waste management strategy and infrastructure options

LMCC Waste Management Options– LMCC Final Report Se ptember 2009 p1 of 120

WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND

INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS

© State of New South Wales through the Department of Natural Resources

SEPTEMBER 2009

Prepared for: Lake Macquarie City Council

LMCC Waste Management Options– LMCC Final Report Au gust 2009 p2 of 120

LIMITATIONS STATEMENT This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services agreed upon by the above named client and Sustainable Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd (SIA). To the best of SIA’s knowledge, the information presented herein represents the above named client’s intentions at the time of printing the report. In preparing this report, SIA has relied upon data, surveys, analyses, plans and other information provided by the above named client and other individuals and organisations. Except as otherwise stated in this report, SIA has not verified the accuracy or completeness of such data, surveys, analyses, plans and other information. The information presented herein is copyright SIA.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………pp 9 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..… pp 13 2. The Current Waste Management System............................................................ pp 14 3. Waste Management Priorities for LMCC............................................................. pp 17 4. Waste Infrastructure Options………………………………………………………… pp 20 5. Option 1: Extension of the Current Awaba Landfill Site....................................... pp 21

5.1 Current Capacity and Life of Awaba Landfill.......................................... pp 22 5.2 Options for Expansion on current footprint……………………….….…... pp 23 5.3 Alternate Options for Filling at Awaba…………………………………... pp 23 5.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 1………………………………….. pp 26 5.4.1 Future Planning…...……………………………………………… pp 26 5.4.2 Capital Expenditure…...………………………..…….……….….pp 26

5.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact………….. ……………...…………….. pp 28 5.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact…………………………………...….…. pp 28 5.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts……………………………………………………..…. pp 31 5.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months]…....…. pp 32 5.4.7 Social and Community Issues……………………………..….... pp 32 5.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC……………………………….……. pp 33 5.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact…………………………………..….…. pp 33 6. Option 2: Development of a New Landfill Site within the Lake Macquarie Municipality ….………………………………………………………………………….. pp 35 6.1 Site Options for Landfill in LMCC………………………………………... pp 36

6.2 Options for New Landfill Development at Awaba………………………. pp 36 6.3 Planning and Development Requirements for a New Landfill…….…. pp 37

6.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 2………………………….………. pp 37 6.4.1 Future Planning…...……………………………………………… pp 37 6.4.2 Capital Expenditure…...………………………..…….……….….pp 38

6.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact………….. ……………...…………….. pp 39 6.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact…………………………………...….…. pp 39 6.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts……………………………………………………..…. pp 40 6.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months]…....…. pp 42 6.4.7 Social and Community Issues……………………………..….... pp 42 6.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC……………………………….……. pp 43


6.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact…………………………………..….…. pp 45 7. Option 3: Development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) Facility Within the Lake Macquarie Municipality ……………………………………………….……….…. pp 46 7.1 Review of AWT Technology in Australia and Overseas..………………. pp 47 7.2 Review of AWT Experience in Australia…………………………….……. pp 51 7.3 Process and Time Frames to Develop an AWT………………...………. pp 54

7.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 3………………………………….. pp 54 7.4.1 Future Planning…...……………………………………………… pp 54 7.4.2 Capital Expenditure…...………………………..…….……….….pp 55

7.4.3 Waste Diversion impact………….. ……………...…………….. pp 55 7.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact…………………………………...….…. pp 56 7.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts……………………………………………………..…. pp 57 7.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months].…....…. pp 57 7.4.7 Social and Community Issues……………………………..….... pp 57 7.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC……………………………….……. pp 58 7.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact…………………………………..….…. pp 59 8. Option 4: Export of Residual Waste to Facilities (Landfill/AWT) Outside of the Lake Macquarie Municipality ……………………………………………….………………....pp 60 8.1 Review of Waste Volumes for Export……………………………….…... pp 61 8.2 External Options for Waste Export………………………………..…..…. pp 61 8.3 Transport, Compaction and Waste Transfer Options………….…..…. pp 62 8.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 4…………………………...…….…. pp 64

8.4.1 Future Planning…...……………………………………………… pp 64 8.4.2 Capital Expenditure…...………………………..…….……….….pp 65

8.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact………….. ……………...…………….. pp 65 8.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact…………………………………...….…. pp 66 8.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts……………………………………………………..…. pp 67 8.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months]…....…. pp 67 8.4.7 Social and Community Issues……………………………..….... pp 68 8.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC……………………………….……. pp 69 8.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact…………………………………..….…. pp 70 9. Option 5: SIA Option: A Waste Management System Focussed on Source Segregation and Specific Recovery/ Management of Each Waste Stream ..……. …………… pp 71 9.1 Reduction and Diversion…………………..…………………………...…. pp 72

9.1.1 Household Waste Reduction…...………………………………. pp 73 9.1.2. Household Waste Segregation…...……………………...……. pp 75 9.1.3 Household Re-use of Materials…...……………………………. pp 75 9.1.4 Education and Awareness Campaigns………………………. pp 76


9.1.5 Pricing Policy…...………………………………………………… pp 77 9.1.6 Business Engagement…...………………………………..….….pp 79

9.2 Organic Waste Management Options………………………………..…. pp 79 9.2.1 International Best Practice Examples………………….…… … pp 81

9.2.2 Home Composting…………………………….…………....…. pp 82 9.2.3 Organic Waste Collection Systems…….…………………….. pp 87 9.2.4 Organic Waste Treatment Options……………….………..…. pp 87 9.3 C&D Waste Management Options…………………………….……..…. pp 91 9.4 Recycling Options……………………………………………………...…. pp 91

9.5 Resource Recovery Options………………………………………...……. pp 92 9.6 Residual Waste Disposal Options…….……………………...……….…. pp 92 9.7 Energy Recovery……………………………………………………………. pp 93

9.8 Comparative Assessment of Option 5………………………...……….…. pp 95 9.8.1 Future planning…...……………………………………………… pp 95 9.8.2 Capital Expenditure…...……………………..…….………….….pp 96

9.8.3 Waste Diversion impact………….. ……………...…………… pp 96 9.8.4 GHG Risk and Impact…………………………………...….…. pp 97 9.8.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts……………………………………………………..…. pp 97 9.8.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months].....…. … pp 98 9.8.7 Social and Community Issues…………………………..…….... pp 98 9.8.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC……………………………….……. pp 100 9.8.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact…………………………………..….…. pp 101 10. Comparative Analysis of Options…………………………………………….……. pp 102

10.1 Future Planning…...……………………………………………..………… pp 102 10.2 Capital Expenditure…...……………………..…….………………….…. pp 102

10.3 Waste Diversion Impact………….. …………..……………………….. pp 103 10.4 GHG Risk and Impact…………………………………………...…....…. pp 104 10.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts………………………………………………………..………..…. pp 104 10.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months]….………....…. pp 105 10.7 Social and Community Issues……………..……………………...….... pp 105 10.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC………………………………….…….……. pp 105 10.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact…………………………………….……..….…. pp 105 11. Recommendations…………………………………………………………….…….. pp 106 11.1 First Recommendation………………………………………….………. pp 106 11.2 Second Recommendation…………..…………………………..……… pp 107 12. Conclusion......................................................................................................... pp 108 Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations and Acronyms………………...…… pp 109


Appendix 2: DECC Regulations for New/Expanded Landfills……………..……….. pp 112 Appendix 3: Population Estimates Used in Waste to Landfill Graphs…………….. pp 114 Appendix 4: References......................................................................................... pp 116 List of Figures and Tables Figures: Figure 1: Preliminary Waste to Landfill Graph ………………………….................... pp 18 Figure 2: Waste Hierarchy…………………………................................................... pp 19 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Awaba Landfill Site…………………..…................... pp 21 Figure 4: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 1…………………………..................... pp 22 Figure 5: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 1………………………….................... pp 28 Figure 6: Waste Received at Awaba Landfill………….. ……………….................... pp 30 Figure 7: GHG Emissions at Awaba Landfill………………………………………….. pp 31 Figure 8: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 1………………………….................... pp 34 Figure 9: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 2…………………………..................... pp 35 Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of Lake Macquarie City Council…………................ pp 36 Figure 11: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 2……………...…………................... pp 39 Figure 12: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 2……………..…………................... pp 45 Figure 13: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 3…………………………................... pp 46 Figure 14: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 3……………………...…................... pp 56 Figure 15: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 3…………..……………................... pp 59 Figure 16: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 4…………………………................... pp 60 Figure 17: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 4………………………….................. pp 61 Figure 18: Diagram of Wingecaribee WTS………………………….......................... pp 63 Figure 19: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 4…………...……………................... pp 66


Figure 20: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 4……………………..…................... pp 70 Figure 21: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 5…………………………................... pp 72 Figure 22: LaTrobe Composting Trial Results…………………………..................... pp 77 Figure 23: Home Composting………………………….............................................. pp 83 Figure 24: Community Education Programs…………………………….................... pp 86 Figure 25: Aerated Static Pile Composting at ANL…………………..….................. pp 90 Figure 26: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 5………………………….................. pp 96 Figure 27: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 5………………………….................. pp 101 Figure 28: Total Cost of Landfill for Each Option………………………………...…… pp 103 Figure 29: Comparative Waste to Landfill Graph………………………………..…… pp 104 Tables: Table 1: Future Planning for Option 1……………………………………………...….. pp 26 Table 2: Vehicle Types at Awaba Landfill…………………………............................ pp 27 Table 3: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 1………………………................... pp 33 Table 4: Future Planning for Option 2………………………….................................. pp 37 Table 5: Social and Community Issues for Option 2……………………................... pp 42 Table 6: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 2…………………………................ pp 44 Table 7: AWT Facilities in Australia…………………………..................................... pp 51 Table 8: Future Planning for Option 3………………………….................................. pp 54 Table 9: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 3………………………................... pp 58 Table 10: External Options for Waste Export…………………………....................... pp 62 Table 11: Future Planning for Option 4…………………………............................... pp 64 Table 12: Capital Expenditure at Summerhill and Buttonderry……..…................... pp 65 Table 13: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 4…………..…………................... pp 69


Table 14: Estimated amount of waste streams disposed to landfill (Australia 2006-2007) …………………………………………………….…................. pp 80 Table 15: Home Composting Systems…………………………………….................. pp 84 Table 16: Worm Farms…………………………........................................................ pp 85 Table 17: Future Planning for Option 5…………………………................................ pp 95 Table 18: Short term Actions for Option 5…………………………............................ pp 98 Table 19: Social and Community Issues for Option 5…………..………................... pp 98 Table 20: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 5…………………..…................... pp 100 Table 21: First Recommendation and Time Frames……………………................... pp 106


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) currently faces the position that its key waste infrastructure (Awaba Landfill site) will reach the end of its current capacity within the next five years (around 2014). With the termination of the Theiss AWT HIR regional facility LMCC needs to rapidly assess options and take actions for future waste infrastructure planning. Sustainable Infrastructure Australia (SIA) was engaged by Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) in March 2009 to undertake a review to assess the following:

• Identify infrastructure options for LMCC in recogni tion of the pending closure of Awaba landfill

• Provide recommendations on the structure of the Cou ncil waste management system

• Identify international and national best practice w aste infrastructure, solutions and systems

• Identify areas of key risk and strategies to mitiga te those risks This report assessed five options including four proposed by LMCC and an additional option (Option 5.) proposed by SIA after initial investigation of the current waste management system. The options considered were as follows:

Option 1 : Extension of the current Awaba Landfill Site Option 2 : Development of a new Landfill site within the Lake Macquarie City Option 3 : Development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) facility within the Lake Macquarie City Option 4 : Export of residual Waste to facilities (Landfill/AWT) outside of the Lake Macquarie City Option 5 : SIA Option: A waste management system focussed on source segregation and specific recovery/ management of each waste stream

Each option has been evaluated against a range of criteria to assist Council with its strategic planning and decision making process. These criteria included:

1) Technical and operational review of infrastructure option 2) Assessment of waste diversion impact 3) Flexibility of infrastructure option for future planning 4) Assessment of capital cost 5) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) risk and impact 6) Impact on the broader waste management system 7) Short term actions required 8) Social and community issues 9) Risk assessment 10) Waste hierarchy impact

A summary of each evaluation is provided below with detailed evaluation provided in the report.


OPTION 1: EXTENSION OF THE AWABA LANDFILL SITE This option assessed the extension of the footprint of the existing landfill site at Awaba. The primary findings of this assessment were as follows:

• Extension of the site will provide a significantly lower cost option than a new Greenfield landfill site for LMCC.

• There are difficulties with expanding the current site due to previous engineering and filling practices reducing the options for use of existing air space.

• There will likely be challenges with permitting due to site geography and potential flora and fauna issues within the surrounding footprint.

• There is always the potential that approvals will not be granted. • A rehabilitation and capping plan for the current site is urgently required to maximise the

sites existing use and reduce long term cost and liabilities for LMCC. • A range of waste diversion and improved site management actions will potentially provide

an additional 1-4 years longevity to the current site. • Although yet to be determined site extension will only lead to a near term infrastructure

solution potentially providing an additional 10-15 years air space. • With increasing state landfill levies and CPRS liabilities it is within LMCC’s interest to

quickly pursue waste reduction and diversion strategies (Outlined in Option 5.) to reduce the long term cost of waste management for Council and the community.

OPTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LANDFILL SITE WITHIN LAKE MACQUARIE CITY This option assessed the development of a new green field landfill within the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA). The primary findings of this assessment were as follows:

• Development of a new landfill will be a major challenge for the LGA considering the space required including a suitable buffer for a site (>100 hectares)

• Planning and development requirements will be costly and challenging and there is a risk that significant time and capital can be committed with no guarantee of approvals for the site being granted.

• The development of a green field site may result in strong community opposition specifically regarding nearby residents.

• The development of a best practice landfill facility is likely to provide LMCC with a long term infrastructure solution.

• The commercial investment in site development and ongoing operation may provide conflicting drivers for LMCC to divert waste or improve other aspects of the waste management system.

• Rising state landfill levies and CPRS liabilities are likely to present a significant cost of landfill disposal in future years.

OPTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE WASTE TREAT MENT (AWT) FACILITY WITHIN LAKE MACQUARIE CITY This option assessed the development of an AWT to treat co-mingled or segregated municipal solid waste (MSW) within the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA). The primary findings of this assessment were as follows:

• Development of a dedicated AWT facility for LMCC is possible however due to scale and waste supply risk this may come at a premium price.


• A flexible 10 year contract is likely to result in a gate fee 20-30% higher than a twenty year contract.

• An AWT facility will provide strong short term waste diversion however over time this is not likely to reduce significantly as the facility will require waste volume to be feasible.

• There are likely to be significant issues and costs associated with resource recovered materials (organics) from the facility and this may be a significant liability to Council.

• Residual MSW waste from the facility will need to have a disposal point. Transport and gate fees are an additional significant cost.

• An AWT may provide some cost savings in waste kerbside collection services if a co-mingled MSW bin is used.

OPTION 4: EXPORT OF WASTE OUTSIDE OF LAKE MACQUARIE CITY This option assessed the establishment of a major waste transfer station (WTS)/ resource recovery facility to divert and reduce residual MSW volumes on an ongoing basis. This residual volume would then be exported to a landfill/AWT outside of the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA). The primary findings of this assessment were as follows:

• The development of a waste export model would require short term measures to reduce, divert and recover as much MSW as feasible.

• This model would be heavily focussed on cost reduction and efficiency to minimise external volumes being exported.

• A range of options for waste export are available to LMCC however within the scope of this report have not been discussed with third parties at any high level of detail.

• This model would present waste disposal risk unless strategic long term contracts are developed with third parties to significantly reduce that risk.

• Through segregation and resource recovery a focus on emerging commercial opportunities would underpin future waste management.

• A functional WTS/resource recovery facility would play a significant role in diversion and commercial sale of resources. It would also be a central educational and learning facility for the community and provide additional community services.

OPTION 5: SIA MODEL – WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOCUS SED ON SEGREGATION, DIVERSION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY This option assessed the approach of reducing and actively segregating each waste stream to optimise the waste management system over time. This includes a separate organic/green waste collection – organic/green waste treatment - establishment of a major waste transfer station (WTS)/ resource recovery facility – other actions to reduce, divert and recover resources. This model is based on increasing reducing the volume of MSW for disposal over time. The primary findings of this assessment were as follows:

• The development of this option would require short term measures to reduce, divert and recover as much MSW as feasible.

• This model would be heavily focussed on cost reduction and efficiency to minimise waste generation and disposal over time.

• Two options for residual MSW would be pursued including an extension to the current Awaba landfill site and/or waste export (options 1. and 4.)

• This model provides long term flexibility for LMCC however would require ongoing management.


• A functional WTS/resource recovery facility would play a significant role in diversion and commercial sale of resources. It would also be a central educational and learning facility for the community and provide additional community services.

• The primary goal of this model is to reduce the requirement for an ‘end of pipe’ solution and reduce long term costs and liability for Council.

• If pursued Option 5. would result in LMCC taking a leadership position in its waste management approach both nationally and internationally.

Strategic Considerations As a key finding of this study SIA would recommend that LMCC undertake the following considerations:

1) The timelines for infrastructure and system development are limited and Council needs to get started on delivery of its preferred approach as soon as possible otherwise its runs considerable risk both in terms of cost and limitation of options.

2) LMCC needs to develop a key decision path in the short term to establish its primary approach to waste management considering the three options of a) Landfill – b) Alternative Waste Treatment – or c) alternative waste management approaches such as those assessed in the report.

3) LMCC needs to give detailed consideration to ensure that options pursued align with its core requirements (short term and long term).

Recommendations SIA has provided two recommendations based on its assessment of options. These are outlined in more detail within the report. Recommendation 1:

• LMCC take a multiple level approach to reducing and diverting waste. • LMCC implement a separate organic/ green waste kerbside collection service for

residents. • LMCC take a market driven approach and tender the treatment organic/green waste from

kerbside collection. • LMCC roll out an optional home composting facilitation service on a campaign basis. • Take immediate steps to extend the existing life of the Awaba landfill. • LMCC pursue both the extension of the Awaba landfill site and waste export options as a

disposal alternative. • LMCC establish a waste transfer station (WTS) /resource recovery facility or ‘Eco Park’. • LMCC fund a substantive and ongoing education and awareness campaign alongside key

initiatives to drive waste reduction and waste diversion. Recommendation 2:

• LMCC clearly articulate its desired waste management outcomes and put this out to the market as an expression of interest (EOI) to determine optimal infrastructure and commercial solutions that may be available.

• Based on the result of the EOI, LMCC may be able to achieve an optimal or improved outcome for part or all of its waste management requirements.


1. INTRODUCTION Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) currently faces the position that its key waste infrastructure (Awaba Landfill site) will reach the end of its current capacity within the next five years (around 2014). With the recent termination of the proposed Theiss AWT HIR regional facility LMCC needs to rapidly assess options and take actions for future waste infrastructure planning. This represents a short term threat for Council and the Lake Macquarie community whilst at the same time a significant opportunity to significantly reform current waste management systems, infrastructure and approaches. Sustainable Infrastructure Australia (SIA) was engaged by Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) in late March 2009 to provide a consultancy for the review of waste infrastructure options for the Local Government Area (LGA) now and into the future. With the termination of the HIR regional AWT project in March SIA was also requested to consider the more immediate needs of the municipality in light of the anticipated closure of the Awaba landfill facility. The primary purpose of this options study is to address the following issues:

1) Identify infrastructure options for LMCC in reco gnition of the pending closure of Awaba landfill 2) Provide recommendations on the structure of the Council waste management system 3) Identify international and national best practic e waste infrastructure, solutions and systems 4) Identify areas of key risk and strategies to mit igate those risks


2. THE CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LMCC currently operates a waste management system with a diverse structure of contracts with internal and external service providers meeting the needs of the Council and the community. The current waste management system achieves an estimated diversion rate of just under 20% of the waste stream from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill disposal (most of this is achieved through kerbside recycling collection). With the termination of the HIR regional AWT project LMCC is now in a position to undertake a structured and robust review of its waste management requirements moving forward. This provides an opportunity for Council to review its options effectively as a ‘blank canvas’ and create a strategic path forward that will meet not only the short term but also the longer term strategic requirements of the LGA. Within this context Council can give consideration to key factors such as:

• Efficiency and potential short, medium and long term financial risk mitigation • Environmental outcomes that align with Council’s broader strategies and provide

leadership in a fast changing market • Strategic options that provide Council with flexibility into the future as technology,

legislative requirements, infrastructure, markets, community values and waste management will change

• The short term and long term impacts of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and carbon reduction strategies

• Improvements in community service delivery and waste management solutions LMCC is in a fortunate position being one of the larger councils in Australia (10th largest) providing scale and a budget to expand the options of meaningful waste system and infrastructure solutions. Within this context LMCC also enjoys the significant benefits of a larger region with existing waste and transport infrastructure not only in the Hunter region but also the Central Coast and Greater Sydney to the South. Both of these aspects significantly increase the number of options for LMCC’s short term and for long term infrastructure planning. From the initial review and stakeholder discussions SIA have assessed LMCC’s current position as follows: Awaba Landfill

• Based on the current filling rate of approximately 125,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) and an annual increase of between 4 - 7% and the current filling management plan the primary MSW disposal option of Awaba Landfill will become non viable within 4-6 years (2013-2015).

• Waste currently taken to the site is primarily MSW household collection, CiviLake or Council waste from operations, green waste household collection and drop off (accounting for approximately 9,839 tpa) and other materials such as C&D drop off, council hard waste collection and other small volumes of drop off from residents and smaller private contractors.

• A further approximately 1,300tpa is salvaged by the existing Reuse Centre contractor. • There is significant landfill capacity within the region at sites such as Summerhill,

Cessnock and Buttonderry within reasonable transport distance, however getting other facilities to accept LMCC’s waste on a commercial basis may have challenges.

• Based on current information there are few known sites within the LMCC LGA for greenfield landfill development.

• Extension of the current Awaba landfill site needs to be reviewed in detail, however there are potentially significant hurdles based on a number of aspects including site topography, flora and fauna and leachate management.


• Due to the proximity of much of the municipality’s population catchment being closer to waste infrastructure in Newcastle City Council (NCC) than LMCC, an unknown volume of non-MSW waste is going to Council or private facilities within the NCC municipality.

Kerbside MSW

• MSW is collected from the kerbside via Council’s day labour force on a weekly collection cycle using a 240L bin.

Kerbside Recycling

• Kerbside recycling is collected from households in a split bin (240L) on a fortnightly basis and this is undertaken by a private contractor Solo Resource Recovery who utilise the current Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at Gateshead as a transfer station to cart the materials south (60+km) to the Central Coast region (Somersby MRF operated by Earthcare). The kerbside recycling contract is managed through Hunter Resource Recovery with participation of Lower Hunter Councils (Maitland and Cessnock).

• Kerbside recycling is diverting approximately 18% of MSW from landfill, and Solo has stated very low contamination rates.

Construction and Demolition Waste

• Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste in the LGA is taken to a number of sites including the Awaba landfill, Summerhill landfill as well as dedicated private facilities such as Concrush in LMCC and other private facilities in the Newcastle/Hunter region.

• CiviLake are progressing with a dedicated hard waste facility to be located at Teralba. CiviLake intend to develop this site over the next three years with the facility becoming fully operational in 2012.This facility is intended through resource recovery activities on site to provide key materials for civil, construction and maintenance works such as roads, pavements, parks etc. to meet CiviLake’s demands (over 100,000 tpa).

Commercial and Industrial Waste

• Commercial and Industrial waste in the region is mostly taken by private contractors to dedicated facilities including the Awaba landfill or Newcastle City Council’s (NCC) Summerhill landfill due to proximity and cost factors. With LMCC recently announcing a rise in Awaba gate fees of $10 a tonne to cover future CPRS liabilities it is expected more of this waste will be diverted to other facilities outside LMCC. This will potentially reduce volumes of commercial and some residential waste being taken to Awaba.

Green Waste

• Green waste is currently collected bi-annually at kerbside by council from residents and taken to Awaba landfill where it is stockpiled and shredded. Additional volumes come to site through residential and commercial drop off at Awaba.

• Ozmulch shred the green waste under contract were it is composted offsite using open windrows. This material is sold onto the commercial market.

Hazardous Waste

• Household hazardous waste is currently collected annually using DECC’s annual Clean Out Program.

Resource Recovery

• A number of resource recovery initiatives are being delivered in LMCC and include: o Reuse Centre at Awaba landfill site o Life Cycle for the collection and reuse of unwanted household goods o Bulk waste kerbside collection including recycling of green waste and metals. o Public place recycling


o Oil recycling o Sharps collection o E-Waste collection via Hunter Resource Recovery o Teralba Worm Farm organics recycling o MobileMuster collections at the Administration Building and Swansea Library and

other commercial outlets o Community education and awareness of other recycling and resource recovery

programs Education and Awareness Programs

• LMCC has taken a forward thinking and proactive position to educate and inform the community of good waste management practice and service options for residents.

• The Sustainability Department within Council has a team of Community Empowerment Officers (CEO’s) responsible for education and awareness programs regarding sustainability including:

o Waste o Consumption o Energy o Water o Transport o Climate Change o Seal Level Rise o Biodiversity- etc.

All these factors, combined with few long term contracts or current capital commitments allow for a broad range of options to be considered and also a level of flexibility for LMCC to implement its preferred option.


3. WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR LMCC As an important part of this options study SIA have developed a Preliminary Report for LMCC and engaged in detailed stakeholder discussions with Council to ensure there is an alignment in understanding LMCC’s objectives and requirements. The following priorities have been developed from those initial discussions in March and April 2009. Holistic Waste Management Approach A holistic approach needs to be taken in evaluating the entire waste management system not simply looking at ‘end of pipe ’ solutions such as landfill. All aspects of the waste management system work together from education and awareness, source segregation, collection, contract management, transport, facilities and facility operation contracts. Focussing on one specific area in isolation often results in waste management failures and problems to deal with elsewhere.

Strategic Focus for Short Term and Long Term object ives Council wishes to look strategically at both long term and short term options to provide flexibility of approach. This is critical as technology, infrastructure, community values and waste management will change progressively over time. The proposed approach by LMCC is to evaluate options over a 35 year period (2014, 2024, 2034 and 2044 years or variations of) in which each interval allows for a revision of approach and flexibility to change and improve and ensure early decisions do not preclude Council from undertaking a specific direction with regard to solid waste management.

Given the recent termination of the HIR regional AWT and the limited life span of the Awaba facility, LMCC needs to also give serious consideration to short term actions and options (within context of a broader strategy). If LMCC fails to take proactive short term actions it may place itself in a difficult position where it is left with limited choices and considerable risk in meeting the future waste management requirements of the municipality. Mitigate risks of Climate Change

With Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions from landfill to be included in the proposed National Emission Trading Scheme (CPRS), LMCC needs to ensure that all options take into consideration GHG risk , liability and also effective integration of GHG reduction strategies within any waste management plan. Focus on international best practice and leadership Council wishes to be progressive in taking the high path in pursuing best practice approaches. This provides significant opportunity to set LMCC ahead as an international leader in waste management by looking beyond the context of standard approaches taken by other councils or regions elsewhere. By incorporating this approach and using innovation (and GHG reduction targets) as a key driver, LMCC may be able to not only meet its future statutory requirements, but also provide leadership and significant win/win scenarios for residents, for Council and for waste management nationally.


Environmental principles of reducing waste generati on and increasing waste diversion rates Council have implemented a policy goal of reducing waste generation per capita over time. The key focus and assessment for each option will be to evaluate how it performs against the goal of reducing waste generation per capita by 3% per year for 35 years, 2% per year for 35 years and constant waste generation per capita for 35 years. (see Figure 1 below). Calculations for the population estimates used to create this graph, and all other ‘Waste to Landfill’ graphs can be found in Appendix 3.

Figure 1: Preliminary Waste to Landfill Graph

All approaches to waste management need be forward thinking and incorporate models that meet LMCC’s broader focus of ongoing continual improvement and waste reduction . Waste is fundamentally a symptom of broader sustainability issues associated with consumption and material use in context of current and future change. The Waste hierarchy (below) should be seen and implemented within the context of its priorities rather than the current approaches which often results in a strong focus down the pyramid such as recycling and disposal. LMCC wishes to pursue a top down focus on realistic and meaningful change.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011-

2012

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025-

2026

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035-

2036

2037

-2038

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049-

2050

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(Ton

nes)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum


Figure 2: Waste Hierarchy


4. WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS During the initial assessment process it was agreed five waste management options would be reviewed focussing on primary infrastructure approaches. It must be strongly stated that these options were chosen for evaluation purposes only and are not exclusive in their focus or approach. The recommendations provided in Section 11. of this report draw from a number of these options. The five options considered include:

Option 1 : Extension of the current Awaba Landfill Site - (Section 5) Option 2 : Development of a new Landfill site within the Lake Macquarie City- (Section 6) Option 3 : Development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) facility within the Lake Macquarie City- (Section 7) Option 4 : Export of residual Waste to facilities (Landfill/AWT) outside of the Lake Macquarie City- (Section 8) Option 5 : SIA Option: A waste management system focussed on source segregation and specific recovery/ management of each waste stream - (Section 9)

Each option is reviewed on a comparative basis in section 10. of this report.


5. OPTION 1: EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT AWABA LANDFILL SITE The first infrastructure option considered for future waste management within Lake Macquarie is the expansion of the current Awaba Landfill. This option explores the potential for expansion of the footprint of the current Awaba site, including the possible development of new cells. The option relies on utilising existing infrastructure and minimises other potential associated costs and changes to the current waste management system. However, it is not considered a long-term infrastructure solution as there are significant limitations with respect to the topography of the current site limiting the potential for airspace. There are also considerable geological constraints and implications for protected flora and fauna making the potential permitting process high risk, extensive and costly.

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Awaba Landfill Site


Figure 4: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 1

5.1 Current Capacity and Life of Awaba Landfill The Awaba landfill site was originally developed in 1986 to meet the growing needs of Lake Macquarie. At this time the Redhead landfill facility and other sites were also being used. With the closure of the Redhead landfill in 1994 and the strong growth in population and development within the district, the Awaba Landfill has come close to its capacity considering cell expansion in that the site development has not been strategically managed over the decades. Based on current Lake Macquarie City Council estimates with the current filling regime and the airspace available in the current landfill cell the facility has approximately five years life remaining (site closure in 2014). LMCC are about to embark on the development of a Landfill Capping and Rehabilitation Plan which will provide a much more detailed evaluation of the approximate closure point for the site. It is anticipated as a result of the present study a number of initiatives will be implemented to extend the life of this site including:

• Review of filling regime and site management • Waste diversion of Organic Waste and C&D waste


• Point source segregation of recyclables and organic/green waste reducing the residual MSW by volume

• Improved resource recovery at site • Potential options such as waste shredding

If implemented promptly these combined initiatives are likely to provide an additional 2-5 years airspace in the current Awaba site.

5.2 Options for Expansion on Current Footprint The options for expansion on the current footprint are limited due to the site being developed over a number of years based on engineering structures that are no longer acceptable today. This has resulted in the current footprint approaching site boundaries (ridged areas surrounding the site). These ridged areas and surrounds are inhabited by protected flora and fauna which will make any license application for expansion of the site beyond the current boundaries substantially difficult with DECC and the community. DECC have indicated that of all the options proposed in this study that expansion over the current footprint (piggybacking) from an engineering and environmental perspective is least desirable. DECC regulations for new and expanded landfill can be found in Appendix 2 of this report.

5.3 Alternative Options for Filling at Awaba Filling regime and site management SIA believe that it is of fundamental importance to LMCC to develop a detailed Rehabilitation and Aftercare Plan as soon as practical. There are several key drivers for this:

1. In order to extend the operational life of Awaba a detailed and unambiguous capping

regime needs to be developed in order to provide clear day to day direction to management on what areas need to be filled, capped and closed and therefore identifying where residual waste should be directed on site.

2. It is clear that in order to minimise the residual waste to landfill other activities such as mulching and shredding will need to take place on site. For these additional activities to take place they need to be located in a manner that will not hinder their operation or that of day to day landfill activities.

3. It is essential for robust financial management that Awaba is still generating a revenue stream through the gate fees. It can only achieve this if the rehabilitation plan is coordinated in a manner that works with the day to day operation of Awaba. If the rehabilitation and aftercare plan is implemented along side the working Awaba site it will also allow for approved activities to take place on the rehabilitated areas. This has the option of providing more than one revenue stream to assist in the costly rehabilitation and aftercare plan.

4. Further to point three LMCC needs to ensure that detailed and realistic budgetary requirements are developed and put in place. SIA understands that LMCC has allocated at this stage approximately $2.2 million for this budget with a forecast requirement for $5.9 million for the capping and closure of the Awaba site.


Waste diversion of organics The diversion of organics from the waste stream has two profound impacts:

1. It increases significantly the life of the Awaba landfill and 2. The absences of organics will have a direct and positive impact on the reduction of

methane generation at Awaba and will reduce the volume and nature of leachate with particular regard to any new cell.

SIA believes there will be a ban on organics to landfill sometime in the future and these actions now will put LMCC in an advantageous position. A substantial education campaign will be required to ensure point source segregation of the organic waste stream is maximised. Further diversion of C&D waste The diversion of untreated C&D waste to landfill will have an impact in the order of 16% added life per annum for each year Awaba is operating. This is a significant saving and represents an enormous financial benefit to LMCC. Point source separation LMCC should give consideration to the roll out of an effective program and key initiatives to promote waste reduction and point source segregation at a household level which will have a significant impact on reducing the volume of waste going to landfill. Combined with diversion of C&D and Organic waste a strong focus on education and awareness as well as financial drivers will see greater volumes of waste diverted for recycling, organic waste collection and C&D waste. The nature of both organic and C&D waste is significant as they are heavier materials and will provide strong diversion rates (by weight). It is realistic to expect that through these measures (detailed further in Option 5) will create waste diversion of at least an additional 40% allowing LMCC to achieve a total diversion over 60% within the next five years. This will have a significant impact on filling rates extending airspace at the Awaba site.

Resource Recovery at site There is a Resource Recovery operation located at Awaba but it is limited and or constrained by many factors. A point of sale resource recovery operation only recovers a small amount of waste from the waste stream (approximately 0.9%). This is not a significant amount in terms of adding life to the “site”. However the educative role and community engagement function can not and should not be underestimated. However SIA believes that there is substantially more resource recovery that can occur on site given the right community profile and operational footprint. This would include but not be limited to industrial resource recovery and the potential for micro market generation. SIA understands that LMCC has renewed the contract for the current resource recovery facility.The new contract commenced 6 July 2009 with a contract term of 2 years. Council has the option to extend the term by 12 months + 12 months.


Waste Shredding The performance of the shredder varies depending on the waste stream being managed. It is estimated that the shredder will have a far greater impact on bulking items such as residual C&D waste than on other waste streams such as municipal waste. Assuming the diversion of untreated C&D waste to landfill will have an impact in the order of 16% added life per annum for each year Awaba is operating. This is a significant saving and represents an enormous financial benefit to LMCC. When evaluating shredding of waste to increase airspace it is critical that LMCC has maximised any resource recovery opportunity prior to shredding. Waste shredding has more significant outcomes for the C&D waste stream than for example MSW. There is the possibility for LMCC to develop a market with neighbouring councils in order to offset the cost of the plant and in fact generate a revenue stream. There is the real possibility to provide a service on a campaign basis to these Councils. Neighbouring councils such as Wyong, Cessnock, Maitland and Newcastle find themselves in a predicament of exceptional population growth (Maitland Council) and in many cases with extremely limited landfill space. Wyong for example is exploring other options for what has been dedicated landfill use. A shredder owned and operated by LMCC and hire to Wyong for example would greatly assist them in achieving their objectives. Cessnock is exploring a new landfill site within their municipal area but require the ability to maximise the life of their existing landfill. A shredder owned and operated by LMCC could develop a revenue stream derived from these Councils on a campaign basis allowing LMCC to have the time to reduce their residual waste by volume. In addition the shredder could satisfy market demand with regard to

• Metal recycling through shredding and increasing tonnage per load transported • Tyre shredding for down stream processing and reuse • Green organics mulching for composting or on site usage as part of rehabilitation and

aftercare • Industrial and commercial waste reduction by volume • Preparation of high calorific fuels • Any other bulky waste

Campaign operations for neighbouring Councils would be charged out at an estimated $450-$500 per hour including transport equating to a cost of approximately $13 per tonne for external councils. SIA strongly recommend a detailed cost benefit analysis be undertaken incorporating a careful market evaluation and contract potential prior to any decision being made.


5.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 1 5.4.1 Future Planning for Option 1.

Table 1: Future Planning for Option 1. Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year 5

New cells established and operating by 2014 Close and rehabilitate existing cells

• Satisfy all DECC approvals • Satisfy all LMCC planning

approvals • Ensure all aspects of Flora

and fauna are addressed utilizing LMCC and NRM

• Establish filling regime • Improve all aspects of on site

waste minimisation • Improve on site resource

recovery operations • Relocate all security

parameters

Approval for extension of existing landfill footprint will be difficult and will incur considerable time and costs. “Piggybacking” on existing landfill will be difficult Ensure all arrangements are in place with LMS

2024 Year 15

• Maintenance programme in place

Large cost for a relatively finite period

2034 Year 25

New cells are estimated to be full by this stage

• Maintenance programme in place

Dependant upon diversion rates Rehabilitation and aftercare ongoing

2044 Year 35

New cells are full by this stage

5.4.2 Capital expenditure Option 1 As already stated the development of new cells comes with a significant cost both in planning approvals and the establishment of each cell. These costs are further exacerbated with the expense of close-out, rehabilitation and aftercare and any additional liability issues associated with the development of new cells. There is significant capital expenditure in the creation of additional cells. The additional life for the capital expenditure is limited and will not be likely to exceed 10 - 15 years. This estimate is dependant on the diversion rates LMCC is able to achieve.


It should also be noted that the life of the existing plant is very limited and will not be operational for the life of any new cell(s) and further investment and upgrading of existing plant will be required.

Table 2: Vehicle Types at Awaba Landfill

Expenditure and Infrastructure

Indicative costs*

Undertake geotechnical and environmental assessment

$800,000 +

Planning and approvals $500,000+ LMS unknown Security parameter $47.00 per metre Construction costs Dependant on size and nature

of approved cells Contract development $30,000 Internal site changes $200,000 Plant upgrade $480,000 Close out final cell $580,000 Capping including final cap 54 per metre2 Rehabilitation and aftercare Unknown but not less than

$500,000 Sundry $90,000 Estimated Total $3,180,000 + including

additions * Cost have been estimated on general assumptions and these will increase significantly in future years

Note: Sundry includes but not limited to any addition to power, roads and insurances. Costs associated with any aspect of resource recovery or waste minimisation infrastructure are not included nor are any additional operating costs associated with the management of additional cells. Note: Rehabilitation and aftercare costs have been calculated on a period of 5 years


5.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact

Figure 5: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 1

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 1: Extension of Awaba

The graph above shows that key initiatives of organic separation and C&D waste diversion as well as a sustained program to enhance household source segregation have a major impact on waste diversion figures. LMCC’s current diversion rate can climb to a position above 50% diversion within the next four years. On an ongoing basis this diversion can reach over 60% with a range of initiatives such as further resource recovery initiatives and greater education and awareness campaigns. The forecast diversion rates would result from the following:

• 27-30% Council, Domestic and Commercial C&D Waste • 4-6% Commercial and Industrial Waste • 18-25% Domestic and Commercial organic waste • 2-6% Increased Diversion of Recyclables

5.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact The Australian Government has committed to introducing a national emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which is scheduled to begin 1 July 2011. While the final design is still to be determined, the Government has produced various fact sheets and information documents for an estimation of the liability to be faced by participants. For the purposes of this report, an estimation of CPRS liability is made based on information known to date. A more accurate calculation of CPRS liability should be made when there is more certainty around the methodology and carbon price.


Landfills and the CPRS The CPRS seeks to achieve a broad coverage of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sources to ensure the widest range of sectors share in the task of reducing national carbon emissions. Waste is a covered sector under the CPRS which specifies an obligation to acquit permits for emissions not captured at landfill facilities. Operators of landfills will be liable under the scheme if they emit above 25kt carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per annum, and those facilities above 10kt CO2e per annum that are in close proximity to a site triggering the 25kt CO2e threshold and accepting similar classifications of waste. The distance determining the lower threshold, or the prescribed distance rule, aims to avoid waste displacement from covered to uncovered sites. The rule will be outlined in regulations and fixed for five years from the start of the scheme to provide certainty for industry. Central to the impact of the CPRS on the waste sector are the issues of the specific part of the methane generation profile that should be included (given that waste produces emissions over 15-30 years) and which sites should be covered. It has been determined that emissions from waste deposited prior to commencement of the CPRS (legacy emissions), will not be liable under the scheme. Legacy emissions will however continue to be reported and counted towards a facility threshold in order to ensure broad coverage of new waste emissions (DCC, 2009). Emissions from landfills that closed before 30 June 2008 will also not be covered under the scheme. The cost of permits will be fixed at $10/tonne CO2e in the first year and will be at market prices in the subsequent years (DCC, 2009). This figure is highly sensitive to the trajectory path of emissions targets which are yet to be set by the Government. No discount rates have been applied to cost calculations in this report, and they are indicative only. GHG emissions estimation methodology The accuracy of any calculation of GHG emissions from landfills is dependent on the assumed proportion between waste streams (i.e. MSW, C&I and C&D) and waste types (i.e. food, paper/card, green/garden, timber). The amount of GHG generated by the solid waste stock is calculated by determining, for each waste type, decomposition of degradable organic carbon (a function of existing and new waste stock). The methane emissions for Awaba landfill have been calculated using Method 1 in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Technical Guidelines 2008 v1.1 (DCC, 2009). It is intended that methane generated from solid waste disposal is estimated using data on the solid waste stock at the landfill and the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 First Order Decay (FOD) model (DCC, 2008). Methane generated from the landfill site at any point in time depends on the stock of degradable organic carbon inside the landfill. The opening stock of degradable organic carbon at the beginning of the year decays over the rest of the year resulting in the generation of landfill gas with the remainder going to the year’s closing stock. Degradable organic carbon enters the landfill system through the deposition of new waste during the year, with a portion decaying over that year (DCC assume this to occur in the 7th month). The remainder contributes to the closing stock of degradable organic carbon. LMCC CPRS liability LMCC will be liable under the CPRS if the amount of legacy waste in Awaba landfill and the amount received after the start of the scheme (2011/12) generates enough GHG to trigger the threshold.


Summerhill landfill, which is 18 kms (27 kms by road) from Awaba, receives a greater amount of waste than Awaba so may trigger the 25kt CO2e threshold, in which case LMCC will have a liability if Awaba landfill generates more than 10kt CO2e. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that Awaba landfill will trigger the 25kt threshold only. There are also a number of surrounding landfills within close proximity to Awaba which may trigger the threshold due to the prescribed distance rule, for example Buttonderry, Cessnock and Maitland Council landfills, which are all within under 50kms from Awaba. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste for Awaba landfill forecasted until 2050, based on the forecasts for waste received in Section 4.4.3. Landfill closure years will differ for the various options in this report. For Option 1, it is expected that the landfill will close in 2030/31, so will be receiving waste until that date. Figure 7 shows the resulting GHG emissions up until closure and continuing until 2050. LMCC will continue to run several key waste diversion and resource recovery initiatives to reduce the tonnes of waste to landfill on an ongoing basis up until closure, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

Figure 6: Waste received at Awaba landfill

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2010

-2011

2011

-2012

2012

-2013

2013

-2014

2014-20

15

2015-201

6

2016-20

17

2017-20

18

2018

-2019

2019

-2020

2020-20

21

2021

-2022

2022

-2023

2023-20

24

2024-20

25

2025

-2026

2026

-2027

2027

-2028

2028

-2029

2029-20

30

2030-203

1

Forecast years

Tonn

es o

f was

te

Option 1 (expansion ) Option 2 (new landf ill) Option 3 (AWT) Option 4 (export) Option 5 (SIA) BAU


Figure 7: CPRS Liability for Awaba landfill

To calculate the CPRS liability for Option 1, legacy waste is excluded from the calculation in the first year under the current arrangements for the CPRS. In 2011/12, Awaba landfill therefore will receive 92.3kt of waste, producing 1.8kt CO2e. In addition, a proportion of the total amount of methane emitted during the year is captured and utilised in the Landfill Gas Management System (LMS) for electricity generation or flared thereby removing it as an emitted GHG. It has been calculated from monthly landfill gas reports provided by LMCC (2009) that the portion captured is 35%. It is also assumed that 10% of the methane generated is oxidised within the landfill. The indicative CPRS liability cost for LMCC for 2011/12, at a carbon permit cost of $10/tonne CO2e, will be $18,140. In the following years, LMCC will need to purchase carbon permits to cover any emissions at the market cost. The market cost is unknown at this stage, however will be assumed to be $25 per tonne CO2e and that the market price for carbon permits will remain constant for the period considered. Under the current CPRS arrangements, from 2012/13 onwards, the GHG emissions from the opening stock of waste are included in the total emissions for that year. The total amount of waste received for that year is forecasted to be 80.8kt. The amount of GHG produced is calculated at about 5kt CO2e. Assuming a carbon price of $25/tonne CO2e, an indicative total carbon cost in 2012/13 would be $127,100. At closure in 2030, Awaba will receive about 69kt of waste, and be emitting 33kt CO2e (including emissions from legacy waste). Assuming a carbon price of $25 per tonne CO2e, the indicative cost of carbon would be about $834,550. LMCC’s cost of carbon will continue to fluctuate but generally decrease in the following years depending on the market price. 5.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System including Contracts The impact of the expansion of the Awaba site is likely to result in a number of changes to the waste management system under the proposed option. This includes the following:

• Residual Waste reduction initiatives resulting in potential new collection contracts and diversion of green and organic wastes

CPRS liability for LMCC

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Forecast years

LMC

C c

ost o

f car

bon

($/to

nne

CO

2e)

Option 1 (expand) Option 2 (new landfill) Option 3 (AWT) Option 4 (export) Option 5 (SIA) Option 6 (BAU)


• Review of contracts and current operations at the Awaba site • Diversion of C&D waste from site through a number of measures such as CiviLake’s

proposed Teralba facility and establishment of a resource recovery park • Household and business waste education, reduction and diversion programs • Review of current kerbside hard waste collection

The result of these actions will drive a significant reduction in residual waste being filled at Awaba and allow for the current cells and extensions to provide a longer term infrastructure solution. 5.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 month s] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC for this option.

• Complete rehabilitation and aftercare plan including community consultation and development application

• Undertake Geotechnical and environmental review of site • Commence planning and Development application for new cells (EPN) • Submit application to DECC • Amend Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) and EPA License regarding

extension of landfill. • DA to State Government for determining development consent. • Review and tender of contracts described in section 5.4.5 to start residual waste diversion • Develop budgetary approvals and identify budgetary constraints • Ensure the eco mapping of existing buffer and any impacts associated with flora and

fauna are clearly identified It must be noted that regardless of which option is pursued that reducing residual waste for disposal can only be a positive environmental and commercial outcome for LMCC. With all options proposed (other than Option 3 AWT) it is considered that these initiatives should commence as soon as feasible. 5.4.7 Social and Community Issues The extension of the existing Awaba site combined with the implementation of a major program to reduce residual waste is likely to have the following impacts on the LMCC community:

• Residents and community already know where current facilities are therefore further education on facility site location is not required

• Source segregation and waste diversion approaches are likely to place some additional change and burden on some multiple dwelling units

• Improved hard waste collection and education campaigns are likely to improve services offered to LMCC residents

The overall impact on the LMCC community of this option will be minimal. However, some major changes to household education and waste management are likely to have a significant impact for all options proposed.


5.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC

Table 3: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 1

Risk Potential Impact Level of Risk Residual waste reduction strategies are not successful

Lifespan of Awaba with extension decreases and current airspace fills at the current rate

High

Extension of site is not approved or delayed

Leaves LMCC in a precarious position leading out to 2014 with no significant short term option for waste disposal

High

Levies and CPRS The ongoing operation of the site specifically under an extension is likely to lead to significant waste disposal cost and potentially high risk leading out 5+ years.

High

DA and extension is a costly exercise

High short term capital cost that may deliver only a short to medium term waste disposal option

Medium

Future ban on putrescible landfill

Although only discussed at this stage an eventual ban on putrescible waste going to landfill as occurs under the European Directive 1999/31/EC is unlikely in the near term but may be a longer term risk.

Low

5.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact

The impact of expansion of the Awaba site combined with a range of source segregation, diversion and resource recovery initiatives is likely to translate into a heavy focus on the bottom end of the waste hierarchy ‘treatment and disposal’. Recycling will remain a prominent aspect with the current kerbside recyclable collection.


Figure 8: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 1


6. OPTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LANDFILL SITE WITHIN THE LAKE MACQUARIE MUNICIPALITY The second infrastructure option for future waste management is the development of a new landfill within the LMCC municipality. This new landfill would be on a greenfield site, separate from the existing Awaba landfill. This option could ensure long-term waste disposal at a local site, and may also have the potential to generate revenue from regional disposal. The process of developing a new landfill is a significant challenge and is likely to result in community opposition. A new landfill will also represent a long term liability for Council in terms of future site management, emissions and remediation. The community is likely to have significant concerns regarding the establishment of a greenfield site. Landfill levies and CPRS exposure are also likely to provide an ongoing risk to Council.



6.1 Site Options for Landfill in LMCC Due to the geography of the Lake Macquarie City predominately being dominated by the largest salt lake in the Southern Hemisphere, and a large growing urban population (dispersed population with no major centre) around the Lake catchment, there are limiting options for the design and development of a major new landfill other than primarily to the west of the LGA.

Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of Lake Macquarie City Council

6.2 Options for New Landfill Development at Awaba A landfill to cater for the long term needs of the LGA (50 to 100 years) and allowing for a steady population increase over this period and assuming a landfill rate at present levels LMCC would need to allocate space for approximately 7.5 million m3 or a foot print of at least 100 hectares and a significant buffer zone. If the establishment of a greenfield site was pursued by LMCC the old Hawkmount quarry would be suitable in terms of size with a boundary area of approximately 519 hectares allowing an adequate buffer zone. Through investigation to date the following potential sites have been identified however further detailed investigation would be required and there are significant doubts surrounding the viability of some of these sites. Sites identified to date include: 1) Hawkmount Road Quarry (519 hectares) 2) Land adjacent to the current Awaba Landfill 3) A private developer is progressing discussions with a prospective site within the LGA and has outlined this information is commercial-in-confidence at this stage.


Further detailed investigation may establish alternative sites however it is considered few sites will be large enough with an appropriate buffer around them to be suitable. DECC has made it clear that what ever site LMCC chooses to explore the same set of criteria will apply.

6.3 Planning and Development Requirements for a New Landfill Planning and Development requirements for a new landfill site will be extensive but similar to those proposed for Option 1. Please refer to Appendix 2 for DECC details.

6.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 2 6.4.1 Future planning for Option 2

Table 4: Future Planning for Option 2 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year 5

New landfill established and Operating

• Undertake detailed due diligence studies

• Meet all planning approvals • Satisfy DECC requirements • Traffic impact assessments

and other amenity issues • Satisfy all community

concerns/issues • Review existing contractual

arrangements including LAWA

• Purchase new plant • LMS is in place • Expand existing scope of the

resource recovery contract to include Eco park

Facility based on a life exceeding 2050 Substantial cost Based on the existing life of Awaba including implementing waste minimisation strategies the time frames are very short

2024 Year 15

New landfill operating and all planned resource recovery and waste diversions in place Filling regime is in place and managed

• All operational schedules are in place and functioning

• Explore options to import waste

• Need to implement new collection contracts and change household behaviour/ practices

GHG liability related issues will need to be managed accordingly Importing of waste could be a significant revenue stream.

2034 Year 25

Maintain all operational and compliance issues

• Explore all options for implementing new technology and or practices at this point

• Maintain and review all operational and compliance schedules

Council could undertake further advances towards source separation and waste minimisation.


Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2044 Year 35

Review life of new site and commence planing future for future requirements

Maintain all operational and compliance issues

Unknown at this stage

6.4.2 Capital Expenditure The level of capital expenditure required for the development of a new landfill site within the municipal area of LMCC in the order of 100 hectare capacity would be substantial. Providing an accurate estimate of these costs is difficult within the scope of this report. However SIA has endeavoured to provide an indicative cost as a guide only. This cost has included those one of costs associated directly with the establishment of a greenfield landfill site such as;

• Fencing • Weighbridge • Gatehouse • Office • Amenities • Reuse Centre • Environmental monitoring and controls • Workshop • Professional consultation • Community consultation including traffic and noise management • DA and EMP including all permitting • Any specific site preparation (not cell development)

For the costing evaluation purpose only SIA has assumed that Hawkmount would be used based on size, Crown ownership and LMCC previous usage. It does not include those issues associated with resource recovery, day to day management or rehabilitation and aftercare. Significant constraint mapping to determine an appropriate greenfield site will be required. This process would include but not be limited to;

• Flood areas • Water course • Hydrology reports • Geological reports • Flora and Fauna (ecology assessment) • Traffic management • Residential and farming populations

In addition the costs would also need to include those costs associated with the state regulatory body (DECC) requirements. Further it is estimated that the process will take approximately five years to complete. Based around the listed constraints it is estimated that the initial costs will be in excess of $6 million (excluding cell development).


6.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact The establishment of a new landfill would have some conflicting drivers both representing a need to fill airspace to make the capital and operating expense of a new facility viable, at the same time being impacted by the NSW State landfill levy and CPRS liabilities acting as a deterrent for filling space. The impact this infrastructure option would have on waste reduction and increasing waste diversion rates would be minimal compared to the alternative of options 3, 4 and 5 in this report.


6.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste received by Awaba landfill forecasted until 2050, based on the forecasts for waste received in Section 6.4.3. For Option 2, it is expected that the landfill will close in 2014/15, so will be receiving waste until that date, and the new landfill is to be developed and receiving waste in 2015/16. Figure 7 shows the resulting GHG emissions up until closure and until 2050, assuming waste is diverted to a new landfill after closure. Similarly to Option 1, to calculate the CPRS liability for Option 2, legacy waste is excluded from the calculation in the first year. As the amount of waste received is the same as Option 2, the GHG emissions and CPRS liability will therefore be the same as Option 1 until 2014/15 and then reduce as waste is diverted to the new landfill in the following years. In 2014/15 GHG emissions will be 10,020 tonnes CO2e which includes GHG emissions from the opening stock of waste, less GHG captured by LMS and amount oxidised.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 2: Creation of New Landfill


An indicative cost of a CPRS liability for LMCC for the Awaba site for 2014/15, at a carbon permit cost of $25/tonne CO2e will be about $250 500. The carbon cost for LMCC will generally decrease until 2050 after a slight increase in 2016/17. The location of the new landfill is as not yet known, however we can assume that it will be within close proximity to Awaba landfill. As operators of landfills will be liable under the scheme if they emit above 25kt CO2-e per annum, or are above 10kt CO2-e per annum and in close proximity to a site triggering the 25kt CO2-e threshold and accepting similar classifications of waste, we can assume the new landfill will also have a CPRS liability. It must be noted that the close proximity rule will be reviewed each year and as such the future liability is uncertain as the CPRS rules may change. 6.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts The development of a new greenfield landfill site will have impacts both on the existing broader waste management operations and the development of new waste management strategies. Assuming these existing arrangements are in place at the commencement of a greenfield site operation the following will apply. Existing Impact Impacts on existing arrangements and services include but are not limited to: Kerbside recycling collection contract Limited or no impact due to existing contractual arrangements.

Kerbside refuse collection Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. Amendments of existing collection arrangements may be required.

GHG emissions Distances to transport waste by all sectors (including council, domestic self haul and commercial and industrial) will change.

Bulk waste collection Additional cost per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. Amendments of existing collection arrangements may be required.

Green organic collection

Amendments of existing collection arrangements will be required. Redrafting of existing contract with Ozmulch to process and transport processed green organic. Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site.


Commercial collection services Amendments of existing collection arrangements will be required. Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site.

Public Place Waste and Recycling

Amendments of existing collection arrangements may be required. Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site.

Plant and equipment

The thinking behind the use of existing plant and equipment will need to change to reflect the new procedures and methodologies of a greenfield site. The machinery will need to be upgraded and altered to suit.

New Impact Change in management protocols

This will encompass all aspects of site management on a day to day basis including interface with customers.

Work place safety protocols

The work place safety protocols have been given a separate heading due to the extraordinary importance SIA place on safety both to the workforce and customers who use the site. This process will require significant capital both in terms of money and time.

Plant and Equipment The contractual agreements for new plant and equipment will need to be reviewed and re written.

Reporting protocols

This will require a comprehensive review and will need to meet the reporting needs of LMCC and DECC.

Traffic management principles

The development of a greenfield site will potentially have a profound impact on the general public with regard to road use and traffic protocols. Although in part an aspect of work place safety protocols this is more comprehensive as it entails all aspects of traffic management and for all road users.

Education

Education of all waste stream generators and transporters in terms of location, usage and traffic management is critical (see Option 5).

Recycling and Resource Recovery

In addition there will be a number of broader areas that will require attention including on site recycling and resource recovery.

SIA has highlighted some of the above issues in order to demonstrate the complex and thorough review of all systems that will be required to develop a new facility.


6.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 month s] As already stated, if LMCC is to proceed with the development of a new greenfield landfill site there are a number of actions that require immediate attention. These have been kept broad and in a hierarchical order and include;

Early discussion with DECC and Department of Planni ng

SIA believes it is critical for LMCC to establish clear channels of communication clearly and unambiguously defining what LMCC’s intentions are to the state regulatory bodies.

This ongoing dialog with the state regulatory bodies would include issues such as development applications, environmental management plans, and site preparations and would include significant constraint mapping process to determine scope and limitations appropriate to a greenfield site.

Allocation of capital

A detailed analysis of the significant capital costs needs to be undertaken. Once complete it is essential that LMCC develops an appropriate allocation for these budget items.

Community consultation

A detailed community consultation process should be developed. This process would include a detailed interface with the community on issues such as flood areas, flora and fauna including any endangered species, geological and hydrological reports, water courses, traffic and noise management and any other issue that maybe of interest to the general public.

SIA would like to make it clear in the context of this report that at no point along the establishment continuum of a greenfield landfill site would the final approval be granted by DECC. As a core aspect of the approval process permission would only happen once DECC had been satisfied the proposal met all aspects of their (DECC) requirements. In short LMCC could spend considerable time and money to find that a greenfield site was not possible.

6.4.7 Social and Community Issues Within the context of developing a greenfield landfill site there are a number of issues that the community will have particular interest in. These include;

Table 5: Social and Community Issues for Option 2

Litter Litter is an issue often raised by the community. The community

often do not articulate the difference between types of litter. Litter therefore is to include all types of litter including windblown rubbish.

Odour and Dust This is a major community concern and often relates to poor waste management practices.

Community Health & Safety The community often express a concern with lifestyle amenity and this can be manifested as health and safety.


Traffic Volume, type, frequency and speed (commercial and industrial, small or large and domestic self haul) are often issues of concern. In addition the community often have issues with regard to point of origin of vehicles using the landfill facility.

Noise Relating to traffic frequency is of concern to the general public but so is the noise generated from the operation of the landfill.

Environmental Damage including Ground & Surface Water Contamination

The construction of a new landfill and its potential to cause lasting environmental harm is of significant concern to the community. This includes but is not limited to leachate monitoring, groundwater management and management of windblown litter.

Impact on Wildlife, In conjunction with the potential for environmental degradation the community is concerned about the impact on flora, fauna with particular attention to native species.

Vermin (birds, rats, flies etc) Vermin is also seen as a critical issue with particular emphases on nearby communities. Their concerns are often related to migration activities. Within this context SIA has found that birds (although not often identified immediately) often become the major source of complaint.

Proximity to Residents SIA has experienced the location of a greenfield landfill site often comes with two conflicting issues. It needs to be close to the generators of waste (population) to reduce transport costs but needs to be as far away as possible from residential communities. This issue often presents itself as a major concern to the community and problematic for Council.

Impact on Tourism In addition to the proximity issue there is often a concern with loss of public amenity and the potential subsequent impact on tourism.

Perceived Land Value Reduction (Poor Image/Appearance)

This perceived lack of amenity can also manifest in public perception as a decline in neighbouring land values. This perception is based on historically poor performing landfills nationally.

Fire Hazard This is off concern to the community with particular regard to environmental degradation and a danger to both residential and commercial premises

Hazardous Waste The creation of a cell suitable for the disposal hazardous waste will generate an entirely new level of public interest and concern over and above that of a standard greenfield site.

Illegal Dumping Illegal dumping in the vicinity of a new landfill may increase due to self haulers of waste not accepting disposal costs and/or inappropriate facility opening hours.

It is critical to seek an understanding of the social, cultural and psychological components of public opposition to locating and developing a greenfield landfill site for such a facility that would be required by LMCC. It should also be noted that community priorities and concerns will change during the creation and life of the greenfield landfill site including close monitoring of management and performance.


6.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC The establishment of a greenfield landfill site by Council and operation has a plethora of issues that requires a detailed and analytical approach in order to evaluate the risks. The risks can be broken into three key areas;

• Environmental • Social • Financial

Table 6: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 2

Key Area of Risk Potential Impact Risk Level Environmental CPRS Risks

Litter Environmental Damage/ Ground Surface Water Contamination Impact on Wildlife Hazardous Waste Odour Fire Hazard

High

Social Community Backlash to Site Location Traffic Vermin Impact on Tourism Community Health and Safety Proximity to Residents Noise Perceived Land Value Reduction (Due to poor image/appearance)

High

Financial Landfill Levies (State rising costs) Up-front Capital Costs Time Frame for Planning, Approvals and Development

High

Risks associated with a private landfill being developed are similar to those outlined above however largely born by the site developer. In the case of private site development/ownership there is also the associated risk of Council becomi ng a key price taker.


6.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact In a similar position to Option 1, the establishment of a new landfill in LMCC would place a strong focus on the bottom end of the waste hierarchy. This option would, over time, put conflicting financial pressures on Council, specifically in regards to taking more waste in order to generate revenue to cover facility capital and operating costs. Having said this the value of future airspace at a new Greenfield site in 20+ years time would be significant but the role of the landfill facility and volumes it receives will ultimately decline.



7. OPTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE WASTE TREATMENT (AWT) FACILITY WITHIN THE LAKE MACQUARIE LGA The third option for future waste management in Lake Macquarie is the development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) Facility within the LMCC LGA. This new facility could have the potential capacity to treat not only LMCC’s municipal solid waste, but also the waste from other Hunter regional Councils. This option provides a strong basis for waste diversion and an outlet for waste other than landfill, and therefore can reduce the costs associated with levies and CPRS liabilities for greenhouse gas emissions. However, this option carries fairly high capital cost and risk, and is also associated with potential residual disposal issues. Residual materials (potentially organic) also need a disposal end point and potentially a requirement for landfill or waste export. For the definition of this study Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) is referred to as technology that accepts a mixed or segregated Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream. Other technologies that treat or processes hazardous, organic, industrial, commercial and construction and demolition wastes may be considered to be AWT but are not included in this specific options evaluation. The specific treatment of source segregated Organic waste is discussed in further detail in Section 9.2.4 of this report.



7.1 Review of AWT Technology in Australia and Overs eas The trend away from non traditional waste management processes (landfill and incineration) has grown substantially over the past three decades. This has largely been led by initiatives in Europe to deal with both a shortage of landfill space due to dense population and also past emission problems with incineration plants. In Europe this has led to two key important directives that have changed waste management fundamentally (Council Directives 1999/31/EC and 2000/76/EC). This has led to the generation (primarily initiated in Germany) of a range of mechanical, thermal and biological treatment processes to separate, treat, reduce or recover materials from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream. Other factors driving the uptake of new technology in Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific have included:

• Limited land availability with appropriate buffer distances for new landfill • Concerns over contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies • Opportunities for high value materials and resources to be recovered or utilised • Requirements for reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from landfill • Air emission concerns with respect to older incineration technologies

This has in turn led to the development of a broad range of treatment technologies’ to manage MSW commonly referred to as Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT). The broad level of these technologies consist of mechanical and biological treatment processes and are often referred to as Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). The experience of AWT globally has been mixed as the technologies largest challenge in treating the MSW stream is both the variability of the materials in both volume and consistency. Traditional engineering approaches often fail to deal with the nature of the feedstock and many early stage technologies and plants have failed due to either technical or commercial reasons.

The other significant problem that has impacted on AWT technologies success has been the key issue of viable uses for the output from the process and securing long-term off-take contracts for these materials. Issues with primary outputs are discussed below:

• One of the significant outputs of AWT is the organic fraction or compost. As this is mostly derived from the mixed MSW stream the end materials require significant processes to remove contaminants. At best this material usually only meets a base grade of compost specification due to contaminants such as metals, chemicals and other materials from the MSW stream. In most cases this material is landfilled, used as landfill cover or for other low grade remedial purposes such as legacy site remediation. The commercial value of the material is often zero with the facility operator required to pay transport to have the materials removed. Although there have been strong expectations for market demand for this material in most cases this has not eventuated creating an expensive process to produce a product with limited application and demand.

• There have also been major challenges associated with using the output as a fuel. This has been trialled extensively in Europe – in particular, there are numerous technical issues associated with such applications focused predominantly around the variability of the Calorific Value and also policy restriction on co-firing of specific materials.

• The recovery of other materials such as metals, glass, plastics and paper is good in most facilities however diversion rates for these materials are often not dissimilar to a standard MRF and in some cases worse due to contamination levels from co-mingled waste.

There is a need to realistically evaluate the requirement for an AWT by undertaking an assessment of materials ‘in’ and ‘out’ as well as the cost of treatment. Considering the market and technical failures and successes of specific AWT technology other options including more


conventional waste management systems and practices also need to be assessed. In all cases AWT processes assessed have not provided a ‘silver bullet’ solution to waste management issues, rather AWT is another approach in the mix that can meet specific waste management requirements.

Output options for AWT are: • Bio-gas • SRF (solid recovered fuel) or RDF (refuse derived fuel) • Bio-stabilized residues for landfill • Bio-treated residues such as compost • Combining options such as bio-gas plus land remediation bio-soil

Outlined below is a brief overview of the various types of AWT technologies. Pyrolysis and Gasification

Pyrolysis , often incorporating gasification, is a thermal process where organic materials in the waste are broken down under pressure and in the absence of oxygen. The process works best when the input waste is carbon-rich, preferably sorted or pre-sorted. Best results are obtained from single stream wastes such as sewage sludge, plastics, wood, tyres, or agricultural wastes.

Where MSW is to be used it should be pre-sorted to remove the majority of the non-organics and processed to homogenise the feedstock. The Pyrolysis process produces a liquid residue and gaseous output which may be combusted to generate electricity. A solid slag is also produced which may require disposal or additional processing.

There are two distinct type of Pyrolysis

1. Slow Pyrolysis Slow Pyrolysis is fundamentally the process associated with high carbon capture. Often it requires a smaller footprint to operate and comes at a far less cost than that associated with flash Pyrolysis.

2. Flash Pyrolysis The defining difference with flash Pyrolysis is that less carbon is captured in the process but there is an increase in gas and liquid capture that can be used as a fuel source. Flash Pyrolysis requires a large infrastructure and comes with a greater operating costs and capital expenditure.

Gasification is a process that operates at a higher temperature range to pyrolysis and converts waste materials into fuel gases methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen by reacting the raw material at high temperatures with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. The resulting gas mixture is called synthesis gas or syngas and is itself a fuel. Gasification is a method for extracting energy from many different types of organic materials.

The advantage of gasification is that using the syngas is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of the original fuel because it can be combusted at higher temperatures. Syngas may be burned directly in internal combustion engines, used to produce methanol and hydrogen, or converted into synthetic fuel. Chemical processing of the syngas may produce other synthetic fuels, such as diesel, at greater efficiency than is the case with the generation, reticulation and use of electricity. Gasification can also begin with materials that are not otherwise useful fuels, such as biomass or organic waste. In addition, the high-temperature combustion removes corrosive ash elements such as chloride, sodium and potassium, allowing clean gas production from otherwise problematic fuels.


Gasification relies on chemical processes at elevated temperatures >700°C, which distinguishes it from biological processes such as anaerobic digestion that produce biogas.

Despite application of the gasification route over more than one hundred years, and especially for industrial and organic residues and wastes during wartime, the process is not much in evidence today. There are small waste fuelled gas plants in use in many developing nations at village level where the health and safety aspect of cool clean fuel gas, versus wood, charcoal and dung for heating and cooking is an obvious advantage.

A number of gasification processes have been developed as waste treatment options for a range of wastes. However Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) processes for treatment of MSW (such as the SWERF process developed by EDL in Wollongong) have proved unsuccessful. Gasification works well on specific fairly homogenous waste streams (such as C&I wastes), however has proven to be a failure to date on mixed and variable streams such as MSW.

Another major challenge for waste gasification technologies is to reach an acceptable (positive) gross electric efficiency. The high efficiency of converting syngas to electric power is counteracted by significant power consumption in the waste pre-processing, the consumption of large amounts of pure oxygen (which is often used as a gasification agent), and gas cleaning. Another challenge becoming apparent when implementing the processes in real life is to obtain long service intervals in the plants, so that it is not necessary to close down the plant every few months for cleaning the reactor.

One plant (in Japan using the Thermoselect process) has been processing industrial waste since year 2000, but has not yet documented positive net energy production from the process.

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is the term used for most AWT systems and is not a single concept but, instead, is a family of possible process elements that can be combined in many different ways. A variable mix of configurations can be developed to treat different waste streams in different ways. MBT systems have been in operation for more than ten years in Europe.

MBT partially processes mixed household waste, by mechanically removing some parts of the waste and by biologically treating others, so that the residual fraction is smaller, more stable and more suitable for a number of possible uses. MBT processes incorporate mechanical sorting and separation of the waste stream to separate the biodegradable materials, which are sent to a biological process, from the non-biodegradable materials. The mechanical process can be configured to further separate the non-biodegradables into clean fractions for recycling.

• Although waste diversion from MBT plants can be high, the main challenge associated with MBT is contamination of output and finding viable uses for these outputs. This can be a significant process to produce products that could be cleaner and have a higher resource value if separated at source rather than through the AWT process.

• Quoting UK experience, it appears there would be sufficient outlets for these products if they were to embrace MBT as the primary method of processing the residual fraction of household waste. However, the policy framework that affects the viability of such applications has significant uncertainties specifically in relation to quality standards and allowable application or use. As long as these uncertainties remain, it may be difficult to finalise waste management contracts that rely on such applications.


Apart from the proprietary hub of each process most of the equipment involved is readily available, conveyors, pumps, blowers, etc. and it is the manner in which this equipment is used that varies most from process to process. Some have opted for totally dry systems to avoid wet processing and the effluents generated, these generally produce less ‘clean’ more contaminated outputs, generally not for fuel applications.

The capital and operating costs of MBT processes vary widely, because of the diversity of configurations. Increasingly MBT is becoming more viable as other fiscal drivers such as landfill taxes and CPRS are changing the economics. However the big issue still arises as to whether the output from an MBT is a source of revenue or another disposal cost.

Waste Autoclave

A waste autoclave is a form of solid waste treatment that utilises heat, steam and pressure of an industrial autoclave in the processing of waste. Waste autoclaves process waste in batches. Saturated steam is pumped into the autoclave at temperatures around 160°C. The pressure in the vessel is maintained at 5 bar gauge for a period of up to 45 minutes to allow the process to fully 'cook' the waste.. The autoclave process gives a very high rate of pathogen and virus kill and has been extensively used for 30 years or more for treating quarantine, hospital, veterinary, clinical, bio-medical waste (BMW), and the cost (A$0.25/kg) would have been prohibitive for MSW in earlier days. Such an application would have to rely upon the value of the recovered products, not on the waste disposal fee.

The 'cooking' process causes plastics to soften and flatten, paper and other fibrous material to disintegrate into a fibrous mass, bottles and metal objects to be cleaned, and labels etc. to be removed. The process reduces the volume of the waste by ~60%. After 'cooking', the steam flow is stopped and the pressure vented via a condenser. When depressurised, the autoclave door is opened, and by rotating the drum the 'cooked' material can be discharged and separated by a series of screens and recovery systems.

After fibre separation, the secondary streams comprise of mixed plastics, which have normally been softened and deformed which eases separation, a glass and aggregate stream, which can be exceptionally clean of both plastic and paper, and separate ferrous and non ferrous metals. The heat, steam and rotating action of the autoclave vessel strip off labels and glues from food cans leaving a very high quality ferrous/non-ferrous stream for recycling.

The size of the vessel varies between vendors. Experience shows that "small" vessels are not productive enough; while if the vessel is too large, the pressures in the vessel and the heavy weight of the vessel can cause equipment failures.

There is a large interest in autoclave technology, but only a few vessels have been built and operated successfully at full scale. Many ‘would-be’ vendors will have to scale-up their equipment and will be relying on a first contract to furnish the way to do this. The Coffs Harbour facility being built by Biomass Solutions will be the first such AWT in Australia.


7.2 Review of AWT experience in Australia Australia has had a mixed experience with AWT only becoming an alternative to landfill in recent times (late 1990’s). To date there are twelve AWT facilities currently operating or being developed in Australia to treat MSW:

• 7 facilities in NSW • 4 facilities in WA • 1 facility in QLD

See table below for reference of AWT plants and details. Early experiences of AWT have generally proved costly (for either operators or councils) and the results of resource recovery and residual waste reduction have been mixed. Through experience and technology/process development AWT is achieving greater levels of operational efficiency and improved waste diversion in Australia although many associated issues with the problems of material output still remain. Increasingly with strong drivers to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed CPRS, increasing state landfill levies, urban encroachment reducing landfill options and a desire for higher waste diversion rates, AWT is experiencing strong interest in many areas of Australia including the anticipation of further facilities in NSW, VIC, QLD and WA in the short term. Outlined below is a brief summary of each facility currently operating.

Table 7: AWT Facilities in Australia

Type Location Description of Technology Capacity Inputs

Saleable Outputs*

Diversion Rate

Capital Cost

ArrowBio

Macarthur Region, Sydney, NSW

Water-based separation method for processing mixed solid waste

90,000tpa at full capacity with 2 modules

Unsorted MSW

10,000MWh excess energy 10,000tpa organic material

70% when fully operational

$50 million

SAWT (SITA Advanced Waste Treatment)

Kemps Creek, NSW

Mechanical biological treatment with resource recovery

120,000tpa- 40,000t organics and 80,000t residual

MSW- organics and residuals processed separately

15,000tpa high-grade compost 20,000tpa medium-grade compost

94% for organic stream (Penrith) and 68% for residual stream (Liverpool)

$40-50 million

SITA Eweson Digester Drum- Cairns Cairns, QLD

Mechanical and biological treatment 120,000tpa

MSW and C&I solid organics, including biosolids

28,000tpa organics- compost sold to cane farmers 50%

$40 million (2002)

SITA Eweson Digester Drum- Port Stephens

Port Stephens, NSW

Mechanical and biological treatment 40,000tpa

MSW and C&I solid organics (no biosolids)

12,000tpa organics- recycled quality soil conditioners 50%

$12 million (1999)

SITA Mindarie Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) Mindarie, WA

Waste is pre-sorted, shredded, mixed, and held in a rotating drum. This crude compost is then sorted, screened and further refined in windrows 100,000tpa

Unsorted MSW

Recycling and 36,000tpa high-quality compost 70%

$80 million


Type Location Description of Technology Capacity Inputs

Saleable Outputs*

Diversion Rate

Capital Cost

Veolia WASP (Woodlawn Alternative Sorting and Processing Facility)

Woodlawn, NSW (near Goulburn)

Dry mechanical separation techniques including separation into inert and organic streams and the recovery of recyclables

Designed for initial capacity of 120,000tpa, but can be doubled to 240,000tpa

Unsorted MSW

Compost for mine site rehabilitation, refuse derived fuel (RDF) type material and metals 80%

$15 million

AnaeCo DiCOM System

Shenton Park, WA

Hybrid biological system that integrates the natural aerobic and anaerobic bioconversion cycles in a continuous, in-vessel process.

55,000tpa modules

All MSW and some C&I

8,760MWh energy and 27,000tpa of compost from a 55,000tpa module 80-85%

Currently involved in ongoing tender

BioMass Solutions- SPP Autoclave Process and Agitated Bay Composting

Coffs Harbour, NSW

Organic feedstock is loaded into composting bays MSW is steam-pressurised, ‘’to separate from the remaining inorganic material and recyclables

20,000tpa for each SPP vessel and 3,750tpa for each composting bay

Source-separated organics, including food and/or biosolids, and all MSW

Organics turned into Grade A compost, Biomass is currently composted and used for rehabilitation, but proposed future use will be as renewable fuel

99% for organics, 70% for MSW

$20 million for 20,000tpa SPP and 22,5000tpa composting bays

Remondis ORRF (Organic Resource Recovery Facility)

Port Macquarie, NSW

2 process lines: one utilises mechanical mixing and in-vessel composting, and the other utilises mechanical separation and composting on an aerated static floor

41,000tpa- Source-separated organics: 20,000tpa, MSW and C&I: 21,000tpa

Source-separated organics, biosolids, residual MSW and C&I

13,000tpa high-grade compost and 500tpa steel 55%

$10 million

Emergent Capital UR-3R (Urban Resource- Reduction, Recovery and Recycling)

Eastern Creek, NSW

Mechanical and biological treatment (including mechanical and hand sorting, energy recovery from anaerobic digestion, intensive enclosed composting, maturation and refining)

Feasible 150,000-250,000tpa or more, Modules of 50,000tpa

Source-separated organics and all MSW

10% recyclables, 27% compost, 10-20kWh renewable energy for every tonne of MSW 70%

$110 million for 200,000tpa

Bedminster- Canning Vale MBT

Canning Vale, WA Aerobic MBT 109,000tpa

MSW and Mixed Biosolids N/A 35-50%

$60m for 160,000tpa

Stirling MBT Stirling, WA Aerobic MBT 60,000tpa MSW N/A N/A N/A Some technology providers have not been forthcoming on verifiable details at this stage, including information on outputs and tonnage of residual waste to landfill

Detailed technical and commercial review of each specific AWT technology can be provided upon Council’s request however due to legal liability issues for assessing specific technology in a document that may become public SIA would prefer to undertake this task external to this report if requested.


A TALE OF TWO CITIES

The recently commissioned SITA alternative waste treatment facility in Kemps Creek, SAWT, is currently

accepting waste from two city councils: Penrith and Liverpool. This facility uses mechanical separation

technology combined with aerobic tunnel composting to recycle organic waste, and includes environmental

controls for odour, dust and noise abatement. Penrith and Liverpool show two different paths of treating the

broader MSW stream.

PENRITH Penrith City Council has recently made the switch to using a 3-bin system for the collection on household waste.

The three mobile bins will collect:

- Organics (garden and food waste)

o 240 litre bin

o Collected weekly

- Dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, bottles, cans)

o 240 litre bin

o Colleted fortnightly

- Residual waste

o 140 litre bin

o Collected fortnightly

The contents of the recycling bin are taken to the VISY Recycling Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located at

Smithfield for recycling. The contents of the green organics bin are taken to the SAWT facility at Kemps Creek,

where the diversion rate for this stream is expected to be 94%, with saleable outputs of 15,000tpa high-grade

compost ($25-35 a cubic metre) The contents of the residual MSW waste bin are currently being taken to landfill.

However, Penrith City Council is working with WSN ArrowBio to create a new facility that will take their residual

waste and divert some of it from landfill. The facility is expected to be located in Seven Hills and to be

operational in 3 to 4 years and is anticipated to reach a diversion rate of between 40-50% of this residual waste

stream.

LIVERPOOL Liverpool Council also utilises a 3-bin system. However, for Liverpool the organics bin can only accept garden

waste, and all kitchen waste and food scraps are included in the residual waste bin. The three bins will collect:

- Garden waste

o 240 litre bin


- Dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, bottles, cans)

o 240 litre bin


- Residual waste (including food waste)

o 140 litre bin

o Collected weekly

The contents of the recycling bin are taken to the VISY Recycling Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located at

Smithfield for recycling. The contents of the garden waste bin and residual waste bin are taken to the SAWT at

Kemps Creek. The diversion rate for the residual stream is expected to be 68%, with outputs of 20,000tpa

medium-grade compost to be used for land rehabilitation and roadside vegetation (cost of transport >$30 a

tonne).


7.3 Process and Time Frames to Develop an AWT Outlined below is an indicative time frame for the development of an AWT facility for Lake Macquarie City Council. It must be noted that these time frames are dependant heavily on the technology, the site location and the two contractual parties. There is significant opportunity if not managed correctly for this time frame to expand greatly as was experienced in the HIR regional AWT project.

Action Time Frame Expression of Interest (EOI) 3 months Tender 6 months Contract Negotiation 3-6 months Facility Approvals 9-18 months Delivery – design and construct 18-36 months Commissioning 3-6 months Total 42 - 93 months

7.4 Comparative Assessment of Option 3 7.4.1 Future Planning

Table 8: Future Planning for Option 3 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year 5

Facility Established and Operating

• Full requirements for tender and plant development

• Residual waste to Awaba for 1-4 years

Facility based on a 10-15 year contract

2024 Year 15

Facility Operating and waste diversion improving

• Contractual obligations may not support investment in key waste reduction/diversion activities

• Residual waste export required to another landfill or facility

Council may incur significant extra costs associated with high waste volumes and the need to manage residual materials

2034 Year 25

Revise current waste management strategy and consider upgrading existing facility or new alternatives

• LMCC would be in a good position to focus on new technology and or practices at this point

• May need to implement new collection arrangements and change household behaviour/ practices

Council would be in a strong position at this point but may need to embark on changing resident behaviour towards source segregation

2044 Year 35

New facility or waste management approach in place

Unknown at this stage Unknown at this stage


7.4.2 Capital Expenditure Due to the considerable variability of treatment options any costs regarding AWT’s will only be realised during contractual negotiations. For comparative assessment the following estimates have been provided based on recent pricing. The estimate capital cost for Development of an AWT to treat 100,000 tonnes of mixed MSW is as follows. Option 1: commingled MSW stream- $50-80m (this would also provide savings going to a one bin system) Option 2: segregated Organics and recycling $35-65m (this will include the additional cost of a green organics collection service) Resource Recovery Facility (C&D and C&I) $10m An AWT is unlikely to meet all of LMCC’s waste requirements and an alternative option for residual waste disposal will be required with the close of Awaba. Separation of the organic volume within the AWT will help reduce the tonnage of residual waste required for disposal. An AWT is likely to have a relatively high operation and maintenance running cost and will likely need staffing of between 15-35 people depending on the technology and the scale. Proposed gate fees for facilities vary significantly however it is expected that in consideration of LMCC’s current waste volumes a facility gate fee in the region of $150 to $250 a tonne is likely. Both the volume of waste and contract term provide the most significant factor in the gate fee and the following figures represent the indication of variable contract terms on the gate fee:

10 year contract – indicative gate fee of $210 15 year contract – indicative gate fee of $180 20 year contract – indicative gate fee of $165

Although LMCC would retain greater flexibility in proceeding with a 10 year contract this is likely to represent a 20-30% increase in gate fees over the life of the contract compared to a twenty year term. A facility will also determine gate fees based on secured contracts for waste volume and therefore there is likely to be little incentive for LMCC to reduce household waste. Some technologies will not deem LMCC’s MSW volumes to be adequate and would need to secure additional volumes from other Councils who may have limited landfill capacity such as Maitland Council. It is likely that minimum MSW volumes for most AWT facilities to be commercially viable will be a plant throughput of 70,000 tonnes of MSW p.a. or greater. 7.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact Waste diversion rates by weight from AWT compared to other waste management approaches are relatively high. This is primarily due to the large organic fraction removed (and high moisture content of the organic stream) from the MSW stream and high material recovery from the MSW separation process. AWT facilities will generally reach diversion rates of between 50-70% of the MSW waste stream and some technologies claim higher rates however are not always able to verify this with working plants. A significant % of this diversion is often the compost from the organic stream which in many cases is used as landfill cover or transported for purposes such as legacy site remediation.



0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 3: Creation of AWT

7.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact In Option 3 it is expected that the Awaba landfill will be closed in 2014/15 and the AWT receiving waste in the following years. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste for Awaba landfill forecasted for Option 3 until 2050. Figure 7 shows the GHG emissions for Awaba landfill forecast until closure in 2014/15 based on the forecasts for waste received in Section 7.4.3. The volume of waste to landfill and resulting GHG emissions will be lower than the previous options due waste diverted to the AWT. As in the previous options, the CPRS liability is calculated for 2011/12 based on the amount of waste received for that year. It has been forecast that about 43kt of residual waste will be received at the Awaba landfill, producing 847 tonnes CO2e. Assuming a carbon prices of $10/tonne CO2e, the total cost at the beginning of the CPRS in 2011/12 would be $8470, excluding legacy emissions and GHG captured by the LMS and amount oxidised. At closure in 2014/15 the GHG emissions are forecasted to be 5581 tCO2e with an indicative carbon cost of $139 525 ($25 per tCO2e) which includes GHG emissions from the opening stock of waste, less GHG captured by Landfill Gas Management Systems (LMS) and amount oxidised. Similar to the previous options, Awaba will continue to have a reducing carbon cost after closure after a slight increase in 2015/16. The aim of the CPRS is to internalise the cost of carbon to drive low cost abatement options. As such the cost of carbon permits will impact on decisions about adopting alternative waste treatment options. In the early years of the CPRS, the carbon price is expected to remain low and


may not fully capture the carbon externality and may not drive alternative waste treatment approaches. In later years, however, a high carbon price is expected to encourage lower-carbon technologies. MBT plants may generate low levels of methane and nitrous oxide during the composting/digestion process. Site measurements may be necessary to estimate emissions as there is a lot of variation in treatment processes for different technologies, as well as the variation in waste characteristics. The DCC provides default emission factors for methane and nitrous oxide from composting and anaerobic digestion facilities. 7.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts Depending on the AWT technology and process chosen the implementation of an AWT plant in LMCC would have some major impacts on the waste management system including:

• A decision regarding bin collection services and wether to commingle recyclable material with the MSW stream.

• A decision for or against a combined green/waste organics collection depending on the technology chosen and collection frequency.

• C&D waste and other materials will require an infrastructure option as these are not likely to be taken at the AWT facility.

• Options for some C&I waste need to be considered. • Contractual issues need to be developed to promote the reduction of the waste stream

(and potentially household source segregation dependant on the process). • Transport and disposal options for the residual waste materials and potential compost

need to be considered. This may require transport to another landfill facility. • If a facility was of suitable scale there may be options and issues for import of waste from

other neighbouring councils for treatment.

7.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 month s] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC prior to the construction of an AWT facility.

• Expression of Interest (EOI) for contractual parties and technologies • Release tender, tender assessment and award of tender • Contract Negotiation • Preliminary facility land acquisition and DA support • Review of existing contracts, facilities and collection systems based on preferred tender • Environmental Impact Assessment • Implement a differential pricing structure at the Awaba landfill to further encourage source

separation of wastes, particularly C&D wastes • Development Consent process

7.4.7 Social and Community Issues There are likely to be different impacts on the community depending on which process is selected through the AWT technology. A simplified waste collection system may operate to meet all household’s needs. There is a concern that developing an AWT is still focussing on the symptom of the problem rather than the cause which is household waste generation. There may not be significant commercial drivers to make any real impact in this area over time.


The upfront capital cost and gate fees associated with an AWT facility may have a considerably higher impact on rate increases depending on the technology and collection system required to make this work. 7.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC

Table 9: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 3 Risk Potential Impact Risk Level Technical/process risk of facility

Council could be lumbered with a ‘white elephant’ and significant costs to manage ongoing waste arising.

High

Commercial risk of facility and contractor (risk allocation)

If too large a commercial risk is placed on either council or the contractor then this may lead to project failure.

High

Long Term Infrastructure commitment

Facilities of such scale >$30m are usually financed over a minimum of 15-20 years which will require long term contracts placing Council into a long term risk position should its requirements or other options change. Councils such as Penrith and Liverpool have recently negotiated 10 year contracts however a shorter term contract will come at an extra price premium (increased gate fee). Depending on the contract period, contract risk and debt/equity finance structure a 10 year contract is likely to result in a gate fee of between 20-30% above that of a 20 year contract.

High

Inflexible to changes in the waste management system

Fixed infrastructure of this nature can be upgraded but usually at a significant cost. Waste characteristics, volumes and other technology or process innovations will change over the years and possibly make the technology or the process outdated over a period of time.

High

Market Demand for saleable outputs

The demand and cost for transport, sale or disposal of material outputs represent a real risk as these markets can fluctuate and in some cases are not fully developed. Prices may vary significantly over time affecting the viability of the facility.

High

Cost and liability for disposal of material and residual outputs

There may be significant costs associated with the disposal of materials from the facility including the residual waste fraction, contaminated non saleable materials and compost. The transport and disposal of such materials will also likely be impacted by increased cost for alternative disposal through the CPRS and landfill levies.

High


7.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact The impact AWT will have on the waste hierarchy is considerably better than that proposed by landfill. This will result in higher diversion of recyclable materials and waste treatment resulting in less MSW going to final disposal (landfill). AWT however has only a minor impact on the higher levels of the waste hierarchy promoting waste avoidance, reduction and re-use.



8. OPTION 4: EXPORT OF RESIDUAL WASTE TO FACILITIES (LANDFILL/AWT) OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE MACQUARIE LGA The fourth option for future waste management in the LMCC is the export of waste outside the LMCC LGA. This option takes into account LMCC’s position in a broader regional context and explores the possibility of exporting waste out of the LGA to either a landfill or AWT facility. This option explores the various alternatives that exist for transfer and transport of waste out of the LGA. It is premised largely on the model of following a broad number of initiatives as outlined in Option 5 to reduce the residual MSW component to as small a volume as feasible. It may alleviate some of the costs associated with the future liability of waste sites within the LGA, but comes with the potential for high preparation, cartage and disposal costs.



8.1 Review of Waste Volumes for Export This option is predicated on a strong front end focus of undertaking as much waste diversion, recycling and resource recovery as possible to minimise on an ongoing basis the residual waste volume for export. The following data provides a model for planned waste diversion under the implementation of actions identified in Option 5. With this focus it is feasible that the residual volume of MSW can be driven down year upon year as further initiatives, technologies and resource recovery markets are established.


8.2 External Options for Waste Export Due to LMCC’s location in the broader Hunter, Central Coast and Sydney region there are a number of options for waste export. Two important factors must be noted:

• LMCC currently has over 30% of its waste stream exported outside of the region (recyclables go to Somersby and a high volume of C&I and C&D waste goes to facilities in the broader Hunter region)

• Waste export is becoming a common practice throughout Australia however it is often smaller councils exporting to larger councils.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 4: Export of Waste


The following details in the table below show a number of potential waste export options. It is important to note that this list is not exhaustive and discussions to date have shown additional alternatives that may be viable. It is also important to recognise that these options are based on waste compaction and specialist transport vehicles to achieve efficiency. The other key factor is standard gate prices have been used and in most cases these can be negotiated down significantly within contract negotiations for volume and term of contract.

Table 10: External Options for Waste Export

Facility Ability to take LMCC capacity

Waste Transport option

Distance from Lake Macquarie- Boolaroo (km)

Estimated transport cost per tonne MSW

Estimated preparation/ compaction cost per tonne MSW

Estimated Gate Fee (per tonne MSW)

Total cost per tonne MSW

Comments

Summerhill- Newcastle

Yes Road 8 $1.92 $7.20 $120 $129.12 At this point, Summerhill is not looking to accept waste from outside sources

Cessnock Yes Road 41 $9.84 $7.20 $120-130 $137.04- $147.04

At this point, Cessnock is not looking to accept waste from outside sources

Wyong- Buttonderry

Yes Road 49 $11.76 $7.20 $125 $143.96 At this stage Buttonderry is building a new resource recovery facility and improved traffic management on the site. A new cell has just been completed.

SITA- Port Stephens

No, but planning for future expansion

Road 75 $18 $7.20 $121 $146.20 SITA has expressed interest in expanding and accepting waste from outside sources

Veolia- Woodlawn

Yes Rail 370 $25 $8-10 $145-160 $178.00-$195.00

Issues would need to be addressed with licensing conditions for rail transfer

Note: The creation of a new regional AWT or landfill will create further waste export options.

8.3 Transport, Compaction and Waste Transfer Option s All waste export systems will rely heavily on a functional transfer facility with high capacity for:

• Large volume waste handling including compaction systems • Maximise material segregation and resource recovery (the more material that can be

diverted the greater the cost reduction) • An ability to cater for significant traffic movements • Capacity for volume variances and waste storage

Wingecaribee is a good example of a facility that has been developed to undertake the functional role of waste management. The major advantages of a large transfer/ resource recovery facility are:

• Maximise cost effective material separation and recycling


• Maximise resource recovery • Flexibility to adapt to changes in waste management practice and technology • An ability to use commercial drivers to get environmental results • Flexibility to capture and change as market demand and commercial drivers change

It is estimated that a multi-purpose resource recovery facility (also providing a WTS and resource recovery service to the community) of suitable scale would cost in the vicinity of between $8 to $15 million dependant largely upon process technology and site infrastructure requirements. This could be scaled down if it was simply a transfer point for waste transfer, compaction and loading.

Wingecaribee Waste Transfer Station

Wingecarribee Shire Council has implemented two waste/recycling collection systems, in 1994 and

2002, which are working examples of sustainability in waste minimisation. Domestic waste

generation in the Shire is amongst the lowest in Australia and less than half the national average.

The Shire has also seen the closure of three landfills in the above timeframe.

In 2005, Wingecaribee Council and 3 other regional Councils (Campbelltown, Camden and

Wollondilly) formed the South Western Sydney Councils Resource Recovery Project (SWSCRRP)

and resolved to engage WSN Environmental Solutions for 15 years to process residual waste,

recyclables and garden organics. Resources of the four councils were combined to seek and deliver

a sustainable solution to the region’s needs. The system is designed to recover up to 75% of

material from the residual waste stream currently delivered to Jack’s Gully landfill at Narellan.

Figure 18: Diagram of Wingecaribee WTS



Table 11: Future Planning for Option 4 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year 5 • Establish

functional WTS and resource recovery facility to meet LMCC’s future requirements.

• Expand life of Awaba to 7-10 years

• Negotiate strategic long term contracts with fail safe alternative options for disposal

• Maximise waste diversion by adopting key initiatives outlined in Option 5.

• Tender for WTS and resource recovery park.

• Implement measures to extend Awaba life.

• Progress contract discussions with all potential parties for waste export.

• Implement contracts and key initiatives under Option 5.

Primary activities would need to take place in Year 1

2024 Year 15 • LMCC residual MSW waste reduced significantly

• Waste being exported to alternative facility

• High commercial recovery of segregated waste streams

• Review and assess alternative options for residual MSW

• Continual focus and programs to reduce residual MSW stream

• EOI for alternative options for residual MSW treatment or disposal

Alternative technology maturity may be achieved at this point and offer significant long term cost savings

2034 Year 25 • Continue to export waste or develop AWT options

• Unknown at this stage

2044 Year 35 • Unknown at this stage

• Unknown at this stage


8.4.2 Capital Expenditure Estimate totals based on waste volumes for residual MSW 130,000m3 based on existing rates. Estimated total fixed cost of facilities and trucks based on 20 year contractual term. The 20 year term is used for the amortisation of infrastructure. A 20 year contractual term would relate solely to the transport of residual waste and therefore does not come with significant drawbacks. This would not impede LMCC’s ability to take full advantage of the social, environmental and financial possibilities that new technologies and markets may bring.

Table 12: Capital Expenditure for Waste Export (2 o ptions)

Equipment and infrastructure

Cost at Locations: Summerhill Buttonderry

Cartage costs $2 per tonne $12 per tonne Sundry $85,000 $85,000 Gate fees $120 per

tonne $125 per tonne

Compaction unit x 3 rental

$5,040,000 $5,040,000

Walking floor $500,000 $500,000 Loading infrastructure

$5,000,000 $5,000,000

Repair and maintenance

$36,400 $36,400

Total $10,661,400 plus $122 per tonne waste

$10,661,400 plus $145 per tonne waste

Sundry includes but is not limited to power, roads, insurances, transport variables. It does not include critical resource recovery costs or waste minimisation infrastructure. Nor does it include operating costs. 8.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact The impact from the waste export option requires a strong level of waste diversion for LMCC based on the waste system being highly driven by reducing the residual MSW stream to minimise costs. This is a key driver that if implemented successfully with the waste reduction and segregation strategies outlined in Option 5 would bring a waste diversion figure of greater than 60% over the five year period.



8.4.4 GHG Risk and Impact For Option 4 the life of the Awaba landfill is expected to be extended to 2020/21 and then closed with waste exported to another site. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste received by Awaba based on the forecasts for waste received in Section 8.4.3, forecast until 2050. Figure 7 shows the GHG emissions for Awaba landfill forecast until 2050. GHG emissions and resulting CPRS liability will be slightly lower than Options 1 and 2 until 2014/15 and then continue as the landfill will continue to receive waste until 2020/21. As in the previous options, the CPRS liability is calculated for 2011/12 based on the amount of waste received for that year. The amount of waste received in 2011/12 is forecasted to be about 76kt, producing 1494t CO2e. An indicative cost of carbon in 2011/12 due to a CPRS liability will be $14 940 at a permit cost of $10/tonne CO2e. Assuming a carbon price of $25/tonne CO2e in the following years, the cost at closure in 2020/21 would be around $475 829, and continue to decline in the following years after a slight increase in 2021/22.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 4: Export of Waste


8.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts The critical aspect of the success of this option will be for LMCC to use the leverage of contract options available. The treatment or disposal of LMCC waste by external facilities will be seen as commercially a very attractive proposition and LMCC will be best to lock in a long term contract with options for the preferred facility. The impact on the current waste management system will be significant and will include a need to:

• Change the existing kerbside refuse collection arrangements to meet the changes in end disposal point

• Alter existing kerbside collection arrangements such as bulk waste to meet the changes in the end disposal point

• The need to develop sophisticated external cartage contracts • To develop in house contract management expertise to manage the increase in LMCC

waste contracts. One of the distinct advantages of the establishment of a well designed and managed WTS is its ability to maximise resource recovery and ensure only the minimal amount of residual waste goes to landfill and at the same time provide LMCC with a high degree of flexibility. This flexibility will allow LMCC to capitalise on any new markets or technological change that may arise in the future. It also means that the initial capital expenditure has added value to LMCC in as much the well run and designed WTS can also take advantage of new markets when they arise and thus generate new revenue streams with little financial expenditure. A well designed WTS has several advantages

• The capital costs and operating costs are easily defined • Transport and gate fee costs are readily definable • Total cost per tonne of waste disposal from a WTS is quantifiable • Total cost associated with resource recovery including recycling is quantifiable • Resource recovery is a financially driven aspect of waste • The WTS facilities SIA has designed, built and operated in the past have achieved up to

60% reduction in waste to landfill in the first 2 years of operation. 8.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 month s] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC to ensure the maximisation of waste diversion. Site Selection

This includes actions by LMCC ranging from community consultation, development applications, traffic management assessments and noise monitoring as well as others.

Tender for Facility

The extensive development of all associated contracts will need to be undertaken along with a tender process. This will require sophisticated project management skills by LMCC.

Negotiate long term disposal contracts

Again this will require high level contract management.


Budget allocation LMCC would need to establish a budget line item including a set performance indicator to ensure budget allocations are met.

Community engagement

SIA believes that community engagement in all aspects of waste management is critical to its short and long term successes.

8.4.7 Social and Community Issues The extension of the existing Awaba site combined with the implementation of a major program to reduce residual waste is likely to have the following impacts on the LMCC community:

• Residents and community will need to be made aware of the location of the new WTS. • The immediate and broader community will need to be engaged to discuss any concerns. • Education programmes will need to be put in place to ensure the facility is used in the

manner for which it was designed. • Communities receiving LMCC waste will need to be educated and informed of any likely

impacts. • Source segregation and waste diversion approaches are likely to place some additional

change and burden on some multiple dwelling units. • Improved hard waste collection and education campaigns are likely to improve services

offered to LMCC residents. The overall impact on the LMCC community of this option will be minimal. However, some major changes to household education and waste management are likely to have a significant impact for all options proposed.



Table 13: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 4 Risk Potential Impact Level of Risk Residual waste reduction strategies are not successful

There is a greater volume of residual MSW to be exported costing Council additional fees.

High

Risk of facility not being able to take LMCC residual MSW

Although this is a significant risk it can be largely mitigated through sound contracts and alternative options should that situation ever occur.

High

Public opposition to waste export in other areas

This is a substantial risk in as much LMCC has little or no control in the distribution of information and the process of community education in other local government areas.

High

Risk of CPRS and Levy exposure with the gate fee

This is a real risk, however is one that LMCC is likely to face with whichever option it pursues. This can be partially managed through sound contracts.

High

Traffic Impact Assessment Significant consultation and investigation in the short term to ensure minimal disruption. A prime portion of the traffic impact assessment will be undertaken outside the LMCC’s boundary.

High

No managerial control over alternative facility

The disposal point of residual waste could be closed or limited by DECC for any number of breaches. This could result in major and immediate waste disposal problems for LMCC.

Medium

Site Maintenance WTS LMCC has not managed a WTS before. The nature of the infrastructure and it’s daily usage and management are all critical issues associated with success.

Medium

WTS site DA Development applications will be required. This is an expensive and time consuming process. It also represents an ideal time for community engagement in the process.

Medium


8.4.9 Waste Hierarchy impact The key driver of this Option is reducing the MSW residual volume to minimise the costs associated with waste export. This option will place a much higher focus on the top end of the waste hierarchy through initiatives outlined in Option 5. The impact on the waste hierarchy may change depending on the end point of the residual MSW as this may be treated at an AWT or disposed of at landfill.



9. OPTION 5: A WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOCUSSED ON SOURCE SEGREGATION AND RECOVERY/ MANAGEMENT OF EACH WASTE STREAM The fifth option proposed for evaluation has been developed by SIA focused on an alternate approach removing the emphasis on ‘end of pipe’ solutions and focussing at the top of the waste hierarchy on:

• Waste reduction • Education and behavioural change • Source segregation • Resource recovery

Nearly all waste systems focus on disposal or managing the problem (the symptoms rather than the cause). The proposed option provides a paradigm shift for waste management approaches in Australia by providing a focus on optimising resource efficiency and commercial drivers for each particular waste stream. SIA is of the belief that the real long and short term solutions to ensuring positive outcomes with regard to social, environmental and financial drivers rely on putting the focus back on point source segregation in conjunction with a comprehensive management strategy encompassing all aspects of the waste stream. Rather than seeking out a “silver bullet” approach SIA believes an approach that encompasses a holistic view to waste management in conjunction with sound and comprehensive community engagement will provide the best and most sustainable outcomes for all key stakeholders. In addition the approach SIA is proposing provides the flexibility to both Council and the community to take full advantage of new and proven technological changes with regard to waste minimisation and maximising resource recovery. SIA believes this cooperative approach to waste management meets all elements in the waste hierarchy and provides avenues for further changes that will have an impact on both behavioural and attitudinal approaches to waste management and more, importantly waste minimisation.



9.1 Reduction and Diversion The key approach to the system is to focus heavily on front end reduction through functional waste management approaches, strong education and awareness on a continual program basis to implement lasting habitual change and cost drivers to promote improved awareness and behaviour. The system needs to be flexible in its approach to make use of new technology, practices and changing markets and commercial drivers. 9.1.1 Household Waste Reduction Household waste reduction is only likely to occur if people have a fundamental awareness of their consumption habits and a motivation to improve or alter these. It must be understood that the significant issue we have in the developed world regarding waste generation, management and disposal is a direct result of societal behaviour focussed around consumption. Each year per


capita waste generation rates rise (despite greater education in areas of recycling and resource recovery) however little has been done to focus on the cause of the issue itself. The European Union has taken a lead on promoting product stewardship where manufacturers generating materials (example: automobiles & electronic goods) have responsibility to take back materials and recycle, re-use or manage their safe disposal. The Australian Government through DEWHA are currently developing approaches for product stewardship in Australia but are only at a very early stage and it may be many years before these initiatives and future policies have any significant impact on the waste stream. The most effective thing LMCC can achieve is a strong education and awareness campaign to make people aware of consumption habits. The community needs to be aware of the impact this has on the environment and the costs associated with dealing with this issue. Reducing unnecessary consumption (specifically unnecessary packaging/food waste) will have a significant impact on the level of waste generated and result in significant savings to the cost of any waste management system. This can be achieved through:

• Consumer education at point of purchase. • Retail and consumer education initiatives to reduce packaging. • Providing information and guides on purchasing decisions (eg. Use tap water instead of

bottled water). • General awareness of wastage and savings of reducing wastage. • Broader community awareness of the volume of waste each individual or household

creates. Structured initiatives including a properly resourced and ongoing education and awareness campaign can over time make a significant impact on reducing household waste. Even a small reduction in household waste generation will provide major savings and improvements to the waste management system.


“Love Food – Hate Waste” - UK

The "Love Food, Hate Waste" campaign developed in the United Kingdom aims to raise awareness of the need to

reduce the amount of food that we throw away, and how doing this will benefit us as consumers and the

environment. 6.7 million tonnes of food is thrown away by households in the UK every year, or, around a third of all

the food we buy ends up being thrown away, and most of it could have been eaten.

Some of the waste is made up of things like peelings, cores and bones, but the majority is, or once was, perfectly

good food. Love Food Hate Waste is the ‘Waste Not Want Not’ of the modern day, providing handy tips, advice and

recipes for leftovers to help everyone waste less food. Reducing food waste is a major issue and not just about

good food going to waste; wasting food costs the average family £420 (AUS $860) a year and has serious

environmental implications too.

If we all stop wasting food that could have been eaten, the CO2 impact would be the equivalent of taking 1 in 5 cars

off the road. Around 20% of our climate change emissions are related to the production, processing, transportation

and storage of food, but we are throwing away a third of all the food we buy. This could make a significant

contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions, and save us time and money.

Most of the major supermarket retailers in the UK welcome the campaign and have committed to work with WRAP

to identify ways they can help their customers, to reduce the amount of food thrown away. This might be through

providing more information (recipes, how to store food better etc), the types of products sold (ranges of portion

sizes, resealable packaging etc), the way food is sold (e.g. "half price" rather than "two for one" on food that goes

off quickly) and so on.

UK supermarket giant Tesco is to encourage customers to discard unwanted and excessive packaging near the tills

in an experiment mirroring a similar scheme in Germany. Trials in Surrey and Somerset will try to find out which

kinds of packaging consumers are prepared to do without.

Major supermarkets in Australia are starting to focus their attention in similar areas leading to reduced packaging

and less waste. However there are limitations to what can be done at an LGA level.


9.1.2. Household Waste Segregation Household waste segregation is a critical element of this proposed waste management option as each component of the waste stream becomes difficult and expensive to convert back into a resource once co-mingled and contaminated. Most waste systems are expensive processes to segregate and reduce contamination after the waste is commingled. This provides a huge deterrent to resource recovery as the commercial value of the resource is often depleted once it is contaminated. By segregating key waste streams at the point of source (household) then waste materials can readily be converted into a resource and represent a higher commercial value providing a key commercial driver to the waste system. Household segregation is often considered to be a difficult task and most attempts to promote better segregation are usually not undertaken comprehensively and frequently (usually one off programs). From understanding successful source segregation systems there are four key drivers to ensure results:

1. Make education and awareness programs clear, simple and easy to understand (example- use images opposed to text and consistent and uncomplicated messages. These should be ongoing and use multiple mediums)

2. Make the waste system as convenient, functional and as user friendly as possible for the householder

(example- user friendly bins, containers and collection systems) 3. Use pricing policies that promote and deter certain behaviour

(example –use bin pricing models to promote diversion) 4. Appropriate enforcement to educate and change behaviour

(example – Council develop appropriate by laws) Household recycling is a classic example of how education and awareness over time has significantly improved household source segregation. Since the late 1980’s household recycling schemes have emerged as a significant waste management success. In the early days participation rates and diversion rates were talked down with a low expectation of recycling having any significant impact on MSW management. More than 90 per cent of Australian households are now offered recycling and have sustained their voluntary participation in separating their waste. It has only been through persistent and consistent education, messages and campaigns over the past two decades that has led to 10-30% of the MSW stream being diverted from landfill. With a robust and ongoing campaign household source segregation can reach considerable levels of waste diversion. 9.1.3 Household Re-use of Materials There are a broad range of materials at a householder level that can be re-used including:

• Jars and containers • Bags • Clothing and textiles • Books • Toys • Cookware • Electronics • Recreational and entertainment goods • Other unwanted household goods


Cessnock, Maitland and Lake Macquarie Councils have developed from experience in Victoria the very successful Life Cycle Collection system (www.lifecyclehunter.com.au ) where these materials are collected and then sent to charities for re-sale or where possible sent for recycling. Although waste diversion from re-use is not likely to be significant it plays a critical role in education and awareness for waste reduction and source segregation. 9.1.4 Education and Awareness Campaigns Education and awareness is often an afterthought for waste management and programs and initiatives are often pursued as one off campaigns. An ongoing and sustained education and awareness campaign using innovation and new approaches is critical for Option 5 to be successful in improving waste reduction, source segregation and diversion of waste from landfill. The cost of implementing an effective campaign should be viewed as an investment as each component of the waste stream that is reduced or diverted significantly reduces the cost of waste management services to the community. As outlined in section 9.1.2 education and awareness campaigns regarding household recycling have fundamentally changed household behaviour and achieved diversion rates from landfill of between 10-30% of MSW. A well structured education and awareness campaign is likely to incorporate initiatives such as:

• Multimedia information and materials for households • Point of purchase awareness • Repeat messaging devices such as magnets, calendars and bin stickers • Engagement of community groups and other organisations • Branding and education at public events • Branding and messages on Council vehicles • Signage and advertising • Education officers for schools and other organisations • Education facility at the proposed Resource Recovery Park • Effective and user friendly website with functional interface (such as a waste exchange) • Direct interface with households and the community on specific initiatives • Community engagement or groups to promote change and improvement at a local level • Active participation of business within the LMCC area • Promotion of Council services and facilities

To achieve lasting change in community habits and behaviour an education campaign needs to be well resourced and ongoing. This should consist of appropriate budgets to support full time staff dedicated to delivering this program as well as an adequate budget to fund the broad range of initiatives as indicated above. If Council is innovative with its approach to ongoing change of community behaviour it will have a dramatic short term impact on waste reduction and diversion saving the Council considerable cost in waste management. This investment at the front end will provide significant return at the back end.


9.1.5 Pricing Policy A key reform in municipal solid waste (MSW) policy is the gradual integration of market instruments that encourage both source reduction and waste diversion activity. Among these is the use of variable-rate or unit pricing schemes, which impose an explicit fee for waste disposal that varies with the quantity of waste bins or services.

LaTrobe Waste Education

In July 2004, LaTrobe City Council (Victoria) implemented a three-bin system of waste collection combined with

waste education initiatives. These actions have been extremely effective in decreasing the Council’s amount of

waste to landfill (see chart below). In the first year of the new program (2004-2005), nearly 9,000 tonnes of

green waste was diverted from landfill and nearly 6,000 tonnes of recyclable material was recovered (as

compared to less than 2,000 tonnes in the 2003-2004 year).

Figure 22: LaTrobe Change to Three Bin System

LaTrobe City Council implemented several community waste education and awareness initiatives to accompany

their three-bin system of waste collection. These actions include:

- Collection week calendars with recycling information

- Comprehensive booklets on correct waste and recycling disposal, transfer station operation and

household chemical collection

- “Inside Lid” stickers for all three bins (to reduce contamination)

- Regular updates on the city website to include information on materials recovery and waste reduction

- Hosting of group tours of recovery and recycling facilities

- Promotion of recycling bins in schools

- Implementation of “Don’t Waste” program in schools

- Leaflets on hazardous waste and infectious waste products

- Encouraging of recycling at public events

- Promotional banners and signage at entrance points to the city

- Identification of and cooperation with key local businesses

- Implementation of waste and litter reduction program

- Promotion of C&D waste recycling facility


Pricing elements can have a key influence on waste management choices by all parties involved in waste management and this needs to be balanced with not creating significant distortions or negative impact on the greater community. Bin pricing systems have been proven consistently to generate positive waste management outcomes by making users aware that waste management is a service that costs money and the key disconnect in people’s behaviour is often that it is not a cost or “I’m paying for this so I will generate as much waste as I like”. By offering smaller bins for residual MSW collection at reduced rates and larger bins for those residents who need them at higher rates this will have a broad impact over time in influencing waste generation and diversion rates. In most cases people will generally fill a bin up to capacity regardless of whether it is 120 litres or 240 litres. SIA through option 5 would recommend the following pricing policy be adopted:

• 240L bin collected fortnightly for recycling (as current) – consider weekly • 240L bin collected weekly for green waste and organics • Price reduction for a 140L green/organics bin for those with little garden waste or a home

composting system • 140 L bin collected on a fortnightly basis for residual waste collection • Price reduction for residents who wish to use a 120L or 80L bin for residual waste

collection on a fortnightly basis • Substantial price increase for residents who wish to have a 240L bin for fortnightly residual

waste collection Pricing differentials need to be significant enough to change preferences and should only be altered at specific intervals to avoid additional costs. All bins where possible should be Council owned to accommodate downsizing options.

Pricing policy has largely been avoided as a major driver in waste management systems in Australia.

Most Council’s operate a standard rate based fee for kerbside collection and indicative pricing for self

haul drop off.

In many countries pricing policy is used as a key instrument in reducing waste, some examples include:

• Dutch communities have implemented unit-based user fees to finance waste collection.

These user fees require households to pay for each kilogram, bag or container presented at

the curb for collection. In 2000 more than 20% of all Dutch municipalities have implemented

such a system.

• Pay as you throw schemes are highly common in the US were waste services are provided on

the provision of bags or tags that are purchased. There are a broad diversity of schemes

however most schemes result in significant waste reduction and diversion.


9.1.6 Business Engagement Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is primarily derived from a source of purchase at a business (most likely within the LMCC area). In addition to reducing the C&I volume of the waste stream business also has a basic and fundamental responsibility to assist reduce the level of specific materials and excess packaging entering the waste stream that are a cost to the community and the environment. Materials that can be easily recycled, re-used or offer reduced packaging should be promoted above other alternatives. Many retailers and businesses are starting to fully understand the harm and damage that is caused through non-sustainable business activities and are working with Government and other organisations in a cooperative way to improve environmental and waste outcomes. LMCC should take a lead position within the region by developing a program to promote waste reduction at source and assist with education and awareness for the community. If people are aware of waste generation impacts at the point of purchase this will have a significant impact over time in reducing waste generation and increasing the purchase of items that can be recycled or recovered in the waste stream. By engaging the business community actively with initiatives, advertising material and innovative campaigns, LMCC can realise an increased cost saving and benefit through waste reduction and improved waste diversion.

9.2 Organic Waste Management Options Organic waste makes up a significant portion of the waste produced in Australia. The National Greenhouse Energy Reporting (NGER) 2008 indicates that organic waste makes up about 64 per cent of municipal waste in Australia.

CASE STUDY: SEATTLE SUBSCRIPTION SYSTEM

In Seattle, Washington, residents use a subscription system for household waste collection.

Residents can choose the amount of waste bins they want to have and are charged a monthly

rate for their subscription. In order to reduce waste and increase recycling rates, in 1989 the

Council increased the rate for one can by 20 cents (from $13.55/month to $13.75/month),

while increasing the rate for each additional can substantially (from $5/month to $9/month).

In addition, the Council offered a “mini-can” service with a capacity of 19 gallons instead of

the standard bin that held 32 gallons. The mini-can service was priced at $10.70/month, so

residents that chose to reduce their waste from a large bin to a smaller one could save $3.05

per month. Later on, the City also offered an even smaller level of service called a “micro

can”, which could hold 12 gallons of waste and cost $9.37/month. If residents ended up with

more waste than could fit in the number of cans that they had subscribed to, they could

dispose of the excess waste in trash bags affixed with appropriate stickers. Stickers were

available at $5 each, and extra garbage was not collected without a sticker.

In 1988, before the implementation of the system changes, about 60% of residents

subscribed to only one can, 30% used two cans, and 10% used more than two cans. In 1989,

92% of residents subscribed to only one can or less, with 62% using one can, 25% using the

mini-can and 5% using the micro-can. Only 8% of residents subscribed to 2 or more cans.


Organic waste contains carbon compounds and is generally derived from plant and animal materials. It can include items such as:

• Garden waste • Food wastes (such as peelings, meats & bones, vegetables, stale foods) • Paper and cardboard, • Wood/timber, • Straw, • Manure, • Oils, • Grease, • Sludges and paper pulp.

Table 14: Estimated amount of waste streams dispose d to landfill (Australia, 2006–07)

Waste stream Municipal Commercial &

industrial Construction & demolition

Total

Material Tonnes

Food 1,905,000 385,000 0 2,290,000 Paper and cardboard 1,905,000 3,528,000 213,000 5,646,000 Green organics 733,000 192,000 142,000 1,067,000 Wood 147,000 898,000 425,000 1,470,000 Other (non-organic) 2,637,000 1,411,000 6,311,000 10,359,000 Total 7,326,000 6,415,000 7,091,000 20,832,000

% organic waste 64% 78% 11% 50% % putrescible material* 36% 18% 2% 16%

* Includes food and compostable garden waste (Hyder Consulting 2008) The table above demonstrates that in Australia 36% of our waste sent to landfill is compostable organic waste, (as discussed further on) this waste contributes very significantly to the GHG emissions from landfills. A study undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March 2006 found that 46% of Australian households composted, which is down quite significantly from 54% in 1996. This same study found that of those who don’t compost or have their green-waste collected by the local council, 38 % felt that they did not produce enough kitchen waste to warrant recycling, while 13% did not due to lack of facilities and over 20% said they were not interested. The highest composting rates were found in Tasmania (61%) and Australian Capital Territory (57%). In looking at local kerbside collections 33% of households were found to have their garden waste collected and 10% had kitchen and food waste collected. 27% of households said they reused kitchen or food waste instead, for example using them to feed pets. In 2006 99% of Australian households recycled in some form. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found that the three key factors which have resulted in such a significant uptake in recycling are:

1. Quantity of recyclable material generated 2. Accessibility/ availability to services and facilities 3. Interest


It is fair to assume that the barrier to the current uptake of organic waste management lies in either or both factors 2 and 3, despite many individuals believing they don’t produce enough organic waste to warrant using a system, it has been identified as one of the most significant components of waste to landfill in Australia. In order to ensure a significant uptake of which ever organic waste management program is selected these two factors must be addressed. Frequent collections, access to services, extensive community engagement programs, incentives, and potentially landfill bans or increased costs for organic waste, are all ideas which could be considered to address these barriers.

Greenhouse In landfills anaerobic processes breakdown organic waste which releases methane, a greenhouse gas. The breakdown of organic waste can be a slow process and GHG emissions can continue for up to 50 years. It is estimated that organic waste contributes around 79% of all the GHG emissions from landfills in Australia (National Waste Policy). GHG emissions from landfill are expected to increase in the future therefore identifying alternative treatment methods for organic waste is essential. Landfills meeting the national threshold will also be captured under the CPRS.

9.2.1 International Best Practice Examples Europe

The European Union has a law which requires all member states to achieve a 65 percent reduction in the amount of organic waste they are sending to landfill. Austria and Germany have taken this further by banning all unprocessed organic material from landfill, and less than 5 percent of waste going into a landfill can be organic.

In the city of Oslo, Norway, a plan to turn organic waste into biogas to fuel the city buses is underway. Municipal organic waste will be transported to a biogas plant where it will be transformed. Oslo is also exploring installation of pneumatic (piped underground) waste collection services to reduce the need for truck-based collections.

In Ireland, a pay by weight system has been established for waste to landfill and provides subsidies for home composting. They have found that there is very little contamination in the waste, the main contamination found was plastics consisting of around 1.8% of the total material. Ireland is a member of the European Compost Network, which requires its member states to divert from landfill, 25% of the total weight of biodegradable municipal waste generated in 1995. Ireland has also established a ‘Market Development Group’ (MDG) to investigate and develop markets for compost products.

Japan

Different regions of Japan have established a range of initiatives to encourage their residents to separate their organic waste and have it collected for composting. In Sendai City, residents are offered a dollars worth of fresh vegetables for every kilo of properly compressed organic waste brought to the city’s marketplace. Incentive schemes encourage uptake of such initiatives, however generally once the incentive is removed behaviour will return to normal.

North America

In Toronto ‘Green Bins’ are provided to all residents for their organics to be collected once a week, in order to manage the collection workload, recyclables and residual waste are collected on alternating weeks. They estimate that the average home in Toronto generates and places in their green bin, more than 200 kilograms of organic waste per year. The program has a 90% participation rate.


In Côte Saint-Luc, Montreal the city previously had twice weekly garbage collections. They have now replaced one of the garbage collection days with a ‘brown bin’ collection. This has ensured waste collection labour costs have not increased with the inclusion of organic waste collection. Compostable bags are used by residents to collect their organic waste, which is then placed in the brown bin and collected once a week. They also advise their residents to line the bottom of the compostable bags with newspaper, paper plates or brown paper bags to absorb potential spills and leaks.

In San Francisco rubbish collectors check general waste bins to ensure no organic waste has been included. The City has recently passed a law which prevents residents sending organic waste to landfill. Residents can be fined if significant amounts of organic waste are found in their general waste bin. Residents are provided with three bins, a general waste bin, a recycling bin and a compost bin. Similarly in the Wisconsin area, yard waste is banned from landfill and as a result 78% is treated.

9.2.2 Home composting Home composting is a viable and cost effective option for management of municipal organic waste. It saves transportation and disposal costs and ultimately allows homeowners to become actively involved with the management of solid waste. By choosing to compost organic materials at home, homeowners eliminate a significant portion of the MSW stream and provide high value material to assist in their garden and management of their property. Home composting can be done via a range of methods, which generally involve the breakdown of the waste by micro (or other) organisms. One of the benefits of establishing a program which supports and encourages home composting is that it will decrease the potential greenhouse liability of the landfill, as the emissions will occur at each individual household. Other benefits include returning organic material to the soil, provides good cheap garden mulch and less rubbish being disposed of to landfill. However, overall greenhouse gas emissions from the waste will not decrease through home composting, as the waste will still break down releasing emissions, but the landfill will not be liable for managing them. It is possible that emissions may actually increase through home composting activities as most landfills have methane treatment systems which decrease the total CO2e released. There are some complications associated with home composting. It is imperative that home composting systems be carefully constructed and maintained to keep out pests and pets such as rats, cats, dogs and flies. Caution must be utilized when composting certain food scraps and manures since they can attract pests as well as putrefy in poorly maintained systems. Fish and meat scraps, dairy products, and oily and fatty foods should be avoided in backyard composts.

• Aerobic Degradation: Aerobic degradation is preferred for rapid composting. Air can be introduced into the pile by turning the materials periodically with a garden fork. However, care must be taken to avoid compacting the materials, which reduces the porosity of the pile.

• Anaerobic Degradation: Home composters may be reluctant to practice anaerobic composting since it can produce methane gas; malodorous compounds such as hydrogen sulphide gas, cadaverine, and putrescine; as well as various organic acids and alcohols that may be detrimental to plants.


Home Composting Habits in Canada

A study done in British Columbia, Canada has found that the main reasons people participate in household

composting are ‘because it is good for the garden’ and ‘to reduce waste’.

- The highest incidences of composting occur among adults aged 40 to 60, while the lowest incidences

occur among adults aged 18 to 30.

- For many, composting is a fairly recent activity- nearly 40% of people who compost just started doing it

within the pat 5 years

- The average number of containers of garbage produced weekly by those who compost is 1.47,

compared to 1.77 for those who do not compost.

- The most common reasons given for not composting are lack of space (32%) and lack of interest/time

(23%).

- Respondents who indicated they have no time or interest are also the biggest producers of garbage

with average outputs of 2.3 containers per week, compared to 1.47 containers for those who do

compost.

The largest challenge with converting those who are not interested in composting may be their attitude towards

the environment. Only 30% of this group indicated they agree or strongly agree with the statement "I am worried

about health and environmental problems resulting from our consumer behaviour". This compares to 76%

agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement among those who do compost.

Figure 23: Home Composting


Table 15: Home Composting Systems

Type Description Cost* Compost Maturation Time

Advantages Potential Problems

Tumbleweed Compost Barrel

The Tumbleweed Compost Maker is an above ground, free standing tumbling compost bin. Organic waste is added and the contents tumbled on a regular basis

$250 6 weeks - Easy to aerate through tumbling actions - Retains moisture better than a standard compost bin - Put new material in one end and harvest finished product from other end

- Can be difficult to turn when full because of weight of compost - Can get too wet (need to monitor moisture levels - High heat can kill worms in system - Small opening limits size of materials you can compost

Standard Compost Bin

Standard enclosed composting bin with lid

$30-60 4-6 months - Works well as a "constant feed" system - Easy to empty finished compost

- Can dry out, need to ensure adequate moisture - Aeration can be issue without adequate coarse materials

Aerobin Aerobin uses a patented lung® or aeration core inside a 400L sealed bin to promote aerobic break down of organic matter

$380 3-6 months - Easy to use, no turning involved - Worms enjoy the Aerobin environment - Aesthetically pleasing colour - Compact, tall shape suits smaller gardens where space is an issue - Preferable method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

- Cannot compost bulkier items

Compost Bay, 1 cubic metre

A compost bay is an enclosed area where compost can be collected in a heap

Little to none

6-18 months

- Easy to access and turn the pile contents

- Difficult to retain moisture - Requires more spaces and at least 2 bays (with 1 pile left to complete composting process)

Bokashi Composting

Bokashi composting system uses the revolutionary EM (Effective Micro-Organism) Bokashi to create the ideal conditions for airtight (anaerobic) composting.

$85 per bucket plus $9 per 1kg packet of Bokashi EM

4-6 weeks - Eliminate the odours and unpleasantness associated with putrefaction and decay

- Specifically designed for kitchen waste (stored inside), so an additional composting method would need to be used for green/yard waste

Earth Machine

The Earth Machine is an above ground, free standing compost bin that can be turned to improve aeration or left alone.

$75-85 2-3 months - Combines both horizontal and vertical columnar convection ventilation that is controlled through the lid. - Made of tough high-density polyethylene with UV stabilisers for all season strength and weather ability. - Made with a minimum of 50% post-consumer recycled materials. - Comes with 10 year warranty against cracking, deterioration, warping, or any other manufactured defect

- Rodents can be problematic unless secured properly with wire mesh

*Prices will vary considerably based on bulk purchase prices


Table 16: Worm Farms

Type Description Cost* Advantages Potential Problems

Polystyrene Box

Use a polystyrene box (best to use deep broccoli boxes which come with lids) to create your own worm farm

Free (uses a readily available resource)

- White colour reflects heat - Very compact system, suits small balconies or apartments

- Limited life span - Need to make sure it is not over watered, or provide a drainage layer

RELN Worm Factory

The RELN Worm Factory allows occupants of high density living to participate in ‘balcony composting’ providing organic fertiliser for potted plants, vegetables and garden generally.

$60 - Easy to harvest one tray at a time and add extra trays as needed - Can remove legs and move trays into shade on hot day - Compact system, suits balconies and apartments

- Dark colours (green and black) can absorb excess heat - Legs can be flimsy, especially as weight grows in trays

Wheelie Bin Worm Farm

Low maintenance, high capacity worm farm made entirely from recycled wheelie bins that would otherwise have been sent to landfill.

$190-225 - Easy to move where needed to adapt for temperature changes and to harvest contents - Fits in well with other waste and recycling containers - Depth of bin provides a protective mass for worms to shelter in during hot weather - Comes in a variety of sizes (120 or 240L bins) and colours

- Requires larger space for use and access - Darker coloured bins can absorb excess heat

Heat Tolerant Worm Farm

Worm farm consisting of wooden frame, plastic lining, and a plastic tub for harvesting.

$150-180 - Better thermal insulation (wooden frame) and use of the ground as a heat sink allows this container to be placed in direct sunlight - Timber frame sturdier than standard worm farms - Plastic lining keeps moisture in - Compact design for smaller spaces

- Harvest tray can be heavy to remove (up to 20kg)

*Prices will vary considerably based on bulk purchase prices


Home Composting Trial in Shoalhaven

In Shoalhaven, NSW, Council implemented a home composting trial. The trial took place over a period of 12

months with pre- and post- auditing. The trial included 1.5 hours of face-to-face training with residents, support

available online, over the phone, and at home, survey conducted on attitudes about home composting, and the

organisation of newsletters and neighbourhood get-togethers. The study found that home composting resulted

in:

o Reduction of 2 garbage trucks in fleet (due to reduction in waste)

o Processing: zero cost for Council

o Results in medium-quality product for use within garden

o GHG emissions: 67t CO2 per year (10 times less than if all organic waste was collected in a 3rd

bin)

o Cost to household: $10/yr. (based on 10 yr. life of bin & training)

The Shoalhaven trial was very successful. The results are shown below:

o 30% reduction of overall waste (~6600t)

o 97% of individuals who began trial still active after full year

o 90% produced viable compost (to use in garden)

o 77% showed a noticeable reduction in waste

Figure 24: Community Education Program


9.2.3 Organic waste collection system The key options for the treatment and management of municipal organic waste are either household composting or a centralized collection system, or a combination of the two. Various treatment options exist for the treatment of collected organic waste. Effective systems for the collection of organic waste are essential to a well run program. Some of the key factors which need to be considered include the composition of the waste accepted, the bin types and sizes, the frequency of collection, costs passed onto the residents, and whether the service will be optional or compulsory. The types of waste accepted will be influenced by the type of treatment system you are using and the frequency of pick up. Many municipalities around the world are now accepting all forms of organics including meat products. However, collection of this waste seems to be uniformly on a weekly basis to prevent odour issues which may arise from longer collection cycles. Some municipalities collect garden and kitchen waste together, while others collect them separately. Again this decision will be effected by the treatment system used. Kitchen waste tends to be wetter and breaks down quickly, while garden waste generally takes longer to breakdown and do not create as many odour issues. Combining kitchen and garden waste is often a good option, as garden waste will limit the odour issues associated with the kitchen waste while kitchen waste will encourage garden waste to breakdown quicker once composting begins. Split bins, bins which have a separator in them allowing two types of waste to be collected in the same bin, are not encouraged as contamination of both waste streams is common. A significant issue with collection of mixed organic/green waste bins is bin cleaning and a range of models have been developed to deal with this issue. From SIA’s investigation a weekly combined green/organics collection is preferred on a compulsory basis to maximize waste diversion. There are always exceptions within the collection cycle and allowances for multiple dwelling units (who are likely to have no green waste requirement) and other households. There are a variety of bin types available and a trial would be recommended. Specific bins can cater for the collection of liquids at the base which significantly reduces odour and bin cleaning requirements. 9.2.4 Organic waste treatment options As a key aspect of Option 5 SIA recommends that if a green/organics waste collection service is implemented that Council tender the treatment of this waste stream on the basis of providing;

• High quality saleable material • Professional and sustainable operations that limit the impact of odour on the community • Lowest cost in consideration of the two former objectives

Through sound tender/contract management it is achievable for contracts such as this to align with longer term objectives such as waste reduction. A broad range of technologies are available for treatment of organic waste and should be considered through a tender process. These are outlined below: In vessel composting In-vessel composting is a form of composting biodegradable waste that occurs in an enclosed reactor. These are generally made out of metal or concrete bunkers in which the temperature and


air flow inside the reactor can be controlled. Air is generally injected in under pressure via buried tubes, with exhaust escaping through a biofilter. Temperature and moisture conditions are monitored and controlled to ensure aerobic digestion conditions. The biofilter captures any naturally occurring gases during the hot aerobic composting and, as the filtering material saturates over time, these can be used in the composting process and replaced with fresh material. This technique is often used for municipal scale organic waste processing, including the final treatment of sewage biosolids to a safe stable state for reclamation as a soil amendment. GHG emissions associated with this approach are quite high but can be effectively managed as all emissions escape through the same avenue. Similarly this process can generate significant odour, however as it is generated in a controlled enclosed environment it can be managed. Odour is controlled by increasing the carbon to nitrogen ratio, increasing aeration by ventilation, or using a coarser grade of carbon material to allow better air circulation. It is important that such systems are considered and included on installation. These systems are often at the higher end of the cost scale. Windrow composting Windrow composting involves the piling of organic waste in long rows. The waste is regularly turned to allow maximum oxygen content, minimum moisture content and consistent temperature. The method is most appropriate for large volumes of waste. The quantity of carbon and nitrogen rich material will affect the appropriate pile size, moisture content and turning frequency. GHG emissions associated with Windrow composting are comparatively quite high, as no capture, treatment or control occurs, however odour issues are minimal, and costs are low. Anaerobic composting Anaerobic digestion or composting involves a series of processes in which micro-organisms called anaerobes break down biodegradable material in the absence of molecular oxygen. It is widely used to treat wastewater sludge and organic waste because it provides reduction in the volume and mass of the input material. This process results in the waste becoming hot, moist and may generate significant odours. Anaerobic digestion is usually undertaken to allow for the splitting of waste from gas, which can then be used to generate renewable energy that can help replace the use of fossil fuels. The process produces a methane and carbon dioxide-rich biogas suitable for energy production. In addition, the nutrient-rich solids left after digestion can be used as fertiliser. The digestion process begins with bacterial hydrolysis of the input materials to break down insoluble organic polymers (such as carbohydrates) and make them available for other bacteria. Acidogenic bacteria then convert the amino acids and sugars into carbon dioxide, hydrogen, ammonia and organic acids. Acetogenic bacteria then convert these organic acids into acetic acid, along with additional carbon dioxide, ammonia, and hydrogen. Lastly, methanogens convert these products to methane and carbon dioxide. Pressure from environment legislation on solid waste disposal has increased the application of anaerobic digestion as a process for reducing waste volumes and generating useful by-products. Anaerobic digestion may either be used to process the source separated fraction of municipal waste, or alternatively combined with mechanical sorting systems, to process residual mixed municipal waste in an AWT. GHG emissions associated with anaerobic composting are comparatively quite low as gas emissions are used to make energy. Odour issues can be a challenge using this type of composting approach. Anaerobic digestion facilities have been recognised by the United Nations Development Program as one of the most useful decentralised sources of energy supply, as they


involve less capital investment than large power plants. Cost is medium range, but management of odour issues can be quite costly. Biochar The production of Bio Char occurs through a pyrolysis process in a limited oxygen environment between temperatures of 450 to 550 0C. During pyrolysis, a synthesis gas or syngas is produced. This gas can be cleaned and burnt and the heat produced can be recycled back into the pyrolysing system to either dry the incoming feedstock or heat the pyrolysis machine. This significantly reduces the energy requirement for the process limiting energy consumption potentially to start up fuel. In addition, chemicals and oils can also be rendered from the process, which can be used as a fuel or in the pharmaceutical industry. At the end of the pyrolysis process, the material left is bio-char which can be used for soil amelioration or in some circumstances as activated carbon. Although this technology is proven and robust it has not been applied on a large scale to MSW waste at any location in the world. The potential benefits for carbon capture and application for depleted soils in the Hunter Valley region are significant. The only recent commercial scale facilities are operating in the Philippines (rice Hulls) and the US (Chicken litter). SIA has undertaken a comprehensive feasibility assessment of this technology for the Tasmanian Government and there are a number of companies and organisations across Australia in early stage development of pilot facilities. BEST Energy in the Central Coast region also operates smaller pilot facilities. The application of this technology has not yet reached a stage of maturity however further detail on this technology can be provided to Council if required. Aerated composting Aerated composting is generally conducted at high temperatures, thermophilic (organism that survives at high temperatures) bacteria break down the organic material and air is fan forced through the mass. This process produces less odour and less greenhouse gasses. The carbon nitrogen ratio, moisture and oxygen levels are managed during the process. Organic waste is broken down very quickly using this method. Odour, GHG emissions and cost for this method are all comparatively quite low. One example of aerated composting is the aerated static pile system. Information on the implementation of this system in Coldstream, Victoria can be found below.


Aerated Static Pile System in Coldstream, VIC

SIA have assisted Australian Native Landscapes (ANL) analyse and develop best practise in composting and odour

elimination. Aerated static pile technology was determined to be the best practise for creating an odour-less

composting facility in Coldstream, Victoria. Aerated static pile technology was applied during the first stage of

the composting process when the volatile compounds are present. This process takes about 28 days, at the end

of which time these windrows can be disturbed, removed and re-stacked in static windrows for maturation.

These aerated piles are capped with mature compost to act as a biofilter for the aeration discharge gases.

The extending of this first stage to about 28 days, using the aerated static piles, means that a second stage using

smaller turned windrows is unnecessary. The final stage of composting then employs static piles similar to but

smaller than those previously used on this site, successfully and without odour issues.

Positive air pressure (blown) is used for aeration. Air is injected via buried perforated plastic ducts. These are

then bedded on a layer of relatively mature compost to assist in leveling them and protecting them during pile

building. The air ducts are also arranged to handle water drainage, in case the bottom of the piles become over

watered or there is flooding.

The maturation process is then carried out in smaller static piles or windrows, about 2.5m in height, which are

self aerating and generally have been charged with sufficient air during the windrow forming procedure to

sustain aerobic conditions throughout the maturation process.

In accordance with best practice procedures:

a) Moisture content is monitored and controlled in an appropriate manner and records kept to

ensure over-watering does not occur and that adequate moisture levels, generally in the range 40

to 50%, are maintained. Appropriate measuring equipment is used and scheduled monitoring and

recording is increased.

b) These smaller windrows do not require aeration, forced, or by turning, for cooling and promoting

the composting process. However, they must be monitored for temperature, moisture and oxygen

level. If any of these parameters show a need for turning then this can be readily accomplished

with on-site equipment. If there should be any need for extended turning operations then a

windrow turner can be used on this size windrow.

c) These windrows are also sheltered by the windbreaks, reducing the odour generated and released

by wind disturbance

Figure 25: Aerated Static Pile System at ANL


9.3 C&D Waste Management Options Diversion of the C&D waste stream is a significant opportunity and component of Option 5. At present most C&D volumes in the LMCC area go to Awaba landfill were minimal material is recovered or they go to private resource recovery facilities or public landfills in other Council areas. CiviLake, an operational arm of LMCC, is in the process of establishing an inert resource recovery operation. This operation will be based in Teralba not far from the LMCC worm farm. Its aim is to improve the operational efficiency and reduce costs to CiviLake by improving resource recovery rates and supplying materials for internal works purposes for Council. Demand for this material is anticipated to be over 100,000 tonnes per annum. At this stage CiviLake is seeking to recover;

• Green waste • Bitumen • Soils • Crushed concrete • And other inert materials that can be used for road base or similar

It was made clear to SIA that CiviLake has no intention of being involved in any aspect of waste management including C&D waste management at this time. Never-the-less CiviLake can a play a key role in ensuring residual waste is kept to a minimum by providing markets for particular aspects of the resource recovery stream. It is proposed under Option 5 that the materials that may not be accepted at the CiviLake Teralba facility go to the Resource Recovery Park or other commercial facilities. C&D waste wherever feasible should be separated (pricing policies to promote separation of materials) and transferred for resource recovery activities. The cost of disposal of any residuals from the C&D stream should work on a full cost recovery model. It is estimated by weight that over 20% of the MSW waste stream can be diverted through this model (both through the Civilake facility and the resource recovery park).

9.4 Recycling Options A key focus on the SIA option is the development of point source segregation of the waste stream. As a part of this approach a review would be required into the existing kerbside collection arrangements. SIA believe that careful attention to detail in the collection arrangements and the subsequent management of the arrangements by LMCC is critical. The best method to maximise the KPIs in collection arrangements is to ensure a competitive tendering process is put in place. It is recommended that this is done as soon as possible with all waste management contracts. To encourage household engagement in the process of waste minimisation it is suggested that a differential pricing strategy be put into place. This would include the option of the householder having access to a 60, 80, 120, 140 and 240 waste mobile garbage bin (MGB). The smaller the waste bin the less they are charged. This provides a physical and financial incentive to recycle more. As already stated in the report, community engagement is critical to the success of long term waste minimisation and to this end education and the use of educational media is critical.


To maximise recycling it is imperative to ensure the community are provided with the maximum opportunity to recycle. If they are unable to take full advantage of kerbside collection opportunities then the Resource Recovery Park is the next ideal location to be involved in waste minimisation.

9.5 Resource Recovery Options A significant component of Option 5 is the development of a major Waste Transfer and Resource Recovery Facility or ‘Eco Park” to undertake the following functions:

• Accept and receive segregated materials at reduced cost • To provide a functional facility to service the community’s needs • To provide an education centre for residents and schools • To capture and make use of resource recovery opportunities as they evolve • To increase waste diversion from landfill and recovery opportunities • To act as a key waste transfer point when the Awaba facility closes • To provide a high profile point of sale for resource recovered materials

The location of the facility would need to be in a suitable position to provide access to the community however with appropriate buffers and access to transport networks. It would be proposed that many of Councils current resource recovery and waste management initiatives such as the following would be integrated into this facility:

• Re-use Centre • Materials from bulk kerbside pick up • Oil recycling and Sharps collection • Hazardous waste drop off • E-waste drop off • Worm Farm • Mobile Muster • Drum Muster

Please refer to section 8.3 of this report for more detail.

9.6 Residual Waste Disposal Options Option 5 as is with Option 4 is primarily focused on reducing the volume of residual MSW in the waste stream. As initiatives are introduced and behaviour changes it is likely that these volumes will steadily decrease under an effective waste management system. It is estimated that by implementing the proposed initiatives in Option 5 that waste diversion can reach a level above 60% of the total MSW stream over 3-5 years. This along with other initiatives will increase the life of the Awaba landfill by an additional 2-5 years. It is suggested based on the timing and the success of waste reduction and waste diversion actions that residual waste disposal being effectively planned for and investigated over the next three years. It is mostly likely that a waste export option will meet the needs of LMCC in the region until such time as appropriate technology and resource recovery processes are available to economically manage this waste stream. Sending the residual MSW stream (with effective source segregation) to an AWT is likely to have minimal impact on reducing this volume at present as most of the prime resources will be recovered through kerbside recycling and the proposed


green/organics collection. However technologies and applications are always developing and this may be a different situation in 5 years time. It is proposed as default at this stage (in consideration of 7-10 year operation of Awaba) that Option 1 and Option 4 be considered as the default first preference for residual waste disposal.

9.7 Energy Recovery Although not a mature market in Australia energy recovery from waste provides a range of alternatives specifically for the residual waste fraction after recycling and waste diversion has taken place. Much of this waste comprises of residual plastics and other mixed material which generally has a high calorific value. The variability of the MSW poses some significant challenges in terms energy recovery (many industrial waste are used for energy recovery due to their homogenous characteristics). This may be a consideration for LMCC at a later stage when technologies are more proven in Australia with the MSW stream, however a range of options exist including: Cofiring Cofiring, or co-combustion, is the combustion of two different types of materials at the same time. One of the advantages of cofiring is that an existing plant can be used to burn a new fuel, which may be cheaper or more environmentally friendly. Cofiring can also be used to improve the combustion of fuels with low energy content.

The interest for cofiring originated in the 1980s in the U.S. and Europe, and referred specifically to the use of solid waste residues (paper, plastic, solvents, tars, etc.) or biomass in coal power stations that were initially designed for combustion of sole coal, and attempted, because of existence of those new opportunity fuels, to carry out a combined combustion in order to increase benefit margins. The interest on cofiring has grown in the last decade mainly due to the increasing social concerns on global warming and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consequences of this concern are the new policies on energy and the environment aim at reducing emissions. Cofiring is regarded as a great opportunity for replacing coal (solid fossil fuel) used for power generation, easily with renewable fuels (biomass), with low costs, and a direct repercussion in the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions. During the last decades research has provided very diverse solutions for cofiring biomass in coal power stations with a limited impact in efficiency, operation and lifespan.

Types of Cofiring

Cofiring in cement kilns is already a quite widespread solution for valorisation of waste materials. The Resourco C&D waste processing facility in South Australia is the best known example of waste being used for fuel preparation for the Adelaide Brighton Cement kiln.

The co-firing systems, according to the current state of the art and the future perspectives, can be classified into direct and indirect cofiring technologies. The former refer to those systems where combustion of both fuels takes place at the same combustion device or into the same boiler simultaneously. The secondary fuel (biomass, waste) may be either mixed with coal before the combustion starts or fed by a separate device, e.g. specific biomass burners. Indirect cofiring, on the contrary, separates the combustion of both solid fuels, though Combustion Gasses may be mixed afterwards.


Direct biomass cofiring systems entail advantages of simplicity and economics. However direct cofiring systems are also more sensitive to variations in fuel quality and heterogeneity. SIA is currently developing an alternative waste fuels feasibility assessment with Cement Australia, utilising limited volumes of MSW (organic waste, controlled wastes).

Indirect cofiring systems imply usually more complex and expensive solutions, but they reduce problems related with corrosion, fouling, slagging, etc. This, allows cofiring rates larger than direct systems, that is, larger percentages of coal substituted by biomass or waste. As well, indirect cofiring systems are in general better for fuel mixtures where secondary fuel may include potential contaminants like heavy metals or other dangerous inorganic compounds.

Plastic Recycling

Increasingly stringent European legislation is setting new standards that promote the application of novel recycling technologies capable of absorbing large amounts of plastic wastes. Energy recovery involves the use of waste plastics as fuels not only in incineration facilities for the production of heat or electricity, but also in specially adapted energy intensive industrial processes like cement kilns and boilers for steam or heat production. An option with great potential is feedstock recycling, which includes a variety of processes like pyrolysis, catalytic conversion, depolymerisation and gasification, designed to transform plastic waste into hydrocarbon products for use in the preparation of recycled polymers, refined chemicals, or fuels. As of 2006, plastics in Europe ended up:

- 61% to landfill - 23% incineration including energy recovery - 16% recycled

Feedstock Recycling Feedstock recycling involves the transformation of plastic polymers (by heat or chemical agents) into hydrocarbon products that may be used to produce new polymer, refined chemicals or fuels. A variety of treatments may be included under this category including chemical depolymerisation, gasification, thermal cracking and catalytic conversion. Although a broad diversity of energy recovery technologies for residual waste exist it may be some time before the commercial drivers associated with energy/fuel prices and cost of waste disposal make such options viable in Australia. Case Study: Polymer Energy System After source separation of organics and recyclable materials, much of the remaining residual MSW is comprised of plastics. Converting plastics into fuel is an economical and environmentally responsible alternative to the current methods of recycling and disposal of plastic waste. Polymer Energy offers one example of such technology. The system uses catalytic pyrolysis to efficiently convert plastics into crude oil. The Polymer Energy system consists of modules that can produce up to 775 litres of crude oil for every tonne of plastic waste processed. It is designed to primarily process polyolefins i.e. polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP). It can process typical plastic waste such as used agricultural/mulch film, silage wrap and other soiled agricultural plastics, metallised plastics, plastic laminates, printed plastics, wet plastic byproducts and even heavily recycled plastics. The throughput capacity is directly dependant upon the quality of the input plastics waste. The non-plastic contaminants are converted into ash which is automatically removed from the system during the normal self-cleaning cycle of the system.


The Polymer Energy system is designed to handle plastic that is contaminated with up to 25-30% of other kinds of waste including metals, glass, dirt, water, etc. Therefore, the residual waste need not be sorted, cleaned or dried prior to processing, resulting in a significant cost savings. The output crude oil is high-grade and is suitable for use in low-rpm machines, such as electric generation turbines, or can be processed further in a refinery. The system is used in the United States, Europe, and has recently established three plants in Asia: two in Thailand and one in India. Through this process, energy can be recovered from residual municipal waste streams.


Table 17: Future Planning for Option 5 Years Goal Task/Action 2014 Year 5 • Implement a significant waste

reduction and diversion program to increase waste diversion above 60% within the first 5 years.

• Tender and implement an effective Resource Recovery Park.

• Put measures in place to work with waste diversion to extend the life of Awaba out an additional 2-5 years.

• Detailed review of waste collection arrangements.

• Develop Financial optimisation for implementing new system.

• Develop and implement metrics for assessing success of diversion strategies and the associated cost savings.

2024 Year 15 • Develop and implement option for

residual waste disposal/treatment. • Maintain program reducing waste

generation and increasing diversion.

• Ongoing assessment of commercial resource recovery options (such as AWT, Bio Char, energy and material recovery technology for WTS).

• Tender options for residual waste management.

• Review and assess all contracts.

• Strategic review of current technologies and waste management options.

2034 Year 25 • Residual waste at minimal levels and effective treatment technology available to recover resource from this stream.

• Review technologies and options and tender.

2044 Year 35 • Through source segregation and resource recovery focus the cost and liability of waste management heavily reduced and Council receiving potential revenue streams.


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 5: SIA Option

9.8.2 Capital Expenditure The capital expenditure option 5. will include the following:

• Establishment of Resource Recovery/ WTS facility ($8-$15m as outlined in Option 4.) • Change of collection services including bin sizes and additional organic/green waste collection

(this will partly be mitigated by reduced general waste volumes and a fortnightly collection). This could be a significant one off cost ($2-4 million) specifically if Council bin ownership is adopted and a buy back scheme is put in place. Through innovative pricing models this should provide a long term cost reduction to the total waste management system.

• Contract for organic/ green waste treatment. Depending on the process and technology selected this will likely result in capital cost of between $3-8 million (taken over the life of the contract).

• Roll out of a home composting program on a voluntary campaign basis. ($30-$80 per household).

• Efficiencies to reduce filling rate at Awaba as outlined in Option 1. • The development of the Civilake Resource Recovery facility (already budgeted). • Funds allocated for resources to support an ongoing education and awareness campaign

(Estimate - $800k – $1.25 million p.a) (All costs provided are indicative and need to be fully assessed)

9.8.3 Waste Diversion Impact

The waste diversion impact from Option 5 is heavily weighted on the success of initiatives and programs to implement waste reduction, source separation and resource recovery activities. Through the functional activity of greater diversion at a household and Resource Recovery Facility the waste stream can be reduced and converted more readily into a resource. Another key function is the development of markets and technologies for material separation will become increasingly viable as waste disposal prices steadily rise in NSW. Within the framework of this option those opportunities can be realised.



9.8.4 GHG Risk and Impact This option is based on an approach that takes a holistic view to provide the best and most sustainable outcomes for all key stakeholders. It will provide the flexibility to take advantage of new technological changes with regard to waste minimisation and maximising resource recovery in the future. It is forecasted that Option 5 will be similar to Option 4 with the life of the landfill extended until 2020/21. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste received by Awaba landfill forecasted until 2050, based on the forecasts for waste received in Section 9.8.3. Figure 7 shows the resulting GHG emissions up until closure and until 2050. As in the previous options, the CPRS liability is calculated for 2011/12 based on the amount of waste received for that year. It has been forecasted that about 76kt of waste will be received, producing 1494 tonnes of CO2e. Assuming a carbon prices of $10/tonne CO2e, the total cost at the beginning of the CPRS in 2011/12 would be $14 940, excluding legacy emissions and GHG captured by the LMS and amount oxidised. Assuming a carbon price of $25/tonne CO2e in the following years, the cost at closure in 2020/21 would be around $475 288 and continue to decline in the following years after a slight increase in 2021/22. 9.8.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts Option 5 will require significant and sustained changes to the current waste management system including contract options outlined in 9.8.6 below as well as the fundamental approach taken by Council and the community to waste management. This strong focus on waste reduction, source segregation and resource recovery will have significant impact to all operations over time and will result in a major increase in diversion rates and cost reductions for Council over time.


9.8.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 month s] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC for this option.

Table 18: Short Term Action for Option 5 Review existing contract Review Green organics processing contract

Review Kerbside Recycling Collection Contract

Review bulk waste collection agreement

Awaba Review machinery and infrastructure

requirements at Awaba

Review filling schedule

Review Resource Recovery contract

Develop rehabilitation and aftercare contract

Waste cartage arrangements Investigate and review

Establish a C&D contract Look at market development

All waste arrangements Review

Develop tenders for The design and construction of a major

resource recovery WTS facility

Green/organics collection contract

Organic Waste Treatment contract

9.8.7 Social and Community Issues With in the context of developing a detailed management option there a number of issues that the community will have particular interest in. These include;

Table 19: Social and Community Issues for Option 5 Litter Litter and the management of litter through

community engagement is a critical tenant of the SIA approach

Odour The issue odour in a well managed waste transfer station is not a problem as the turn around time of cartage is no more than 60 minutes

Community Health & Safety A well designed WTS provides significant community and operational heath and safety advantages

Traffic Volume, type, frequency and speed (commercial and industrial, small or large and domestic self haul) are often issues of concern..

Noise Relating to traffic frequency is of concern to the general public .


Environmental Damage Ground & Surface Water Contamination

Minimal environmental impact occurs through a well managed eco park. All rain water run off and leachate management are easily segregated and managed. Windblown litter is managed through all weather enclosure

Impact on Wildlife, In conjunction with the potential for environmental degradation the community is concerned about the impact on flora, fauna with particular attention to native species. With regard to a WTS this problem is all but eliminated

Vermin (birds, rats, flies etc) Vermin is also seen as a critical issue with particular emphases on nearby communities. A well designed WTS is easy to establish and manage with regard to vermin and birds. No waste is left exposed longer than 60 minutes.

Proximity to Residents A well designed and run WTS mitigates the problems often associated with a landfill site. It can be close to the generators of waste (population) to reduce transport costs but needs to be as far away as possible from residential communities.

Impact on Tourism WTS mitigates many of the concerns relating to a landfill .

Perceived Land Value Reduction (Poor Image/Appearance)

There is limited loss of amenity and therefore there is limited perception to declining neighbouring land values.

Fire Hazard Although a fire is still a concern the management practice is easier to manage and the potential result is far less catastrophic to the environment.

Hazardous Waste A well run WTS at the ecopark would have a hazardous waste management facility that would allow for transport preparation.

It should be noted that community priorities and concerns will be easier to address in the context of an eco park than the development of a new landfill site.



Table 20: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 5 Risk Potential Impact Level of Risk Residual waste reduction strategies are not successful due to slow change in community behaviour

There is a greater volume of residual MSW to be managed or exported costing Council additional fees.

High

Costs and resources associated with development and management of this option delay or reduce its impact

Lower diversion rates and costs for Council in the short term.

High

Awaba life not extended Force Council to make more immediate and short term decisions.

High

Traffic Impact Assessment Significant consultation and investigation in the short term to ensure minimal disruption. A prime portion of the traffic impact assessment will be undertaken outside the LMCC’s boundary.

High

No managerial control over alternative facility

The disposal point of residual waste could be closed or limited by DECC for any number of breaches. This could result in major and immediate waste disposal problems for LMCC.

Medium

Site Maintenance WTS LMCC has not managed a WTS before. The nature of the infrastructure and it daily usage and management are all critical issues associated with success.

Medium

WTS site DA Development applications will be required. This is an expensive and time consuming process. It also represents an ideal time for community engagement in the process.

Medium


9.8.9 Waste Hierarchy impact The impact on the waste hierarchy is most pronounced on Option 5, which has at its primary focus waste avoidance, reduction and recovery. By focusing priorities at the top as well as commercial drivers, Option 5 is able to achieve the most optimal long term outcomes.



10. COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF OPTIONS 10.1 Future Planning

All options from 1-5 require an immediate response from LMCC specifically in consideration of the current Awaba landfill life and time to implement significant changes to the waste management system. As discussed in section 2. ‘LMCC Waste Management Priorities’ the important aspect to having flexibility to adopt to changing market and circumstances shows some options are better than others.

• Options 2. (New landfill) provides the least flexibility as once established this facility will need to take volume over a 20-30 year period to pay for capital and ongoing operational costs minimising the opportunity or drivers for waste reduction, diversion and resource recovery.

• Option 3. (AWT) is likely to commit LMCC to a similar situation to option 2. however this can be improved with a shorter term contract (10 or 15 years). However this will come at a cost to Council.

• Option 1. is likely to commit Council to a similar situation to Option 2. for a far shorter time horizon.

• Both Options 4. and 5. will allow LMCC significant flexibility and opportunity moving forward as internal and external conditions change.

10.2 Capital Expenditure

The graph below (Figure 28) outlines the estimated cost of disposal for residual waste. All options show a greater reduced cost to a business as usual scenario and all are predicated on reduction of waste generation and improved waste diversion. Option 3. AWT performs best on this basis however this cost does not account for the gate fees for MSW through the facility. Despite significant waste reduction and diversion the increasing cost of disposal through levies and the CPRS liability are likely to heighten the attractiveness of better waste management enabling many resource recovery or recycling technologies to become more viable at a future date.


Figure 28: Total Cost of Residual Waste Disposal fo r Each Option

10.3 Waste Diversion Impact

Figure 29. Illustrates the fundamental differences between the waste infrastructure approaches with the 5 models. Only Options 4. and 5. are able to meet and exceed the 3% reduction target adopted by LMCC over time. Although Option 3. AWT starts off well there are no key drivers or incentives to reduce waste volumes over time. Options 1. and 2. benefit from waste reduction and diversion programmes initially however over time fail to provide the diversion rates targeted by LMCC.

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Year

Tot

al C

ost

Business as Usual Option 1: Extension of Awaba Option 2: Creation of New LandfillOption 3: Creation of AWT Option 4: Export of Waste Option 5: SIA Option


Figure 29: Comparative Waste to Landfill Graph

10 .4 GHG Risk and Impact Modelling each of the GHG impacts based on the current CPRS workbook methodology does not provide a truly accurate picture of the overall GHG impact. Clearly all options including Option 3. AWT are likely to expose LMCC to considerable levels of risk over time. Option. 3 AWT is likely to have the most benefit in the short term however the longer term goal of waste reduction, diversion, resource recovery and recycling more strongly outlined in Options 4. and 5. will have a reduced impact to GHG liability over time. If lifecycle impacts (Scope 3) are evaluated then the impact of Options 5. is clearly the most optimal outcome in reducing GHG risk and impact. 10.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts Option 1. and Option 2. are likely to have the least impact on current contracts and the current waste management system. All options proposed however will require significant changes. The most significant changes to the waste management system and contracts will be Option 4. and 5.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2005

-200

6

2007

-200

8

2009

-201

0

2011

-201

2

2013

-201

4

2015

-201

6

2017

-201

8

2019

-202

0

2021

-202

2

2023

-202

4

2025

-202

6

2027

-202

8

2029

-203

0

2031

-203

2

2033

-203

4

2035

-203

6

2037

-203

8

2039

-204

0

2041

-204

2

2043

-204

4

2045

-204

6

2047

-204

8

2049

-205

0

Year

Tot

al W

aste

Lan

dfill

ed P

er A

nnum

(T

onne

s)

Current waste per capita 2% reductionper capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum

Option 1: Extension of Awaba Option 2: Creation of New Landfill Option 3: Creation of AWT

Option 4: Export of Waste Option 5: SIA Option


10.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months ] All Options outlined will require critical short term decision making by Council if LMCC is to successfully implement any alternative to business as usual. The failure to do so will place Council at a higher level of risk reducing timeframe’s to implement options moving forward. 10.7 Social and Community Issues All options proposed are likely to have both positive and negative community impacts. The longer term impacts of waste reduction, and diversion are likely to represent some short term change however with the result of long term gain and benefit to the broader community. The development of a new landfill site may have significant concentrated opposition from specific parts of the community potentially effecting amenity and house prices. 10.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC A risk assessment is provided for each option and no options proposed are void of potentially high risks. The decisions LMCC needs to make swiftly are significant and are likely to be some of the largest financial decisions the Council will make for some time. SIA believe that it is critical that each Option is reviewed from a risk perspective with Council to assist in guiding infrastructure strategy and future decision making. 10.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact Each option represents different impacts as far as the waste hierarchy is concerned. Option 5. has the most positive impact focussing on the higher levels of avoidance and reduction. Options 1 and 2. have the least desirable impact by sustaining a strong focus on disposal as the primary driver of the waste management system.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5


11. RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 First Recommendation Table 21: First Recommendation and Time Frames

Year Goal Task / Action

Education Local business programs

Avoidance

School programs Education Full and comprehensive program Rehabilitation & Aftercare Awaba Plan development Shredder Purchase tender for LMCC Organic/Green Collection Tender contract for organic/green

collection bin (weekly 240L) and kitchen caddies Develop requirements and concept for EcoPark Tender Design and construct Establish functional drop off and resource recovery options Develop Education centre Develop pricing models to drive resource recovery

WTS

Relocate Worm farm Organic Waste Treatment Tender contract for organic waste

treatment from Kerbside collection. Roll out a structured program to increase home composting

Develop Waste Export Contract Options

Negotiate optimal and potentially multiple contract options

Extend life of Awaba landfill

If not feasible, default to Awaba extension Increase resource recovery. Decrease waste generation.

2010-2014 (Years 1-5)

Extend capacity of Awaba landfill Investigate creating additional landfill volume.

Review infrastructure and technology options for disposal / treatment of residual waste

2014 (Year 5)

Residual Waste diversion achieved >60%

Continue program of reducing residual waste through reduction, diversion and resource recovery

2024 (Year 15)

Residual Waste Recovery/Treatment/ Disposal

Tender residual waste management on the basis of new technology and facilities in the broader region

2034 (Year 25)

Resource Recovery Continue Focus of reviewing and applying technology and market applications to maximise commercial return from resources

2044 (Year 35)

Resource recovery of 80+% MSW stream

Commercial recovery of 80% + of MSW stream with sustainable management of residual waste volume


11.2 Second Recommendation To make use of commercial innovation the second recommendation proposed by SIA is for LMCC to undertake an EOI process with a specific scope to manage and deal with the different MSW streams out to the broader market. The EOI should be structured to meet the key requirements of LMCC outlined in Section 2 of this report but focused on key services and infrastructure. This process is likely to draw a broad range of innovation and mutually beneficial infrastructure options in the broader region. There are key aspects of Recommendation 1 that a contractor (private or Council) will be unlikely to deliver and LMCC would need to assess how to optimise those elements that may not be contracted. Council would then be able to embark on a higher level tender process to achieve optimal and sustainable outcomes. This can more broadly be integrated into a revised waste management structure achieving those requirements outlined in Section 2 of this report. SIA has recommended this option on the basis of broader level opportunities and synergies that may promote efficiency or commercial drivers that optimise some aspects of the waste system. It is clear that although the HIR process has not been successful with AWT in the region that LMCC should not negate further opportunities for regional infrastructure. Many components of Recommendation 1 could also be incorporated into this model.


12. CONCLUSION Undertaking this review for LMCC SIA believe that Council are in a unique position to restructure the approach to waste management by focussing on the ‘management’ aspect. A clear focus on diversion, innovation and commercial drivers will enable LMCC to achieve significant environmental outcomes at the same time as mitigating future financial risk. This report finds that there are few easy wins to achieve long term waste reduction and high diversion rates and that a ‘silver bullet’ or single infrastructure option is likely to lead to only a short term impact on waste reduction and unsustainable diversion. The recommendations provided by SIA are based on research, stakeholder views but also direct waste management experience in infrastructure and system implementation. Many issues addressed in this report such as MSW, community requirements, legislation and markets are variable and rapidly changing and the best way to manage waste in these situations is to have a waste management system capable of adapting and working with these changes to achieve optimal outcomes. Through the recommendations outlined, SIA believes it has been able to capture the basis of an effective waste management approach that will meet LMCC’s requirements and be adaptable moving forward into the future.


APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Term Definition Alternative Waste Treatment Processes that are used to recycle and reuse waste materials, (AWT) reduce the toxicity of a waste stream, or produce a final residual

material that is suitable for disposal. The selection of the most effective technology depends upon the wastes being treated.

Biodegradable Waste Waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic (oxygen poor) or

aerobic (oxygen rich) decomposition, such as food or garden waste and paper and cardboard, i.e. waste that rots

Carbon Pollution Cap-and-trade system of emissions trading for anthropogenic Reduction Scheme (CPRS) greenhouse gases, proposed to be introduced in Australia in

2011by the Australian government as part of its climate change policy

Commercial Waste Waste arising from premises that are used wholly or mainly for

trade, business, sport, recreation or entertainment, excluding household and industrial waste

Composting The controlled biological decomposition and stabilisation of

biodegradable materials (such as organic garden and kitchen wastes) under predominantly aerobic conditions to produce a humus (organic)-rich, sanitised and stabilised product that can be beneficial to soil

Construction & Demolition Arising from the construction, repair, maintenance and demolition (C&D) Waste of buildings and structures. It mostly includes brick, concrete,

hardcore, subsoil and topsoil, but it can also include quantities of timber, metal and plastics

Controlled Waste Household, industrial and commercial waste or any such wastes that require a waste management licence for treatment, transfer or disposal

Co-incineration The generation of energy or production of material products using wastes as a fuel.

DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change EOI Expression of Interest Gas Controls Methods to control the emission of methane from landfill sites


Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the Thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. Common greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons Green Waste ’Green and wood waste’ means vegetable waste from gardens

and parks, tree cuttings, branches, grass, leaves (with the exception of street sweepings), sawdust, wood chips and other wood waste not treated with heavy metals or organic compounds

HIR Hunter Integrated Resources Home Composting Composting can be made at home using a traditional compost

heap, a purpose designed container or a wormery Household Waste Waste from domestic properties including waste from caravans,

residential homes and premises forming part of an educational establishment or part of a hospital or nursing home

Incineration The controlled burning of waste, either to reduce its volume or its toxicity Industrial Waste Waste produced by industrial activity, such as that of factories,

mills and mines Kerbside collection Any regular collection of mixed recyclable or compostable wastes from premises. Excludes collection services delivered on demand. LMCC Lake Macquarie City Council Landfill Sites Areas of land in or on which waste is deposited Leachate The liquid that drains or 'leaches' from a landfill Leachate controls Methods to control the emission and quality of leachate from

landfill sites. MOU Memorandum of Understanding Materials Recovery A facility to process wastes for the purpose of recovering useful Facility (MRF) materials using a variety of processes to separate out different

materials, ranging from manual sorting to advanced mechanical separation techniques

Mixed Waste Waste for composting that includes both kitchen waste and garden waste Municipal Solid Waste Waste type that includes predominantly household (domestic) (MSW) waste, with sometimes the addition of commercial wastes

collected by a municipality within a given area NCC Newcastle City Council


Operational Phase Includes the installation of the engineering containment system, (Landfills) the active phase (i.e. when the site is accepting waste) and the

installation of the capping system, up to the point of definite closure

Post-closure Phase The point after definite closure, where the landfill has stopped (Landfills) accepting waste for disposal Resource Recovery Generating value from wastes from a wide variety of activities

such as recycling, composting and energy recovery Recycling Using waste materials in manufacturing other products of an identical or similar nature Reprocessor A company that recycles materials. Only ’accredited reprocessors’ can issue packaging recovery notes Residual waste Waste that remains following all practicable efforts to extract

recyclable and compostable material from the waste stream SIA Sustainable Infrastructure Australia Surrender (Landfills) The point at which the permit holder has completed after-care

maintenance to such a level that it is accepted that the landfill is no longer a risk to the environment

Thermal treatment A broad generic term covering processes that involve the use of

heat to treat waste. Incineration is the most common thermal treatment process. Pyrolysis and gasification are other high temperature processes but there are also low temperature processes used, for example, in technologies producing refuse-derived fuel

Waste Transfer Station A site to which waste is delivered for sorting and compacting prior (WTS) to transfer to another place for recycling, treatment or disposal Waste Arisings The amount of waste generated in a given locality over a given

period of time


APPENDIX 2 DECC REGULATIONS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED LANDFILLS Landfills are subject to environment protection regulation in 2 stages: planning and operation. Planning- Gaining approval for a new landfill or significant expansion

• May require preparation of an EA – Environmental Assessment and public consultation before consent from the consent authority under Parts 4 and 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

• The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) can nominate what should be included in an EIS. The DUAP has produced the EIS Practice Guideline: Landfilling (1996) to assist with this.

• The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has introduced a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) to provide a more ordered and strategic approach to landfill planning.

• The SEPP establishes the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning as the consent authority for regional putrescible landfill proposals from local councils, Waste Planning and Management Boards or from the Waste Service.

• The SEPP covers proposed extensions to existing putrescible landfills and proposed upgrading of non-putrescible landfills to putrescible status. Local councils are still responsible for determining applications for individual local council landfills. (For council applications>$5m Joint Regional Planning Panels now in place that will capture applications up to $100m)

• • In making decisions on landfill proposals the Minister may have regard to the need for

additional landfill capacity and whether the facility is identified in an approved Regional Waste Plan as the preferred disposal option.

Operational

• Regulation will occur through the waste licensing scheme set down in the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995.

• A licence for waste disposal will be required depending on the location of the facility and/or wastes received as set down below.

A formal EA is required if:

• A proposed landfill is to dispose of solid waste that compromises: o More than 100,000 tonnes per annum of clean fill such as soil, sand and gravel)

that is likely to cause significant impacts on drainage or flooding o More than 1,000 tonnes per annum of sludge of effluent o More than 200 tonnes per annum of other waste material

• A proposed landfill is in one of the following locations: o In or within 100 metres of a natural body of water, wetlands, coastal dune fields or

an environmentally sensitive area o In an area of high watertable, highly permeable soils, acid sulphate, sodic or

saline soils o Within a drinking water catchment


o Within a catchment of an estuary where the entrance to the sea is intermittently open

o On a floodplain o Within 250 metres of a residential zone or a dwelling not associated with the

development and likely to significantly affect the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, visual impact, air pollution, vermin or traffic

New Landfills

• EPA requires licences for all landfills proposed for sensitive areas (listed above) irrespective of quantity or type of waste received, and will generally not be prepared to issue a licence for landfills in such locations

• EPA requires licences for all landfills proposed in Sydney, Hunter and Illawarra regions irrespective of quantity or type of waste received

Existing Landfills

• EPA requires licenses from all currently licensed and unlicensed landfills in NSW


APPENDIX 3

POPULATION ESTIMATES USED IN ‘WASTE TO LANDFILL’ GRAPHS

Year Population Estimate Year Newcastle Region Lake Macquarie

Change in Newcastle Population

2005-2006 2004 190,375

2006-2007 2005 191,143

2007-2008 2006 517,500 191,955

2008-2009* 2007 523,700 193,092 6,200

2009-2010 2008 529,200 195,559 5,500

2010-2011 2009 534,700 197,881 5,500

2011-2012 2010 540,200 199874 5,500

2012-2013 2011 545,700 201909 5,500

2013-2014 2012 551,200 203944 5,500

2014-2015 2013 556,700 205979 5,500

2015-2016 2014 562,100 207977 5,400

2016-2017 2015 567,600 210012 5,500

2017-2018 2016 573,100 212047 5,500

2018-2019 2017 578,600 214082 5,500

2019-2020 2018 584,100 216117 5,500

2020-2021 2019 589,600 218152 5,500

2021-2022 2020 595,100 220187 5,500

2022-2023 2021 600,500 222185 5,400

2023-2024 2022 605,900 224183 5,400

2024-2025 2023 611,300 226181 5,400

2025-2026 2024 616,700 228179 5,400

2026-2027 2025 622,000 230140 5,300

2027-2028 2026 627,300 232101 5,300

2028-2029 2027 632,500 234025 5,200

2029-2030 2028 637,600 235912 5,100

2030-2031 2029 642,700 237799 5,100

2031-2032 2030 647,700 239649 5,000

2032-2033 2031 652,600 241462 4,900

2033-2034 2032 657,500 243275 4,900

2034-2035 2033 662,200 245014 4,700

2035-2036 2034 666,900 246753 4,700

2036-2037 2035 671,500 248455 4,600

2037-2038 2036 675,900 250083 4,400

2038-2039 2037 680,300 251711 4,400

2039-2040 2038 684,600 253302 4,300

2040-2041 2039 688,800 254856 4,200

2041-2042 2040 693,000 256410 4,200

2042-2043 2041 697,100 257927 4,100

2043-2044 2042 701,100 259407 4,000

2044-2045 2043 705,100 260887 4,000

2045-2046 2044 709,000 262330 3,900


Year Population Estimate Year Newcastle Region Lake Macquarie

Change in Newcastle Population

2046-2047 2045 712,800 263736 3,800

2047-2048 2046 716,600 265142 3,800

2048-2049 2047 720,300 266511 3,700

2049-2050 2048 723,900 267843 3,600

population estimate provided by ABS and/or NSW DoP

population estimate calculated by SIA based on given data

Lake Macquarie population data (2001-2008) taken from Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Newcastle population projections taken from NSW Department of Planning (2008). Estimates based on Lake Macquarie’s population making up approximately 37% of the total Newcastle Region population.


APPENDIX 4 REFERENCES ACT Government, 2001. ‘Report: Household Organic Material Collection Trial, Chifley August 2000- June 2001’, 1-36. Aguado, J., G. San Miguel and D.P. Serrano, 2006, ‘European Trends in the Feedstock Recycling of Plastic Wastes’ Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006, March. ‘Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices’, http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C5C112B3DD1 BCC72CA25722C00745DCD/$File/46020_mar%202006.pdf Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008, ‘Year Book Australia’, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs @.nsf/mf/1301.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008, ‘National Regional Profile- Lake Macquarie (Local Government Area)’ Australian Government Department of Climate Change, 2007, ‘Waste Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections’, 1-30. Australian Governmental Portal, http://www.environment.gov.au. Barr, Stewart, Andrew W. Gilg and Nicholas J. Ford, 2001, ‘Differences Between Household Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Behaviour: A Study of Reported Behaviours, Intentions and Explanatory Variables’, 69-82. The Border Watch, 2009, 26 February, ‘Stink Over Kitchen Waste Trial’, http://www.borderwatch .com.au/archives/2431 Business Eco Group, 2006, February. ‘Behavioural Change Campaign: Final Report’, 1-24. Butt, Vienna, ‘Alternative Collection Technologies: The Future for Household Organics’, 1-9. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, ‘Oslo Waste Management System’, http://www.c40cities .org/bestpractices/waste/oslo_system.jsp California Integrated Waste Management Board, ‘In-Vessel Compost Technologies’, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/foodwaste/Compost/InVessel.htm Callan, Scott J. and Janet M. Thomas, 1999, ‘Adopting a Unit Pricing System for Municipal Solid Waste: Policy and Socio-Economic Determinants’, Environmental and Resource Economics 14: 503-518. City of Lake Macquarie, ‘City Statistics’, http://www.lakemac.com.au/page.aspx?pid=770&vid=1 City of Seattle, 2009, ‘History of the Variable Can Rate’ (http://www.cityofseattle.net/UTIL/ About_SPU/Garbage_System/Garbage_Rate_Structure/HISTORYOF_200312020939575.asp)


‘Compost Systems: Pros and Cons’, http://www.blogdivvy.com/growing-vegetables/compost-systems-pros-and-cons.htm Climate Positive website, http://climatepositive.org/measure/ Coffs Harbour City Council, 2004, ‘Domestic Waste Trial 2004’, 1-31. Cronshaw, Damon, 2009, 24 March. ‘300 Ideas as Council Cut Costs: Every Service Reviewed’. The Herald, p. 3. Department of Climate Change National Greenhouse Account Factors, 2008, November. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2007. ‘Waste and Environmental Levy: Operational Guidance Notes, Version 1.1’, 1-25. Dijkgraaf, Elbert and Raymond Gradus, ‘Cost Savings of Unit-based Pricing of Household Waste: The Case of the Netherlands’, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 353-371. EC Sustainable Environment Consultants, 2008, July. ‘Domestic Kerbside Waste Stream Audit for Lake Macquarie City Council’, 1-21. Eur-Lex, ‘Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste’, 1999. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0031:EN:NOT Europa, ‘Summaries of EU Legislation: Landfill of waste’, http://europa.eu/legislation _summaries /environment/waste_management/l21208_en.htm Europa, ‘Summaries of EU Legislation: Waste incineration’, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries /environment/waste_management/l28072_en.htm Georgia Department of Community Affairs, 2009, ‘Pay-As-You-Throw Collection Systems’, 1-8. Grant, Tim, 2007, December 14, ‘Appendix- LCA of Waste Strategy Options’, 1-20. Global NRG, ‘Turning Today’s Waste into Tomorrow’s Green Energy’, www.nuglobalnrg.com Harris Interactive Inc, The Harris Poll #67, 2007, 11 July, http://www.harrisinteractive.com/ harris_poll/index.asp?PID=783 House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee Report, 2008, 25 November, ‘Waste Reduction: Government Response’, 1-27. The Huffington Post, 2009, 11 June. ‘San Francisco Wasted Food Fines: Waste Not, Want Not’, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/san-francisco-wasted-food_n_214484.html Hunter Waste Planning and Management Board, 1998, July. ‘Hunter Regional Waste Plan’, 1-124. Hunter Waste Planning and Management Board, 1998, July. ‘Hunter Regional Waste Plan: Technical Memorandum No. 1: Policy Legal and Institutional Framework’, 1-20. Hunter Waste Planning and Management Board, 1998, July. ‘Hunter Regional Waste Plan: Technical Memorandum No. 2: Existing Services, Markets and Facilities’, 1-83.


Hunter Waste Planning and Management Board, 1998, July. ‘Hunter Regional Waste Plan: Technical Memorandum No. 4: Future Options’, 1-83. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, 2006, 7 February, ‘Policy Paper: AWT Implementation in NSW’, 1-28. Ireland EPA, 2008, http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/plans/EPA_waste_characterisation _2008_final_report1.pdf Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd, 2005, March. ‘Mechanical-Biological Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers Processes Policies and Markets’, 1-92. Kimbriki Recycling and Waste Disposal Centre, 2006, September, ‘Kimbriki Business Profile’, 1-31. Lake Macquarie City Council, 2007. ‘Sustainable Living Guide’, 1-44. Lake Macquarie City Council, 2008. ‘Lake Macquarie Community Plan 2008-2018: Aspirations of the People of Lake Macquarie’, 1-107. Lake Macquarie City Council, 2008, March, ‘Preliminary Assessment: CiviLake Recycling Facility’, 1-28. Lake Macquarie City Council, 2008, 22 October, ‘Sustainability Department Business Plan 2008-2009’, 1-15. Lake Macquarie City Council, 2008. ‘2008 State of the Environment Report’, 1-168. Lake Macquarie City Council, 2009, ‘Staff Focus Forum March 2009: Plant and Fleet’ Lake Macquarie City Council, ‘Lake Macquarie Greenhouse Action: Local Government Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Program’, 1-4. Lang, Justin and Huxley Lawlor, 2006, ‘Burnside Bio-Organics Trial: Diverting Food Waste From Landfill’, 1-14. LaTrobe City, 2006, July, ‘Waste Education Strategy: 2006-2011’, 1-17. LaTrobe Council “Public consultation waste management” Liverpool City Council website, http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au. Lochhead, Miles, Wingecaribee Shire Council, 2006, August. ‘The RRRoad to Zero Waste: Development of the Resource Recovery Centre- Moss Vale’, 1-15. Maroochy Waste Management, 2008, 29 May. ‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council Future Waste Disposal Solution Presentation’, 1-3. Micromex Research, 2007, October, ‘Waste Research: A Report Compiled for lake Macquarie City Council’, 1-11. Micromex Research, 2007, July, ‘Hunter Resource Recovery Waste Survey 2007’, 1-35. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au.


NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2007, ‘NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007’, 1-57. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, 2003, ‘Composting and Related Organics Processing Facilities’, 1-77. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, 2005, ‘Assessment of Garden Organics Collection Systems’, 1-74. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, 2007, ‘TBL Assessment of (Domestic) Food Organics Management’, 1-87. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, 2007, ‘Waste and Environment Levy: Operational Guidance Notes’, Version 1.1, 1-25. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, 2004, February, ‘Municipal Solid Waste Audit: Hunter Region’, 1-68. NSW Department of Planning, 2008, ‘State and regional population projections: 2008 release’. NSW Environment Protection Authority, 1996. ‘Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills’, 1-57. NSW Environment Protection Authority, 1998. ‘Draft Environmental Guidelines for Industrial Waste Landfilling’, 1-26. NSW Legislation website, NSW Government (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au) NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, 2009, February, ‘Social Profile Report: Lake Macquarie LGA’, 1-15. The National Greenhouse Energy Reporting (NGER), 2008. Orima Research, Hunter Resource Recovery, ‘Residential Recycling Survey: Findings’, 1-6. Penrith City Council website, http://www.penrith.nsw.gov.au. Polyflow website, http://polyflowcorp.com Polymer Energy, LLC. website, http://www.polymerenergy.com Regional District of Comox-Strathcona, 2006, 14 February, ‘Waste Management Survey’, 12-17. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2008, 02 September, ‘Waste Data Glossary’, 1-4. Sawangpanyangkura, Teerapong, ‘Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes Composting in Thailand by Aerated Static Pile System’, http://www.compost.mju.ac.th/eng/ US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2004, June, ‘Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers’, 1-40. US Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Pay-As-You-Throw: Unit Pricing of Municipal Solid Waste’, 1-24.

http://polyflowcorp.com/


University of Sydney Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis, ‘Lake Macquarie Waste Footprint’, 1-1. Veolia Environnement, 2007. ‘2006 & 2007 Sustainable Development Reporting: Australia and New Zealand’, 1-55. Viet Nysen Consulting, 2007, November, ‘Review of Waste Services’, 1-14. WME Environment Business Magazine, vol. 20 no. 2, 2009, March, ‘AWT: Rise of the Machines’, 34-36. WSN Environmental Solutions, 2007. ‘Waste: It’s a Climate Change Issue: An Easy Guide to Waste and Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, 1-21. WSN Environmental Solutions, 2009, 31 March. ‘New Waste Technology Generating Green Power from Rubbish’. WSN Environmental Solutions. ‘Alternative Waste Technology’. Wastemin Pty Ltd, 2008, October. ‘Nillumbik Shire Council: Recycling for the future: an organics approach project’, 1-66. Wilson, Duncan, ‘Optimising Kitchen Waste Collection, 1-10. Zero Waste SA, ‘Waste Hierarchy Figure’, http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/Content/Uploaded/ Generic/Images/waste_hierachy.jpg

Documents

waste management strategy and infrastructure options