involvement

with local

industry sectors.

Lack of uptake

of additional

services.

As previously outlined, kerbside collection programs are specific to each LGA and therefore,

Talis is unable to provide cost estimates for any local or regional implementation of such a

program. However, similar to previous Strategic Options, it is anticipated that a regional

contract for C&I Recyclables Collections may lower collection costs.

9.2.6 Recycling Station Network

Recycling stations provide residents and tourists with easy access to recycling services within

or near towns. Traditionally waste management facilities are located out of town, whereas a

recycling station can be a bank receptacles situated in a communal area that allows source

separation of recyclables within a township of any size as shown in Plate 9-2.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 63

July 2015 | Page 63

Plate 9-2: A Recycling Station Bank

The recycling station tends to complement any recycling services already provided either

through kerbside collections or drop-off at waste management facilities. The recyclables are

collected either frequently or as required depending on the utilisation within that area.

Collections are typically the responsibility of a Contractor and if this can be included within

existing or new contracts it should be done so however, due to the potential infrequent use,

the LGA should consider undertaking the collection in-house.

In addition to recycling stations, LGAs could incorporate a recycling theme at community

events. Several examples of this include:

Since 2008, the City of Rockingham has run an annual art competition (the Castaway

Sculpture Awards) in which local artists, schools and community members utilise

reusable materials to create sculptures which are displayed at the Rockingham

foreshore; and

As part of 2013 Australia Day celebrations, the City of Perth and South Perth

promoted recycling within designated Reduce Reuse Recycle Zones by offering food

or activity vouchers in exchange for source separated recyclables.

Many of the LGAs already have systems which are similar to the recycling station network. To

generate greater consistency across the South West Region, it is suggested that the South

West Group consider the implementation of a recycling station network which has the same

type, shape, colour and signage for the receptacles. This will present a consistent message

for residents and tourists alike.

Table 9-12: Recycling Station Network SWOT

Internal External


Generates clean

separated streams.



Relatively cost

effective recycling

solution

Requires

additional

collections.

Space

requirements at

suitable public

places.

Links with

Integrated

Community

Education

Program.

Linkages with

occupiers/busine

sses of suitable

locations.

Vandalism and

fire.

Potential

contamination.

Poor

housekeeping.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 64

July 2015 | Page 64

The estimated costs associated with implementing a consistent local or regional recycling

station network is shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local $10,000 $50,000 $10,000 $11,000 $15,000 $11,000 $15,000

Regional $100,000 $500,000 $100,000 $110,000 $150,000 $9,200 $12,500

Notes: Capital costs include purchase and distribution of receptacles.

9.2.7 C&D Waste Processing

The LGAs of the South West already understand the importance of conserving landfill void

space and as such stockpile materials that can be utilised for a greater end purpose. C&D

materials such as concrete, bricks and sand are already separated and stockpiled at most

waste management facilities across the South West. Materials are stockpiled in preparation

for processing which to be successful, the following elements are required:

Clean streams;

Areas for stockpiling of C&D material;

Access to/purchase of crushing and screening machinery; and

Markets for the products generated.

With continued education and inspection, C&D waste streams accepted at waste

management facilities across the South West Region will not contain significant

contamination if any.

Similar to the suggested approach for greenwaste mulching, the South West Group could

procure the services of a Contractor and establish a regional contract for C&D processing.

As previously outlined, it is anticipated that this approach may lower the fees charged by the

Contractor to the LGAs. However, further consideration is required regarding the basis of the

fee paid and how the scheduling for the service is determined.

C&D processing is usually undertaken at the waste management facility where the stockpiles

exist as it is a convenient location for the drop-off of materials by contractors and supports

the concept of resource recovery at the facility. However, due to the environmental impacts

of C&D waste processing, including the generation of dust and noise, it is typically separated

from other operations on site. This could involve siting the C&D stockpiles and hence

processing activities away from areas utilised by the community and the use of screening

and/or noise minimisation barriers. To undertake processing of C&D materials, the

construction of a hardstand is typically required to avoid instability issues with the processing

equipment however, site specific characteristics will need to be considered prior to

construction in order to determine the hardstand requirement. In addition, crushing and

screening of C&D waste is a category 13 Prescribed Premises. It is anticipated that the waste

management facilities across the region currently do not have a Category 13 Prescribed

Premise approval. Therefore, additional approvals are required to undertake these activities.

Table 9-13: C&D Waste Processing SWOT

Internal External


Diversion of inert Volume of material Engagement No use/market


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 65

July 2015 | Page 65


Reduce cost and use

of virgin materials in

road construction

Generation of a

product with strong

existing markets and

other civil works.

required to make

crushing and

screening viable.

Area required for

stockpiling.

Environmental

approvals for

crushing.

with local

construction

and demolition

businesses.

for material.

Cost estimates for the processing of C&D waste on a local and regional scale are shown

below.

Project

Scale


Cost

Total Annualised Cost

Cost per LGA


Local $500,000 $1

million $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $100,000 $150,000

Regional $500,000 $1

million $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $33,300 $37,500

Notes: Cost estimates based on purchase of a crusher and operate as required.

9.2.8 Clean Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

A ‘clean’ MRF processes only dry recyclables and separates the materials into recycling

streams such as paper, cardboard, metals, plastic and glass ready for market. In addition,

the MRF separates the contamination into a residue stream which is typically removed off site

for disposal. MRFs generally incorporate a range of manual labour picking lines and

mechanical separating techniques by a variety of means such as by size or weight,

magnetism and floatation.

Any commingled kerbside collected recyclables are taken to the MRF for processing. A large

scale regional MRF to cater for the LGAs in the South West would reduce the distance that

the recyclables must travel prior to processing. Processed recyclables could then be bulk

hauled to Perth. This approach creates transport efficiencies if the regional MRF is ideally

located to suit the South West Group.

A large commercial scale local government owned MRF would also add competition to the

market place where currently there is only one such facility in the South West which is

privately owned. However, several LGAs utilise small scale MRFs run by private companies.

These smaller facilities typically meet the needs of their communities, however there is still little

competition to these small scale facilities which results in higher fees charged to LGAs.

Table 9-14: Regional Clean MRF SWOT

Internal External


Transport efficiencies.

Increased recovery of

materials through

source separation.

Existing small scale

systems.

Operational

complexity.

Significant capital

and operational

costs.

Revenue from

sale of

products.

Create

competition in

market.

Integration with

No market for

material.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 66

July 2015 | Page 66

other Strategic

Options.

Local

employment

generation.

Cost estimates for the development of a local or regional MRF are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local $750,000 $2

million $500,000 $575,000 $700,000 $575,000 $700,000

Regional $2.5

million $5

million $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $62,500 $83,333

As outlined previously, for the purposes of this study Talis investigated the anticipated cost

per tonne for the delivery and operation of large infrastructure projects that have capital

costs that exceed $1 million such as the Clean MRF. As it is difficult to anticipate how much

waste would be supplied to a Local MRF (to service one LGA), only a Regional MRF servicing

the South West Region was utilised to model a cost per tonne. For the Clean MRF, it was

assumed that 80% of all dry recyclables would be utilised for the low estimate whereas, 100%

of all recyclables would be the high estimate of recyclables accepted at the MRF for

processing. The range of low (80%) and high (100%) tonnages where utilised to provide a low

and high cost per tonne. The cost was based on the higher estimated Total Annualised Cost

which includes a portion of the capital and operational costs that are anticipated to be

maximum values for that Strategic Option. The resulting annual cost per tonne of waste was

calculated as $65 and $61 for the low and high waste quantity respectively for the Clean

MRF.

9.2.9 Modern Community Recycling and Drop-off Centres

The majority of LGAs within the South West Group already operate drop-off facilities which

cater for their local communities. The design of these facilities tend to vary from one LGA to

another however, each accepts a similar range of materials including recyclable

packaging, e-waste, oils and household hazardous waste. Other materials (including scrap

metals, greenwaste, inert waste, bulk items unfit for reuse or classified as refuse) are not

typically collected at a drop-off facility and instead are stockpiled or disposed of at a

licenced landfill.

To support the focus on resource recovery at the current drop-off facilities, the LGAs within

the South West Group could expand their operations to include acceptance of residential

and small commercial loads of bulk materials such as greenwaste, inert waste and scrap

metal which can be utilised as feedstock for a variety of resource recovery options, if already

not currently being undertaken. In addition, refuse requiring disposal can also be accepted

at the facility, minimising health and safety issues associated with public access to active

landfill tipping faces.

However, these facilities are typically not designed in accordance with best practice

principles. In particular, presentation is a key aspect of successful modern community

recycling and drop-off centres. Best practice facilities are clean, well-organised, informative

and arranged to support the waste management hierarchy by encouraging reuse, recycling


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 67

July 2015 | Page 67

and recovery of materials as well as separated streams. A modern layout of a best practice

Community Recycling and Drop-Off Centre is shown in Diagram 9-1. In addition, some

examples of modern community recycling and drop-off centres are shown in Plate 9-3 and

Plate 9-4.

Diagram 9-1: Education, reuse, recycling in accordance with waste hierarchy

Plate 9-3: Sealed hardstands present a clean and well-organised facility

Education

Centre

Reuse

Building

Recycling

Area


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 68

July 2015 | Page 68

Plate 9-4: Informative and consistent signage makes disposal simplistic

Accepting all household materials at the drop-off facility would limit public access to any

landfill operations at the waste management facility, which is in accordance with best

practice principles and would improve site safety.

Table 9-15: Community Recycling and Drop-off Centre SWOT

Internal External


Opportunity to promote

initiatives preferred in

the Waste Management

Hierarchy.

Encourage source

separation.

Increased recovery of

materials through source

separation.

Limit public access to

landfilling operations.

Located at existing

WMFs.

Cost and

resources.

Existing

systems.

Integration with

other Strategic

Options.

Local

employment

generation.

Occupational

Health and

Safety risks to

users.

Lack of markets

for products.

The estimated costs to establish and operate a Community Recycling and Drop-off Centre or

upgrade an existing facility are shown below.

Project Scale


Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local $500,000 $1

million $200,000 $225,000 $275,000 $225,000 $275,000

Regional - - - - - - -

9.3 Recover and Treat

9.3.1 Organics Bin (3rd Kerbside MGB)

A system which separates organics at the source is traditionally facilitated through the

utilisation of a third kerbside collected MGB. The third bin targets organic materials such as

greenwaste and food waste. These organics may be processed by aerobic or anaerobic

digestion to generate compost and potentially for energy. The compost produced from

source separated organics contains minimal contamination and therefore, is a suitable

product for use as a soil improver in many applications.

There are a number of LGAs who as part of the BWGC have received a grant for a third bin

in order to develop a source separated organics system which feeds the Bunbury Wellington

Organics Recovery Facility (BWORF) near Dardanup. This system has received praise for its

approach in a rural area; the first of its kind in WA.

Source separation of organics further reduces the quantity of waste to landfill which

traditionally is disposed of via the refuse kerbside collected waste stream. In addition, the

decomposition of organics is more prone to producing methane which is harmful to the


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 69

July 2015 | Page 69

earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, one of the key objectives of diverting organic waste from

landfill would therefore be to minimise costly void space consumption and reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to generating a quality compost product.

Table 9-16: Source Separated Organics SWOT

Internal External


Clean waste stream.

Diversion of organic


Dependent on

participants for

volume of material

and limit

contamination.

Implementation

and operation

costs to the Shire.

Integration with

other Strategic

Options.

Funding from

external

sources.

Lack of support

from Council.

Lack of

community

involvement.

As previously discussed, kerbside collection programs are specific to each LGA and

therefore, Talis is unable to provide cost estimates for these types of waste management

Strategic Options. However, as stated previously, it is anticipated that a regional contract

may lower collection costs.

9.3.2 Dirty MRF

In contrast to a ‘clean’ MRF which processes only dry recyclables, a Dirty MRF is a facility

which accepts mixed MSW, C&I and C&D wastes and separates the materials into organics,

recyclables, inert and residue streams. These facilities incorporate a range of separating

techniques including separation by material size or weight and magnetic separators. As no

source separation is required, which can result in a loss of recyclable and recoverable

materials to the refuse stream, a Dirty MRF maximises the quantity of materials presented for

recovery. However, the product streams generated contain higher levels of contamination

than those generated following source separation. Depending on the outputs of the Dirty

MRF, this contamination can have a significant effect on future uses.

Following separation, the organic stream can be processed aerobically and/or

anaerobically to generate a compost product and potentially energy. Within Europe, Dirty

MRFs are utilised to separate refuse streams of specified calorific values which are then fed

into Waste-to-Energy facilities.

Table 9-17: Dirty MRF SWOT

Internal External


No alteration to

current collection

system.

Opportunity to

maximise quantity of

materials recovered.

Diversion of organic


Significant capital

and operational

costs.

Existing system for

recyclables

collection.

Generates ‘dirty’

streams.

Operational

complexity.

Integration

with other

Strategic

Options.

Engagement

with

agricultural

sector.

Revenue

generation.

Environmental

approvals.

Disruption of

process due to

contamination.

Alteration in

regulatory and

market

conditions

relation to the

sale of organic


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 70

July 2015 | Page 70

products.

The estimated costs to establish and operate a local or regional Dirty MRF are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local $1 million $5

million $500,000 $600,000 $1 million $600,000

$1 million

Regional $5 million $10

million $600,000

$1,1 million

$1.6 million

$91,700 $133,400

To determine the cost per tonne for a Regional Dirty MRF, it was assumed that 45% and 65%

was utilised as the range of MSW and C&I waste accepted at the Dirty MRF for processing

and the cost based on the Total Annualised Cost. The resulting annual cost per tonne of

waste was calculated as $31 and $30 for the range of estimated low and high waste

tonnages respectively.

9.3.3 Organic Waste Processing

Separated organic waste streams, including food waste and greenwaste, may be processed

either aerobically or anaerobically to generate a compost product or similar, which may be

used by a regional local government/LGA or sold to local businesses or the community.

Composting is a biological process through which biodegradable material is broken down

by naturally occurring micro-organisms in the presence of oxygen (aerobically). Aeration

may be achieved by mechanically turning the material, or through forced aeration. When

undertaken under correct conditions (such as temperature, moisture and nutrient content,

duration and pile size), composting can kill both weeds and pathogens within the feedstock

material.

9.3.3.1 Windrow Aeration

Windrow aeration involves composting organic material in a simple windrow system, through

which material is left in outdoor rows which are turned regularly to increase airflow. Turning,

undertaken either by a front-end loader or specialised windrow turner, must be undertaken

regularly to ensure sufficient aeration. Due to the need to turn the windrows mechanically,

the spatial requirements for mechanical aeration are significant. Composting within

windrows occurs slowly and has the potential to generate significant odour emissions,

particularly with food waste within the feedstock material.

Table 9-18: Windrow Aeration SWOT

Internal External


Diversion of material

from landfill.

Relatively low capital

cost and

infrastructure

requirements.

Reduced greenhouse

gas emissions

Potential odour

issues.

Capital and

operational costs.

Spatial

requirements.

Potential

Contamination

Engagement

with local

landscaping or

agricultural

businesses.

Revenue

opportunities.

Market security

for products.

Environmental

approvals.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 71

July 2015 | Page 71

compared to landfill.

Generation of

material with existing

markets.

issues

The potential costs associated with Windrow Aeration at a local or regional scale are shown

below.

Project Scale


Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local $200,000 $400,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $120,000 $140,000

Regional $300,000 $550,000 $100,000 $130,000 $155,000 $10,800 $12,900

Notes:

9.3.3.2 Forced Aeration

Forced aeration involves establishing composting piles on top of a perforated piping system

which inject air into the pile from the base. This system increases the speed of decomposition

and reduces footprint requirements compared to mechanical aeration systems. One

example of forced aeration is the Mobile Aerated Floor (MAF) composting system, shown in

Plate 9-5. C-Wise, a specialist composting business 70 km south of Perth, currently provides

MAF systems within WA. The MAF system has been selected by the Bunbury-Harvey Regional

Council for use at the BWORF which accepts full organic materials including food waste. As

outlined previously, the BWORF has been a highly successful system. The site that the

Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council currently house the BWORF system has recently been

purchased by a new third party. This has provided some uncertainty to the program and the

Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council is currently considering alternative long term options for the

BWORF.

Plate 9-5: Mobile Aerated Floor composting system

http://www.maf-compostingsystems.de/custom-composts.html

Table 9-19: Forced Aeration SWOT


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 72

July 2015 | Page 72

Internal External



from landfill.

Greater control of

composting process.

Quicker turnaround

time for composting

activity.


cost and

infrastructure

requirements.

Smaller footprint

requirements than

windrow aeration.

Reduced greenhouse

gas emissions


Staff training

requirements.

Capital and

operational costs

commitments.

Potential odour

issues.

Spatial

requirements.

Engagement

with local

landscaping or

agricultural

businesses.

Revenue

generation.

Security in

markets for

products.

Environmental

approvals.

The potential costs associated with Forced Aeration are shown below.

Project Scale


Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local $500,000 $750,000 $125,000 $175,000 $200,000 $175,000 $200,000

Regional $750,000 $1.2

million $125,000 $200,000 $245,000 $16,700 $20,400

Notes:

9.3.3.3 Mechanical Aeration

Within WA, two significant mechanical aerobic resource recovery facilities are currently

operational including the Mindarie Regional Council Biovision facility in Neerabup and the

Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s Bedminster facility in Canning Vale. Although both

facilities are slightly different both are mechanical aerobic facilities that process the organic

element of mixed refuse. Both facilities have rotating trommels to assist with refining the

separation of the organic and non-organic fractions. The organic fraction is then placed on

maturation beds to encourage the composting process.

Like similar mechanical aerobic facilities across the world, the two facilities within Perth have

an annual throughput of approximately 100,000 tonnes per annum and represent a

significant financial commitment for the Regional Councils and their member councils. Key

cost items include the capital cost of the facility and the ongoing environmental controls

including bio-filters for odours. Therefore, these facilities are only financially viable from a cost

perspective on significant throughputs.

Table 9-20: Mechanical Aeration SWOT

Internal External



from landfill.

Staff training

requirements.

Engagement

with local

Lack of markets

for products.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 73

July 2015 | Page 73

Reduced greenhouse

gas emissions


High capital and

operational costs.

Large spatial

requirement.

Ongoing

environmental

controls

requirements.

landscaping or

agricultural

businesses.

Environmental

approvals.

Estimated costs to establish and operate a Mechanical Aeration facility locally or regionally

are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost


Cost per LGA


Local $30

million $35

million $1 million

$2.5 million

$2.75 million

$2.5 million

$2.75 million

Regional $40

million $50

million $1 million

$3 million

$3.5 million

$250,000 $291,700

The cost per tonne for a facility that utilises Mechanical Aeration was calculated as $225 and

$205 for the low and high waste tonnage estimate respectively. This was based on the

majority of the organic fraction of total MSW and C&I waste (40% low estimate and 60% high

estimate) accepted at the facility. The cost was based on the Total Annualised Cost shown in

the above table.

9.3.3.4 Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) technology breaks down the organic (biogenic) component of

the waste stream in the presence of limited oxygen. The biological process is undertaken by

naturally occurring micro-organisms. The result is biogas (that is used to generate electricity),

and organic digestate. The solid fraction of the digestate is often used to produce compost

while the liquid component can be used as a liquid fertiliser.

In most instances, mechanical separation is used to remove the recyclable items and

residual waste from the organic fraction before AD is commenced.

AD technologies are common in the market and various different forms are available

including:

Wet systems: <15% dry matter;

Dry systems: 15-45% dry matter;

Mesophilic AD: operates at a temperature of approximately 35°C;

Thermophilic AD: operates at approximately 55°C;

Continuous process; and

Batch process.

AD is a Waste-to-Energy technology in that it produces energy through the production of the

combustible biogas. Typically the biogas is taken from the digestor, cleaned and then used

as a fuel in internal combustion engines which drive electricity generators. AD facilities also

consume electricity to drive their materials handling processes and odour control systems.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 74

July 2015 | Page 74

Therefore, they do not tend to produce the same amount of net energy as thermal

processes as most of it is used within the facility.

As the primary biological processes occur in an oxygen restricted environment the quantity

of odorous air that is generated is significantly less than occurs for aerobic composting.

The quality of compost produced in a biological waste process is influenced by the level of

contamination of the waste stream. While front end separation of organics from the

remainder of the waste stream is possible the final quality of the compost tends to still be

affected if the waste stream is highly contaminated initially.

A separate organics waste collection service is ideal to minimise the level of contamination.

This provides higher quality compost that is more marketable and of higher value. Compost,

of good quality and uncontaminated, can add significant benefits to soils, reducing the

quantities of fertilisers and water used for agriculture or horticulture.

Traditional AD facilities that process household waste have consisted of large scale facilities

processing 50,000 to 100,000tpa. Recent developments in the market have introduced

smaller modular AD systems which can process small volumes of waste. For example, Bioplex

manufactures a series of AD systems with capacities ranging from 50tpa to 40,000tpa.

Another example is the PG3 Mobile Portagester (Plate 9-6), which can process 2,000tpa to

10,000tpa. However, to date Talis is not aware of any demonstrated or operational plants of

those types within Australia processing household waste. Furthermore, no capital or

operation cost estimates have been gathered to date.

Plate 9-6: Bioplex PG3 Mobile Portagester

http://www.g-can.net/articles/detail.aspx?articleid=130

Table 9-21: Anaerobic Digestion SWOT

Internal External



from landfill.

Potential to generate

electricity.

Cost and resources.

Environmental

controls required.

Sensitivity of the

biological process.

Engagement

with local

landscaping or

agricultural

businesses.

Markets security

for products.



South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 75

July 2015 | Page 75

Estimated costs to establish and operate an AD facility at a local or regional scale are shown

below.

Project

Scale


Cost

Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local $35

million $40

million $1.5 million

$3.25 million

$3.5 million

$3.25 million

$3.5 million

Regional $45

million $55


$3.75 million

$4.25 million

$312,500 $354,200

For the calculated cost per tonne of the AD facility, it was assumed that 40% of all MSW and

C&I waste was the low estimate of waste generated within the South West Region and 60%

was the high estimate of waste accepted. The cost was based on the Total Annualised Cost.

The resulting annual cost per tonne of waste was calculated as $176 and $152 for the low

and high waste quantities respectively.

9.3.4 Special Waste Processing

Special Waste Processing involves the processing of specific waste materials utilising specialist

technologies or equipment. Several Special Waste Processing options are available to the

LGAs of the South West Group to process materials such as waste oil and plastics.

9.3.4.1 Biodiesel from Cooking Oil

One litre of waste cooking oil can be converted into one litre of biodiesel, which is able to be

used as a fuel neat or blended with petroleum diesel. This reduces the quantity of oil (a non-

renewable resource) that goes to waste and generates a non-toxic fuel which prolongs

engine life.

The Ashburton Aboriginal Corporation’s (AAC’s) ASHOIL collects waste cooking oil from

townsites and satellite mine sites within the Pilbara region. The main production plant

generates approximately 10,000L of biodiesel per week, of which 5,000 to 7,000L is purchased

by Rio Tinto for their operations and the remainder is utilised by AAC. The AAC has also

installed smaller biodiesel production units (up to 100L and 165L per day) at several

Aboriginal communities.

Table 9-22: Biodiesel from Cooking Oil

Internal External



and operational

costs.

Generation of useful

product.

Training opportunities.

Small scale operation.

Limited waste

diversion due to

low quantities

generated.

Requires separation

of clean waste

stream.

Engagement

with community

and local

businesses to

supply oil and

utilise product.

Production of

renewable

energy.

Funding from

external sources.

Security of

markets.

Environmental

approvals.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 76

July 2015 | Page 76

Providing a receptacle an LGAs waste management facility for waste cooking oil would

result in a minimal cost.

9.3.4.2 Diesel from Waste Plastics

Diesel may also be generated from mixed waste plastics, reducing the quantity of material

disposed of to landfill. The types of plastics that are able to be processed include:

Low Density Polyethylene (Plastic 4) – plastic bags and films;

Polypropylene (Plastic 5) – takeaway food containers, ice-cream containers; and

Polystyrene (Plastic 6) – packaging foam, meat trays, yoghurt containers, plastic cups.

These separated streams could be sourced from the recycling station network, MRF sorting

operations and community drop-off centres where designated receptacles are provided for

these materials.

Table 9-23: Diesel from Waste Plastics SWOT

Internal External



and operational

costs.

Generation of useful

product.

Training opportunities.

Diversion of

material from

recycling.

Requires separation

of clean waste

stream.

Engagement

with local

businesses to

utilise product.

Production of

renewable

energy.

Funding from

external sources.

Security of

markets.

Environmental

approvals.

The estimated costs associated with generating diesel from waste plastics are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost

Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local $500,000 $1

million $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $250,000 $300,000

Regional $500,000 $1

million $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $20,833 $25,000

9.3.5 Thermal Energy from Waste

Thermal waste treatment processes are able to process all wastes except for non-

combustible materials such as inert wastes and some forms of hazardous wastes. Thermal

processes can be used to recover the energy content of the waste stream as electricity,

heat or fuel however, they also generate some emissions to air and solid residue. Thermal

treatment is able to reduce the volume of waste by up to 90%, thereby significantly reducing

the quantity of waste disposed of to landfill. Disposal of the facility residues needs to occur in

appropriate landfill facilities, often at a Class III landfill.

9.3.5.1 Combustion

The combustion of waste materials involves the incomplete burning of organic materials in

an oxygen-rich environment to create ash, flue gas and heat. Generally, the process is


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 77

July 2015 | Page 77

undertaken at temperatures of 850 degree Celsius (°C) to 1370 °C. The flue gas is primarily

made up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). The heat in the flue gas can be

captured and used to generate electricity, as an input to an industrial process or for district

heating (in the appropriate climate).

Combustion systems are normally classified by the nature of the combustion chamber and

include:

Moving grate;

Fixed grate;

Rotary-kiln; and

Fluidized bed.

The large amounts of air required to ensure complete combustion of the bulky waste in turn

produces large quantities of flue gas. Combined with the combustion process being less

controlled than gasification, the large amount of flue gas mean that the flue gas cleaning

systems are more complicated and expensive. As a consequence, combustion facilities are

only economical at large scales – mostly greater than 250,000 tonnes per annum.

Phoenix Energy is a combustion technology provider and proposes to establish a facility in

the Kwinana Industrial Area (Plate 9-7).

Plate 9-7: Phoenix Energy

These technologies are extensively used across the developed world and have a

demonstrated ability to meet high environmental performance standards.

Table 9-24: Conventional Combustion SWOT

Internal External


Up to 90% diversion of


Treat significant

portion of the waste

stream.

Electricity generation.

Large minimum

throughput

requirement.

High capital and

operational cost.

Diversion of

material from

recycling.

Production of

renewable

energy.

Funding from

external

sources.

Planning and

environmental

approval.

Community

concerns

The estimated costs to establish a combustion facility are shown below.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 78

July 2015 | Page 78

Project

Scale


Cost

Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local - - - - - - -

Regional $200

million $400

million $4 million

$14 million

$24 million

$1.2 million

$2 million

The cost per tonne for a Combustion plant is considerably higher than other Strategic

Options within the study due to its high capital cost. It was assumed that 80% of all MSW and

C&I waste (low estimates) and 95% of all waste (high estimate) was accepted at the

Combustion plant and the costs based on the Total Annualised Cost shown in the table

above. The resulting annual cost per tonne of waste was calculated as $194 and $189 for the

low and high estimate respectively.

9.3.5.2 Gasification

Gasification differs from combustion as it occurs in a low oxygen environment and involves a

longer residence time which results in less complex chemicals being generated by the

process such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the form

of syngas. This is done through the presence of heat at temperatures of 760°C to 1370 °C

without combustion with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. External heating is

required to commence that gasification process which then becomes self-heating given the

limited amount of oxygen that is available. This syngas is used as a fuel to generate energy.

It is mostly used to generate steam which in turn drives steam turbines to generate electricity.

The inorganic materials produced from the process are either bottom ash or a solid slag with

low carbon levels (<3%).

The consequences of reduced airflow within the gasification process results in a reduction of

corrosive ash elements such as chloride and potassium, reduced dust (particulates) that

have to be filtered from the flue gas, and an overall reduction in the quantity of air requiring

cleaning. This in turn leads to the requirement of a more simplified flue gas cleaning system,

compared to combustion technology, reducing costs. This makes gasification facilities more

modular in size than combustion processes.

Some gasification technologies do not source separate inorganic wastes (such as bricks,

concrete and glass). For those that do not, the inorganic wastes enter the gasifier and

proceed to the lower part of the reactor. All metals are volatised and then extracted with

the syngas. The oxides of the base metals and minerals are melted and granulated by water

quenching. The minerals and metals separate because of the difference in their relative

densities. The mineral and metal granules are extracted and stored in a storage area.

The other residue created by the gasifier is inert ash. This can generally be

landfilled. However, the increasing use of the residual material as aggregate lightweight

masonry products is reducing the amount of residual waste sent to landfill.

Gasification facilities that accept mixed refuse have a minimum throughput of

approximately 30,000 tpa. However, systems which process specific waste streams (such as

greenwaste or refuse derived fuel) can operate with as little as 6,000 tpa, such as the OE

Gasification plant in Norway (Plate 9-8).


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 79

July 2015 | Page 79

Plate 9-8: OE Gasification plant in Norway

http://www.organicenergy.ca/norway.html

There are only a limited number of commercial applications of gasification used for

municipal solid waste. These include the Entech technology used by New Energy, and the

Energos technology which is used in Norway. Both of these technologies oxidise the syngas

that is produced in the gasification process in a close coupled combustion chamber to

produce steam, rather than capture the gas and use it for other purposes.

Table 9-25: Gasification SWOT

Internal External


Up to 90% diversion of


Treat significant


stream.

Modular due to

simplified are quality

system (AQS)

High capital and

operational cost.

Diversion of

material from

recycling.

Production of

renewable

energy.

Funding from

external

sources.

Planning and

environmental

approval.

Community

Concerns

The estimated costs to establish a gasification facility are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local $40

million $60


$5.5 million

$6.5 million $5.5

million $6.5

million

Regional $50

million $100


$6 million

$8.5 million $500,000 $710,000

For the Gasification facility, it was assumed that 80% of all MSW and C&I waste (low

estimates) and 95% of all waste (high estimate) was accepted for treatment. The cost were

based on the Total Annualised Cost shown in the table above. The resulting annual cost per

tonne of waste was calculated as $25 and $119 for the low and high estimate respectively.

9.3.5.3 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is similar to gasification, but is undertaken in an oxygen free environment and at

lower temperatures. Pyrolysis utilises an indirect, external heat source, typically at

temperatures of 400°C to 900°C in the absence, or almost complete absence of oxygen, to

thermally degrade carbon based material. The volatile component of the waste material is



South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 80

July 2015 | Page 80

converted to a syngas. Syngas is composed of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), CO2,

methane (CH4), and complex hydrocarbons and can be used in boilers, gas turbines or

internal combustion engines to generate electricity. Tars, oils, char and bottom ash are by-

products that can be recovered and used as products from the process.

Pyrolysis has significantly lower costs for flue gas clean-up than conventional combustion and

systems which accept specific waste streams as feedstock are able to process as little as

8,000 tpa.

The EMRC has submitted approval documentation for a wood waste pyrolysis plant at its

Hazelmere Resource Recovery Park. The Public Environmental Review process was

undertaken over the months of May and June 2014. The pyrolysis plant will utilise an indirect-

fired kiln to produce syngas for use in gas engines for power generation. The plant will

accept approximately 13,000 tonnes per annum of wood waste. The wood waste will be

clean wood from shipping pallets, timber offcuts and crates that would otherwise be

disposed to landfill. The resulting products from the process include renewable electricity (3.5

megawatts) and bio-char (solid char of carbon and ash).

Table 9-26: Pyrolysis SWOT

Internal External


Up to 90% diversion

of waste from landfill.

Treat significant


stream.

Modular due to

simplified are quality

system (AQS)

High capital and

operational cost.

Production of

renewable

energy.

Funding from

external sources.

Planning and

environmental

approval.

Community

concerns

The estimated costs to establish a pyrolysis facility are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost



Local $40

million $60


$5.5 million

$6.5 million $5.5

million $6.5

million

Regional $50

million $75


$6 million

$7.25 million $500,000 $604,200

Similar to the other thermal technologies, the cost per tonne for the pyrolysis facility was

assumed to accept 80% (low estimates) and 95% (high estimate) of all MSW and C&I waste

respectively. The costs were based on the higher Total Annualised Cost as it provides a more

conservative estimate. The resulting annual cost per tonne of waste was calculated as $109

and $106 for the range of low and high waste tonnages respectively.

9.3.1 Solid Recovered Fuel

Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) is a product typically generated from paper, cardboard, wood,

textiles and plastic. It is common for SRF to be generated from C&I waste, in particular the

industrial sector, due to often having relatively consistent and simple compositional

characteristics. SRF is an alternative to fossil fuel and can be utilised within power generation

facilities (power plants and/or furnaces such as kilns). Due to the relatively uniform


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 81

July 2015 | Page 81

composition of the waste from which it is derived, SRF can be tailored to suit a range of

different industrial heat and/or power uses. SRF may be utilised as a fuel in a Waste-to-Energy

facility however, the benefits of SRF are lost as most Waste-to-Energy facilities can accept

poorer quality waste material such as mixed waste streams and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).

Therefore, it is anticipated that SRF would typically be utilised as a fossil fuel replacement.

RDF is a lower quality fuel produced from mixed refuse including biodegradable material as

well as plastics, and has a lower calorific value than SRF. RDF is commonly utilised in Europe in

combined heat and power facilities in a similar manner to SRF however, is less efficient due to

its lower calorific value.

The terms SRF and RDF are sometimes incorrectly referred to as the same product however, it

is widely accepted that SRF refers to fuel derived from waste that is manufactured to meet

more strict quality criteria. In comparison, RDF is viewed as a by-product from the

mechanical processing of waste. SRF has a higher calorific value and lower moisture content

than RDF. Due to these qualities, SRF is considered a more attractive fuel type and therefore

classified differently.

In Europe there is a clear distinction between SRF and RDF due to the maturity of the market.

The industry in Europe has developed SRF to produce a fuel with more reliable characteristics

and has implemented its use successfully both economically and environmentally.

The Waste Incineration Directive (Directive 2000/76/EC) is utilised in Europe and aims to

protect health and the environment by setting very strict operational and technical limits for

thermal treatment and Waste-to-Energy facilities. Both RDF and SRF are regulated by the

stringent operational conditions set within the Waste Incineration Directive however, SRF is

developed to Standard EN 15359 which provides the tools with which SRF can be specified or

classified in a reliable way. The successful use of SRF, in thermal treatment and/or Waste-to-

Energy facilities in accordance with the Waste Incineration Directive, will be achieved when

developed in accordance with EN15359. In addition, SRF can be traded amongst producers

and users of SRF across Europe if developed to this Standard.

The information regarding the use of SRF and RDF and there application in accordance with

the Waste Incineration Directive, is based on recent desktop research however, it is

important that further investigation is undertaken to fully understand the application of both

types of refuse derived fuels in Europe including consultation with European regulators. This

will provide the South West Group with a greater understanding of the differences between

products and there potential use within South West

No standards for the production of SRF exist within WA however, the South Australian EPA

developed a standard for the production and use of RDF which sets out the information and

processes that are required to support the use of RDF in industrial processes. It must be noted

that within Australia the term RDF typically refers to both SRF and RDF as there is little industry

development of the products at this stage. It is anticipated that the SA EPA are actually

referring to SRF within its Standard due to its use as a fossil fuel replacement. The Standard

outlines that SRF is considered a fuel and not a waste upon approval from the SA EPA when

proof has been shown the process is undertaken to recover energy.

SRF has been successfully utilised as a fuel within cement kilns in South Australia produced

from C&I waste. It is anticipated that if SRF were produced for use within WA, strict


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 82

July 2015 | Page 82

environmental and operating conditions would be enforced by the EPA and/or DER

however, the approval regime in WA is not yet known.

In order to produce SRF within the South West Region, the following processes would be

required to be undertaken:

Sourcing a reliable waste stream including quantity and composition (C&I waste);

Mechanical processing may include:

o Separation and screening;

o Drying;

o Sorting or mechanical separation;

o Size reduction (shredding);

o Blending (dependent on end use); or

o Pelletisation (depending on end use).

In order to undertake any of these processes a dedicated facility will need to be constructed

which contains the equipment and/or machinery required. The particular equipment utilised

will ensure the correct calorific value, moisture content and size which is all dependent on

the end use of the SRF.

The use of SRF as a fossil fuel replacement within the South West Region may typically include

the following applications:

Supplementing fossil fuels in existing power stations, or smaller wood/biomass power

stations, industrial users such as steel works, processing plants and mining facilities;

and

Used in combined heat and power plants, with heat being utilised within an industrial

area by facilities within close proximity to the plant.

It should be noted that the EPA and DER within WA do not have any position papers,

guidance documents or policies directly relating to the production or use of SRF. This may

ultimately make it difficult to implement this type of technology. At this stage however, this is

common practice within Europe and advancing within other States of Australia. In addition,

waste management policies and legislation are evolving within WA.

Table 9-27: SRF SWOT

Internal External


Produces a

marketable product

Potential for

revenue generation

Substitute for fossil

fuels

Treat significant


stream

Diversion of waste

from landfill

Capital and

operational

cost

Diversion of

material from

recycling

Work with industry

Funding from

external sources

Planning and

environmental

approval

Community

concerns

Environmental

controls

The estimated costs associated with generating SRF are shown below.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 83

July 2015 | Page 83

Project

Scale


Cost

Total Annualised

Cost Cost per LGA


Local

Regional $20

million $50

million $1 million

$2 million

$3.5 million

$166,700 $291,700

The cost per tonne equivalent for the development of a facility that produces SRF was

calculated as $45 and $37 for the range of low and high waste accepted at the facility

respectively. It was assumed that the range of waste accepted at the facility was 60% (low

estimate) and 80% (high estimate) of all MSW and C&I waste generated. The cost was based

on the Regional Total Annualised Cost as shown in table above.

9.4 Dispose

The waste management infrastructure network within the South West Region mainly consists

of drop-off facilities and landfills. The majority of the infrastructure is owned and operated by

LGAs or regional councils.

9.4.1 Waste Transfer Station

Waste Transfer Stations are facilities where separate waste streams such as refuse, C&D

waste and organics are accepted and temporarily stored and/or sorted before being

transported to another destination for further treatment and/or disposal. The purpose of a

Waste Transfer Station is to provide disposal points for large waste generators and collectors

(such as Local Government) within close proximity to where the wastes are generated. A

Waste Transfer Station can, thereby, reduce the travelling requirements of the waste

collection vehicles to deposit their loads of collected materials and reduce the number of

vehicles travelling to landfills and similar facilities. Waste Transfer Stations facilitate the transfer

of waste from collection vehicles which are mechanically and capacity wise designed for

stop/start collection operations, to fit-for-purpose large capacity haulage vehicles. A key

design principle for modern best practice Waste Transfer Stations is to keep their engineering

and operations simple to maximise the safety and efficiency of the facility and so maximise

their use.

The modern Waste Transfer Station building is typically a simple portal framed structure clad

in coated steel and forms a clear internal span so there are no obstacles obstructing

operations. A storage area for the waste is generally defined by a large open bay created

from reinforced concrete retaining walls. The height of the retaining walls determines the

capacity of the Waste Transfer Station including a little freeboard to avoid direct placement

of the waste against the much weaker cladding. Some Waste Transfer Stations utilise

compaction systems to gain additional efficiencies via the transport of waste at greater

densities. Generally the size of the storage bay is designed to cater for three days of storage

so that waste can be accepted even in times when the downstream treatment disposal

location is closed. Diagram 9-2 represents a typical modern Waste Transfer Station layout

and internal design.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 84

July 2015 | Page 84

Diagram 9-2: Concept Waste Transfer Station Layout and Internal Layout (Inset)

Modern Waste Transfer Stations utilise compaction systems to gain greater transport

efficiencies. Typically sealed containers or B-Double trailers will manoeuvre into position to

accept the compacted waste. Diagram 9-2 shows an externally mounted compactor

adjacent to the western side of the building. This enables the transfer vehicle to reverse into

position and connect to the compaction unit. The sealed containers used in the compaction

and haulage operation are weather proof and do not pose a significant risk of waste escape

to the surrounding environment.

Where it is perceived that the haulage distances are small then the transfer operation could

be undertaken by bulk haulage rather compaction. The decision which option to adopt is

usually based on cost effectiveness. Employing bulk haulage reduces the overall footprint of

the facility as a compaction system is not required. However, bulk haulage holds less waste

per cubic metre compared to the compaction system.

There are approximately eighteen small drop-off facilities across the South West Region

servicing areas that are remote or that do not have a landfill facility. The drop-off facilities are

relatively small and typically cater for community drop-off waste. There are no large

dedicated Waste Transfer Stations that consolidate large volumes within the South West

Region. Due to the relatively low volumes of waste, there is limited consolidation and bulk

haulage of waste between drop-off facilities and landfills across the region. It is anticipated

that these smaller facilities may become or feed larger regionalised Waste Transfer Stations in

the future.

To generate greater economies of scale Waste Transfer Stations should be developed to

cater for larger quantities of waste. Therefore, developing local facilities within regional towns

and sub-regional facilities in the more remote areas would provide the opportunity to

achieve greater efficiencies. These facilities could accept all refuse (MSW and C&I) and

potentially recyclable streams (Commingled and organics) for consolidation prior to transfer

into haulage vehicles to feed regional recovery and/or disposal facilities.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 85

July 2015 | Page 85

Table 9-28: Waste Transfer Station SWOT

Internal External


Consolidates waste to

provide efficiencies.

Feeds a regional

facility.

Relatively simple

operation.

Limit public access to

landfilling operations.

Located at existing

WMFs.

Cost of capital and

operations.

Transport distances

to a single facility

within the South

West.

Local

employment

generation.

Funding from

external

sources.

Potential for

revenue via

C&I waste.

Integration with

other Strategic

Options.

Planning and

environmental

approval.

Lack of

community

support.

Occupational

Health and

Safety risks to

users.

Cost estimates to construct and operate a local or regional modern Waste Transfer Station

are shown below.

Project Scale




Local $2

million $3.5

million $500,000 $600,000 $675,000 $600,000 $675,000

Regional $3

million $5

million $750,000 $900,000 $1 million $75,000 $83,300

It is anticipated that the development of a WTS would likely cater for a group of LGAs and

not the entire Region therefore, it is difficult to determine the cost per tonne as the quantity

of waste accepted through the WTS would be unknown at this stage. However, based on

recent previous works undertaken by Talis, it is anticipated that a WTS with a throughput of

approximately 30,000 tonnes per annum would cost $30/tonne of waste including capital

and operational expenditure over a period of 20 years.

9.4.2 Regional Landfill

As outlined previously, landfilling is the least preferred approach to waste management in

accordance with the Hierarchy however, in the best performing resource recovery systems a

small portion of residue waste will always require landfilling following any resource recovery

process. This includes residues produced from thermal Waste-to-Energy facilities such as fly-

ash and bottom ash. In addition and as also previously mentioned, disposal is the main waste

treatment method within the Region for a variety of reasons including relatively small volumes

and low cost.

As previously outlined, the DER currently assesses the compliance of landfill developments in

accordance with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines. This is typically undertaken on a case-

by-case basis depending on a variety of factors including evidence of historic environmental

pollution or seeking approval for expansion of existing landfill cells. This has been evident

across the Region over the last five years or so. However, there is the potential that the DER

will begin to adopt a blanket approach to enforcing compliance with the Best Practice

Landfill Guidelines across all landfills. The financial impact of this approach would be

significant and potentially unachievable for several of the LGAs which are isolated and

generate low volumes of waste.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 86

July 2015 | Page 86

Whereas, the Transpacific Industries landfill at its Banksia Road facility is the only landfill in the

South West Region that is currently constructed in accordance with the Best Practice Landfill

Guidelines. Transpacific Industries has recently completed the construction of a new landfill

cell and has significant current and future void space at its site.

However, it is anticipated that the Shire of Dardanup’s Banksia Road landfill site would

become a best practice landfill facility if purchased by a waste management services

provider in competition to Transpacific Industries. In addition, the City of Busselton has gained

approval for lined landfill cells at its Vidler Road landfill along with the Shire of Augusta-

Margret River. If a blanket approach is taken by the DER, than the Transpacific Industries’

and the City of Busselton’s landfills would be the only landfills to comply with the Best Practice

Landfill Guidelines in the South West.

Therefore, there is serious uncertainty in relation to long term waste disposal capacity in

compliance with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines across the Region and the potential for

Transpacific Industries to be in a position of a monopoly as Busselton cannot cater for the

entire Region’s demands. These concerns support the concept of a Regional Landfill which

could provide long term certainty to the various LGAs of the South West Group for the

essential local government services of appropriate waste management.

In order to secure long term waste disposal, the South West Group could establish a regional

landfill which is fed by a network of Waste Transfer Stations. Recent financial modelling

undertaken by Talis has indicated that the gate fees for a regional landfill could be more

attractive than that currently advertised by Transpacific Industries.

Table 9-29: Landfill SWOT

Internal External


Secure long term

waste disposal.

Control of price

increases.

Relatively simple

operation.

Regional

collaboration.

High capital and

operational cost.

Transport distances

to a single facility

within the South

West.

Post closure liability.

Funding from

external

sources.

Potential for

revenue via

C&I waste.

Electricity

generation via

landfill gas

collection.

Planning and

environmental

approval.

Lack of

community

support.

Cost estimates to construct and operate a best practice regional landfill locally or regionally

are shown below.

Project

Scale


Cost


Cost per LGA


Local $35 million $55

million $710,000

$2.460 million

$3.46 million

$2.46 million

$3.46 million

Regional $100

million $130

million $1 million

$6 million

$7.5 million

$500,000 $625,000

The cost per tonne for the development of a Regional Landfill is outlined in detail within the

Waste Disposal Strategy section (Section 14).


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 87

July 2015 | Page 87

9.5 Strategic Options Summary

Table 9-30 provides a summary of the Strategic Options that have been discussed as part of

this study.

Table 9-30: Summary of Strategic Options

Hierarchy Strategic Option



Earth Carers



Reuse Shops

Free Trade Website

Recycle

Greenwaste Mulching


Mattress Recycling

Kerbside Recycling




Clean MRF


Recover and Treat

Organics Bin

Dirty MRF

Windrow Aeration

Forced Aeration

Mechanical Aeration

Anaerobic Digestion


Conventional Combustion

Gasification

Pyrolysis



Regional Landfill

Further consideration and evaluation of the Strategic Options are discussed in detail within

the following section of this study which identifies the support structures for the Strategic

Options including a regional approach to waste management. From this assessment, Talis

developed Clusters of Strategic Options which have synergies to create integrated waste

management systems which deliver the South West Group greater waste management

efficiencies.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 88

July 2015 | Page 88

10 Support Structures for Strategic Options

The implementation of Strategic Options requires consideration of the framework or

structures necessary to support the option including:

Government legislation and policy;

Material volumes;

Financial mechanisms;

Markets for end products;

Infrastructure and service requirements;

Community support; and

Regional Approach.

Based on Talis’ experience, having these support structures in place is often greatly beneficial

to the implementation of Strategic Options, and in many cases are essential to their success,

particularly for large scale resource recovery initiatives.

10.1 Government Legislation and Policy

Governments can promote the implementation of Strategic Options through the use of both

legislation and policy drivers. These have been outlined previously with Section 7 of the

Report however, the key issues relevant to the South West Group, including the landfill levy,

diversion targets and Emissions Reduction Fund, are described in the following sections.

10.1.1 Landfill Levy

An economic instrument used by many State governments throughout Australia and

internationally is the application of a levy on the disposal of waste to landfill. As described

previously, a levy of $55 per tonne currently applies to putrescible waste generated within

the Perth Metropolitan Area and sent to landfill, or $40 per tonne for inert waste. This is

forecasted to continue to increase to $70 per tonne for refuse and inert waste. The levy does

not currently apply to waste disposed of within the South West Region and therefore

landfilling is still a relatively cheap option for the treatment of waste. As the levy is not

influencing the cost of landfill disposal, it is not acting as a driver for resource recovery in the

South West Region.

In the future, the extension of the levy to include regional areas is anticipated which could

become a driver for alteration to waste management practices in these areas. This was

included in a policy statement of the previous Waste Authority however, is not currently

being progressed by the current Waste Authority members. The implementation of the levy to

rural areas may be undertaken by utilising a phased approach similar to the NSW system

which imposes a reduced waste levy outside the more highly populated areas. The NSW

waste levy for the rural areas is approximately half the metropolitan levy. However, it must be

noted that only 80 of the 153 LGAs within NSW have any waste levy. The remaining less

densely populated rural areas do not pay a waste levy.

10.1.2 Diversion Targets

Setting targets for the recycling or diversion of waste from landfill is another instrument that

may be used by governments to drive improvements in resource recovery. As mentioned

previously, the Western Australian Waste Strategy contains landfill diversion targets for the


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 89

July 2015 | Page 89

three key waste streams. The State wide targets (for the C&I and C&D streams) include

waste generated within the South West Region, however as only Busselton and Greater

Bunbury are identified as regional centres the diversion target for MSW only applies to these

areas. However, those LGAs that are not identified as regional centres are not required to

contribute to achieving Strategy targets for MSW however, would be included in the targets

for the C&I and C&D sectors.

While the current WA targets apply to the key waste streams, resource recovery targets may

also be set for specific materials or waste types. For example, the National Television and

Computer Recycling Scheme aims to increase recycling rates for end-of-life products to 80%

by 2021/22. Many of the LGAs have existing e-waste recycling systems which are assisting

electronic goods manufacturers and importers, whom are liable under the Scheme, in the

progression towards this target.

To further drive progress towards resource recovery targets, governments may impose

penalties for poor performance, although this system has not been adopted within Australia.

10.1.3 Emissions Reduction Fund

As previously mentioned, the waste management activities that may earn ACCUs as part of

the Emissions Reduction Fund are AWT and Landfill Gas Capture. As both these types of

activities are identified within the Strategic Options there is the potential for the South West

Group to develop revenue from the ACCUs. This can increase the viability of the

development of a facility and in turn lead to greater financial return during operations. The

modelling to determine any greater advantage from the Emissions Reduction Fund needs to

be further investigated during the detailed feasibility assessment of the activities.

10.1.4 South West Regional Blueprint

As previously outlined, the Blueprint identifies waste management related issues and aims to

“develop distance neutral infrastructure that is linked to world opportunities and respects our

environment”. The Blueprint forms the common perspective of the South West Development

Commission and Regional Development Australia (South West) and as such has the backing

of State and Federal Government.

The key actions identified within the Blueprint are considered realistic actions however, it

must be noted that no funding commitment is provided by either government department

for the actions at this stage. The actions are rather set out as a broad direction for

consideration of investment.

10.2 Material Volumes

Many of the resource recovery options require minimum and consistent volumes of material

to be generated to ensure that the process is cost effective. As much of the South West

Region is situated in relative proximity to one another, regionalisation to obtain greater

volumes of materials is feasible and therefore the viability of the Strategic Options should be

assessed based on the quantities generated within the South West Region or Sub-Regions.

10.3 Cost of Service

A common barrier to the implementation of resource recovery initiatives is the high capital

cost involved, in particular for the establishment of large treatment facilities. In addition, as


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 90

July 2015 | Page 90

the South West Group is largely geographically isolated, the cost of capital and operational

works is greater than in other areas. Currently, the low cost of landfill means that resource

recovery initiatives are often not cost effective when compared to disposal.

10.4 Markets

A key aspect in the consideration of any resource recovery initiative is the availability of

markets for the products generated. Products can include materials such as compost,

Recycled Building Products (aggregates, roadbase, clean fill etc.) and separated packaging

materials as well as energy sources such as electricity and heat. Without markets for the

products generated, many Strategic Options will fail. In other circumstances Strategic

Options may not be viable due to the lack of revenue stream from the sale of the products

generated.

For example, a number of the recovery and treatment options generate both electricity and

heat products. In areas where these have been successfully established such as northern

Europe, electricity is fed back into the grid and heat is used as part of district heating systems.

10.5 Infrastructure and Service Requirements

The Strategic Options presented in Section 9 have a range of infrastructural and service

requirements including:

Infrastructure:

o Suitable site and available footprint;

o Buildings, hardstands, road networks;

o Equipment and machinery;

Services:

o Power; and

o Water.

Many of the options at the top of the Waste Management Hierarchy require little or no

additional infrastructure or services. However, the options for recycling, recovery and

treatment of waste materials mostly have infrastructure and services requirements, in

particular the thermal energy from waste processes. The cost associated with potential

infrastructure and service requirements may be a significant barrier to the implementation of

some of the Strategic Options.

10.6 Community Support

The level of community support is an important aspect of all for Strategic Options and can be

critical in the successful implementation and performance of the option. Recycling and

recovery options which require source separated streams are improved by strong community

understanding and participation. Community support is particularly relevant to the Strategic

Options that are potentially more controversial such as large scale waste treatment

infrastructure.

Support from local businesses is also required for some of the Strategic Options to be

successful.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 91

July 2015 | Page 91

10.7 Regional Approach

A regional approach supports the generation of greater economies of scale and therefore

provides the South West Group with the ability to cater and process larger quantities of

waste. There is a well-recognised concept in the waste industry that the costs associated with

both constructing and operating waste management facilities are shared as the operational

capacity (throughput) increases. Therefore, the average cost per tonne to process the waste

is reduced. To feed a regional facility across such a large area as the South West, may

require a network of dedicated waste management facilities that transport waste to a

central facility. By sourcing waste from a wider geographic area there is the very real

potential for the South West Group to move towards developing a cost effective regional

waste management solution.

In addition, a regional approach presents an opportunity to provide best practice services to

residents that may not otherwise have been possible, thereby resulting in social and

environmental benefits.

By instigating the development of this Report, the South West Group has taken the first steps

in developing a regional approach for the South West which builds upon the Sub-Regional

waste management work already undertaken.

10.8 Evaluation

Talis has evaluated each of the Strategic Options according to the support structure

requirements described within this section. For each Strategic Option, the support structures

have been defined as:

Not Applicable;

Beneficial;

Critical; and

Limited / Lacking in the South West.

The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 10-1.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 92

July 2015 | Page 92

Table 10-1: Evaluation of Strategic Option Support Structure Requirements

Hierarchy Grouping

Strategic Waste Management Option

Leg

isla

tio

n a

nd

Po

lic

y

Vo

lum

es

Co

st o

f Se

rvic

e

Ma

rke

ts

Infr

ast

ruc

ture

an

d S

erv

ice

s

Co

mm

un

ity

Su

pp

ort

Re

gio

na

l

Ap

pro

ac

h



Earth Carers



Reuse Shops

Free Trade Website



Mattress Recycling

Kerbside Recycling




Clean MRF


Recover and Treat

Organics Bin

Dirty MRF

Windrow Aeration

Forced Aeration

Mechanical Aeration

Anaerobic Digestion


Conventional Combustion

Gasification

Pyrolysis



Regional Landfill

As shown in Table 10-1, the support structures required for the various Strategic Options varies

significantly. In addition, Talis recognises that currently there is a range of support structures


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 93

July 2015 | Page 93

currently missing from some of the more advanced Strategic Options. The key items currently

missing which support these large scale infrastructural projects that would require significant

financial commitments from the South West Group, include:

Lack of Volumes;

Cost of Services;

Markets; and



South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 94

July 2015 | Page 94

11 Clusters – Integrated Solutions

A sustainable waste management system requires initiatives from across all levels of the

Waste Management Hierarchy. Therefore, the Strategic Options presented should not be

considered in isolation but as part of an integrated system for waste management within the

South West Group. The reasons for adopting this integrated approach include:

Some of the Strategic Options are interconnected and rely on or limit each other;

Some of the Strategic Options apply only to a specific waste stream;

Some of the Strategic Options apply to the same or similar waste streams;

Some of the Strategic Options apply to streams with limited volumes; and

The financial implications of the Strategic Options.

To allow the South West Group to consider potential combinations of Strategic Options, Talis

has developed a series of Clusters, which group complimentary Strategic Options. These

Clusters cover the various levels of the Waste Management Hierarchy and have the potential

to achieve a range of landfill diversion rates at varying costs. The Clusters have been

categorised around a range of downstream waste treatment options. The method of

treatment determines the composition and quantity of material required, and therefore the

other Options required/able to be implemented.

Summaries of the Strategic Options and diversion rates for each of the following Clusters are

outlined within this section:

Cluster 1: Clean Streams Recycling;

Cluster 2: Biological AWT; and

Cluster 3: Thermal AWT.

11.1 Cluster 1 – Clean Streams Recycling

The key ethos behind this Cluster is the source separation of as much of the clean materials

from the various waste streams as possible. This maximises the proportion of landfill diversion

for the various separated materials however, the main downstream process for this Cluster is

Landfill. Although the South West Group will provide the sustainable waste management

services to support such a cluster of options, the waste generator (Households and Business)

will play a significant role in determining both the quality and quantity of clean materials.

Therefore, the overall landfill diversion rate will be heavily influenced by the behaviour of the

waste generators. As this Cluster relies heavily on high yields of clean materials the

associated education messages would be about the need for clean stream wastes and high

scheme participation. The reliance on community participation and clean streams of waste

is likely to lead to a high proportion of waste still being landfilled. The Avoid, Reduce, Reuse

Strategic Options included within this Report are included within this Cluster. With a cluster

such as this, the South West Group could achieve a landfill diversion rate between 20% and

50% of the targeted waste streams.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 95

July 2015 | Page 95

CLUSTER 1 – Clean Streams Recycling

Source separation and recycling of clean materials with residue to landfill

Integrated Waste

Education Program

Earth Carers

Influencing

Commercial

Practices

Regional

Education Officer

Reuse Shops

Free Trade website

Material specific

collections

Recycling Station

Network

C&D Waste

Processing

Organics

Composting

Forced Aeration

Community

Recycling and

Drop-off Centre

Special Waste

Processing

Best Practice

Putrescible

Landfill

LANDFILL DIVERSION RANGE

Low - 55% High - 71%

Key Characteristics

Waste education system critical to achieve

a significant behavioural change from the

community

Aim to obtain clean, separated recycling

streams maximising potential higher value

uses

An acceptable level of clean stream

recycling achieved through a range of

measures such as material specific

collections, recycling stations network and

drop off facilities.

Relatively low cost – however low landfill

diversion rate

The diversion rate is heavily dependent

on the participation of waste generators

in source separation activities

1%

42%

9%

48% Avoid,Reduce,ReuseRecycle

Recover andTreat

Disposal

2% 49%

17%

32%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 96

July 2015 | Page 96

11.3 Cluster 2 – Biological AWT

In this Cluster the main downstream waste processing is via a Biological AWT system. The

feedstock for the AWT would be organic waste. One approach to capturing the organic

waste is by collecting clean source separated organic waste at the kerbside by introducing

a third bin across all the LGAs of the South West Group. Alternatively, organic waste could be

separated from mixed waste using a pre-treatment process through a Dirty MRF facility or

similar. While source separated collections generate a cleaner stream, a Dirty MRF would be

expected to capture a higher proportion of the targeted organics stream. If this cluster

included a source separated organic collection, the education massages would focus on

ensuring high scheme participation and the need for low contamination. Similar to Cluster 1,

Cluster 2 also includes all the Avoid, Reduce, Reuse Strategic Options proposed within this

Report.

A high performing version of this cluster could divert approximately 75% of the targeted

waste streams from landfill.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 97

July 2015 | Page 97

CLUSTER 2 –BIOLOGICAL AWT

Recovering the organic waste (either clean or mixed) with residue to landfill

Integrated Waste

Education Program

Earth Carers

Influencing

Commercial

Practices

Regional

Education Officer

Reuse Shops

Free Trade website

Material specific

collections

Recycling Station

Network

C&D Waste

Processing

MRF

Energy Recovery

with AD

Organics

Composting

Community

Recycling and

Drop-off Centre

Special Waste

Processing

Best Practice

Putrescible

Landfill


Low - 65% High - 86%

Key Characteristics

Biological AWT can potentially divert up to

75% of waste from landfill

Moving towards a solution that can

achieve the States resource recovery

target

Targeting the organic fraction of the key

waste streams

Efforts concentrated on the higher levels of

the waste hierarchy – avoid, reduce, reuse,

recycling.

Waste generators play a significant role

in determining the actual diversion rate

achieved if organic waste is collected

source separated at the kerbside

Potential to extract organic waste from

refuse without the need for source

separated collections.

Producing renewable energy from

organic waste – Potential to generate

income from the sale of electricity

1%

41%

20%

38% Avoid,Reduce,Reuse

Recycle

Recover andTreat

Disposal

2%

48% 32%

17%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 98

July 2015 | Page 98

11.4 Cluster 3 – Thermal AWT

Cluster 3 utilises a thermal Energy-from-Waste system as the main downstream process. This

Cluster is not reliant on clean streams of source separated materials as the other two clusters.

This is because a thermal AWT can accept feedstock’s from all the key mixed waste streams.

A range of recycling and recovery initiatives will be required, however high yields are not

vital in order to achieve excellent landfill diversion rates. As thermal AWT plants rely on waste

streams with a high energy content, material such as plastics and timber would not be

source separated. However, metal and other inert wastes would be targeted to ensure the

energy content of the feed waste remained within the acceptable calorific range. Even the

lowest performing version of this cluster can deliver a landfill diversion rate of over 80%, with

high performing systems capable of diverting over 95% of waste from landfill.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 99

July 2015 | Page 99

CLUSTER 3 - THERMAL AWT

Recovering mixed waste streams through thermal treatment

Integrated Waste

Education Program

Earth Carers

Influencing

Commercial

Practices

Regional

Education Officer

Reuse Shops

Free Trade website

Material specific

collections

Recycling Station

Network

C&D Waste

Processing

Energy Recovery

with Gasification

Organics

Composting

Community

Recycling and

Drop-off Centre

Special Waste

Processing

Best Practice

Putrescible

Landfill


Low - 86% High - 99%

Key Characteristics

Thermal AWT is the predominant waste

processing option – potentially up to 99% of

waste being diverted from landfill

Moving towards a solution that can

achieve the States resource recovery

target

Targeting the high calorific value fraction

of the waste stream

Producing renewable energy from waste –

Potential to generate income from the sale

of electricity/steam/heat

Most costly option – however the highest

landfill diversion rate

Residual from process may require Class

III or IV landfill disposal depending on

technology

Requires consistent large waste volumes

(100,000 tonnes +) to be viable

1%

21%

57%

21%

Avoid,Reduce,ReuseRecycle

Recover andTreat

Disposal

2%

24% 72%

1%


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015 | Page 100


11.5 Prioritised Cluster(s)

As previously outlined, the identified Clusters group complimentary Strategic Options across

various levels of the Waste Management Hierarchy and are generally categorised based on

the downstream waste treatment options. A review of the Clusters, based on the relevance

to the South West Group, has allowed Talis to identify the Prioritised Cluster(s) for

consideration by the LGAs of the South West.

11.5.1 Cluster 1: Clean Streams Recycling

Cluster 1 is an expansion on the current situation that several of the LGAs within the South

West Group already undertake. The continuation and expansion of clean stream recycling

identified within Cluster 1 is recommended as it builds upon the established knowledge,

operations and infrastructure currently within the South West Region. The Strategic Options

that comprise Cluster 1 include:


Earth Carers;


Free Trade website;

Material specific collections;

Recycling Station Network;

C&D Waste Processing;

Organics Composting;

Forced Aeration;

Community Recycling and Drop-off Centre; and

Special Waste Processing.

In particular, the continued operation of the BWORF utilising the forced aeration MAF system

to process sources separated organics, is essential to the success of Cluster 1. However, in

order to expand the collection, acceptance and processing of organic waste within the

South West Region, a number of MAF systems at Sub-Regional sites may be required and the

roll out of more kerbside organics bins. Due to the relatively low capital and operational costs

of the MAF system, a number of Sub-Regional facilities across the South West may be more

cost effective by minimising the transportation cost of material. These Sub-Regional facilities

could have access to local markets and therefore generate a large market network across

the Region.

Whereas, the development of a biological AWT facility such as an AD Plant, as identified

within Cluster 2, is significantly more costly to construct and operate and produces a product

of similar quality. In addition, the continuation of the already established MAF system would

compete for the same organic portion of the waste stream. Therefore, it would be

counterintuitive to implement both Cluster 1 and 2.

11.5.2 Cluster 3: Thermal AWT

Cluster 3 involves the implementation of a thermal AWT facility within the South West Region.

The capital and operational costs for a thermal Waste-to-Energy facility are relatively high

however, the key benefit of Cluster 3 is that it can achieve up to 99% diversion of waste from

landfill. In addition, Cluster 3 is complimentary to the Strategic Options within Cluster 1 as it

targets the high calorific value materials remaining in the waste stream following the


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



separation of clean streams and organics undertaken in Cluster 1. It is therefore, the logical

progression to implement Cluster 3 following the successful expansion of Cluster 1.

However, in order to provide sufficient waste volumes to such a facility to ensure its viability,

the South West Group would require a network of local or Sub-Regional WTSs to consolidate

waste volumes and transfer it to the facility. It is anticipated, that the alternate approach

(without a WTS) of direct hauling utilising kerbside collection vehicles would be inefficient and

costly over a long period of time compared with the establishment of a network of

dedicated WTSs utilising bulk haulage or compaction systems to gain transport efficiencies.

These WTSs would need to be located so that all LGAs within the South West Group travel the

minimal distances required to maintain low transport costs. Further consideration would need

to be required as to suitable locations for this network of WTSs.

Therefore, it is recommended that the South West Group further consider and investigate the

implementation of Clusters 1 and 3 to assist the South West Region move towards a more

long term sustainable waste management system. Talis has further developed the Clusters

within the following sections in the Report, including the common characteristic within both

Clusters which is the development of a best practice landfill to support the resource recovery

Strategic Options.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



12 Waste-to-Energy Technology Providers & Facilities

This section provides an outline of Waste-to-Energy technology providers and key facilities

within WA, Australia and internationally. In addition and for completeness of the study, Talis

has included discussion on AD facilities for the benefit of the South West Group, as well as

traditional Waste-to-Energy facilities. AD facilities typically generate enough energy to sustain

itself and not supply electricity to the wider network. Therefore, they are considered

biological AWT technologies.

12.1 Technology Providers

12.1.1 WA Market

The following sections detail the companies that are active in the Perth market developing

Waste-to-Energy facilities.

12.1.1.1 New Energy Corporation Pty Ltd

New Energy is an emerging Waste-to-Energy technology provider in Australia and New

Zealand. The technology utilised by New Energy is the Entech Waste to Gas (“WtGas”®) low

temperature gasification technology.

New Energy currently has two projects in the pipeline within WA. One is to be located near

Port Hedland in the Pilbara and the other is planned for in East Rockingham.

The Port Hedland project has obtained approvals from the Environmental Protection

Authority and subsequently from the Environment Minister for the establishment of a Waste-

to-Energy (gasification) facility in the Boodarie Industrial Estate in Port Hedland. The

proposed facility has capacity to process 70,000 to 130,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of mixed

waste and will generate up to 15 MW of power. The incoming waste stream will be

generated by the communities of Port Hedland, Karratha and surrounding mine sites within

the Pilbara region including MSW, C&I and C&D wastes. The feedstock waste stream will first

pass through a sorting process to remove recyclable materials such as concrete, bricks and

metals. Construction of the facility is anticipated to commence this year and operation is

scheduled to begin in January 2017.

The East Rockingham facility is at a similar stage to the Port Hedland project and will

commence operations in late 2017.

The project model adopted by New Energy is a fee for service model based on waste supply

contracts.

12.1.1.2 Phoenix Energy

Phoenix Energy Pty Ltd (Phoenix Energy) utilises a version of the Martin Grate waste

incineration technology which is proposed to be developed in partnership with Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries of Japan for their combustion facility to be located in Kwinana. Phoenix

Energy does not limit itself to one technology provider, but adapts existing available

technology to achieve the required outcomes of a project.

Phoenix Energy is proposing to develop a Waste-to-Energy facility to be located in the

Kwinana Industrial Area. Phoenix Energy is attempting to gain 200-300,000 tonnes per annum


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



of MSW and up to 100,000 tonnes per annum of C&l waste. The facility will generate steam

and/or electricity. Phoenix is seeking contracts with LGAs for the supply of municipal solid

waste to the facility on a fee for service contract basis. The Rivers Regional Council resolved

to enter into a waste supply agreement with Phoenix Energy to provide waste from its

Member Councils and the City of Canning.

12.1.1.3 AneaCo Ltd (WMRC)

Western Australian company, AneaCo has developed a single vessel hybrid aerobic and

anaerobic digestion technology called DiCOM®. The DiCOM technology process is

undertaken in an enclosed, vertical vessel to produce compost and biogas. The two stages

of the process include:

Anaerobic Digestion;

o The organic fraction is fed into a DiCOM vessel for 5 days to undergo anaerobic

digestion;

o Bacteria break down the organic material through a number of phases to

produce biogas and a residue (digestate);

Aerobic Composting;

o Following the anaerobic digestion phase, the digestate commences the aerobic

composting stage;

o Aerobic composting introduces air, by circulating the material around the vessel,

allowing it to stabilise; and

o The finished product (compost) is then prepared for market.

The DiCOM cycle takes three weeks, with approximately one week each for loading the

vessel, the anaerobic digestion phase and the aerobic composting phase. This means that

three vessels are required to provide continuous waste receival capability.

The Western Metropolitan Regional Council (WMRC) has entered into a contract with DiCOM

AWT Operation Pty Ltd (DiCOM Operations) for the processing of waste from its members

Councils. Under the contract, DiCOM Operations has constructed and is currently

commissioning three DiCOM vessels at the WMRC’s Shenton Park JFR (Jim) McGeough

Resource Recovery Facility. The facility is scheduled to be fully operational in 2015.

12.1.2 Australian Market

The following sections detail other companies that are active in the Australian market

providing Resource Recovery services.

12.1.2.1 SITA Australian Ltd Pty (SITA)

SITA’s owners, Suez Environmental from France and Sembcorp Industries from Singapore, are

leading international waste management and environmental services companies. These

companies own and operate a number of Waste-to-Energy facilities in Europe and Asia. SITA

owns and operates several Resource Recovery projects located across the Australia, making

it the largest resource recovery company in Australia. It gained this status when it purchased

WSN Pty Ltd which was previously Waste Services New South Wales, a state government

owned company proving waste management services. Through this acquisition SITA took

over a number of resource recovery facilities. SITA is the operations and maintenance

contractor for the Neerabup RRF on behalf of BioVision 2020 which is an in-vessel, aerobic

composting facility processing waste for the Mindarie Regional Council.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



12.1.2.2 Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd

Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd (Veolia) is division of Veolia Environment SA and offers

energy services, waste and wastewater treatment, waste management and resource

recovery and industrial cleaning. Veolia operates a number of waste processing facilities in

Australian and their parent company operates many more in Europe and globally. These

facilities employ many different types of technologies including Waste-to-Energy.

12.1.2.3 Martin Biopower Pty Ltd

Martin Biopower is an Australian company which uses the Martin reverse acting grate Vario

system. This system is in use in Europe and uses a flexible grate based combustion system

which can be adjusted to the match the fuel source. A boiler can be integrated into the

system which can then be used to generate energy in the form of steam. This steam can

either be used directly for heating or can be used to generate electricity by powering a

turbine.

This technology is used globally in more than 400 plants with 37 new plants in some stage of

contract and/or development.

12.1.3 International Market

The following companies have participated in tenders for resource recovery projects within

WA over recent years. They would therefore have knowledge of the market and may be

interested in developing a facility in the South West or participating in a tender process run

by the South West Group.

12.1.3.1 Hitachi Zosen Inova AG

Hitachi Zosen Inova (HZI) is an international organisation specialising in thermal and biological

Waste-to-Energy treatments. HZI are capable of providing technology and services in the

Waste-to-Energy market including:

Combustion;

Anaerobic digestion;

Flue gas treatment;

Energy Utilisation;

Residue Treatment;

DeNox Systems; and

Service operation and maintenance of Waste-to-Energy facilities.

HZI has implemented its technologies into more than 200 Waste-to-Energy plants throughout

Asia and Europe using thermal technology. Combustion systems employed by HZI include

Grate and Fluidised Bed types. These facilities built with these systems range in size from

100,000 tonnes to per year up to 600,000 tonnes per year.

HZI acquired Kompogas in 2014 expanding the anaerobic technology options available to

HZI. The Kompogas anaerobic digestion technology involves a single stage biological

conversion conducted in a horizontal fermentation tank (high solids, plug flow design) to

produce ‘fuel gas’ / biogas, compost and liquid fertiliser.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



The fermenters are modular and range in size from 10,000 tonnes per year to 40,000 tonnes

per year per module. The modules can be multiplied to reach a desired capacity for a

facility.

12.1.3.2 Energos Holdings Ltd

Energos Holdings Ltd (Energos) is an international supplier of clean energy recovery from

waste plants. The Energos technology is a thermal conversion process where waste is subject

to gasification to produce a syngas which is then burnt in a high temperature oxidation

chamber to produce heat (converted to steam and electricity).

The conversion of Waste-to-Energy happens in two stages. In the first stage, fuel enters a

primary chamber, where gasification of the fuel takes place and a syngas is produced. The

syngas is transferred to a secondary chamber where high temperature oxidation takes

place.

The Energos technology is commercially viable up to 200,000 tonnes per annum. Energos

have facilities operational in Europe including:

Six in Norway;

One in the UK and a further six in development; and

One in Germany.

12.1.3.3 Amec Foster Wheeler plc

Amec Foster Wheeler plc (Amec) is a British multinational consultancy, engineering and

project management company. Amec have a presence in WA through their acquisition of

GRD Minproc, an engineering company based in Perth. Amec are involved in a number of

sectors including oil and gas, minerals and metals, clean energy, environment and

infrastructure markets.

Amec has delivered designs for a several waste processing projects include Materials

Recovery Facilities, Waste-to-Energy and AD plants.

12.1.3.4 Valoritza Servicios Mediambientales SA

Valoritza Servicios Mediambientales SA (Valoritza) is an international company that provides

waste management services and is currently responsible for the design, construction,

commissioning management, operation and maintenance of over 40 waste treatment

facilities. This includes:

2 Waste-to-Energy plants;

7 municipal solid waste organic fraction biomethanization plants;

14 Mechanical Biological Treatment-composting plants;

3 bio solids composting plants;

6 sludge thermal drying plants;

6 construction and demolition waste treatment plants;

5 packaging waste separation plants;

1 hazardous and industrial treatment plant; and

1 electronic wastes treatment plant and degasification of landfill with energy

produced from biogas.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



12.2 Waste-to-Energy Facilities

The following sections detail some Waste-to-Energy facilities that currently exist internationally

and are potentially relevant to the South West Group in the future.

12.2.1 Fernbrook Bio AD Facility (Kettering, UK)

The Rothwell Lodge AD facility is operated by Fernbrook Bio and is a biogas plant located

near Kettering in the United Kingdom. The facility accepts segregated food wastes from

homes and businesses in the local areas. The plant was developed in two phases and has

the ability to process 30,000 tonnes of biodegradable waste per year. The plant produces

digestate that is sold as biofertiliser to surrounding farms.

Initially digesters and plant was engineered to accept food waste in order to produce 499kW

of electrical power. It was later expanded to include an additional 1,067kWe gas engine.

The plant produces 9.2m kWh electricity each year, which is fed into the electricity grid. Heat

produced is used to heat the digester, pasteurise the organic material and for under floor

heating. Digestate is applied to nearby agricultural land, recycling the nutrients and

supporting food production.

The plant includes gas boosters to increase the pressure to the operating level of the gas

engines and dehumidification units to remove moisture from the biogas and to optimise the

operation of the gas engines. Surplus heat from the engines is recovered in a cogeneration

configuration facilitating combined heat and power for the installation. This heat is used for

digester heating and to facilitate pasteurisation of the food waste

12.2.2 Entech Gasification (Poland)

As previously mentioned, New Energy utilise Entech’s WtGas-ResTM gasification technology. A

facility located in Bydgoszcz, Poland utilises this technology. The facility treats bio-hazardous

and hazardous waste with a maximum capacity of 3.5 tonnes/day (1,095 tonnes per annum)

producing 1.6 MW tonnes/annum of energy. The facility was built in 2004 and in the last five

years has maintained an annual availability of 313 days. At another current Entech facility in

Malaysia, 14.2MW thermal units are produced during operation, whereas the proposed

facility New Energy facility in East Rockingham will generate approximately 18MW.

The Bydgoszcz facility is a small scale single line gasifier which is the basis of the New Energy

technology. The proposed New Energy facilities located within WA will utilise an increased

capacity and combine approximately five gasifier lines to account for the anticipated

volumes expected as part of those projects.

As part of the development of a facility which utilises Entech’s WtGas-ResTM gasification

technology, Entech will undertake the process design works and will play a significant role in

the design and development of the gas cleaning system. The process design typically

includes a gasifier on standby, reagent pumps that have significant redundancy, a 50%

redundancy in the bag filter and a waste retention time in the gasifiers of 16-20 hours. For

wastes with a higher calorific value, the retention time is generally reduced. The fabrication

of the gasifiers is commonly undertaken by a contractor.

The Bydgoszcz facility in Poland also differs to the proposed New Energy facilities in WA in

terms of pre-sorting. An upfront MRF is proposed by New Energy in WA whereas this was not


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



required in Poland due to the consistent nature of the waste stream. New Energy proposes to

utilise a MRF at the front end of their process for the following reasons:

o Ideological – greater justification and it is what the community wants;

o Provides flexibility for future changes in the waste stream;

o C&I waste market is currently underutilised and the MRF can handle material from

that waste stream; and

o Reduces the risk and the high cost of disposal of residuals.

There are currently over 46 established operating facilities worldwide utilising Entech

technology in resource recovery technologies.

12.2.3 Martin Grate Combustion (Japan)

There are two facilities in Tokyo, Japan which utilise the technology proposed by Phoenix

Energy. The first is the Kita facility and the second the Minato facility. Both facilities are part of

a group of 20 combustion facilities that service 23 wards in Tokyo referred to as the Clean

Association Tokyo 23, which is owned and operated by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

The Kita facility utilises the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Environmental & Chemical Engineering

Co. Ltd (MHIEC) Martin Grate (Reverse Acting) with boiler and electricity production. There

are more than 400 Martin GmbH facilities worldwide either in operation or under

construction. The construction of the Kita facility commenced in 1993 and was completed in

1998. It is the largest single line combustion treatment facility in Japan with a maximum

capacity of 600 tonnes per day of MSW and C&I waste.

The Kita facility is located in a residential area and maintains a residents committee. The

facility has three floors below ground level and six above. The total footprint of the site is

1.9ha.

Products from the facility include electricity (11.5MWe) and steam which heats the local

pool. The net electricity generation is broken into the following:

10MW generated;

3-4 MW parasitic plant load; and

6-7 MW sold.

The Kita facility operates 24 hours/day, however there are two significant scheduled shut

downs throughout the year including during the summer period of three weeks and during

the winter period of eight weeks. Scheduled shutdowns are integrated with shutdowns of all

the 20 facilities associated with the Clean Association Tokyo 23. Waste is diverted to the other

facilities during shutdown.

There are currently 60 staff in total that operate the facility spread across the day and night

shifts.

Waste that is considered not suitable for the combustion process has the metals recovered

and is shredded or pulverised prior to being sent to landfill. The slag material produced from

the combustion process is approximately one fortieth the original size of the waste and is

produced at 12000C.

The gas cleaning system comprises of a wet scrubber, chamber and stack. Within the wet

scrubber caustic soda is utilised to absorb the moisture and carbon dioxide in the air. The


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



NOx chamber has ammonia added and a catalyst to further clean the air. A dose of lime,

silica and activated carbon are introduced to the air to assist in the cleaning process and is

eventually released to the stack at approximately 2000C. Water from the process is cleaned

in a treatment plant and sent to sewer. Water is not recycled at this facility, however

rainwater is collected and utilised instead.

The waste received at the Kita plant contains approximately 15% organics comprised mostly

of paper and plastics. The process requires the waste to be mixed in order to ensure greater

consistency of waste composition.

The Minato facility also utilises the MHIEC Martin Grate (Reverse Acting) technology. It is the

second largest facility in the Clean Association Tokyo 23. The Minato facility operates three

combustion lines each with a maximum capacity of 300 tonnes per day resulting in the

potential treatment of 900 tonnes per day of MSW and C&I waste.

12.2.4 EMRC Pyrolysis (Hazelmere, WA)

The Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) proposes to develop a 3.5 megawatt

wood Waste-to-Energy facility located at Lakes Road, Hazelmere, approximately 14km from

Perth. The pyrolysis plant will consume approximately 0.2ha of the 10 ha Resource Recovery

Park site where wood and mattress recycling is already undertaken. The Public Environmental

Review process for the pyrolysis plant was undertaken over the months of May and June 2014

with the construction of the proposal scheduled to commence in 2015 with commissioning in

2016 depending on success of approval applications.

The pyrolysis plant will utilise an indirect-fired kiln to produce syngas for use in gas engines for

power generation. The plant will accept approximately 13,000 tonnes per annum of wood

waste. The wood waste will be clean wood from shipping pallets, timber offcuts and crates

that would otherwise be disposed to landfill. The resulting products from the process include

renewable electricity and bio-char.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



13 Waste-to-Energy in the South West

The establishment of a Waste-to-Energy facility in the South West Region would assist the

South West Group in:

Diverting waste from landfill thereby increasing the useful life of valuable landfill void

space;

Meeting the waste diversion targets adopted by the Waste Authority;

Reducing the environmental risks of landfilling;

Increasing the amount of resources recovered from waste; and

Generating renewable energy.

However, there are particular support structures for a Waste-to-Energy facility which are

currently lacking within the South West region including waste quantities, costs compared to

landfilling, access to markets including electricity connection to the grid. These challenges

must be overcome in order to develop a sustainable Waste-to-Energy facility in the South

West.

This section firstly provides an overview of the challenges facing the South West Group in

establishing a Waste-to-Energy facility plus an assessment of Waste-to-Energy technologies

and key facilities across the world.

In addition, Talis also outlines a Waste-to-Energy opportunity that has arisen with Worsley

Alumina which can potentially resolve the current challenges in the South West Region for

such a facility.

13.1 Overview

As outlined previously, there are a variety of Waste-to-Energy technologies, providers and

facilities locally, nationally and internationally. The evolution of this industry has significantly

altered waste management practices over the last 20 years particularly in the developed

world. The Waste-to-Energy industry will continue to evolve and devise new technologies to

deal with the issues of current and future generations, providing more sustainable outcomes

for the management of the by-products of our high consumption societies.

WA is at the forefront of the development of the Waste-to-Energy industry within Australia

and has seen significant advances in this evolving market over the past five years. Currently

New Energy Corporation is in the final stages of the pre-construction activities including

approvals and securing Waste Supply Agreements for its proposed gasification facilities in

Rockingham and Port Hedland. In addition, Phoenix Energy is in a similar situation with its

proposed combustion facility proposed in Kwinana. As outlined previously, the viability of

these facilities all alter slightly due to the local legislative and market conditions.

In relation to the Phoenix Energy’s and New Energy Corporation’s Waste-to-Energy facilities

proposed in the metropolitan region, a key legislative driver for these facilities is the landfill

levy which is forecasted to rise to $70 per tonne by 2018. Up until recently, the landfill levy

was $12 per tonne and provided no incentive to develop Waste-to-Energy facilities. This

scheduled increase has resulted in these Waste-to-Energy facilities being the equivalent to or

cheaper than the forecasted landfill gate fees per tonne. This economic factor is having a

significant impact on the financial viability of these facilities.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Talis has undertaken significant investigations of New Energy Corporation’s Boodarie project

near Port Hedland during previous works in the area. This project has a different economic

driver that facilitates the viability of the Waste-to-Energy facility, than those proposed within

the metropolitan area. The key factor, which determines the viability within Port Hedland in

an area where the landfill levy does not apply, is the value of the energy within that market

via the electrical grid. The cost of electricity in the North West is significantly higher than in the

South West Region. So much so, that revenue from the sale of electricity by New Energy

Corporation is a key factor in ensuring that the project is financially viable by reducing gate

fees to attract waste material.

It must be noted that the current combined quantity of MSW and C&I waste (173,574 tonnes)

generated by the South West Group is sufficient to underpin a thermal gasification facility.

New Energy Corporation has shown that approximately 100,000 to 150,000 tonnes per annum

of waste results in a viable project however, as mentioned previously, the viability of a facility

depends highly on the legislative and economic support structures specific to that Region. At

this stage, the South West Group faces several challenges in order to establish a Waste-to-

Energy facility within the Region.

13.2 Challenges for Waste-to-Energy in the South West

There are currently several challenges facing the South West Group which must be

overcome prior to the establishment of a Waste-to-Energy facility. As was previously outlined

within Section 10.8, it was recognised that there are currently key support structures missing,

which limit the viability of some of the more advanced Strategic Options such as Waste-to-

Energy. The items currently missing which support these large scale infrastructural projects

include:

Legislative drivers such as a landfill levy;

Lack of waste quantities;

Cost of Services;

Markets for the sale of products; and


Some of the challenges are common to all Waste-to-Energy technologies however, some

only apply to specific types of technology. The key support structure currently missing which is

a critical to the feasibility of a Waste-to-Energy project within the South West Region is the

Cost of Services. Waste-to-Energy remains significantly more expensive than landfill within the

South West Region due to a lack of supporting legislative drivers.

Legislation has been utilised across the world to improve waste management systems and

reduce waste to landfill. Policies, such as the EU Landfill Directive, prevent and manage the

quantity of untreated waste to landfill. In the Perth Metropolitan Area the legislated landfill

levy now provides an economic driver for the reduction of waste to landfill. Previously, the

expansion of the landfill levy to the rural areas of WA had been considered by State

government however, this proposition is not currently proposed by the State Government.

The implementation of the State Waste Strategy landfill diversion targets has created an

aspirational goal for waste generators and manages however, there is currently no discussion

concerning compulsory compliance with the targets and no penalties for not achieving

them. Consequently, the landfill diversion targets do not provide the drivers necessary for the

establishment of Waste-to-Energy facilities in the South West Region. Therefore, there are


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



currently no legislative drivers for the delivery of Waste-to-Energy facilities within the South

West Region. From a financial perspective, this results in traditional waste disposal through

landfilling, remaining as the preferred financial option.

During any further investigations into suitable Waste-to-Energy technologies, consideration

should be given to the chemical characteristics of the residue product from the facility. This is

important in understanding its potential reuse or disposal requirements. In particular, if the

residue is classified as hazardous and requires disposal within a Class IV Landfill, costs can

increase. This is relevant if the South West Group develops the Waste-to-Energy facility

themselves and do not utilise a Waste Supply Agreement. However, a technology provider

might see this as another challenge which reduces the viability of establishing a Waste-to-

Energy facility within the South West Region.

13.3 Assessment of Waste-to-Energy Technologies for the South West

As previously outlined, there is a range of Waste-to-Energy technologies and for the purpose

of this Report, Talis has broadly assessed them against the support structures to determine the

most suitable technology for further consideration by the South West Group.

13.3.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

AD is an organic waste processing technique that decomposes organic materials via

naturally occurring micro-organisms in the absence of oxygen to produce biogas, compost

and in some instances, liquid fertilisers. AD facilities can be designed to accept both source

separated organic streams or mixed refuse streams. The biogas is commonly utilised to power

the AD plant itself. AD plants do not tend to produce a surplus of electricity as the process of

sorting prior to AD and during, is a large consumer of electricity itself. Therefore, the AD plant

is relatively energy neutral.

Some AD facilities include a number of modules which form a continuous process. For

example, in order to process 150,000 tonnes per annum of organic material, some AD

technologies may require up to 48 modules.

However, the construction of facilities to cater for large volumes of waste can be a

significant capital cost. In addition, AD facilities have high operational costs including

significant maintenance liabilities. Whereas, the LGAs within the South West Group that

already undertake composting activities by either windrow or forced aeration techniques,

produce a compost of equivalent or better quality than AD. This is due to the relatively clean

streams which are utilised to generate the compost. Therefore, the AD process may cost

significantly more to produce the same compost.

In addition, in order for a large AD facility to be viable it must target larger quantities of

waste. AD facilities that utilise mixed streams and target the organic fraction, generate of low

grade compost which contains traces of contamination such as glass and plastics. The low

grade compost cannot generate as much revenue as high quality compost which utilises

clean streams such as greenwaste and source separated organics (3rd bin system).

Therefore, the current organic waste processing techniques utilises within the South West, in

particular the MAF system utilised by the BWGC, is the most cost effective solution

considering costs and energy use. The investment in an AD plant, to generate the same

compost and produce no additional energy at a significant greater cost, would not be

recommended by Talis at this stage.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



13.3.2 Combustion

Combustion technologies have typically required large volumes in order to be viable mostly

due to the high cost of the air quality system to handle gas and particle emissions. The

proposed Phoenix Energy facility in Kwinana is to receive approximately 400,000 tonnes per

annum to achieve economies of scale to make the facility compete in the market against

other Waste-to-Energy facilities and landfill gate fees. As previously outlined within this Report,

the South West Group does not generate this quantity of total waste, let alone enough waste

for the combustion process. The South West Group may consider trying to attract tonnes of

waste from surrounding areas including the metropolitan area however, due to the proposed

establishment of two Waste-to-Energy facilities in Perth, it would be unlikely that it would be

cost effective to transport waste large distances to the South West for treatment at a

combustion facility or vice versa, the South West Group transport waste material to Perth. It is

therefore considered that the development of a combustion facility within the South West

would not be feasible due to insufficient tonnes of waste nor would it be financially viable to

transport waste to Perth and pay the associated gate fee. Due to this significant constraint,

Talis recommends that combustion technologies are not further considered by the South

West Group at this stage.

13.3.3 Gasification / Pyrolysis

Gasification and pyrolysis technologies are closely aligned as they operate with low and

oxygen free environments respectively. There are a range of variations upon these

technologies and several are modular which allows for the acceptance of low waste

volumes. In addition, when waste volumes increase, the modular design allows for the facility

to be scaled up. Therefore, a gasification or pyrolysis plant is considered suitable to cater for

the waste volumes generated within the South West Region.

However, economic viability remains a key limitation to the development of a gasification

facility in terms of cost when compared to landfilling. Depending on the life of the best

practice landfill facility, the capital costs may exceed $100 million (30+ years), which would

be similar to that of a small modular gasification facility however, the capital investment

profile for both, alter significantly. The capital profile of a landfill facility is spread across its life

generally requiring approximately $1-2 million every 2-3 years to pay for new cell

development of capping construction works. However, the capital cost of a Waste-to-Energy

facility is upfront and required in full to commence operations. In addition, the operational

costs of landfilling are substantially lower. Gasification technologies tend to recoup costs via

the sale of electricity and heat if possible. This provides an offset for the operational costs

and generates revenue to pay off the capital costs. However, it is understood, that it is

currently difficult to connect to the South West Interconnected System (SWIS) as there is a

surplus of non-renewable electricity producers from coal, natural gas and oil. Waste-to-

Energy providers have informally indicated that there is a large backlog of applications for

connections to the SWIS and the cost involved in preparing applications and installing new

infrastructure are significant. However, an even larger challenge is the price of electricity

which is produced by the electricity generators in the Region. As outlined previously, the

price of electricity is so high in the Pilbara that it is key to making the Waste-to-Energy facility

in Port Hedland viable by offsetting the gate fees to compete with the relatively low landfill

gate fees. Waste-to-Energy providers have indicated that the low price of electricity in the

South West Region is a key factor in making such a facility unviable, particularly in relation to


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



competing with landfill gate fees. The connection concerns extend to combustion and all

Waste-to-Energy technologies which negatively impact on the feasibility of many projects.

As outlined above, there are a number of challenges (costs, tonnages, markets) to the

traditional delivery of Waste-to-Energy facilities in the South West. However, through this

assessment process, Talis recognises that a Waste-to-Energy opportunity exists with a local

alumina refinery through the direct sale of heat and/or electricity to an established major

customer (Refer Section 13.4).

13.4 Worsley Alumina

Worsley Alumina is a joint venture operation between BHP Billiton, Japan Alumina Associates

and Sojitz Alumina, incorporating a bauxite mine, an alumina refinery and port facilities. The

mine site and refinery is located on Gastaldo Road approximately 57km north east of

Bunbury and 25km north of Collie.

Construction of a mine site and refinery began in 1980 and the first alumina was produced in

April 1984. Alumina production is approximately 3.5 million tonnes per annum 2. Alumina is

carted by rail and exported through the Port of Bunbury. More than 1,200 people are

employed at the mine site and refinery. Worsley Alumina is currently the world’s fifth largest

bauxite mine 2.

Recent discussions with Worsley Alumina have indicated that the increasing cost of utilising

coal, to power the refining process, has caused the company to investigate alternate

methods to power the facility. Worsley Alumina recently invested in a Multi-fuel Combustion

Furnace that can accept biomass as opposed to traditional non-renewable resources. In

total the Multi-fuel Combustion Furnace can accept up to 30% of biomass as an alternative

fuel source and a maximum of 5% plastics in accordance with its licence. However, as

Worsley Alumina use 1 million tonnes of coal per annum, the Multi-fuel Combustion Furnace

can accept 300,000 tonnes of biomass or 50,000 tonnes of plastics. As outlined previously,

there currently is not that order of magnitude of biomass waste within the South West Region,

and even further afield. There is currently 135,000 tonnes per annum of refuse material that is

being landfilled within the Region, however Worsley Alumina and Talis have raised some

technical and approval concerns of the Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace accepting

refuse/mixed waste material. These include:

The Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace has not been designed to process such materials

including:

o The bed heat of the furnace capacity/limit;

o Emissions cleaning equipment required to comply with the more stringent

emissions standards for the Waste-to-Energy facilities;

Potential of obtaining environmental approvals for the facility without identifying a

similar facility accepting mixed streams that has operated in compliance with the

European Union (EU) Emissions standards.

Potentially, there may be modifications that can be made to the Multi-Fuel Combustion

Furnace to overcome these challenges. Therefore, Talis is of the view that the potential of the

Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace accepting refuse/mixed waste warrants further consideration.

The traditional coal powered system is not suitable due to insufficient bed heat and the

2 http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/worsley/


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



associated gas generated from the process being substantially different from that of coal

burning. It therefore poses too many risks to the facility to utilise typical mixed refuse as a

feedstock.

As previously outlined, SRF is a waste derived fossil fuel replacements and may be a more

suitable fuel source for the Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace than straight MSW or C&I waste. In

particular, the use of the high calorific value SRF could be considered by the South West

Group to assist in achieving the potentially stringent environmental conditions imposed by

the EPA and DER if the Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace at the Worsley Alumina site is utilised. In

addition, Talis currently understands that the Multi-Fuel Combustion Furnace is licenced to

accept fuels which contain a maximum of 5% plastics. As SRF or mixed refuse may contain

more than 5% plastics, it is anticipated that approvals would need to be obtained by Worsley

Alumina to accept such materials. As part of this approval process, the DER and/or EPA

would assess the ability of the facility to successfully prevent the release of inappropriate

emissions into the atmosphere utilising its existing gas cleaning equipment.

In addition, Talis recognise the potential for the operation of a specific Waste-to-Energy

facility located at its site, to assist in the powering of the refinery. This may result in an

arrangement whereby the South West Group develops a centralised processing facility (Dirty

MRF and/or SRF production) for the purpose of bulk hauling waste to the Worsley Alumina site

for utilisation within the onsite Waste-to-Energy facility. This would help ensure that the

calorific value of the material remains consistent and that numbers of vehicles entering and

exiting the site are minimised. Worsley Alumina has stated that kerbside collection vehicles

accessing this Waste-to-Energy facility would not be suitable as it would increase traffic to

unreasonable levels.

It is anticipated that the South West Group would enter into a Waste Supply Agreement with

the developer of the Waste-to-Energy facility. The developer may be Worsley Alumina or a

specific Waste-to-Energy provider. The ownership risk upon the South West Group is lower via

a Waste Supply Agreement approach when compared to other procurement options such

as a more traditional design, construct and operate contracts or Public Private Partnerships.

At the time this report was written, discussions with Worsley Alumina are ongoing. These

discussions aim to develop an agreement to investigate the feasibility of such an undertaking

in partnership with Worsley Alumina.

In the interim, the South West Group could also explore other opportunities of a similar nature

including other major mining, processing and heavy industry facilities within the South West

Region that may require alternative fuels, such as SRF or RDF, for either heat, steam or

electricity production. Companies and facilities of interest within the South West Region may

include but not be limited to:

Illuka Resources;

Simcoa Operations;

Cristal Global;

Muja Power Station;

Bluewaters Power Station;

Collie Power Station; and

Southern Seawater Desalination Plant.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



13.5 Scope of Works Moving Forward

To provide some guidance to the South West Group in relation to the key tasks required to

assist in the delivery of a Waste-to-Energy facility, Talis has outlined the following preferred

tasks. These have been broken down into two distinct phases, with the first further

concentrating on the opportunity with Worsley Alumina. The second phase would be an

alternative direction if the Worsley Alumina opportunities do not come to fruition.

Talis recommends that for the South West Group to further pursue the Waste-to-Energy

opportunities at Worsley Alumina the following are undertaken:

Feasibility Assessment focussing on both utilising the current Multi-Fuel Combustion

Furnace and a purpose built Waste-to-Energy facility at the site. The Feasibility

Assessment should include, but not be limited to:











Based on where discussions have progressed to at this stage, Talis recommends that a

workshop be organised with Worsley Alumina to discuss the findings of the Regional Waste

Management Strategy and also the scope of the Feasibility Assessment moving forward.

Following discussion with Worsley Alumina, it is recommended that the South West Group

explore other opportunities of a similar nature including other major heavy industrial

organisations within the South West Region that may require alternative fuels for either heat,

steam or electricity production.

If there is a lack of appetite from Worsley Alumina or other similar heavy industry organisations

or if significant challenges arise from the Feasibility Assessment, the South West Group should

further pursue Waste-to-Energy through the following means:

Undertake a Site Selection Study to determine a preferred location for a Waste-to-

Energy facility within the South West Region with a key focus on other high energy


Undertake a Feasibility Study to assess the technical aspects of the Waste-to-Energy

facility including but not limited to:




Establish formal Regional Councils or Regional Subsidiaries for the management and

ownership of waste;

Prepare Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between LGAs and/or Regional



South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY





A Regional Subsidiary is two or more local governments forming a subsidiary body to jointly

provide a service or carry on an activity. The Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill

2014 (Bill) is currently before Western Australian (WA) Parliament and if passed will allow for

the development of a Regional Subsidiary.

These tasks are based on the information available at the time of the preparation of this

Report, however these should be reviewed periodically and expanded to contain further

detail as new information is received.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



14 Waste Disposal Strategy

As outlined previously, access to best practice long term waste disposal services is a key

principle that underpins any successful Resource Recovery strategy. There are a number of

reasons for this including that there will always be a residue even from the most advanced

technologies and there will also be shutdown times when facilities require maintenance

work, which are generally annually. Therefore, best practice disposal services are a key

element in advanced integrated waste management systems.

Currently, the predominant management option for the majority of waste generated within

the South West is disposal, with most LGAs operating a local landfill. Enforcement of the Best

Practice Landfill Guidelines presents significant financial challenges to the viability of the

facilities. Therefore, Talis recognises the potential for a Regional Landfill facility, engineered

and operated to best practice standards to provide long term security to the LGAs in the

region. The following section assesses the technical and financial aspects of a Local vs

Regional Landfill as well as the optimum location for a regional facility.

14.1 Local vs Regional Landfill

To determine the most suitable approach for the South West Group regarding the

development of landfills within the Region, Talis has undertaken an assessment of the

technical and financial aspects of establishing a best practice landfill to cater for a single

LGA compared with a regional approach for all LGAs within the South West Region.

Based on recent works undertaken within the South West, Talis has a strong understanding of

the capital and operational costs involved in developing landfills in accordance with the

Best Practice Landfill Guidelines. For the purpose of this study and to provide an indication of

capital costs for the development of a best practice landfill, Talis has utilised a generic

conceptual landfill design located on a standard site without constraints or anomalies that

achieves an excavation/operation landfill material balance. The generic Local Landfill

design is based on an annual waste acceptance of 15,000 tonnes per annum. The Regional

Landfill is based on 100,000 tonnes per annum. It is assumed that waste is compacted to a

density of 0.8 tonnes per m3 at both sites.

Talis has assessed the capital and operational cost for the 15,000 tonnes per annum local

landfill and calculated a gate fee accordingly. This is summarised in Table 14-1 below.

Table 14-1: Local Landfill cost breakdown over 20 years

Refuse (Tonnes

per annum)

Total Refuse over 20 years

(Tonnes)

Total Capital Cost over 20

years

Capital Cost per Tonne

Operational Cost over 20

years

Operational Cost Per

tonne

Total Cost per tonne

15,000 383,170 $43,169,838 $112.67 $14,214,900 $37.10 $149.76

Note: 15,000 tpa has been escalated at 2.5% growth per annum for 20 years

It can be seen from Table 14-1 that for a LGA to develop a best practice landfill which it will

own and manage itself, will cost approximately $149.76 per tonne of waste considering both

capital and operational costs for a period of 20 years. This is considered a large expense for

the outcome achieved which is landfill disposal.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Table 14-2 has been provided to compare the calculated indicative cost per tonne for a

Regional Landfill where each LGA funds a portion of the Regional Landfill based on the

tonnages they dispose at the site. The Regional Landfill will cost approximately $48.2 million in

capital costs over a 20 year period.

Table 14-2: Regional Landfill cost breakdown over 20 years for each LGA

LGA

Total Refuse over

20 years (Tonnes)

Total Capital Cost over 20

years

Capital Cost per Tonne

Operational Cost over 20

years

Operational Cost Per

tonne

Total Cost per tonne

City of

Bunbury 168,127 $3,443,423 $20.48 $1,425,035 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of Boyup

Brook 16,158 $330,924 $20.48 $136,950 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of Capel 157,928 $3,234,534 $20.48 $1,338,588 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Donnybrook-

Balingup

159,685 $3,270,518 $20.48 $1,353,480 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of Collie 196,863 $4,031,960 $20.48 $1,668,597 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Dardanup 208,099 $4,262,091 $20.48 $1,763,835 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Harvey 239,794 $4,911,241 $20.48 $2,032,481 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Augusta

Margaret

River

314,134 $6,433,812 $20.48 $2,662,585 $8.48 $28.96

City of

Busselton 431,696 $8,841,597 $20.48 $3,659,029 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Bridgetown-

Greenbushes 198,427 $4,064,009 $20.48 $1,681,860 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Manjimup 243,780 $4,992,885 $20.48 $2,066,268 $8.48 $28.96

Shire of

Nannup 20,917 $428,401 $20.48 $177,291 $8.48 $28.96

TOTAL 2,355,607 $48,245,393 $19,966,000

From Table 14-2 it can be seen that the total cost per tonne for a regional landfill over 20

years is $28.96 for each LGA. Please note that for the purpose of this comparison, the refuse

generated within each LGA does not include any C&I waste.

A comparison between the Local Landfill and Regional Landfill cost shows that a Regional

Landfill is approximately $120 per tonne less than the Local Landfill approach. The significant

savings generated within the Regional Landfill model arise from the economies of scale that

are produced when the capital and operational costs are spilt amongst a group of LGAs.

The capital cost items for landfill cell excavation and development are relatively the same

for a Local Landfill and a Regional Landfill however, on a larger scale (i.e the cost to develop

the void space of the landfill is theoretically the same). In addition, the proportional spread

of costs across 12 LGAs further reduces the respective cost to each LGA. Whereas, the


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



financial burden of providing the supporting infrastructure becomes the sole responsibility of

the single LGA in the Local Landfill model. The support infrastructure can amount to a

substantial cost and may include:

Fencing and gates;

Gravel roads;

Weighbridge;

Workshop and shed;

Fire tank;

Perimeter monitoring wells;

Office; and

Supply site generator.

The outlay for this infrastructure, when split amongst the group, is significantly less per LGA

than when a single LGA bears the responsibility via the Local Landfill approach.

However, the most significant cost saving of a Regional Landfill is the operational costs. As

outlined previously, operational costs are relatively similar between the Local and Regional

Landfill. An additional employee or two may be the only difference between the two landfill

models. The landfill size does not affect the required operations of a best practice landfill

therefore, a compactor operator, weighbridge attendant and general staffer are all

required. This in turn results in the operational costs remaining relatively similar, even if a

Regional Landfill accepts 10 times the volume of waste. As a result of this, significant overall

cost savings are created by the Regional Landfill approach compared to the Local landfill. In

fact, across the life of the landfill, the operational costs are far greater than the capital costs.

Therefore, it is important to maximise the tonnage of waste being accepted at a landfill in

order to obtain greater efficiencies on the operational costs.

Therefore, in order for the South West Group to obtain the best value for money when

delivering waste disposal services within the South West, a Regional Landfill approach is

required. In addition, the development of a large regional facility by the South West Group

will secure long term disposal and ensure costs remain competitive.

14.2 Optimum Location

As outlined above, Talis provides a variety of reasons that recommend a Regional Landfill as

the preferred disposal strategy for the South West Region.

To identify the most preferred area for the development of a Regional Landfill in the South

West Region, Talis utilised the following approaches to identify a suitable location:

1. Method 1 – Equidistance Model; and

2. Method 2 – Hypothetical Regional Site Model.

Both models are discussed in detail within the following sections.

14.2.1 Method 1 - Equidistance Model

In order to further investigate the sources of waste generation within the South West Region,

Talis utilised data from ABS to determine the location of key population nodes. These

population nodes provided additional geographical information as to the location of waste

generation. Utilising the population nodes and the waste generated per capita for each LGA


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



in the South West Group, Talis calculated the quantity of waste (not including recyclables)

produced within each population node. These are listed within Table 14-3.

Table 14-3: Residue Waste Generation per Population Node per annum

Local Government Authority Population Node MSW (Tonnes)

Bunbury

Koombana 7,517

Bunbury 18,552

College Grove - Carey Park 7,108

Boyup Brook Boyup Brook (Townsite) 728

Capel Gelorup - Dalyellup - Stratham 3,247

Capel 1,503

Donnybrook-Balingup Donnybrook - Balingup 7,264

Collie Collie 6,712

Dardanup Eaton - Pelican Point 4,500

Dardanup 1,277

Harvey Harvey 3,148

Australind - Leschenault 5,778

Augusta Margaret River Margaret River 8,061

Augusta 4,810

Busselton Busselton 17,439

Busselton Region 6,890

Bridgetown-Greenbushes Bridgetown (Townsite) 7,989

Manjimup Manjimup (Townsite) 11,393

Nannup Nannup (Townsite) 932

TOTAL WASTE 124,847

Note: The Shire’s of Boyup Brook, Bridgetown-Greenbushes, Manjimup and Nannup are contained within two

population nodes, therefore townsites were utilised where the majority (assumed 80%) of population is located and

hence waste is generated.

It can be seen from Table 14-3 that half LGAs have at least two main population nodes

within their boundaries and the remainder only having one. In addition, the table shows the

significant quantity of total MSW generated within the region at 124,847 tonnes per annum.

As previously mentioned, Talis investigated a Regional Landfill situated at an equal distance

from each of the LGA population nodes. Therefore, Talis developed a logistics model which

assumed that each LGA travels the same annual distance relative to the total quantity of

waste produced in the LGA. Talis utilised a nominal distance of 300,000km per annum as the

distance travelled by each LGA based on a suitable fleet of waste collection vehicles to

cater for the LGAs waste. The fleet were then assumed to operate five days per week with a

capacity of 8 tonnes per collection vehicle and the number of trips includes the return leg

from the regional facility. In reality, it would be in all LGAs best interest to use bulk waste

haulage vehicles with the largest possible capacity to create better efficiencies and hence

reduce the number of trips. However, this would not have a significant impact on our

assessment as we have utilised the same vehicle type for all LGAs.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Utilising the assumption listed previously, Table 14-4 shows the number of trips per annum and

the distance to a theoretical Regional Landfill from each population node, if the total annual

travel distance (300,000km per annum) for each LGA was identical utilising an 8 tonne waste

collection vehicle.

Table 14-4: Number of Trips Required for a Population Node

Local

Government

Authority

Population Node

Residue

Waste

(Tonnes)

Number

of Trips

(per

annum)

Theoretical

Distance to

Regional

Facility (km)

Annual

Kilometres

(km)

Bunbury

Koombana 7,517 1,879 53.21

300,000 Bunbury 18,552 4,638 21.56

College Grove - Carey Park 7,108 1,777 56.28

Boyup Brook Boyup Brook (Townsite) 728 182 1,648.35 300,000

Capel

Gelorup - Dalyellup - Stratham 3,247 812 184.80

300,000

Capel 1,503 376 399.14

Donnybrook-

Balingup Donnybrook - Balingup 7,264 1,816 165.20 300,000

Collie Collie 6,712 1,678 178.78 300,000

Dardanup

Eaton - Pelican Point 4,500 1,125 133.33

300,000

Dardanup 1,277 319 469.93

Harvey

Harvey 3,148 787 190.62

300,000

Australind - Leschenault 5,778 1,445 103.83

Augusta

Margaret

River

Margaret River 8,061 2,015 74.43

300,000

Augusta 4,810 1,203 124.74

Busselton

Busselton 17,439 4,360 34.41

300,000

Busselton Region 6,890 1,723 87.08

Bridgetown-

Greenbushes Bridgetown (Townsite) 7,989 1,997 150.21 300,000

Manjimup Manjimup (Townsite) 11,393 2,848 105.33 300,000

Nannup Nannup (Townsite) 932 233 1,287.55 300,000

Note: it is assumed that a total of 300,000km were travelled by each LGA per annum with a waste haulage vehicle

capacity of 8 tonnes.

It can be seen from Table 14-4 that LGAs or population nodes with small waste volumes

make less trips to a regional facility than those with large quantities of waste. Therefore, their

distance is greater than the population nodes with greater volumes of waste.

It can be seen from Table 14-4 that due to the significant waste volumes generated within

the Bunbury and Busselton population nodes, the theoretical distance from these areas to


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



the regional facility must be quite short in order for those LGAs to travel the same total

distance. The distances to a hypothetical regional facility must theoretically be 21.5km from

Bunbury and 34.4km from Busselton. However, these two population nodes are

approximately 55km from one another by road. Therefore, one LGA would be required to

travel further than the other to reach the regional facility if it was not located at the

theoretical distance from each LGA.

The theoretical distances to a regional facility from each of the major population nodes is

presented in Figure 1. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the radii surrounding each major

population node do not all overlap with each other. In order for there to be an ideal position

for the regional facility, based on this equal distance concept, the radii must all overlap.

It is clear from Figure 1 that not all radii associated with each population node overlap. The

population nodes that overlap with the other radii are generally the larger radii and/or

centrally located. The following population nodes have the least amount of overlaps:

Harvey;

Bunbury;

Collie

Busselton;

Margret River; and

Augusta.

These population nodes generate the greatest waste volumes and hence are limited by this

model. In addition, these population nodes tend to not overlap with each other.

Therefore, a Regional Landfill located so that each LGA within the South West travels the

same total distance per annum cannot exist as there will always be a situation where a

participant will be required to travel further than another participant. This is due to the

variances with the volume of waste that the LGAs generate and their individual location.

14.2.2 Method 2 - Hypothetical Regional Landfill Locations

As outlined within the previous section, the Equidistance Model cannot exist, therefore Talis

has investigated a variety of hypothetical locations to determine a preferred area for a

regional facility.

As part of this process development, Talis identified six hypothetical locations for a Regional

Landfill. The objective of this study was to determine a preferred location which has the

lowest cumulative travel distances for all the LGAs within the South West Region. The

Hypothetical locations were spread across the South West and are shown in Figure 2. It can

be seen from Figure 2 that Location 3 is situated on the Swan Coastal Plane in close proximity

to the town of Capel. Talis selected this hypothetical location for completeness of the study.

However, it should be noted that Location 3 is within the Swan Coastal Plain and therefore,

Talis anticipates that approval for a new landfill in this area could not be obtained due to

current government policies. In addition, Talis has utilised the Banksia Road site (referred to as

Location 4) within the model as it is currently the only landfill within the region built in

accordance with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines. The remaining hypothetical landfill

locations are situated off the Swan Coastal Plane. Location 1 is located near the Vasse Hwy,

Location 2 is located inland from Capel near Gavins Gully Road, Location 5 is situated near

Donnybrook and Location 6 is positioned near the Capel-Donnybrook Road.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



The Hypothetical Regional Landfill Locations model was utilised to determine the distance to

each of the six Hypothetical Locations from each population node. The total annual

distance travelled to and from each Location was calculated based on the number of trips

(as shown in Table 14-4) required to transport the annual quantity of waste produced by

each LGA. As previously mentioned, the calculation to determine the number of trips

required by each LGA was undertaken utilising an 8 tonne kerbside collection vehicle. Table

14-5 shows the total and average distances required to be travelled by each LGA to each of

the six Hypothetical Locations shown in Figure 2.

Table 14-5: Total distances Travelled by each LGA to Hypothetical Location Sites

Distance Travelled per Annum (km)

LGA Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location

4* Location 5 Location 6

Bunbury 517,480 258,558 196,165 183,075 335,551 425,215

Boyup Brook 21,691 17,500 19,485 16,746 14,430 22,610

Capel 58,586 27,406 10,877 41,393 45,154 42,364

Donnybrook-

Balingup 123,941 70,850 91,255 88,421 39,298 125,074

Collie 202,942 131,556 135,829 102,005 98,979 179,799

Dardanup 107,296 50,478 47,310 31,815 64,762 88,715

Harvey 191,863 107,727 103,121 79,008 128,745 166,875

Augusta Margaret

River 253,051 314,510 290,541 379,631 386,419 283,794

Busselton 203,674 315,555 268,828 438,230 452,380 257,568

Bridgetown-

Greenbushes 175,926 157,202 179,424 176,132 122,840 216,050

Manjimup 295,797 339,092 372,395 369,368 289,742 369,368

Nannup 9,291 22,354 18,888 24,995 12,144 15,091

Total 2,161,538 1,812,790 1,734,117 1,930,820 1,990,443 2,192,523

Average 180,128 151,066 144,510 160,902 165,870 182,710

* Location 4 is located at the Banksia Road Waste Management Facility

It can be seen from Table 14-5 that the total distance travelled to Location 3 is the smallest,

followed by Location 2 and then Banksia Road Landfill. Therefore, the model suggests that

the position of Location 3 is most ideally suited for a regional facility. However, as previously

mentioned, Talis positioned Location 3 on the Swan Coastal Plane for completeness where it

is understood no future landfills will be approved by the various regulatory authorities.

Therefore, the area surrounding Location 2 is considered more appropriate for the

development of a Regional Landfill.

As outlined previously, the data utilised in Table 14-5 is from 2015 and does not take into

account future waste generation trends. Therefore, to demonstrate the impact of future

population and waste generation rates, Talis projected the total average transportation

requirements to each hypothetical Location to 2050. Diagram 14-1 summarises the average

distance travelled by all LGAs within the South West Group to each of the five Hypothetical

Locations (in 5 year intervals).


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Diagram 14-1: Total Average Distance travelled by all LGAs to each Hypothetical Location

From Diagram 14-1 it can be seen that currently the quantity of waste generated within the

South West Region forces the LGAs to travel approximately 150,000km per annum to

Location 3 and 2 if direct hauling utilising 8 tonne waste collection vehicles.

However as shown in Diagram 14-1, during the 35 years of forecasting, the rankings change.

Table 14-6 outlines these changes to show how waste generation affects the average

distances travelled by the LGAs and therefore the rankings.

Table 14-6: Total Average Distance travelled by all LGAs Ranked

Location 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

1 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6

6 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

It can be seen from Table 14-6 that in the period between 2020 and 2025 Location 4 shifts

from the third least distance travelled to the fourth. This results in Location 6 moving into third.

In addition, it can be seen that the difference between Location 2 and Location 4 (Banksia

Road Landfill) increases over the course of the study. These noticeable changes are a result

of a greater percentage of the total tonnes produced by the LGAs of the CAPEROC in the

years following 2020 as previously outlined within Section 6.

Therefore, it can be seen from Diagram 14-1 and Table 14-6that Location 3 is in the most

ideal distance from each of the LGAs currently and in the longer term. However, as

previously mentioned, Location 3 has been placed on the Swan Coastal Plain to

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Ave

rage

Km

s

Year

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Location 4

Location 5

Location 6


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



demonstrate its effect on the model and it would be anticipated that in reality a new best

practice landfill would not be supported by the DER on the Swan Coastal Plain. Therefore,

Location 2 is identified as the most suitable location for a regional landfill based on the

distances travelled by each LGA to the facility.

14.2.3 Optimum Location for a Regional Facility

Utilising the results from the previous section, taking into account the distances by road

between population nodes and waste quantities for each of the LGAs, Talis identified an

area which is ideally situated to benefit the majority of participants who will transport waste

to a regional facility. The ideal zone for a regional facility in the South West is shown in Figure

2.

It can be seen from Figure 2 that the ideal zone focusses on the area near Location 2. This

area has been identified because of its proximity to the major waste generating areas within

the South West and its central location to the participating LGAs.

However, it is appropriate to suggest that an Optimum Location for a regional facility may be

further south as the City of Busselton and Augusta-Margret River which is projected to

generate significantly greater waste volumes in the long term, while the greater City of

Bunbury area is expected to slow in growth. This results in the majority of the Optimum

Location being concentrated between Location 2 and Location 6.

It must be noted that in any potential scenario where a regional facility approach is

undertaken, there will be LGAs who benefit over others. This is caused by the significant

distances between the LGAs and the spread of waste generation rates across the South

West. Unfortunately, a regional facility for the South West cannot be positioned at an

equidistant location to all participants. This situation further enforces the development of a

modern regional network of waste transfer stations which may ease the burden, for smaller

LGAs, of transporting residue wastes such distances.

Based on the findings of the logistics modelling completed as part of this study, Talis has

identified Location 2 as the optimum location for a Regional Landfill to cater for all LGAs

within the South West Group.

As demonstrated previously, the equidistance model for a Regional Landfill is not possible

due to the variances in waste generation and distance between the various LGAs of the

South West Region.

However, the South West Group should not discount other suitable locations for the Optimum

Location for a Regional Landfill if one presents itself. It is anticipated that potential

opportunities may exist at previous mining or quarrying operations within the South West

Region. These rehabilitated and/or closed facilities may present an ideal situation whereby

an excavation made from mining or quarrying becomes suitable for landfilling purposes. Any

instances of this nature should be further considered by the South West Group in addition to

the Optimum Location identified within this Report.

To further investigate the Optimum Location for a Regional Landfill, Talis recommends that

the South West Group undertake a detailed Site Selection Study which includes the following

various key phases:


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Development of Site Selection Criteria to underpin the Site Selection works. The

criteria define the attributes of the Sites of Interest which relate to their suitability for

the development of a Regional Landfill and include;

o Size and shape;

o Provision for future expansion;

o Location;

o Environmental attributes;

o Planning attributes;

o Access to services;

o Land ownership; and

o Current site features.

Geospatial Modelling will map constraints and opportunities that cover a range of

factors including environmental, social, planning, heritage and infrastructure;

Areas and Sites of Interest that warrant further consideration will be identified from the

geospatial modelling;

Undertake a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) on the Sites of Interest to identify a Preferred

Site. The MCA will facilitate the comparison of Sites of Interest on a range of aspects

and criteria to identify the strengths, weaknesses and points of differences between

the various sites; and

Identify Preferred Site from MCA and undertake site visits.

Utilising this scope, the Site Selection Study would determine the most suitable site for a

Regional Landfill.

14.3 Commercial Landfill Operations

The South West Group may wish to consider contracting the operations of a Regional Landfill.

The contracting of these services would provide the South West Group with an operator who

has specialist skills and experience in large scale best practice landfill operations. These skills

are typically not maintained by LGAs outside the Perth Metropolitan Area and sourcing

experienced operators can be difficult. The Contractor would also be liable for

environmental compliance and therefore, assumes part of the risk from the South West

Group.

The contracting of the landfill operations may also increase operational efficiency and

flexibility whereby a contractor can source new equipment and plant when necessary

without delay. Whereas a LGA must conform to the Local Government Regulations in order

to purchase the same equipment, which can be a costly and/or lengthy exercise. In

addition, the market amongst waste service providers is competitive and through a

procurements process, the South West Group could source a competitive contract price for

the landfill services from a range of companies.

The contractor would be governed by a contract between itself and the South West Group

to ensure that overall control of the site and waste remains with the Group through the

ongoing ownership of the site and landfill licence. It would be in the contractor’s best interest

to ensure that the landfill is operated at its most efficient including maximising void space to

ensure it complies with the key performance indicators within the contract.

Through the development of a comprehensive and effective contract the South West Group

can develop a scope of services that benefits both parties while ensuring operations at the

landfill are undertaken in accordance with best practice standards. Common conditions


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



within the contract would include the length of the contract, contractor fees, price

escalation rate, operational days and opening hours, types of waste accepted and

approved customers. The South West Group may consider separate contracts for operation

and construction of the landfill to ensure that different cost escalators are utilised for the

capital (fixed portions) and operating costs of the landfill.

However, the South West Group should consider the drawbacks of contracting the landfill

operations, which include:

Contract fees;

Contract management costs;

Loss of waste disposal control;

Loss of a revenue stream;

Incurring the long-term liability associated with the landfill operations; and

Post closure monitoring and maintenance liabilities.

If prepared to benefit the South West Group, the costs associated with contracting the

Regional Landfill operations can be cost effective and an advantageous component of a

regional waste management system.

To share the remaining risk held by the South West Group, further investigation should be

undertaken into the development of a Regional Subsidiary. As previously mentioned, two or

more LGAs may be able to form a Regional Subsidiary to jointly provide a service or activity

subject to the passing of the Bill Amendment through parliament. On the basis of the

information currently available, the Regional Subsidiary appears to provide all the benefits of

a separate legal entity similar to a Regional Local Government without the requirements for

an elected Council. A Regional Subsidiary would instead be governed by a Charter similar to

a company constitution. The charter would address matters including the Subsidiary’s powers

and duties, administration, financial management and reporting. There is the potential for

greater flexibility in a Regional Subsidiary when undertaking its functions when not subject to

the full extent of regulation as a LGA and/or Regional Local Government. However, more will

become known once the amendment Bill is passed and the Regulations drafted.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



15 Regional Waste Management System

The South West Group covers a large geographic area and as such has historically been

limited by the tyranny of distance. In order to overcome this, with regards to waste

management, the South West Group should consider the development of a network of

Local, Sub-Regional and Regional infrastructure and services that combine to form a

Regional Waste Management System that is efficient, cost effective and achieves

environmental desires.

This section outlines the potential Strategic Options that form the Local, Sub-Regional or

Regional components of the Regional Waste Management System within the South West

Region.

15.1 Local

On a local level, LGAs will be responsible for the facilitation, construction, operation and

management of the Strategic Options that will feed the Regional Waste Management

System. Once implemented, the Local Strategic Options will become part of the everyday

operations of a LGA and will be utilised to directly engage with the community and waste

service providers. This is regarded as the frontline of the Regional Waste Management

System.

Local Strategic Options that involve the development of waste management infrastructure

include the implementation of Reuse Shops, Recycling Stations and Community Recycling &

Drop-Off Centres. These facilities provide for the acceptance of waste and recyclable

materials. These facilities should be modern, clean and well designed to assist in changing

community behaviours regarding waste management facilities. The Community Recycling &

Drop-Off Centres, in particular, is also utilised for the stockpiling and storage of recoverable

materials prior to processing such as greenwaste, scrap metal, mattresses and clean C&D

waste. These types of facilities should be located close to population nodes across the South

West Region to provide a high level of service within close proximity to most residents.

To complement the infrastructure, Local waste management services are utilised to collect

or process waste and/or recyclables. The following Strategic Options provide a waste

management service and are categorised as Local initiatives:

Greenwaste Mulching;

Scrap Metal Recycling;

Kerbside Refuse and Recycling;

C&I Waste Collections;

C&D Waste Processing; and

Organics Bin.

These services would be implemented by the LGA however, a regional contract for the

procurement of the services should be considered by the South West Group for many of

these services in order to potentially reduce costs. This approach, for these services, is similar

to an expansion of the already established regional contract that the BWGC have for

kerbside collection services.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



15.2 Sub-Regional

Sub-Regional Strategic Options are utilised to facilitate greater economies of scale by

consolidating waste and recyclables or providing processing services at a larger scale than

Local Strategic Options. The infrastructure that could form the Sub-Regional waste

management network includes Mattress Recycling, Forced Aeration (MAF) and WTSs. These

Sub-Regional initiatives accept material from the Local initiatives for processing or in terms of

the WTS, consolidate material to feed Regional initiatives.

A Regional Waste Management System that operates successful Sub-Regional initiatives

provides a higher level of service across a wider geographic area and to more residents in

particular those that would not normally receive such a service. In addition, this approach

facilitates the implementation of Regional initiatives by consolidating and providing the

waste volumes necessary to make these projects viable.

In addition to the establishment of Sub-Regional infrastructure, services such as the haulage

of waste materials between Sub-Regional and Regional facilities must also be considered by

the South West Group. This may involve the development of Sub-Regional or Regional

Contracts with haulage and transport companies to procure these services or if sustainable,

be done in house by LGAs or Regional Councils.

15.3 Regional

As outlined previously, the success of a Regional Waste Management System is dependent

upon the network of Local, Sub-Regional and Regional infrastructure and services. At a

Regional level, the waste management services provided by the South West Group are just

as important as the infrastructure. The services are focused on providing a consistent

message and to progress the highest levels of the waste management hierarchy such as

Avoid, Reduce and Reuse. The Strategic Options which could be implemented at a Regional

level include:


Earth Carers;


Regional Education Officer; and

Free Trade Website.

These Regional Strategic Options would be utilised across all levels of the Regional Waste

Management System. It is anticipated that the Regional Education Officer would be

responsible for facilitating the majority of Regional service initiatives however, projects such

as Earth Carers and Influencing Commercial Practices will also rely heavily on LGAs to

provide assistance at a Local level. The Regional Education Officer may also undertake the

responsibility of contract management for any regional contracts.

The Integrated Waste Education Program would assist in not only providing a clear, concise,

consistent message, regarding waste management across the region, but also provide

information regarding the implementation of new initiatives including Regional AWT facilities

and Landfills.

The Regional Strategic Options that focus on the downstream treatment or disposal of large

volumes of waste include Clean or Dirty MRFs, Special Waste Processing, Thermal Waste-to-


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Energy and Regional Landfill. The inclusion of a Dirty MRF would depend on the type of

Waste-to-Energy facility. Cluster 3 identified the utilisation of Thermal Waste-to-Energy as

being the most suitable approach considering the organic focussed waste management

system already established. Therefore, it is anticipated that a Dirty MRF may not be required

unless required as part of the Waste-to-Energy system similar to that proposed by New Energy

Corporation.

A Regional approach facilitates the development of large scale facilities such as Thermal

Waste-to-Energy and provides the opportunity for the South West Group to divert significant

volumes of waste from landfill. Combustion, gasification and pyrolysis technologies all exist

and should be considered by the South West Group however, it is anticipated that

gasification is currently the most suited technology for the South West Region due to its

modular design.

As previously outlined, there will always be a need for waste disposal as there is a residue

from Waste-to-Energy facilities that typically requires disposal. The construction of a best

practice Regional Landfill would also provide the security of long term waste disposal

services.

Therefore, a Regional Landfill should be considered as complimentary to a thermal Waste-to-

Energy facility. However, in order to determine the feasibility of these facilities further

investigations are required. If determined as feasible, a suitable site or sites will need to be

identified to house these facilities. There would be advantages to locating both facilities

centrally as outlined within Section 14.2 such as transport efficiencies from the Sub-Regional

network and to consolidate approvals and site preparation works.

15.4 Summary

The Regional Waste Management System identified as part of this Regional Waste

Management Strategy is provided as a representation of what may be feasible within the

South West Regions. Further consideration and investigations are required to determine

which of the Strategic Options is feasible and which apply to each of the LGAs. This will

ensure that the network of waste management infrastructure and services is formed to

create an efficient, cost effective, successful Regional Waste Management System.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



16 Funding Opportunities

To assist in the implementation of the Strategic Options, the South West Group may wish to

investigate funding opportunities from State and Federal sources. The following section

outlines several potential funding opportunities that can be utilised for waste management

purposes.

16.1 Royalties for Regions

The object of Royalties for Regions funding is to promote and facilitate economic, business

and social development in regional WA. The Royalties for Regions Act 2009 ensures that the

State distributes 25% of the State’s mining and onshore petroleum royalties each year to

regional areas. The objective of this Act is to promote and facilitate economic, business and

social development through investment in projects, infrastructure and community services

within WA.

The Royalties for Regions funds are allocated to projects and initiatives for the following

purposes:

To provide infrastructure and services in regional WA;

To develop and broaden the economic base of regional WA; and

To maximise job creation and improve career opportunities in regional WA.

Royalties for Regions distributes benefits to regional communities through two supporting

funds which include:

The Country Local Government Fund;

The Regional Grants Scheme; and

Community Chest Fund.

16.1.1 Country Local Government Fund

The Country Local Government Fund (CLGF) is utilised to address the infrastructural needs

across the non-metropolitan local government sector. Within this sector the CLGF aims to:

Address infrastructural needs and support capacity building;

Improve the financial sustainability of a LGA through improved asset management;

Provide financial assistance to LGAs which choose to amalgamate voluntarily; and

Assist groups of LGAs to fund regionally significant infrastructure projects.

To be considered eligible for the CLGF, the project or initiative must be related to

infrastructural asset creation, preservation or renewal and meet the following criteria:

Be a strategic regional project;

Participate in a regional planning process;

Be agreed upon and supported, including financially, by all members of the regional

group;

Be well advanced in their regional project planning; and

The CLGF expenditure must be directly related to the delivery of capital works.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



16.1.2 Regional Grants Scheme

The Regional Grants Scheme (RGS) is an initiative of Royalties for Regions that is administered

by the State’s nine Regional Development Commissions with support from the Department of

Regional Development and Lands. The South West Group is located within the jurisdiction of

the South West Development Commission who administers the South West Regional Grants

Scheme (SWRGS) and the South West Community Chest Fund (SWCCF).

Funding is available to community, public and private organisations to assist the

development of infrastructure, services and community projects. This includes funding for the

provision of headworks and the development and establishment of services and programs.

The RGS targets the improvement of economic and community infrastructure and services in

regional WA. The RGS projects aim to help attract investment, increase job opportunities and

assist in improving the quality of life in the regions. The RGS is a contestable funding round

that will make available grants ranging from $20, 001 to $300, 000. Each round has $1.1 million

in the calendar year to fund RGS proposals.

To be considered eligible for the SWRGS, the project or initiative must demonstrate that it will

result in a positive economic, social and/or environmental outcome and align with the

following criteria:

Must fit within the framework of the South West Development Commission’s Strategic

Plan;

Applicants should demonstrate a high level of financial commitment to the project;

The project should have the support of key regional stakeholders;

The project should promote partnerships between community/business sector and

government;

The project should reflect a commitment to local decision-making and planning;

The project should demonstrate its capacity for meeting ongoing operating and

maintenance costs; and

The proponent should demonstrate that detailed project planning has been

completed including all approvals being in place or achievable in a short timeframe

and be completed in a timely manner.

16.1.3 Community Chest Fund

The Community Chest Fund (CCF) is utilised by the South West Development Commission to

provide funding for smaller local projects. The CCF can award funding of up $20,000 for a

one-off grant. The South West Development Commission is allocated $370,000 in 2015 to

support small, local demand driven community projects throughout the year. Due to funds

being limited per annum, it is typically a priority to have projects approved and funded in the

first half of the year.

To be eligible for the CCF, applicants must be either a:

Local government;

Voluntary organisation;

Educational institution;

Philanthropic foundation; or

Community organisation.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



In addition, organisations outside of the South West Development Commission Region are

eligible to apply, however will need to demonstrate that the project will have a significant,

sustainable regional benefit.

16.2 National Stronger Regions Fund

The federal National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF) is administered by the Department of

Infrastructure and Regional Development and is eligible to LGAs and not-for-profit

organisations. The NSRF will provide funding of $1 billion over 5 years, commencing in the

2015-16 financial year. The NSRF is targeted to priority infrastructure in regional communities

and to be eligible applications must adhere to the following criteria:

Applications for funding must be between $20,000 and $10 million;

LGAs and incorporated not-for-profit organisations are eligible to apply;

Grant funding must be matched dollar for dollars;

Funding will be provided for capital projects which involve construction of new

infrastructure or the upgrade of existing infrastructure;

The project must deliver an economic benefit to the region beyond the period of

construction;

Projects should support disadvantaged regions or areas of disadvantage within a

region; and

The NSRF funded part of the project must be completed on or before 31 December

2019.

Round one of the NSRF closed on 28 November 2014 however, round two will open on 1 May

2015 and close on 31 July 2015.

16.3 Australian Renewable Energy Agency

Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) provides funds to develop technologies in the

renewable energy sector. ARENA has approximately $2.5 billion in funding and will provide

funding until the year 2022. The funding provided to ARENA is legislated and will therefore not

be utilised elsewhere by the Federal Government.

Organisations are invited to submit applications for funding under the following initiatives

specified by ARENA:

The Accelerated Step Change Initiative;

Emerging Renewables Program;

Integrating Renewables in the Grid;

Regional Australia’s Renewables;

Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund;

Research and Development Program; and

Supporting High-value Australian Renewable Energy Knowledge (SHARE).

The initiatives are specific to periods along the innovation chain, from research in the

laboratory to large scale technology projects. Technology developers, researchers and other

organisations are eligible to submit funding applications.

To apply for the ARENA funding an applicant must undertake the following:


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Determine which initiative the project falls under and read the appropriate program

guidelines and information manual for that initiative;

Call the ARENA Business Development team to discuss the project’s suitability;

Develop a proposal for the project; and

Submit the proposal on the ARENANet online grants management system.

Successful projects will be funded according to ARENA’s General Funding Strategy and

Investment Plan. Projects are selected by the ARENA Advisory Panel which provides advice

to support the development and selection of projects and initiatives for funding.

16.4 Australian Packaging Covenant

The Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) is an initiative which aims to change the culture of

business to design more sustainable packaging, increase recycling rates and reduce

packaging litter. The covenant is an agreement between government, industry and

community groups to find and to fund solutions to address packaging sustainability issues.

The APC provides funding to projects which contribute towards the achievement of the

following goals:

Design - packaging optimised to achieve resource efficiency and reduced

environmental impact without compromising product quality and safety;

Recycling - The efficient collection and recycling of packaging; and

Product Stewardship - a demonstrated commitment to product stewardship by the

supply chain and other signatories.

Funding for projects is only available to APC signatories. Projects may be instigated and

managed by industry or government, individually or jointly, and be local, regional or national

in focus.

Projects may encompass infrastructure developments, educational programmes, field trials,

new technologies or expansion of services to new business sectors, new communities or

across a broader geographical region. To be eligible for funding, besides being a signatory,

the following selection principles should be utilised within the project:

Focus on achieving the goals of the APC;

Focus on priority areas identified in the Covenant’s Strategic Plan;

Demonstrates product stewardship;

Be cost efficient in achieving goals; and

Information learnt from the project/process to be made available for wider use.

Funding applications are received by the APC annually and only accepted for a short time

each year.

16.5 Community Grants Scheme

The Community Grants Scheme (CGS) is administered by the Waste Authority and provides

funding support for waste initiatives under Objective 5 of the State Waste Strategy which

states, ”Develop and support programs and initiatives, including awards, that acknowledge,

celebrate and reward excellence in waste avoidance, resource recovery and reduced

landfilling behaviours and outcomes and that contribute to the implementation of this

Strategy”.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



The funding is provided from the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Account, which

in turn receives revenue generated from a levy on waste landfilled within the Perth

Metropolitan Area.

Organisations that are eligible to apply for CGS funding include not-for-profit groups and

incorporated community based organisations in WA. Partnerships between community

groups and LGAs are also acceptable, but the community group must be the CGS applicant

and be responsible for managing and completing the project. The LGA is encouraged to

provide in-kind or financial support to the group.

To be eligible for funding, a project must:

Help protect or enhance the environmental quality of a locality by implementing the

following principles:

o Avoid the creation of waste;

o Re-use an item for a new purpose;

o Efficiently recycle an item to produce new component parts for a new item;

o Recover the energy from a product;

o Dispose of items in a responsible manner for the best environmental outcome;

Involve the applicant, and ideally the local community, in its implementation and

use;

Involve a financial or labour contribution from the applicant; and

Be located within WA.

The funding opportunities mentioned within this section may be utilised by the South West

Group to implement improved waste management services within the Region at a small or

large scale.

16.6 Better Bins Program

The Better Bins Program is funded by the State Government and administered via the Waste

Authority. The Better Program funds applications from LGAs and Regional Councils to

improve kerbside refuse and/or recycling collection systems, and therefore assist the state in

meeting the landfill diversion targets specified within the WA Waste Strategy.

In addition, the Better Bins Program provides LGAs with guidance to support source

separation through improved kerbside collection systems including the potential benefits of a

three-bin system which collects refuse, commingled dry recyclables and organic waste.

The two year pilot phase of the Program provided funding for the following participating

LGAs:

Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup;

Shire of Capel;

City of Bayswater;

Town of Cambridge;

Town of Cottesloe; and

City of Stirling.

The pilot phase of the Program has now ended however, the State Government announced

that funding would be extended to $20 million. Following a review of the current application


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



guidelines, the second round of funding will be available to LGAs and Regional Councils in

the near future.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



17 Conclusions and Recommendations

17.1 Conclusions

The following key conclusions have been drawn from the Regional Waste Management

Strategy:

Significant growth has been experienced across the South West Region particularly in

the LGAs along the coastline. The draft South West Regional Blueprint (the Blueprint)

forecasts for that to continue, with a regional population of 500,000 by 2050.

The total population increased from 132,031 to 169,682 from 2003 to 2013. This resulted

in an average annual growth rate of 2.04% across the South West Region.

It is forecasted that the population across the South West Group could rise to 219,965

by 2024 and 376,356 by 2050. This is an increase of 156,391 in 36 years from 2014.

The forecasted population generated for the purpose of this study is approximately

125,000 less than the forecast of 500,000 proposed within the Blueprint.

The LGAs of the South West Group provide a variety of waste management services

across the Region including:

o Avoid, Reduce, Reuse:

- Community Education;

- Reuse Websites;

o Recycle:

- Kerbside Collections;

- Community Recycling Centres;

- Materials Recovery Facility;

- Vergeside Collections;

- Bulk Materials Processing;

o Recovery and Treat:

- Organics Bin (3rd Kerbside MGB);

- Forced Aeration Composting;

- Windrow Aeration Composting;

o Dispose:

- Waste Transfer Stations; and

- Landfills.

Spare landfill airspace, owned or managed by LGAs within the South West, is quickly

filling up due to the recent increases in population growth across the Region.

A total of 124,608 tonnes of MSW is generated by the South West Group. The two

largest sources of MSW include kerbside refuse and Drop-off refuse which produce

68,628 tonnes and 17,806 tonnes respectively.

The BWGC generates the most MSW with 64,075 tonnes per annum with the

CAPEROC and WBGC generating 37,334 and 23,199 tonnes respectively.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



A total of 38,977 tonnes per annum of C&I and 42,747 tonnes of C&D waste is

accepted and managed at waste management facilities under the jurisdiction of the

LGAs of the South West Group.

Some LGAs have no recorded C&D waste and some have very low volumes. It is

anticipated that this is caused by inaccurate data recording practices whereby

different types of waste materials and streams are not delineated.

A total of 206,332 tonnes per annum of MSW, C&I and C&D waste is accepted at

LGA waste management facilities within the South West Region.

The South West Group achieved a recovery rate of 39% through their recycling,

recovery and stockpiling of materials.

The recovery rates for MSW range from 0% through to 60% across the 12 LGAs. The

average C&I waste recovery rate across the 12 LGAs is 0.32%.

It is anticipated that loads of mixed C&D waste are currently classified as C&I waste

and being disposed of to landfill. The recovery rate for C&D waste is therefore

unknown.

The current recovery rates for the two bin and three bin kerbside collection systems

are 25% and 54% respectively.

It is anticipated that in total, approximately 210,500 tonnes will be generated in 2015,

rising to 286,000 tonnes by 2030. Further projections to 2050 are relatively

unpredictable however, the modelling suggests the South West Group will produce

approximately 448,900 tonnes annually.

In accordance with the Blueprint, the total waste generated within the South West

Region will increase from 210,500 in 2015 to approximately 611,000 in 2050. This is an

increase of approximately 400,500 tonnes over 35 years.

There are a number of federal and State regulations, policies and guidelines relating

to waste management which may have an impact on the South West Group either

currently or in the future including:

o Federal:

- National Waste Policy;

- Emissions Reduction Fund;

- Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act;

o State:

- Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act;

- Western Australian Waste Strategy;

- Industry Regulation Licencing; and

o Specific AWT Guidelines.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



There has been significant transformation in the waste management industry across

WA including the introduction of landfill diversion targets by the Waste Authority,

compliance with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines, clear guidance on increases to

the landfill levy, review of the WARR Act and strong indications that merchant

resource recovery plants are viable.

There are a variety of potential Strategic Options across the various levels of the

Waste Management Hierarchy to assist the South West Group in progressing towards

more sustainable waste management systems.

The implementation of Strategic Options requires consideration of the framework or

structures necessary to support the option including:

o Government legislation and policy;

o Material volumes;

o Financial mechanisms;

o Markets for end products;

o Infrastructure and service requirements;

o Community support; and

o Regional Approach.

Talis recognises that currently there is a range of support structures currently missing

from some of the more advanced Strategic Options. The key items currently missing

which support these large scale infrastructural projects that would require significant

financial commitments from the South West Group, include:

o Lack of waste quantities;

o Cost of Services;

o Markets; and

o Infrastructure and Services.

The South West Group should further consider and investigate the implementation of

Cluster 1 (Clean Streams Recycling) and Cluster 3 (Thermal AWT) to assist the South

West Region move towards a more long term sustainable waste management

system.

Gasification is considered the most suitable Waste-to-Energy technology for the South

West Region due to its modular design which can be scaled up or down depending

on waste volumes. However, there remain a number of challenges to the traditional

delivery (costs, tonnages, markets) of Waste-to-Energy facilities in the South West as

shown by the lack of support structures.

Waste-to-Energy opportunities exist with the Worsley Alumina bauxite mine and

refinery near Collie, which should alleviate a number of the current challenges.

Moving forward, the scope of works has been broken down into two distinct phases,

with the first further concentrating on the opportunity with Worsley Alumina and

undertaking a Feasibility Assessment of the:






South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY









The South West Group could also explore other opportunities of a similar nature

including other major mining, processing and heavy industry organisations within the

South West Region that may require alternative fuels, such as SRF, for either heat,

steam or electricity production.

If the Worsley Alumina opportunities do not come to fruition, the second phase would

include:

o A Site Selection Study to determine a preferred location for a Waste-to-Energy

facility within the South West Region with a key focus on other high energy


o Investigate establishing formal Regional Councils or Regional Subsidiaries for the


o Prepare Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between LGAs and/or Regional


o Preparation of Public Tender Documentation for long term contracts for the


However, both phases of the scope of works for a Waste-to-Energy facility, moving

forward, require further detailed feasibility assessments.

Access to long term best practice disposal services is a key element in an advanced

integrated waste management system to compliment resource recovery strategy. A

Regional Landfill facility, engineered and operated to best practice standards, would

provide long term waste disposal security to the LGAs in the South West Region.

If the South West Group take a collaborative approach and develop a best practice

Regional Landfill, it would cost approximately $29 per tonne for a 20 years period. This

compares to $150 per tonne for a LGA developing its own 15,000 tonnes per annum

best practice landfill.

The significant savings generated within the Regional Landfill model arise from the

economies of scale that are produced when the capital and operational costs are

spilt amongst a group of LGAs. In particular, the savings achieved via the split of the

operational costs are far greater than the capital costs across the life of the landfill.

According to the optimum location modelling, inland from Capel (Location 2) was

identified as the most suitable location for a Regional Landfill based on the distances

travelled, its proximity to the major waste generating areas within the South West and

its central location to the participating LGAs.

The South West Group should consider the development of a network of Local, Sub-

Regional and Regional infrastructure and services that combine to form a Regional


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Waste Management System that is efficient, cost effective and achieves

environmental desires.

The Regional Waste Management System requires further detailed assessment to

determine which of the Strategic Options is feasible at the various government levels

across the Region.

To assist in the implementation of Strategic Options, the South West Group may wish

to investigate funding opportunities from State and Federal sources.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



17.3 Recommendations

Based on works undertaken as part of this study and the associated findings, Talis

recommends the following:

1. The South West Group accepts the Regional Waste Management Strategy.

2. Undertake a detailed assessment of the Strategic Options contained within

Clusters 1 and 3 to assess their technical and financial viability.

3. Organised a workshop with Worsley Alumina to discuss the findings of the

Regional Waste Management Strategy and also the scope of the Feasibility

Assessment moving forward.

4. Undertake a Feasibility Assessment of the Waste-to-Energy Opportunities at

Worsley Alumina focussing on both utilising the current Multi-Fuel Combustion

Furnace and a purpose built Waste-to-Energy facility. The Feasibility Assessment

should include:

Technical aspects of the project:

o Design and engineering requirements;

o Operational factors;

o Supporting off-site infrastructure;

Environmental performance;

Approval path and likelihood;

Financial aspects including capital and operational cost profiles;

Funding opportunities;

Commercial and Contractual models; and

Governance Model for the LGAs.

5. Following discussion with Worsley Alumina, it is recommended that the South West

Group explore other opportunities of a similar nature including other major heavy

industrial organisations within the South West Region that may require alternative

fuels for either heat, steam or electricity production.

6. If there is a lack of appetite from Worsley Alumina or other heavy industry

organisations, the South West Group should further pursue Waste-to-Energy

through the following means:

Undertake a Site Selection Study to determine a preferred location for a

Waste-to-Energy facility within the South West Region with a key focus on

other high energy consumers and grid connection locations;

Undertake a Feasibility Study to assess the technical aspects of the Waste-to-

Energy facility including but not limited to:




Establish formal Regional Councils or Regional Subsidiaries for the


Prepare Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between LGAs and/or

Regional Councils for the development of a Waste-to-Energy facility;


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY





7. Further progress the Waste Disposal Strategy concept of a Regional Landfill by

undertaking the following:

Site Selection Study focussing on the Optimum Location identified within the

Regional Waste Management Strategy;

Undertake a Technical and Financial feasibility assessment of the Preferred

Sites.

8. If a Preferred Site is deemed feasible, further progress the establishment of a

Regional Landfill at the site.

9. Based on the outcomes of Recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5, undertake a planning

exercise for the Local, Sub-Regional and Regional waste management

infrastructure based on the outcomes of:

Optimum Location for a Regional Landfill;

Site Selection Study; and

Feasibility Assessments.

10. The South West Group undertakes a collaborative approach to waste

management services including but not limited to:



Regional Education Officer;

Free Trade Website; and

Regional waste management service contracts.

11. The South West Group considers the development of a formal governance

structure including a Regional Waste Management Working Group for the

procurement and management of waste management related activities within

the South West Region.

12. Apply for funding to support the implementation of Strategic Options and the

Waste Disposal Strategy.

13. The LGAs assess their current waste data gathering and reporting frameworks to

ensure that the sources and generators of waste are recorded.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Glossary Annualised Cost Sum of the capital cost averaged over the expected

duration/lifespan and the annual operational cost of a Strategic

Waste Management Option.

Cluster Combinations of complimentary Strategic Options.

Combustibles Waste materials that can be treated through incineration, pyrolysis

or gasification processes.

Energy Recovery Rate Proportion of waste materials able to be diverted from landfill

through thermal processes.

Material Recovery Rate Proportion of waste materials able to be diverted from landfill

through recycling.

Organics Organic waste materials including paper and cardboard, food

waste, greenwaste and timber.

Recovery Physical, chemical or biological processing of waste to generate

products or energy.

Recovery Rate Proportion of total waste diverted from landfill. Also referred to as

Landfill Diversion Rate.

Recyclables Waste materials able to be recycled including paper and

cardboard, glass, plastics and metals.

Recycling Processing that converts waste materials into useful materials or

products with a similar physical form.

Treatment Processing of waste materials that alters its physical and/or

chemical form.

Waste Management An internationally recognised concept which lists waste

management

Hierarchy Options in order of preference according to their sustainability and

environmental impacts.


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



Abbreviations 0C Degrees Celsius

ACCU Australian Carbon Credit Units

AD Anaerobic Digestion

APC Australian Packaging Covenant

ARENA Australian Renewable Energy Agency

AWT Alternative Waste Treatment

BPEM Best Practice Environmental Management

BWGC Bunbury Wellington Group of Councils

CAPEROC Capes Regional Organisation of Councils

C&I Commercial and Industrial

C&D Construction and Demolition

CCF Community Chest Fund

CGS Community Grants Scheme

CLGF Country Local Government Fund

DER Department of Environment Regulation

EMRC Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council

Ha Hectares

Km Kilometres

LGA Local Government Authority

MAF Mobile Aerated Floor

MGB Mobile Garbage Bin

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MW Megawatt

NSRF National Stronger Regions Fund

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

RGS Regional Grants Scheme


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



SRF Solid Recovered Fuel

SWCCF South West Community Chest Fund

SWMP Strategic Waste Management Plan

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

tCO2-e Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

tpa tonnes per annum

UK United Kingdom

WA Western Australia

WARR Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

WBGC Warren Blackwood Group of Councils

WMAA Waste Management association of Australia

WMRC Western Metropolitan Regional Council


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



References Draft South West Regional Blueprint, (TME, June 2014).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

WA Department of Planning - WA Planning Commission (WAPC).

South West Development Commission (SWDC).

Victorian Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) Best Practice Environmental

Management (BPEM) for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills

Guidelines (Best Practice Landfill Guidelines).

Disposal Based Audits of the C&I and C&D Waste Streams (Golder Associates, 2007).

Review of kerbside recycling collection systems within Western Australia prepared for the DER

(Cardno 2008).

Domestic kerbside waste audits conducted for the City of Bunbury, which has a kerbside

collection system for recyclables (Dallywater Consulting 2011).

Kerbside waste audits undertaken for the Shire of Broome, which also has a kerbside

collection system for recyclables (APC Environmental Management 2012).

National Waste Policy – Less Waste More Resources, Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities (November, 2009).

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007, Western Australia State Government.

WARR Levy Act 2007, Western Australia State Government.

Western Australian Waste Strategy – Creating the Right Environment, Waste Authority (March,

2012).

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), Western Australia State Government.

Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) Technology – Discussion Paper, West Australian Local

Government Association / Municipal Waste Advisory Council (June, 2009).

Zero Waste South Australia - Waste to Energy Background Paper (Ricardo/AEA, 2013).

South Australia Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) - Standard for the production and

use of Refuse Derived Fuel (2010).

European Recovered Fuel Organisation (ERFO) - http://erfo.info/


http://www.acewaste.com.au/brisbane-incineration


http://pacificpyrolysis.com/technology.html


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY



http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/worsley/


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015

Figures Figure 1: Theoretical distance radii of each population node

Figure 2: Hypothetical Regional Waste Management Facility Locations and Preferred Zone for

Regional Facility

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

Bunbury

Busselton

MargaretRiver

Bunbury - 21.56kms

Busselton - 34.41kms

Busselton Region - 87.08kms

College Grove - Carey Park - 56.28kms

Collie - 178.78kms

Koomban

a - 53.21kms

Margaret River - 74.43kms

Manjimup (Town ship) - 105.33kms

300,000

300,000

350,000

350,000

400,000

400,000

450,000

450,000

500,000

500,000

6,200

,000

6,200

,000

6,250

,000

6,250

,000

6,300

,000

6,300

,000

6,350

,000

6,350

,000

Albany

YanchepPerth

Mandurah

BusseltonAugusta

Docu

ment

Path:

Z:\S

ECTIO

NS\W

aste\

PROJ

ECTS

\TW20

14\TW

1403

5 - S

outh

West

SWMP

\GIS

\Map

s\TW

1403

5_01

_SWS

WMP

_Buff

erDist

_Rev

B.mxd

0 750Kilometres

LEGEND

WASTE FACILITY TRAVEL DISTANCES

Regional Waste ManagementStrategy

0 5 10 15 20 25 302.5Kilometers

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994, Units: Meter

Figure 01

Rev BDate:Scale @ A3:

Revision:08/07/2015

TW14035

N KingA UpitisReviewed:

Checked:Prepared: R Cullen1:750,000

Project No:

Local Government AreasSwan Coastal Plain

Road network (MRWA)Primary Distributor

Population node#* Bunbury#* Busselton#* Busselton Region#* College Grove - Carey Park#* Koombana#* Manjimup (Town ship)#* Margaret River

#0Population nodes exceeding100km distance radius

Distance radiiBunburyBusseltonBusselton RegionCollege Grove - Carey ParkKoombanaManjimup (Town ship)Margaret River

¤

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

Augusta

BusseltonBusselton Region

Collie

Harvey

Margaret River Bridgetown (Town ship)Nannup (Town ship)

250,000

250,000

300,000

300,000

350,000

350,000

400,000

400,000

6,250

,000

6,250

,000

6,300

,000

6,300

,000

6,350

,000

6,350

,000

Albany

YanchepPerth

Mandurah

BusseltonAugusta

Docu

ment

Path:

\\serv

er\Ta

lis\SE

CTIO

NS\W

aste\

PROJ

ECTS

\TW20

14\TW

1403

5 - S

outh

West

SWMP

\GIS

\Map

s\TW

1403

5_02

_SWS

WMP

_Reg

ionalL

F_Mo

del_R

evB.

mxd

0 750Kilometres

LEGEND

REGIONAL LANDFILLDISTANCE MODEL

Regional Waste ManagementStrategy

0 5 10 15 20 25 302.5Kilometers

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994, Units: Meter

Figure 02

Rev BDate:Scale @ A3:

Revision:08/07/2015

TW14035

N KingA UpitisReviewed:

Checked:Prepared: R Cullen1:600,000

Project No:

Local Government AreasSwan Coastal PlainPreferred Zone

Road network (MRWA)Primary Distributor

#0 Population Nodes#0 Regional_Landfills

¤

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

Australind -Leshenault

Bunbury

Capel

College Grove- Carey Park Dardanup

Donnybrook- Balingup

Eaton -Pelican Point

Gelorup - Dalyellup- Stratham

Koombana

RegionalLandfill 5

Banksia RoadLandfill

RegionalLandfill 3

RegionalLandfill 2

RegionalLandfill 1

RegionalLandfill 6


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015

Appendix A: Waste Projections

BWGC, CAPEROC WBGC Data Projections Regional Waste Management Strategy

TOTAL WASTE PROJECTIONS

BWGC + CAPEROC + WBGC (South West Group)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Existing Data

City of Bunbury 1.0% 0.50%

Population 33,092 33,423 33,757 34,095 34,436 34,780 35,128 35,479 35,834 36,192 36,554 36,737 37,104 37,475 37,850 38,229 38,611 38,997 39,387 39,781 40,179 40,580 40,986 41,396 41,810 42,228 42,650 43,077 43,508 43,943 44,382 44,826 45,274 45,727 46,184 46,646 47,113

MSW

Kerbside Refuse 6,346 6,409 6,474 6,538 6,604 6,670 6,736 6,804 6,872 6,941 7,010 7,080 7,151 7,222 7,295 7,368 7,441 7,516 7,591 7,667 7,743 7,821 7,899 7,978 8,058 8,138 8,220 8,302 8,385 8,469 8,553 8,639 8,725 8,813 8,901 8,990 9,080

Kerbside Recycling 3,676 3,713 3,750 3,787 3,825 3,864 3,902 3,941 3,981 4,020 4,061 4,101 4,142 4,184 4,225 4,268 4,310 4,354 4,397 4,441 4,485 4,530 4,576 4,621 4,668 4,714 4,761 4,809 4,857 4,906 4,955 5,004 5,054 5,105 5,156 5,207 5,260

Kerbside Full Organics 5,935 5,994 6,054 6,115 6,176 6,238 6,300 6,363 6,427 6,491 6,556 6,621 6,688 6,755 6,822 6,890 6,959 7,029 7,099 7,170 7,242 7,314 7,387 7,461 7,536 7,611 7,687 7,764 7,842 7,920 7,999 8,079 8,160 8,242 8,324 8,408 8,492

Drop-Off Refuse 817 825 833 842 850 859 867 876 885 894 902 912 921 930 939 949 958 968 977 987 997 1,007 1,017 1,027 1,037 1,048 1,058 1,069 1,079 1,090 1,101 1,112 1,123 1,135 1,146 1,157 1,169

Drop-Off Recyclabes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greenwaste 922 931 941 950 959 969 979 989 998 1,008 1,018 1,029 1,039 1,049 1,060 1,070 1,081 1,092 1,103 1,114 1,125 1,136 1,148 1,159 1,171 1,182 1,194 1,206 1,218 1,230 1,243 1,255 1,268 1,280 1,293 1,306 1,319

Scrap Metal 213 215 217 219 222 224 226 228 231 233 235 238 240 242 245 247 250 252 255 257 260 262 265 268 270 273 276 279 281 284 287 290 293 296 299 302 305

Miscellaneous 120 121 122 124 125 126 127 129 130 131 133 134 135 137 138 139 141 142 144 145 146 148 149 151 152 154 155 157 159 160 162 163 165 167 168 170 172

C&I 25,995 26,255 26,517 26,783 27,051 27,321 27,594 27,870 28,149 28,430 28,715 28,858 29,003 29,148 29,293 29,440 29,587 29,735 29,884 30,033 30,183 30,334 30,486 30,638 30,791 30,945 31,100 31,256 31,412 31,569 31,727 31,885 32,045 32,205 32,366 32,528 32,690

C&D 21,170 21,382 21,596 21,811 22,030 22,250 22,472 22,697 22,924 23,153 23,385 23,502 23,619 23,737 23,856 23,975 24,095 24,216 24,337 24,458 24,581 24,704 24,827 24,951 25,076 25,201 25,327 25,454 25,581 25,709 25,838 25,967 26,097 26,227 26,358 26,490 26,623

Sub-Total City of Bunbury 65,194 65,846 66,504 67,169 67,841 68,520 69,205 69,897 70,596 71,302 72,015 72,474 72,937 73,404 73,873 74,346 74,823 75,302 75,786 76,272 76,763 77,256 77,754 78,255 78,759 79,268 79,780 80,295 80,815 81,338 81,865 82,396 82,930 83,469 84,012 84,558 85,109

Shire of Boyup Brook 0.5% 0.25%

Population 1,630 1,638 1,646 1,655 1,663 1,671 1,680 1,688 1,696 1,705 1,713 1,718 1,722 1,726 1,731 1,735 1,739 1,744 1,748 1,752 1,757 1,761 1,765 1,770 1,774 1,779 1,783 1,788 1,792 1,797 1,801 1,806 1,810 1,815 1,819 1,824 1,828

MSW

Kerbside Refuse 416 418 420 422 424 427 429 431 433 435 437 439 442 444 446 448 451 453 455 457 460 462 464 467 469 471 474 476 478 481 483 486 488 490 493 495 498

Kerbside Recycling - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Full Organics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Drop-Off Refuse 312 314 315 317 318 320 321 323 325 326 328 330 331 333 335 336 338 340 341 343 345 346 348 350 352 353 355 357 359 361 362 364 366 368 370 372 373


Greenwaste - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scrap Metal 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36

Miscellaneous - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Sub-Total Boyup Brook 790 794 798 802 806 810 814 818 823 827 831 835 839 843 847 851 856 860 864 868 872 877 881 885 890 894 898 903 907 912 916 921 925 930 934 939 943

Shire of Capel 4.0% 2.00%

Population 16,122 16,767 17,438 18,135 18,860 19,615 20,399 21,215 22,064 22,947 23,864 24,342 24,829 25,325 25,832 26,348 26,875 27,413 27,961 28,520 29,091 29,673 30,266 30,871 31,489 32,118 32,761 33,416 34,084 34,766 35,461 36,171 36,894 37,632 38,385 39,152 39,935

MSW

Kerbside Refuse 3,609 3,753 3,903 4,060 4,222 4,391 4,567 4,749 4,939 5,137 5,342 5,556 5,778 6,009 6,250 6,500 6,760 7,030 7,311 7,604 7,908 8,224 8,553 8,895 9,251 9,621 10,006 10,406 10,822 11,255 11,705 12,174 12,661 13,167 13,694 14,241 14,811



Drop-Off Refuse 1,141 1,187 1,234 1,283 1,335 1,388 1,444 1,501 1,562 1,624 1,689 1,757 1,827 1,900 1,976 2,055 2,137 2,223 2,311 2,404 2,500 2,600 2,704 2,812 2,925 3,042 3,163 3,290 3,422 3,558 3,701 3,849 4,003 4,163 4,329 4,502 4,683

Drop-Off Recyclabes 187 194 202 210 219 228 237 246 256 266 277 288 299 311 324 337 350 364 379 394 410 426 443 461 479 499 518 539 561 583 607 631 656 682 710 738 767

Greenwaste 598 622 647 673 700 728 757 787 818 851 885 921 957 996 1,036 1,077 1,120 1,165 1,211 1,260 1,310 1,363 1,417 1,474 1,533 1,594 1,658 1,724 1,793 1,865 1,940 2,017 2,098 2,182 2,269 2,360 2,454

Scrap Metal 224 233 242 252 262 273 283 295 307 319 332 345 359 373 388 403 420 436 454 472 491 510 531 552 574 597 621 646 672 699 727 756 786 817 850 884 919

Miscellaneous 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4

C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D 229 238 248 258 268 279 290 301 313 326 339 346 353 360 367 374 382 389 397 405 413 421 430 439 447 456 465 475 484 494 504 514 524 535 545 556 567

Sub-Total Capel 8,779 9,130 9,495 9,875 10,270 10,681 11,108 11,553 12,015 12,495 12,995 13,508 14,041 14,596 15,173 15,772 16,396 17,044 17,718 18,419 19,147 19,905 20,693 21,512 22,364 23,249 24,170 25,127 26,123 27,158 28,235 29,354 30,518 31,728 32,987 34,295 35,656

Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup 2.0% 1.00%

Population 5,624 5,736 5,851 5,968 6,088 6,209 6,334 6,460 6,589 6,721 6,856 6,924 6,993 7,063 7,134 7,205 7,277 7,350 7,424 7,498 7,573 7,649 7,725 7,802 7,880 7,959 8,039 8,119 8,200 8,282 8,365 8,449 8,533 8,619 8,705 8,792 8,880

MSW

Kerbside Refuse 5,254 5,359 5,466 5,576 5,687 5,801 5,917 6,035 6,156 6,279 6,405 6,533 6,663 6,797 6,933 7,071 7,213 7,357 7,504 7,654 7,807 7,963 8,123 8,285 8,451 8,620 8,792 8,968 9,147 9,330 9,517 9,707 9,901 10,099 10,301 10,507 10,718

Kerbside Recycling 342 349 356 363 370 378 385 393 401 409 417 425 434 442 451 460 469 479 488 498 508 518 529 539 550 561 572 584 595 607 619 632 645 657 671 684 698

Kerbside Full Organics 493 503 513 523 533 544 555 566 577 589 601 613 625 638 650 663 677 690 704 718 732 747 762 777 793 809 825 841 858 875 893 911 929 947 966 986 1,005

Drop-Off Refuse 818 834 851 868 885 903 921 940 958 977 997 1,017 1,037 1,058 1,079 1,101 1,123 1,145 1,168 1,192 1,215 1,240 1,264 1,290 1,316 1,342 1,369 1,396 1,424 1,452 1,482 1,511 1,541 1,572 1,604 1,636 1,668


Greenwaste 956 975 995 1,015 1,035 1,056 1,077 1,098 1,120 1,143 1,165 1,189 1,212 1,237 1,261 1,287 1,312 1,339 1,365 1,393 1,421 1,449 1,478 1,508 1,538 1,568 1,600 1,632 1,664 1,698 1,732 1,766 1,802 1,838 1,874 1,912 1,950

Scrap Metal 228 232 237 242 246 251 256 261 267 272 277 283 289 294 300 306 312 319 325 332 338 345 352 359 366 373 381 389 396 404 412 421 429 438 446 455 464

Miscellaneous 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 80 81 83 84 86 88 90 91 93 95 97 99 101 103

C&I 1,162 1,186 1,209 1,234 1,258 1,283 1,309 1,335 1,362 1,389 1,417 1,431 1,445 1,460 1,474 1,489 1,504 1,519 1,534 1,550 1,565 1,581 1,597 1,613 1,629 1,645 1,661 1,678 1,695 1,712 1,729 1,746 1,764 1,781 1,799 1,817 1,835

C&D 1,513 1,543 1,574 1,606 1,638 1,670 1,704 1,738 1,773 1,808 1,844 1,863 1,881 1,900 1,919 1,938 1,958 1,977 1,997 2,017 2,037 2,058 2,078 2,099 2,120 2,141 2,163 2,184 2,206 2,228 2,250 2,273 2,296 2,319 2,342 2,365 2,389

Sub-Total Shire of Donnybrook 10,855 11,072 11,294 11,519 11,750 11,985 12,225 12,469 12,718 12,973 13,232 13,464 13,701 13,941 14,187 14,436 14,691 14,950 15,214 15,483 15,757 16,036 16,321 16,610 16,905 17,206 17,512 17,824 18,142 18,466 18,796 19,132 19,474 19,823 20,179 20,541 20,910

Shire of Collie 3.0% 1.50%

Population 9,882 10,178 10,484 10,798 11,122 11,456 11,800 12,154 12,518 12,894 13,281 13,480 13,682 13,887 14,096 14,307 14,522 14,739 14,960 15,185 15,413 15,644 15,879 16,117 16,358 16,604 16,853 17,106 17,362 17,623 17,887 18,155 18,428 18,704 18,985 19,269 19,558

MSW

Kerbside Refuse 3,080 3,172 3,268 3,366 3,467 3,571 3,678 3,788 3,902 4,019 4,139 4,263 4,391 4,523 4,659 4,799 4,942 5,091 5,243 5,401 5,563 5,730 5,902 6,079 6,261 6,449 6,642 6,842 7,047 7,258 7,476 7,700 7,931 8,169 8,414 8,667 8,927

Kerbside Recycling 703 724 746 768 791 815 839 865 891 917 945 973 1,002 1,032 1,063 1,095 1,128 1,162 1,197 1,233 1,270 1,308 1,347 1,387 1,429 1,472 1,516 1,562 1,608 1,657 1,706 1,758 1,810 1,865 1,921 1,978 2,037


Drop-Off Refuse 3,585 3,693 3,803 3,917 4,035 4,156 4,281 4,409 4,541 4,678 4,818 4,962 5,111 5,265 5,423 5,585 5,753 5,925 6,103 6,286 6,475 6,669 6,869 7,075 7,288 7,506 7,731 7,963 8,202 8,448 8,702 8,963 9,232 9,509 9,794 10,088 10,390


Greenwaste 1,310 1,349 1,390 1,431 1,474 1,519 1,564 1,611 1,659 1,709 1,761 1,813 1,868 1,924 1,981 2,041 2,102 2,165 2,230 2,297 2,366 2,437 2,510 2,585 2,663 2,743 2,825 2,910 2,997 3,087 3,180 3,275 3,373 3,475 3,579 3,686 3,797

Scrap Metal 125 129 133 137 141 145 149 154 158 163 168 173 178 184 189 195 201 207 213 219 226 233 240 247 254 262 270 278 286 295 303 313 322 332 341 352 362

Miscellaneous 47 48 50 51 53 54 56 58 60 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 78 80 82 85 87 90 93 96 98 101 104 108 111 114 118 121 125 128 132 136

C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D 299 308 317 327 337 347 357 368 379 390 402 408 414 420 426 433 439 446 453 459 466 473 480 488 495 502 510 518 525 533 541 549 558 566 574 583 592

Sub-Total Shire ofCollie 9,161 9,436 9,719 10,010 10,311 10,620 10,939 11,267 11,605 11,953 12,312 12,675 13,049 13,434 13,831 14,240 14,660 15,094 15,540 15,999 16,472 16,959 17,461 17,978 18,510 19,057 19,622 20,203 20,801 21,417 22,052 22,705 23,378 24,071 24,785 25,519 26,276

Shire of Dardanup 4.7% 2.35%

Population 13,899 14,552 15,236 15,952 16,702 17,487 18,309 19,169 20,070 21,014 22,001 22,518 23,048 23,589 24,144 24,711 25,292 25,886 26,494 27,117 27,754 28,406 29,074 29,757 30,457 31,172 31,905 32,655 33,422 34,207 35,011 35,834 36,676 37,538 38,420 39,323 40,247

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 4,477 4,687 4,908 5,138 5,380 5,633 5,897 6,175 6,465 6,769 7,087 7,420 7,769 8,134 8,516 8,916 9,335 9,774 10,234 10,715 11,218 11,745 12,297 12,875 13,481 14,114 14,777 15,472 16,199 16,961 17,758 18,592 19,466 20,381 21,339 22,342 23,392



Drop-Off Refuse 1,277 1,337 1,400 1,466 1,535 1,607 1,682 1,761 1,844 1,931 2,021 2,116 2,216 2,320 2,429 2,543 2,663 2,788 2,919 3,056 3,200 3,350 3,508 3,673 3,845 4,026 4,215 4,413 4,621 4,838 5,065 5,303 5,552 5,813 6,087 6,373 6,672


Greenwaste 536 561 588 615 644 674 706 739 774 810 848 888 930 974 1,020 1,067 1,118 1,170 1,225 1,283 1,343 1,406 1,472 1,541 1,614 1,690 1,769 1,852 1,939 2,031 2,126 2,226 2,331 2,440 2,555 2,675 2,801

Scrap Metal 287 300 315 329 345 361 378 396 414 434 454 476 498 521 546 572 598 627 656 687 719 753 788 825 864 905 947 992 1,038 1,087 1,138 1,192 1,248 1,307 1,368 1,432 1,500

Miscellaneous 12 13 13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 41 43 45 48 50 52 55 57 60 63

C&I 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 67

C&D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sub-Total Shire of Dardanup 7,661 8,021 8,398 8,793 9,206 9,638 10,091 10,566 11,062 11,582 12,127 12,696 13,292 13,915 14,568 15,252 15,968 16,718 17,502 18,324 19,184 20,085 21,028 22,015 23,048 24,130 25,263 26,449 27,691 28,992 30,353 31,778 33,270 34,832 36,468 38,181 39,974

Shire of Harvey 2.3% 1.15%

Population 24,230 24,787 25,357 25,941 26,537 27,148 27,772 28,411 29,064 29,733 30,417 30,766 31,120 31,478 31,840 32,206 32,577 32,951 33,330 33,713 34,101 34,493 34,890 35,291 35,697 36,108 36,523 36,943 37,368 37,797 38,232 38,672 39,116 39,566 40,021 40,482 40,947

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 8,808 9,011 9,218 9,430 9,647 9,869 10,096 10,328 10,565 10,808 11,057 11,311 11,571 11,838 12,110 12,388 12,673 12,965 13,263 13,568 13,880 14,199 14,526 14,860 15,202 15,551 15,909 16,275 16,649 17,032 17,424 17,825 18,235 18,654 19,083 19,522 19,971



Drop-Off Refuse - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Greenwaste 480 491 502 514 526 538 550 563 576 589 603 616 631 645 660 675 691 707 723 739 756 774 792 810 828 847 867 887 907 928 950 971 994 1,017 1,040 1,064 1,088

Scrap Metal 303 310 317 324 332 339 347 355 363 372 380 389 398 407 417 426 436 446 456 467 477 488 500 511 523 535 547 560 573 586 599 613 627 642 656 672 687

Miscellaneous 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 58 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 78 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 100 102 104 107

C&I 113 116 118 121 124 127 130 132 136 139 142 143 145 147 148 150 152 154 155 157 159 161 163 165 166 168 170 172 174 176 178 180 182 185 187 189 191

C&D 141 144 148 151 154 158 162 165 169 173 177 179 181 183 185 187 190 192 194 196 198 201 203 205 208 210 213 215 217 220 222 225 228 230 233 236 238

Sub-Total Shire of Harvey 12,313 12,596 12,886 13,182 13,485 13,796 14,113 14,438 14,770 15,109 15,457 15,809 16,169 16,537 16,913 17,298 17,692 18,095 18,508 18,929 19,361 19,802 20,253 20,715 21,187 21,670 22,164 22,669 23,186 23,715 24,256 24,809 25,375 25,954 26,546 27,152 27,772

Shire of Augusta Margaret River 2.7% 2.70%

Population 13,524 13,889 14,264 14,649 15,045 15,451 15,868 16,297 16,737 17,189 17,653 18,129 18,619 19,121 19,638 20,168 20,712 21,272 21,846 22,436 23,042 23,664 24,303 24,959 25,633 26,325 27,036 27,766 28,515 29,285 30,076 30,888 31,722 32,578 33,458 34,361 35,289

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 4,257 4,372 4,490 4,611 4,736 4,864 4,995 5,130 5,268 5,411 5,557 5,707 5,861 6,019 6,181 6,348 6,520 6,696 6,877 7,062 7,253 7,449 7,650 7,856 8,069 8,286 8,510 8,740 8,976 9,218 9,467 9,723 9,985 10,255 10,532 10,816 11,108

Kerbside Recycling 881 905 929 954 980 1,007 1,034 1,062 1,090 1,120 1,150 1,181 1,213 1,246 1,279 1,314 1,349 1,386 1,423 1,462 1,501 1,542 1,583 1,626 1,670 1,715 1,761 1,809 1,858 1,908 1,959 2,012 2,066 2,122 2,180 2,238 2,299


Drop-Off Refuse 6,758 6,940 7,128 7,320 7,518 7,721 7,929 8,144 8,363 8,589 8,821 9,059 9,304 9,555 9,813 10,078 10,350 10,630 10,917 11,211 11,514 11,825 12,144 12,472 12,809 13,155 13,510 13,875 14,249 14,634 15,029 15,435 15,852 16,280 16,719 17,171 17,634

Drop-Off Recyclabes 391 402 412 424 435 447 459 471 484 497 510 524 538 553 568 583 599 615 632 649 666 684 703 722 741 761 782 803 824 847 870 893 917 942 967 993 1,020

Greenwaste 1,048 1,076 1,105 1,135 1,166 1,197 1,230 1,263 1,297 1,332 1,368 1,405 1,443 1,482 1,522 1,563 1,605 1,648 1,693 1,739 1,786 1,834 1,883 1,934 1,986 2,040 2,095 2,152 2,210 2,269 2,331 2,394 2,458 2,525 2,593 2,663 2,735

Scrap Metal 1,967 2,020 2,075 2,131 2,188 2,247 2,308 2,370 2,434 2,500 2,567 2,637 2,708 2,781 2,856 2,933 3,013 3,094 3,177 3,263 3,351 3,442 3,535 3,630 3,728 3,829 3,932 4,038 4,147 4,259 4,374 4,493 4,614 4,738 4,866 4,998 5,133

Miscellaneous 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3

C&I 1,978 2,031 2,086 2,143 2,200 2,260 2,321 2,384 2,448 2,514 2,582 2,652 2,723 2,797 2,872 2,950 3,029 3,111 3,195 3,281 3,370 3,461 3,554 3,650 3,749 3,850 3,954 4,061 4,171 4,283 4,399 4,518 4,640 4,765 4,894 5,026 5,161

C&D 2,290 2,352 2,415 2,481 2,548 2,616 2,687 2,759 2,834 2,911 2,989 3,070 3,153 3,238 3,325 3,415 3,507 3,602 3,699 3,799 3,902 4,007 4,115 4,226 4,340 4,458 4,578 4,702 4,828 4,959 5,093 5,230 5,371 5,516 5,665 5,818 5,975

Sub-Total Shire of August Margaret River 19,571 20,099 20,642 21,199 21,772 22,360 22,963 23,583 24,220 24,874 25,546 26,235 26,944 27,671 28,418 29,186 29,974 30,783 31,614 32,468 33,344 34,245 35,169 36,119 37,094 38,096 39,124 40,180 41,265 42,380 43,524 44,699 45,906 47,145 48,418 49,725 51,068

Growth Rate

Reduction

13/07/2015

BWGC, CAPEROC WBGC Data Projections Regional Waste Management Strategy

City of Busselton 3.10% 3.10%

Population 35,353 36,449 37,579 38,744 39,945 41,183 42,460 43,776 45,133 46,532 47,975 49,462 50,995 52,576 54,206 55,886 57,619 59,405 61,247 63,145 65,103 67,121 69,202 71,347 73,559 75,839 78,190 80,614 83,113 85,689 88,346 91,085 93,908 96,819 99,821 102,915 106,106

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 12,067 12,441 12,827 13,224 13,634 14,057 14,493 14,942 15,405 15,883 16,375 16,883 17,406 17,946 18,502 19,076 19,667 20,277 20,905 21,553 22,221 22,910 23,621 24,353 25,108 25,886 26,689 27,516 28,369 29,248 30,155 31,090 32,054 33,047 34,072 35,128 36,217



Drop-Off Refuse 2,378 2,452 2,528 2,606 2,687 2,770 2,856 2,945 3,036 3,130 3,227 3,327 3,430 3,537 3,646 3,759 3,876 3,996 4,120 4,247 4,379 4,515 4,655 4,799 4,948 5,101 5,259 5,422 5,591 5,764 5,943 6,127 6,317 6,513 6,714 6,923 7,137


Greenwaste 1,875 1,933 1,993 2,055 2,119 2,184 2,252 2,322 2,394 2,468 2,544 2,623 2,705 2,788 2,875 2,964 3,056 3,151 3,248 3,349 3,453 3,560 3,670 3,784 3,901 4,022 4,147 4,275 4,408 4,545 4,686 4,831 4,981 5,135 5,294 5,458 5,627

Scrap Metal 1,302 1,342 1,384 1,427 1,471 1,517 1,564 1,612 1,662 1,714 1,767 1,822 1,878 1,936 1,996 2,058 2,122 2,188 2,256 2,326 2,398 2,472 2,549 2,628 2,709 2,793 2,880 2,969 3,061 3,156 3,254 3,355 3,459 3,566 3,676 3,790 3,908

Miscellaneous 305 314 324 334 344 355 366 378 389 401 414 427 440 453 467 482 497 512 528 545 561 579 597 615 634 654 674 695 717 739 762 786 810 835 861 888 915

C&I 9,706 10,007 10,317 10,637 10,967 11,307 11,657 12,019 12,391 12,775 13,171 13,580 14,001 14,435 14,882 15,343 15,819 16,309 16,815 17,336 17,874 18,428 18,999 19,588 20,195 20,821 21,467 22,132 22,818 23,526 24,255 25,007 25,782 26,581 27,405 28,255 29,131

C&D 8,331 8,590 8,856 9,130 9,413 9,705 10,006 10,316 10,636 10,966 11,306 11,656 12,018 12,390 12,774 13,170 13,578 13,999 14,433 14,881 15,342 15,818 16,308 16,814 17,335 17,872 18,426 18,998 19,586 20,194 20,820 21,465 22,130 22,816 23,524 24,253 25,005

Sub-Total City of Busselton 40,068 41,310 42,591 43,911 45,272 46,676 48,123 49,615 51,153 52,738 54,373 56,059 57,797 59,588 61,436 63,340 65,304 67,328 69,415 71,567 73,786 76,073 78,431 80,863 83,370 85,954 88,619 91,366 94,198 97,118 100,129 103,233 106,433 109,733 113,134 116,641 120,257

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes 1.50% 0.75%

Population 4,650 4,720 4,791 4,862 4,935 5,009 5,085 5,161 5,238 5,317 5,397 5,437 5,478 5,519 5,560 5,602 5,644 5,686 5,729 5,772 5,815 5,859 5,903 5,947 5,992 6,037 6,082 6,127 6,173 6,220 6,266 6,313 6,361 6,408 6,456 6,505 6,554

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 7,989 8,109 8,230 8,354 8,479 8,606 8,736 8,867 9,000 9,135 9,272 9,411 9,552 9,695 9,840 9,988 10,138 10,290 10,444 10,601 10,760 10,921 11,085 11,252 11,420 11,592 11,765 11,942 12,121 12,303 12,487 12,675 12,865 13,058 13,254 13,453 13,654

Kerbside Recycling 741 752 763 775 786 798 810 822 835 847 860 873 886 899 913 926 940 954 969 983 998 1,013 1,028 1,044 1,059 1,075 1,091 1,108 1,124 1,141 1,158 1,176 1,193 1,211 1,229 1,248 1,266


Drop-Off Refuse - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Greenwaste - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scrap Metal 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 97 98 100 101 103

Miscellaneous 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D 3,500 3,553 3,606 3,660 3,715 3,770 3,827 3,884 3,943 4,002 4,062 4,092 4,123 4,154 4,185 4,217 4,248 4,280 4,312 4,344 4,377 4,410 4,443 4,476 4,510 4,544 4,578 4,612 4,647 4,681 4,717 4,752 4,788 4,824 4,860 4,896 4,933

Sub-Total Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes 12,295 12,480 12,667 12,857 13,050 13,246 13,444 13,646 13,851 14,059 14,269 14,453 14,639 14,828 15,019 15,213 15,409 15,609 15,811 16,016 16,223 16,434 16,647 16,864 17,083 17,305 17,531 17,760 17,991 18,226 18,465 18,706 18,951 19,200 19,451 19,707 19,966

Shire of Manjimup 0.17% 0.09%

Population 9,443 9,736 10,038 10,349 10,670 11,000 11,341 11,693 12,055 12,429 12,814 13,212 13,621 14,043 14,479 14,928 15,390 15,867 16,359 16,867 17,389 17,928 18,484 19,057 19,648 20,257 20,885 21,533 22,200 22,888 23,598 24,329 25,084 25,861 26,663 27,489 28,342

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 11,393 11,412 11,432 11,451 11,471 11,490 11,510 11,529 11,549 11,569 11,588 11,608 11,628 11,647 11,667 11,687 11,707 11,727 11,747 11,767 11,787 11,807 11,827 11,847 11,867 11,887 11,908 11,928 11,948 11,968 11,989 12,009 12,029 12,050 12,070 12,091 12,112



Drop-Off Refuse - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Greenwaste 1,046 1,048 1,050 1,051 1,053 1,055 1,057 1,059 1,060 1,062 1,064 1,066 1,068 1,069 1,071 1,073 1,075 1,077 1,078 1,080 1,082 1,084 1,086 1,088 1,090 1,091 1,093 1,095 1,097 1,099 1,101 1,103 1,104 1,106 1,108 1,110 1,112

Scrap Metal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miscellaneous - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D 5,241 5,250 5,259 5,268 5,277 5,286 5,295 5,304 5,313 5,322 5,331 5,335 5,340 5,344 5,349 5,353 5,358 5,362 5,367 5,372 5,376 5,381 5,385 5,390 5,394 5,399 5,404 5,408 5,413 5,417 5,422 5,427 5,431 5,436 5,440 5,445 5,450

Sub-Total Shire of Manjimup 18,608 18,640 18,671 18,703 18,735 18,767 18,799 18,831 18,863 18,895 18,927 18,954 18,982 19,010 19,038 19,065 19,093 19,121 19,149 19,177 19,205 19,233 19,261 19,290 19,318 19,346 19,374 19,403 19,431 19,460 19,488 19,517 19,545 19,574 19,602 19,631 19,660

Shire of Nannup 0.60% 0.30%

Population 1,357 1,365 1,373 1,382 1,390 1,398 1,407 1,415 1,424 1,432 1,441 1,445 1,449 1,454 1,458 1,462 1,467 1,471 1,476 1,480 1,484 1,489 1,493 1,498 1,502 1,507 1,511 1,516 1,520 1,525 1,530 1,534 1,539 1,543 1,548 1,553 1,557

MSW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kerbside Refuse 932 938 943 949 955 960 966 972 978 984 989 995 1,001 1,007 1,013 1,019 1,026 1,032 1,038 1,044 1,050 1,057 1,063 1,069 1,076 1,082 1,089 1,095 1,102 1,109 1,115 1,122 1,129 1,135 1,142 1,149 1,156



Drop-Off Refuse - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Greenwaste 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 36 36

Scrap Metal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miscellaneous - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C&D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sub-Total Shire of Nannup 1,036 1,042 1,048 1,055 1,061 1,067 1,074 1,080 1,087 1,093 1,100 1,106 1,113 1,120 1,127 1,133 1,140 1,147 1,154 1,161 1,168 1,175 1,182 1,189 1,196 1,203 1,210 1,218 1,225 1,232 1,240 1,247 1,255 1,262 1,270 1,277 1,285

TOTAL WASTE 206,332 210,467 214,714 219,077 223,560 228,166 232,898 237,762 242,761 247,900 253,183 258,269 263,503 268,888 274,430 280,134 286,006 292,051 298,274 304,683 311,283 318,080 325,081 332,293 339,723 347,379 355,267 363,397 371,776 380,413 389,317 398,496 407,961 417,721 427,786 438,167 448,875

TOTAL WASTE GROWTH 1.96% 1.98% 1.99% 2.01% 2.02% 2.03% 2.05% 2.06% 2.07% 2.09% 1.97% 1.99% 2.00% 2.02% 2.04% 2.05% 2.07% 2.09% 2.10% 2.12% 2.14% 2.15% 2.17% 2.19% 2.20% 2.22% 2.24% 2.25% 2.27% 2.29% 2.30% 2.32% 2.34% 2.35% 2.37% 2.39%

TOTAL MSW 124,608 127,457 130,390 133,411 136,521 139,725 143,025 146,424 149,926 153,534 157,252 161,083 165,032 169,102 173,298 177,623 182,083 186,681 191,423 196,314 201,358 206,561 211,929 217,467 223,181 229,078 235,163 241,444 247,927 254,619 261,529 268,663 276,029 283,636 291,493 299,608 307,991

Kerbside Refuse 68,628 70,082 71,579 73,119 74,705 76,337 78,018 79,749 81,531 83,367 85,258 87,206 89,213 91,281 93,412 95,609 97,872 100,206 102,612 105,093 107,651 110,289 113,009 115,816 118,711 121,698 124,781 127,961 131,244 134,632 138,130 141,741 145,469 149,319 153,295 157,401 161,643



Drop-Off Refuse 17,086 17,581 18,092 18,619 19,163 19,724 20,302 20,898 21,514 22,149 22,804 23,480 24,177 24,897 25,640 26,406 27,197 28,014 28,857 29,727 30,625 31,552 32,510 33,498 34,519 35,573 36,661 37,785 38,946 40,146 41,384 42,664 43,986 45,351 46,763 48,221 49,727

Drop-Off Recyclabes 947 973 1,000 1,028 1,057 1,086 1,117 1,149 1,181 1,215 1,250 1,285 1,322 1,360 1,400 1,440 1,482 1,525 1,570 1,616 1,663 1,712 1,763 1,815 1,869 1,925 1,982 2,042 2,103 2,166 2,232 2,299 2,369 2,441 2,515 2,592 2,671

Greenwaste 8,800 9,016 9,239 9,469 9,705 9,949 10,201 10,460 10,728 11,003 11,288 11,581 11,883 12,195 12,517 12,849 13,192 13,545 13,910 14,286 14,675 15,075 15,489 15,916 16,357 16,812 17,282 17,768 18,269 18,786 19,321 19,873 20,443 21,032 21,641 22,269 22,919

Scrap Metal 4,739 4,873 5,011 5,154 5,301 5,453 5,609 5,770 5,935 6,106 6,282 6,464 6,651 6,844 7,043 7,248 7,460 7,678 7,903 8,135 8,374 8,621 8,875 9,138 9,409 9,688 9,976 10,274 10,580 10,897 11,224 11,561 11,909 12,268 12,639 13,021 13,416

Miscellaneous 589 604 619 635 651 668 685 702 720 739 758 778 798 819 841 863 885 909 933 958 983 1,009 1,037 1,064 1,093 1,123 1,153 1,184 1,216 1,250 1,284 1,319 1,355 1,393 1,431 1,471 1,511

TOTAL C&I 38,977 39,619 40,274 40,943 41,627 42,326 43,041 43,772 44,519 45,282 46,063 46,701 47,355 48,024 48,710 49,413 50,133 50,871 51,627 52,402 53,197 54,012 54,847 55,703 56,581 57,482 58,406 59,353 60,325 61,322 62,346 63,396 64,473 65,579 66,714 67,879 69,075

TOTAL C&D 42,747 43,392 44,051 44,724 45,412 46,114 46,833 47,567 48,317 49,084 49,868 50,485 51,116 51,761 52,422 53,098 53,790 54,499 55,224 55,967 56,728 57,507 58,305 59,123 59,961 60,819 61,699 62,600 63,524 64,471 65,442 66,438 67,458 68,505 69,578 70,679 71,808

TOTAL POPULATION 168,806 173,241 177,814 182,530 187,393 192,408 197,581 202,918 208,423 214,104 219,965 224,170 228,660 233,258 237,966 242,788 247,725 252,782 257,961 263,266 268,700 274,267 279,970 285,813 291,799 297,933 304,218 310,658 317,259 324,023 330,956 338,061 345,345 352,811 360,465 368,311 376,356

TOTAL POPULATION GROWTH 2.56% 2.57% 2.58% 2.60% 2.61% 2.62% 2.63% 2.64% 2.65% 2.66% 1.88% 1.96% 1.97% 1.98% 1.99% 1.99% 2.00% 2.01% 2.02% 2.02% 2.03% 2.04% 2.04% 2.05% 2.06% 2.07% 2.07% 2.08% 2.09% 2.09% 2.10% 2.11% 2.12% 2.12% 2.13% 2.14%

RECOVERY - Current Rate

MSW 31% 87,959 89,983 92,067 94,214 96,425 98,702 101,048 103,464 105,954 108,520 111,164 113,889 116,698 119,594 122,579 125,656 128,829 132,102 135,477 138,958 142,549 146,253 150,075 154,018 158,088 162,287 166,621 171,095 175,714 180,482 185,405 190,489 195,739 201,161 206,761 212,546

C&I 0.32% 39,494 40,147 40,814 41,496 42,193 42,905 43,634 44,378 45,139 45,918 46,554 47,205 47,873 48,557 49,257 49,975 50,711 51,464 52,237 53,029 53,841 54,674 55,527 56,403 57,300 58,221 59,166 60,135 61,129 62,149 63,196 64,270 65,372 66,504 67,665 68,858

C&D 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL WASTE incl Recovery 127,452 130,129 132,881 135,710 138,618 141,607 144,681 147,842 151,094 154,438 157,718 161,095 164,571 168,150 171,836 175,631 179,540 183,566 187,714 191,987 196,390 200,927 205,602 210,421 215,388 220,508 225,787 231,230 236,843 242,631 248,601 254,759 261,111 267,665 274,426 281,404

Difference to TOTAL WASTE 83,015 84,585 86,196 87,850 89,548 91,291 93,081 94,919 96,807 98,745 100,551 102,408 104,317 106,280 108,298 110,375 112,511 114,708 116,969 119,296 121,690 124,154 126,691 129,302 131,991 134,759 137,610 140,546 143,570 146,686 149,895 153,202 156,610 160,121 163,740 167,471

THE BLUEPRINT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Projected Growth Rate 3.0623% 500,000

Projected Population 168,806 173,975 179,303 184,794 190,453 196,285 202,296 208,491 214,875 221,455 228,237 235,226 242,430 249,854 257,505 265,391 273,518 281,893 290,526 299,423 308,592 318,042 327,781 337,819 348,164 358,826 369,814 381,139 392,811 404,840 417,237 430,014 443,182 456,754 470,741 485,157 500,014

TOTAL MSW 124,608 128,424 132,357 136,410 140,587 144,892 149,329 153,902 158,615 163,472 168,478 173,638 178,955 184,435 190,083 195,904 201,903 208,086 214,458 221,026 227,794 234,770 241,959 249,369 257,005 264,875 272,987 281,346 289,962 298,842 307,993 317,425 327,145 337,163 347,488 358,129 369,096

Kerbside Refuse 68,628 70,730 72,896 75,128 77,429 79,800 82,243 84,762 87,358 90,033 92,790 95,631 98,560 101,578 104,689 107,895 111,199 114,604 118,113 121,730 125,458 129,300 133,260 137,340 141,546 145,881 150,348 154,952 159,697 164,588 169,628 174,822 180,176 185,693 191,380 197,241 203,281



Drop-Off Refuse 17,086 17,609 18,148 18,704 19,277 19,867 20,476 21,103 21,749 22,415 23,101 23,809 24,538 25,289 26,064 26,862 27,684 28,532 29,406 30,306 31,234 32,191 33,177 34,193 35,240 36,319 37,431 38,577 39,759 40,976 42,231 43,524 44,857 46,231 47,647 49,106 50,609

Drop-Off Recyclabes 947 976 1,006 1,037 1,068 1,101 1,135 1,170 1,205 1,242 1,280 1,320 1,360 1,402 1,445 1,489 1,534 1,581 1,630 1,680 1,731 1,784 1,839 1,895 1,953 2,013 2,075 2,138 2,204 2,271 2,341 2,412 2,486 2,562 2,641 2,722 2,805

Greenwaste 8,800 9,069 9,347 9,633 9,928 10,233 10,546 10,869 11,202 11,545 11,898 12,263 12,638 13,025 13,424 13,835 14,259 14,695 15,145 15,609 16,087 16,580 17,088 17,611 18,150 18,706 19,279 19,869 20,478 21,105 21,751 22,417 23,103 23,811 24,540 25,292 26,066

Scrap Metal 4,739 4,884 5,033 5,187 5,346 5,510 5,679 5,853 6,032 6,217 6,407 6,603 6,805 7,014 7,229 7,450 7,678 7,913 8,155 8,405 8,663 8,928 9,201 9,483 9,773 10,073 10,381 10,699 11,027 11,364 11,712 12,071 12,441 12,822 13,214 13,619 14,036

Miscellaneous 589 607 625 645 664 685 706 727 750 773 796 821 846 872 898 926 954 983 1,013 1,044 1,076 1,109 1,143 1,178 1,215 1,252 1,290 1,330 1,370 1,412 1,455 1,500 1,546 1,593 1,642 1,692 1,744

TOTAL C&I 38,977 40,171 41,401 42,669 43,976 45,322 46,710 48,141 49,615 51,134 52,700 54,314 55,977 57,691 59,458 61,279 63,155 65,089 67,083 69,137 71,254 73,436 75,685 78,003 80,391 82,853 85,390 88,005 90,700 93,478 96,340 99,290 102,331 105,465 108,694 112,023 115,453

TOTAL C&D 42,747 44,056 45,405 46,795 48,228 49,705 51,227 52,796 54,413 56,079 57,796 59,566 61,390 63,270 65,208 67,205 69,263 71,384 73,570 75,823 78,144 80,537 83,004 85,546 88,165 90,865 93,648 96,515 99,471 102,517 105,657 108,892 112,227 115,663 119,205 122,856 126,618

Total Waste (Blueprint Growth) 206,332 212,651 219,163 225,874 232,791 239,920 247,267 254,839 262,643 270,686 278,975 287,518 296,322 305,397 314,749 324,387 334,321 344,559 355,111 365,985 377,193 388,743 400,648 412,917 425,562 438,594 452,025 465,867 480,133 494,836 509,990 525,607 541,703 558,291 575,388 593,008 611,168

RECOVERY - Current Rate

MSW 31% 88,626 91,340 94,137 97,020 99,991 103,053 106,209 109,461 112,813 116,268 119,828 123,498 127,280 131,177 135,194 139,334 143,601 147,999 152,531 157,202 162,016 166,977 172,091 177,361 182,792 188,389 194,159 200,104 206,232 212,547 219,056 225,764 232,678 239,803 247,147 254,715

C&I 0.32% 40,044 41,271 42,534 43,837 45,179 46,563 47,989 49,458 50,973 52,534 54,143 55,801 57,509 59,270 61,085 62,956 64,884 66,871 68,919 71,029 73,204 75,446 77,756 80,138 82,592 85,121 87,727 90,414 93,183 96,036 98,977 102,008 105,132 108,351 111,669 115,089

C&D 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Blueprint TOTAL WASTE incl Recovery 128,670 132,610 136,671 140,857 145,170 149,616 154,197 158,919 163,786 168,802 173,971 179,298 184,789 190,448 196,280 202,290 208,485 214,870 221,450 228,231 235,220 242,423 249,847 257,498 265,383 273,510 281,886 290,518 299,415 308,584 318,033 327,773 337,810 348,155 358,816 369,804

Blueprint Difference to TOTAL WASTE 83,980 86,552 89,203 91,934 94,749 97,651 100,641 103,723 106,900 110,173 113,547 117,024 120,608 124,301 128,108 132,031 136,074 140,241 144,535 148,962 153,523 158,225 163,070 168,064 173,210 178,514 183,981 189,615 195,422 201,406 207,574 213,930 220,481 227,233 234,192 241,363

13/07/2015


South West Region

City of Bunbury


Month YYYY

July 2015

Appendix B: Details of Strategic

Options

BWGC, CAPEROC WBGC Strategic Options Regional Waste Management Strategy

Hierarchy Option Governance Implementation CommentTonnage (low)

% capture of materials targeted

% capture of stream total

Tonnage (high)



Tonnage (low)% capture of materials targeted


Tonnage (high)



Tonnage (low)



Tonnage (high)



A/R/RWaste Education Program (Officer 33%)

Regional LocalConsistent approach across region implemented locally; depends on services. Education Centres to be located at a regional facility

A/R/R Earthcarers (Officer 33%) Regional Local Consistent approach across region implemented locally

A/R/RInfluence Commercial Practices (Officer 33%)

Regional Local Consistent approach across region implemented locally

Regional Education Officer Regional Regional

A/R/R Reuse Facility (Regional Model) Local LocalOwned & Operated Local facility with a consistent layout, receptacles and signage implemented across the region by each LGA

1,246.08 50% 1% 3,738 75% 3%

A/R/R Free Trade Website Regional RegionalRegional website to gain credit against diversion targets where 'stuff' can be sold and bought for free

623 50% 0.5% 1,246 75% 1%

Recycle Greenwaste Mulching Regional Local Regional mulching contract implemented locally via stockpiling of GW prior to mulching 15,811 90% 13% 17,568 100% 14% 7,906 90% 20% 8,784 100% 23%

Recycle Scrap Metal Recycling Regional LocalRegional collection contract implemented locally via stockpiling of scrap metal prior to collection by a contractor for recycling

2,343 70% 2% 3,348 100% 3% 837 25% 1,674 50% 3,180 95% 3,180 95%

Recycle Mattress Recycling Regional LocalRegional collection contract implemented locally via stockpiling of mattresses prior to collection/processing by a contractor or regional facility

623 90% 1% 1,246.08 100% 1%

Recycle Kerbside Recycling Regional LocalRegional approach to assist in the devlievry of kerbside recycling and then discuss the pro's and con's of weekly or fortnightly kerbside recycling

7,948 75% 6% 10,067 95% 8% 3,974 75% 5,034 95%

Recycle C&I Recyclables Collections Regional Local Regional collections contract implemented locally 11,693 70% 30% 19,489 85% 50%

Recycle Recycling Station Network Regional LocalConsistent approach across region implemented locally, however new bins and collection vehicle needed to service the network

3,738 75% 3% 6,230 90% 5% 195 50% 0.5% 390 50% 1%

Recycle C&D Waste Processing Regional Local Regional processing contract implemented locally 38,472 90% 90% 42,747 100% 100%

Recycle Clean MRF Regional RegionalLarge facility requires signifcant tonnage to create economies of scale may include the entire region or 2 sub-regions to combine or less participants depending on economies of scale

12,717 80% 10% 15,896 100% 13%

R&T Community Recycling and Drop-off Local LocalA local facility that accepts waste and recyclacles from the community. As it does not physically recycle (only allows for separation), it is not categorised within the Recycle section

6,230 70% 5% 12,461 90% 10% 390 50% 1% 1,169 60% 3%

R&T Source Separated Organics Regional Local3rd bin to be rolled out across the region; new regional contract implmented locally. Increase to include Commercial organics collections

8,590 75% 7% 12,884 90% 10% 3,006 35% 8% 6,013 70% 15%

R&T Dirty MRFRegional or Sub-Regional

Regional or Sub-Regional

Large facility requires signifcant tonnage to create economies of scale may include the entire region or 2 sub-regions to combine or less participants depending on economies of scale

37,382 45% 30% 53,997 65% 43% 5,847 45% 15% 9,095 70% 23%

R&T Windrow AerationRegional or Sub-Regional


Can't transport GW far, therefore sub-regional approach with local inputs, however with a WTS GW could be moved further to a Regional Facility. Smaller scale operation utilises sub-regional tonnages, however large facility has better efficiencies

13,899 40% 11% 20,848 60% 17% 6,949 40% 18% 10,424 60% 27%

R&T Forced AerationRegional or Sub-Regional


Smaller scale operation utilises sub-regional tonnages, however large facility has better efficiencies

13,899 40% 11% 20,848 60% 17% 6,949 40% 18% 10,424 60% 27%

R&T Mechancial Aeration Regional RegionalLarge facility with large capital and operational costs requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

13,899 40% 11% 20,848 60% 17% 6,949 40% 18% 10,424 60% 27%

R&T AD Regional RegionalLarge facility with large capital and operational costs requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

13,899 40% 11% 20,848 60% 17% 6,949 40% 18% 10,424 60% 27%

R&T Special Waste Processing Local LocalSmall scale facilities that treat specific waste streams such as oil and plastics and turn it into diesel and bio-diesel

623 75.0% 1% 1,246 90% 1% 854.93 50% 2% 1,709.86 75% 4%

R&TSolid Recovered Fuel (SRF) / Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

Regional RegionalLarge facility with large capital and operational costs requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

62,304 50% 50% 105,917 85% 85% 23,386.44 60% 60% 37,029 80% 95%

R&T Combustion Regional RegionalLarge facility with large capital and operational costs requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

99,686 80% 80% 118,378 95% 95% 31,182 80% 80% 37,029 95% 95%

R&T Gasification Regional RegionalLarge facility with large capital and operational costs requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

99,686 80% 80% 118,378 95% 95% 31,181.92 80% 80% 37,029 95% 95%

R&T Pyrolysis Regional RegionalLarge facility with large capital and operational costs requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

99,686 80% 80% 118,378 95% 95% 31,181.92 80% 80% 37,029 95% 95%

D WTSLocal or Sub-Regional

Local or Sub-Regional

Facilitates bulk haulage of waste which generates economies of scale to trasnport greater distance. Allows the transfer of materials to a regional facility.

105,916.81 85% 85% 118,378 95% 95% 33,130.79 85% 85% 37,029 95% 95%

D Landfill Regional RegionalDevelopment of best practice regional facility has a high capital expense. Therefore, requires Regional tonnage to create economies of scale

105,916.81 85% 85% 118,378 95% 95% 33,130.79 85% 85% 37,029 95% 95%

MSWLocal, Sub-Regional or Regional Activity/Approach C&DC&I

13/07/2015

BWGC, CAPEROC WBGC Strategic Options Regional Waste Management Strategy

Hierarchy Option

A/R/RWaste Education Program (Officer 33%)

A/R/R Earthcarers (Officer 33%)

A/R/RInfluence Commercial Practices (Officer 33%)


A/R/R Reuse Facility (Regional Model)

A/R/R Free Trade Website


Recycle Scrap Metal Recycling

Recycle Mattress Recycling

Recycle Kerbside Recycling

Recycle C&I Recyclables Collections

Recycle Recycling Station Network

Recycle C&D Waste Processing

Recycle Clean MRF

R&T Community Recycling and Drop-off

R&T Source Separated Organics

R&T Dirty MRF

R&T Windrow Aeration

R&T Forced Aeration

R&T Mechancial Aeration

R&T AD

R&T Special Waste Processing

R&TSolid Recovered Fuel (SRF) / Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

R&T Combustion

R&T Gasification

R&T Pyrolysis

D WTS

D Landfill

Tonnage (low)% capture of stream total

Tonnage (high)


Capital Cost (low)

Capital Cost (high)

LifespanAnnual cap cost (low)

Annual cap cost (high)

Operational cost

Total annual cost (low)

Total annual cost (high)

Capital Cost (low)Capital Cost (high)

LifespanAnnual cap cost (low)

Annual cap cost (high)

Operational costTotal annual cost (low)

Total annual cost (high)

Key Comments

- 0% - 0% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ Part time position for Waste Education Officer who delivers on a variety of education initiatives

- 0% - 0% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$

- 0% - 0% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ Work done through Waste Education Officer

- 0% - 0% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ Work done through Waste Education Officer

1,246 1% 3,738 2% 100,000$ 250,000$ 10 10,800$ 27,000$ 70,000$ 80,800$ 97,000$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ Part time staff member and community members to run

623 0% 1,246 1% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 10 1,080$ 1,620$ 1,000$ 2,080$ 2,620$

23,717 11% 26,352 13% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Continue with current contractual arrangement

6,361 3% 8,202 4% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

623 0% 1,246 1% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 10 5,400$ 10,800$ 100,000$ 105,400$ 110,800$

11,922 6% 15,101 7% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

11,693 6% 19,489 9% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Operational cost = one full-time staff member + fuel costs

3,933 2% 6,620 3% 10,000$ 50,000$ 10 1,080$ 5,400$ 10,000$ 11,080$ 15,400$ 100,000$ 500,000$ 10 10,800$ 54,000$ 100,000$ 110,800$ 154,000$

38,472 19% 42,747 21% 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 10 54,000$ 108,000$ 50,000$ 104,000$ 158,000$ 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 10 54,000$ 108,000$ 350,000$ 404,000$ 458,000$ Shire undertakes processing in-house, crushing operations not run full-time

12,717 6% 15,896 8% 750,000$ 2,000,000$ 10 81,000$ 216,000$ 500,000$ 581,000$ 716,000$ 2,500,000$ 5,000,000$ 10 270,000$ 540,000$ 500,000$ 770,000$ 1,040,000$

6,620 3% 13,630 7% 500,000$ 1,500,000$ 20 27,000$ 162,000$ 200,000$ 227,000$ 362,000$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

11,596 6% 18,897 9% -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ NA -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Third bin plus additional collection truck. Low captial cost - current commercial premises with recycling get organics bin, High capital cost - all commercial premises get organics bin, Operational cost = two full-time staff members + fuel costs

43,229 21% 63,092 31% 1,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 10 108,000$ 540,000$ 500,000$ 608,000$ 1,040,000$ 7,000,000$ 12,000,000$ 10 756,000$ 1,296,000$ 600,000$ 1,356,000$ 1,896,000$

20,848 10% 31,272 15% 200,000$ 400,000$ 10 21,600$ 43,200$ 100,000$ 121,600$ 143,200$ 300,000$ 550,000$ 10 32,400$ 59,400$ 100,000$ 132,400$ 159,400$

20,848 10% 31,272 15% 500,000$ 750,000$ 10 54,000$ 81,000$ 125,000$ 179,000$ 206,000$ 750,000$ 1,200,000$ 10 81,000$ 129,600$ 125,000$ 206,000$ 254,600$

20,848 10% 31,272 15% 30,000,000$ 35,000,000$ 20 1,620,000$ 3,780,000$ 1,000,000$ 2,620,000$ 4,780,000$ 40,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 20 4,320,000$ 5,400,000$ 1,000,000$ 5,320,000$ 6,400,000$

20,848 10% 31,272 15% 35,000,000$ 40,000,000$ 20 1,890,000$ 4,320,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,390,000$ 5,820,000$ 20,000,000$ 30,000,000$ 10 2,160,000$ 3,240,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,660,000$ 4,740,000$ Biogas

1,478 1% 2,956 1% 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 10 54,000$ 108,000$ 200,000$ 254,000$ 308,000$ 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 10 54,000$ 108,000$ 200,000$ 254,000$ 308,000$

85,690 42% 142,945 69% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 20 2,160,000$ 5,400,000$ 1,000,000$ 3,160,000$ 6,400,000$

130,868 63% 155,406 75% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000,000$ 200,000,000$ 20 16,200,000$ 21,600,000$ 8,500,000$ 24,700,000$ 30,100,000$

130,868 63% 155,406 75% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000,000$ 120,000,000$ 20 10,800,000$ 12,960,000$ 5,500,000$ 16,300,000$ 18,460,000$

130,868 63% 155,406 75% -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000,000$ 120,000,000$ 20 10,800,000$ 12,960,000$ 3,500,001$ 14,300,001$ 16,460,001$

139,048 67% 155,406 75% 2,000,000$ 3,500,000$ 20 108,000$ 378,000$ 500,000$ 608,000$ 878,000$ 3,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 20 324,000$ 540,000$ 750,000$ 1,074,000$ 1,290,000$

139,048 67% 155,406 75% 35,000,000$ 55,000,000$ 20 1,890,000$ 5,940,000$ 710,000$ 2,600,000$ 6,650,000$ 100,000,000$ 130,000,000$ 20 10,800,000$ 14,040,000$ 1,000,000$ 11,800,000$ 15,040,000$

LOCAL REGIONALTOTAL WASTE

13/07/2015

Documents

Regional Waste Management Strategy · assessment of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) was undertaken. In addition, annualised cost estimates of the capital