regional waste – recovery and recycling business case ... · council’s overriding objective is...

This document has been prepared by Mike Ritchie and Associates for Cessnock City Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. Mike Ritchie & Associates (ABN: 13 143 273 812) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

VISION: The Cessnock Waste Management Strategy will provide a sustainable and least cost waste service to the people of Cessnock whilst complying with environmental, safety and legislative obligations as well as encouraging waste minimisation.

CESSNOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ADOPTED 19 MARCH 2014

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cessnock City Council (Council) has developed a Waste Management Strategy (Strategy) for 2014-2019. The process of developing the strategy has involved developing targets and objectives for this period of time, then reviewing all current waste generation trends, waste infrastructure and service characteristics to identify the means by which these objectives can be achieved. This information has been assembled in a Review Report. Community consultation has been an important aspect of the process of developing a Waste Management Strategy. The Strategy was first developed based on the findings in the Review Report and was presented to the community in order to facilitate feedback. In turn, this allowed Council to obtain the community’s input for this Final Waste Management Strategy. Overall, the community was supportive of the proposed Strategies and Implementation Plan and provided useful comments that have been incorporated into the Strategy.

Although achieving the 2014 government deadline is unlikely (due to the significant changes required in Council's systems in a relatively short timeframe), Council will make every effort to achieve 66% diversion of waste from landfill during the short term. This target has been recently revised by the New South Wales (NSW) Government and increased to 70% by 2022 in NSW’s draft Waste and Resource Recovery (WARR) strategy 2013-21. Council generates approximately 18,800 tonnes of residual waste and 4,700 tonnes of recyclables per annum. In total, Council currently diverts approximately 27% of kerbside domestic waste from landfill. System analysis has shown that the introduction of a kerbside organics collection (initially for garden organics (GO) then for both food and garden organics (FOGO)) will significantly increase Council’s diversion from landfill. Additional measures to reduce landfill disposal involve targeting and diverting waste from the Commercial & Industrial (C&I) and Construction & Demolition (C&D) sectors. Such measures might include: encouraging better source separation of waste, educating businesses on the environmental and financial benefits of reducing waste to landfill and encouraging these sectors to take advantage of regional opportunities to reduce waste to landfill. This Waste Management Strategy encompasses objectives and actions for issues that extend beyond kerbside and business-generated waste management to include total waste generation, education and illegal waste flows. For example, reducing the occurrence of litter and illegal dumping is an important aspect of this Strategy, which is complemented by Council’s adopted “Illegal Dumping and Litter Plan”. Through educating the community in regard to the impacts of litter and illegal dumping and introducing improved measures for identifying offenders, Council aims to reduce the incidence of these offences. Waste education is integral to achieving the objectives of the Strategy. Council is examining creative and engaging ways by which the community can become involved in improving waste management practices and learn about the importance and benefits of these actions.

Council’s overriding objective is to develop a sustainable waste management strategy. In quantitative terms, Council is aiming to, as a minimum, achieve the 2014 New South Wales Waste and Resource Recovery target of 66% diversion of waste from landfill and commence

achievement of the 2022 target of 70%.


iii

Regional collaboration is also expected to have an increasing importance in Council’s Waste Management Strategy. Council is actively working with neighbouring councils to introduce regional waste management solutions and will continue to support waste services offered on a regional level, such as the current household recycling service and the prospective C&I waste collection service. Overall, Council strives to provide a long-term, sustainable and least cost service to the Cessnock community, whilst encouraging waste minimisation and complying with all regulatory requirements. In pursuit of this goal, Council’s next key task is to reduce landfill disposal and increase recovery from 27% to 66% in the short term and to 70% by 2022. Figure 1 presents the current situation in relation to the 2014 NSW target and illustrates the potential contribution to an increased total recovery of each of the key components of the improved waste management system proposed as part of this Strategy. The 2014 66% diversion of waste from landfill goal may be difficult to achieve within the relatively short timeframe until the end of 2014. However, it is likely that a GO collection service can be implemented by the end of 2014 and this, in tandem with increasing diversion of recyclables, would raise the diversion rate to about 63%. The subsequent introduction of a FOGO collection service in the future has the potential to increase the diversion rate to around 78%. If Council implements all recommended improvements, it will be able to meet and exceed the 2022 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) diversion target.

Figure 1 Staged approach to meeting the 2014 66% WARR diversion from landfill target for MSW.1

This document presents the specific strategy elements, actions and sub-actions that will guide Council’s waste management. All strategy items have been developed as part of a comprehensive Review Report and refined through Council’s and community feedback.


iv

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. iii ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... vii 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Vision .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Strategy Development ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 5 2.1 National Framework............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 State Framework .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Local Framework .................................................................................................................................. 8

3 WASTE TRENDS ..................................................................................................... 9 3.1 National Trends .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 State Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 State Objectives after 2014 ................................................................................................................ 10

4 THE CURRENT POSITION ..................................................................................... 11 4.1 The Cessnock Region .......................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Population and households ............................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Waste Generation .............................................................................................................................. 12 4.4 Household Waste ............................................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Commercial and Industrial Waste ...................................................................................................... 15 4.6 Construction and Demolition Waste .................................................................................................. 16

5 WASTE SERVICES ................................................................................................. 17 5.1 Existing waste services ....................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Two-bin vs. three-bin household collection systems ......................................................................... 17 5.3 Review of Council waste management resource programs .............................................................. 20 5.4 Voucher system for bulky waste ........................................................................................................ 21 5.5 Waste education ................................................................................................................................ 22 5.6 Litter and illegal dumping .................................................................................................................. 23 5.7 Public place bin policy and procedure ............................................................................................... 25

6 WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................... 27 6.1 Location of landfills, drop off centres, transfer stations and depots ................................................. 27 6.2 CWRC’s future and rehabilitation ...................................................................................................... 28


v

6.3 Long term management of CWRC...................................................................................................... 29

7 MOVING FORWARD ........................................................................................... 31 7.1 Increase diversion of waste from landfill ........................................................................................... 31 7.2 Waste processing technology & risks ................................................................................................ 31 7.3 Regional collaboration ....................................................................................................................... 33

8 CONSULTATION SUMMARY ................................................................................ 35 8.1 Consultation process .......................................................................................................................... 35 8.2 Summary of participation .................................................................................................................. 35 8.3 Summary of residents’ responses ...................................................................................................... 36 8.4 Limitations of the consultation process ............................................................................................. 40 8.5 Strategy vision and community opinion ............................................................................................ 40 8.6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 40

9 STRATEGIES & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................. 42


vi

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Definition AWT Alternative Waste Treatment BAU Business as Usual CCC Cessnock City Council C&D Construction and Demolition (waste) C&I Commercial and Industrial (waste) CO2-e Carbon dioxide equivalent CPM Carbon Pricing Mechanism CWRC Cessnock Waste and Reuse Centre DA Development Approval EfW Energy from Waste FO Food organics FOGO Food organics and garden organics ftn Fortnight GHG Greenhouse gas GO Garden organics HCCREMS Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental Strategy HIR Hunter Integrated Resources HRR Hunter Resource Recovery HWEG Hunter Waste Education Group LGA Local Government Area LTFP Long Term Financial Plan MGB Mobile Garbage Bin MSW Municipal Solid Waste, i.e. household/domestic waste pa per annum tpa Tonnes per annum WARR Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery WLRM Waste Less, Recycle More wk Week


vii

1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Waste Management Strategy is to guide Cessnock’s waste management practices for the period 2014-2019. The development of this strategy represents an opportunity for positive change throughout Cessnock through the improvement of the region’s waste management landscape.

1.1 VisionThe vision for the strategy stems from Cessnock’s Long Term Strategic Plan, Cessnock 2023 – ‘Our People, Our Place, Focusing on the Future’, which encapsulates the community’s opinions for the Cessnock area for 2023 and beyond. The vision is for Cessnock to be a ‘cohesive and welcoming community living in an attractive and sustainable rural environment with a diversity of businesses and employment opportunities supported by accessible infrastructure and services which effectively meet community need’. The overarching vision is for Cessnock to be ‘thriving, attractive and welcoming’.

1.2 Guiding Principles The guiding principles of the Waste Management Strategy stem from the Cessnock 2013-2017 Delivery Plan, which identifies the community’s main priorities and aspirations for the future. In turn, Council’s strategies are formulated in order to achieve these aspirations.

The 2013-2017 Delivery Plan describes five community-desired outcomes:

A connected, safe and creative community.

A sustainable and prosperous economy.

A sustainable and healthy environment.

Accessible infrastructure, services and facilities.

Civic leadership and effective governance.

This Waste Management Strategy has been developed in order to support the outcome of ‘a sustainable and healthy environment’, which entails ‘the conservation and preservation of the natural environment, whilst balancing the impact of development to ensure a healthy and sustainable community’ (Cessnock City Council, 2013). “Environment and waste” has been established as one of the principal activities that will contribute towards this outcome and Objective 3.3 of the Delivery Plan is to promote better waste management and recycling.

The visions and principles presented in Figure 2 form the foundation of the Waste Management Strategy and guide the development of the strategy actions (Table 13 provides further detail on these items).


1

Figure 2 Vision, Principles and Strategy Actions

1.3 Objectives The overall aims of this Waste Management Strategy are to secure sustainable, least cost waste services to the people of Cessnock, comply with all environmental, safety and legislative obligations and encourage waste minimisation.

In quantitative terms, Council is aiming to reach the 2014 NSW WARR target of 66% diversion of waste from landfill and achieve 70% diversion by 2022. Although it is unlikely to make the 2014 government deadline due to the significant changes required in Council's systems, Council will make every effort to achieve 66% diversion within the next few years. At current rates of recycling, the Cessnock region is diverting approximately 27% of its municipal waste from landfill. Waste diversion performance can improve through the adoption of the strategic actions proposed herein. The main action that will contribute to achieving the 66% target is introducing a GO kerbside collection service in the short term and upgrading it to a FOGO collection service, in the medium to long term.


2

Other key aspects of the strategy include achieving a reduction in litter and illegal dumping, increasing waste education initiatives, improving resource recovery and waste diversion throughout the C&I and C&D waste sectors and maintaining sound monitoring and data management practices.

The key objectives for the Waste Strategy are to:

Meet the 66% municipal waste diversion target set by the NSW State Government, by 2014 or as soon as possible, through recovery, diversion and utilisation of materials from that waste stream.

Consider alternative and best practice service delivery for kerbside waste collection.

Increase the waste diversion rate from landfill and recommend best practise disposal and recovery options with least financial and environmental impact.

Maximise the operational efficiency of the Cessnock Waste and Reuse Centre landfill.

Contribute to a reduction in illegal dumping.

Identify external relationships with surrounding councils and regional waste management groups including opportunities for further waste reduction.


3

1.4 Strategy DevelopmentThrough analysis of future waste growth projections and infrastructure needs, waste management options were assessed in relation to their performance against key economic, environmental and social criteria. Based on the results of the analysis and community and stakeholder input, a preferred option has been selected for future waste management.

In developing a comprehensive Waste Management Strategy for the next 5 years to 2019, Council observed the current legislative framework (Figure 3) and followed the steps outlined in the flow chart below.


4

2 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Figure 3 National, State and Local Legislative Framework guiding the development of the Strategy


5

2.1 National FrameworkThe Commonwealth Government has limited constitutional powers to engage directly in domestic waste management issues. This responsibility rests largely with state, territory and local governments. However, the Commonwealth Government has taken on a strategic involvement in waste policy development, releasing the National Waste Policy in 2009.

Table 1 National Regulatory Framework

Policy/Regulatory Instrument

Relevant goals and targets

The National Waste Policy

The aims of the National Waste Policy are to: Avoid the generation of waste, reduce the amount of waste (including hazardous waste) for disposal, manage waste as a resource and ensure that waste treatment, disposal, recovery and re-use is undertaken in a safe, scientific and environmentally sound manner, and contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation and production, water efficiency and the productivity of the land.

A number of strategies have been identified within the National Waste Policy, which are to be pursued through a multi-jurisdictional approach. These include a national framework for product stewardship and extended producer responsibility. The product stewardship framework will provide support through voluntary accreditation of community and industry run recycling schemes. Key areas of focus will include mercury containing lights, tyres, packaging, workplace recycling, public place recycling, television and computer recycling.

Carbon Pricing Mechanism (CPM)

The Australian Federal government announced the details of its CPM in July 2011. Under the carbon price, around 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia (190 of them landfills) will need to buy and surrender to the Government a permit for every tonne of carbon pollution they produce. Liable entities are those facilities that meet an emissions threshold of at least 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, released per annum. The fixed price stage started on 1 July 2012 when the carbon price was set at $23 per tonne, rising at 2.5 per cent a year in real terms for the first three years. From 1 July 2014 onwards, the market was to set the carbon price and a link to the European carbon market had been announced. A total of $9.2 billion was to be allocated over the first three years for industry assistance. The 2013 election outcome has the potential to drastically influence the CPM, however, the exact changes are unknown at this stage.


6

2.2 State FrameworkThe New South Wales State Framework consists of legislation, guidelines, development plans and strategies pertaining to waste management and is summarised in Table 2.

Table 2 Relevant NSW Waste Controls

Legislation Policies and Strategies Guidelines Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 Protection of Environment Operations (POEO) Act 1997

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Act 2001 Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 Protection of Environment Operations (Waste) Amendment (Residue Wastes) Regulation 2005

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy 2007 Extended Producer Responsibility Priority Statement 2010

Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy (WRAPP)

Waste Less Recycle More Initiative 2013

NSW Illegal Dumping Strategy 2013-15

Draft Energy from Waste Policy

Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills, 1996

Environmental Guidelines Use and Disposal of Biosolid Products, 2000

Environmental Guidelines: Composting and Related organics Processing Facilities, 2004

Good Practice Performance Measures for Kerbside Recycling Programs, 2004

Reducing Contamination of Dry Recyclables and Garden Organics at Kerbside, 2007

Crackdown on Illegal Dumping: Handbook for Local Government, 2007

Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas, 2008

Waste Classification Guidelines, 2009

Preferred Resource Recovery Practices by Local Councils Best Bin Systems, 2012

The NSW Government’s objective is to provide a clear and consistent regulatory and policy framework that minimises harm to the environment, encourages waste avoidance and resource recovery. This framework uses a mix of legislative, policy, educational and economic tools. The NSW Government administers the waste regulatory framework through the state’s primary environment protection legislation, the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act 1997, together with the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Act 2001 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. These key statutes contain the requirements for managing, storing, transporting, processing, recovering and disposing of waste.


7

2.3 Local FrameworkTable 3 Local Regulatory Framework

Policy/Regulatory Instrument

Relevant goals and targets

Local Government Act 1993

The Local Government Act 1993 requires all councils in NSW to provide a residential waste collection service. In addition, councils must also promote a more responsible, sustainable and integrated approach to waste management. This includes the provision of education to residents, businesses and developers, other waste management services, waste policy and law enforcement. Local governments’ responsibilities in Australia generally extend no further than MSW. Local governments have little or no regulatory control over waste generated from C&I sources. Councils cannot compel businesses to recycle or direct them to take their waste to a particular location or dispose of it in a particular way. However, as owners of the majority of landfills in Australia, councils can drive reform via their landfill pricing and waste acceptance/rejection policies

Cessnock Waste Strategy 2010

During 2010, Council compiled a waste strategy aiming to ‘provide adequate services, technology and area to manage the City’s waste management needs for the short, medium and long term’ (Cessnock, 2010). Elements of the strategy itself included the following objectives:

Secure a long term landfill site adjacent to the existing site (which has since been achieved and the corresponding DA approved); Continue investigating options for processing organics; Encourage the C&I sector to partake in source separation and cleaner production techniques; Continue to encourage separation of materials received at the recycling centre; and Engage the community in better waste management practices.

To achieve these strategy objectives, Council developed a strategic action plan that was divided into the four distinct areas of collection, disposal, recycling and education.

Cessnock 2023 Community Plan

The Cessnock 2023 Community Plan was developed during 2012 and 2013. It is based on the community’s vision for the future for the Cessnock region. The community detailed what they did and did not want to see occur over the next ten years and the Plan also outlines key responsibilities for parties over the long term. The overall vision developed was for Cessnock to be thriving, attractive and welcoming. The plan has been developed based on the issues, challenges, opportunities and priorities identified by the community within the key directions of:

Our Community; Our Economy; Our Environment; Our Services; and Our Leadership.

2013-2017 Delivery Plan, Cessnock City Council

The Delivery Plan translates the community’s strategic directions into actions. It is also a statement of commitment to the community from each elected council. The plan details each of the community’s desired outcomes of:

A connected, safe and creative community; A sustainable and prosperous economy; A sustainable and healthy environment; Accessible infrastructure, services and facilities; and Civic leadership and effective governance.


8

3 WASTE TRENDS

3.1 National TrendsThere have been significant changes to the way society manages waste in the last two decades. Nationally, waste generation has grown annually at an average of 4.3% over the past 20 years, driven by population growth and increasing per capita consumption. The trend has increased over the last 8 years, to 7% per annum.

During 2002-03, Australia generated approximately 32,400,000 tonnes of waste and during 2008-09, this increased to 60,900,000 tonnes. This is an 88% increase in waste generation in 5 years

Unfortunately, the recycling rate has decreased slightly with 46.3% (15,000,000 tonnes) of materials recycled in 2002-03, compared to 43% (26,300,000 tonnes) being recycled in 2008-09. Waste sent for energy recovery has grown to 300,000 tonnes in 2008-09 but is still negligible (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Total waste generation, disposal, recycling and energy recovery in Australia 2002-03, 2006-07 and 2008-09

3.2 State Trends NSW is Australia’s biggest waste generator, when compared to other states. In 2008/2009 the former Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)) estimated that approximately 16.3 million tonnes of waste was generated in NSW (or 2,329 kilograms per capita per annum). Of that, 58% (9.5 million tonnes) were recycled and 42% (6.7 million tonnes) went to landfill. The NSW Government has set ambitious targets for resource recovery, to be achieved by 2014; its strategy nominates 66% recovery of waste from the municipal sector, 63% recovery from the C&I sector and 76% from the C&D sector. These targets have been revised upwards for 2022. Table 4 demonstrates that there


9

has been a steady increase in resource recovery across all streams but that there is still a significant way to go for achieving the MSW and C&I targets.

Table 4 Targets and resource recovery rates - waste stream in NSW Waste stream

2014 target

2022 target

Actual Recovery 2002-03





MSW 66% 70% 30% 33% 43% 44% 52% C&I 63% 70% 34% 38% 44% 52% 57% C&D 76% 80% 64% 62% 67% 73% 75%

Being responsible for the MSW sector and having the capacity to influence the C&I and C&D

sectors through landfilling price structures, councils across NSW are looking for ways to increase recovery and reach these targets

3.3 State Objectives after 2014On 1st August 2013, the NSW Government published its 2013-16 Strategic Plan, which outlines the EPA’s new set of objectives for the period 2014-2021. The plan aligns with NSW 2021 – A plan to make NSW number one, which sets out how the NSW Government will deliver a range of community priorities over the next eight years. The Strategic Plan’s key result areas and outcomes address the broader NSW 2021 goals through a range of carefully targeted strategies. The key strategies that the EPA will employ to achieve its stated outcomes include the implementation of the NSW Government’s five-year, $465.7-million Waste Less, Recycle More initiative, reaffirming the EPA’s commitment to the innovative management of waste. The new objectives that have been set for the State, over the period 2014-2021 include:

Growth in waste generation is to be in line with population growth by 2021–22; Recycling rates are to increase to 70% for MSW and C&I, and 80% for C&D waste by 2021–22; Waste diverted from landfill is to increase from 63% (in 2010–11) to 75% by 2021–22; Problem waste collection services are to be available for 80% of NSW households by 2021–22; Litter is to be reduced by 40% by 2016–17 from 2011–12 levels; A reduction in the incidence of large-scale illegal dumping of waste (200 cubic metres or more) throughout Sydney, the Illawarra, Central Coast and Hunter regions by 30% by 2016–17 compared with 2010–11; and Establish a state-wide baseline for illegal dumping by 2016–17 and reduce levels thereafter.

Through its renewed commitment to even more ambitious waste-diversion-from-landfill targets and the introduction of $465.7m worth of grants into the waste sector, the State government provides even greater incentives for councils to tackle their local waste management issues. All of the above objectives are likely to influence Council’s waste management practices during the period 2014-2021, particularly the revised recycling rates for all waste streams. The plan will also serve to inform and enhance Council’s waste management direction and practices, for example, through ensuring that problem waste services are offered in the Cessnock region.


10

4 THE CURRENT POSITION

4.1 The Cessnock RegionThe Cessnock Local Government Area (LGA) encompasses approximately 1,950 square kilometres and is located in the Hunter Region of NSW. It lies approximately 120 kilometres north of Sydney and 40 kilometres west of Newcastle. The LGAs of Singleton, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, Maitland and Wyong surround Cessnock. Cessnock was originally a mining town and remained so up until the mid 1900s, when the increasing mechanisation of labour and mining practises led to a decrease in mining related employment. Despite this, the LGA has retained some light industry associated with mining, namely the production of mining support services. The decrease of the importance of mining has been equalled by a significant increase in the role of viticulture and other industries associated with the production and sale of wine. Cessnock is one of Australia’s oldest wine regions, with rich volcanic soils that promote strong growth of vineyards. In turn, the prominence of viticulture has led to the growth of the tourism industry throughout the area.

4.2 Population and householdsCessnock’s population in 2013 was over 50,840. Figure 5 illustrates the population density by suburb, throughout the LGA.

The LGA demographics are skewed towards a younger population, with people between the ages of 0-14 comprising the largest portion of the population when compared to other age brackets. Currently, there is a higher proportion of people in pre-school than in retirement, and the median age for the LGA is 37 years of age.

Figure 5 Cessnock population density map


11

4.2.1 Future development forecasts and population growthAccording to the Cessnock City Wide Settlement Strategy, 2006 projections suggested that the LGA could expect an additional 870 dwellings per annum over the next 25 years (790 additional dwellings per year as new releases and an additional 80 to provide for changing housing needs for the existing population). However, on average, 229 dwellings were constructed per annum from 1995-2009. Over the last decade, Cessnock has experienced a regular increase in population, initially by small increments from 2001-2006 and by larger increments from 2006-2011 (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Cessnock Residential Population 2001-2011

It is likely that Cessnock will continue to experience sustained population growth, due to new housing developments such as the Huntlee Development and construction of the Hunter Expressway, linking the F3 Freeway to Kurri Kurri.

4.3 Waste GenerationThe three key waste streams analysed in the Waste Management Strategy are MSW, C&I, C&D. MSW refers to all solid waste that is generated from domestic premises, including recyclable materials, garden organics and food organics. C&I refers to solid waste that arises from the commercial and industrial sectors, such as food and plastic containers, and C&D waste refers to solid waste generated by the construction and demolition sector, such as building materials. Figure 7 illustrates the percentage and weight composition of the MSW, C&D and C&I waste streams received at the Cessnock Waste and Reuse Centre (CWRC) over the 2011/12 financial year. C&D waste is the largest category of material received for landfilling, accounting for almost 47% of landfilled waste. MSW is the second largest waste type, amounting to 34% of the total followed by C&I waste, which comprises 19% of the material received. Out of the total domestic waste received, 23% is MSW that is collected via the kerbside service, 9% is residual waste dropped off to CWRC by residents and 2% is made up of garden organics that have been dropped off to CWRC.


12

Figure 7 Composition of Waste Received at the Landfill - MSW, C&D, C&I (tonnes and percentage)

4.4 Household WasteFigure 8 illustrates the composition of the household waste stream based on a 2011 waste audit. Organics, such as food and garden waste, comprised 55% of the total. In the 2008 audit, organics accounted for 50% of the domestic waste stream. These findings indicate that organic content is consistently high in residual waste bins. Thirty-four per cent of the 2011 kerbside residual waste stream comprised paper, glass, metals and plastics. In turn, 21% of the total bin contents were recyclables.

Figure 8 Household Waste Composition (tonnes and percentage in 2011)

18,800 tonnes of household waste collected at the kerbside is landfilled annually. 7,400 tonnes of household waste is dropped off at the CWRC facility and landfilled. Domestic recyclables from kerbside collection total 4,700 tonnes. Drop-off quantities of domestic recyclables to CWRC total 94 tonnes. 1,900 tonnes of garden organics is dropped off at CWRC. The Cessnock community recycles 27% of kerbside collected household waste.


13

The high organic content in residual waste bins suggests that although Council offers a drop off service for garden organics at CWRC, it is not being used extensively. A significant amount of garden organics is still entering the kerbside household bins. Introducing a GO or FOGO collection would significantly reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. This would assist Council to increase the amount of waste diverted and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from landfilling waste (when organic waste is landfilled, it releases methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas). Summarising the 2011 audit findings, Figure 9 depicts the total weight and relative proportion of recyclables, organics and residuals in the residual waste stream (red-lidded bin). It demonstrates that almost half of the residual waste stream comprised food and garden organics and approximately one fifth comprised recyclable material.

Figure 9 Recyclable containers and paper, compostable organics, and non-recyclable waste in the domestic waste stream (tonnes and percentage)

Figure 10 presents the composition of the household recycling stream (yellow-lidded bin). Overall, recyclable metal, paper, glass and plastic amounted to 94% of the bin contents. The remaining 6% was contamination, mainly comprising organics, non-recyclable metals and building waste.

Figure 10 Recycling Stream Composition (tonnes and percentage)


14

4.5 Commercial and Industrial WasteFigure 11 presents the trend in C&I waste received at CWRC from 2007 to 2012. During 2010/11, the amount of C&I entering CWRC peaked at nearly 38,000 tonnes, with a marked decline in material received from this point onwards. Discussions with Maitland City Council suggest that the Maitland landfill facility is currently receiving significantly larger amounts of C&I than CWRC, most likely due to the price differential, which could explain the decline in C&I received at CWRC from 2010/11 to 2012/13. However, the situation may change over the coming years as Maitland’s landfill only has approximately 6 years of life remaining (at current rates of filling). Hunter Resource Recovery (HRR), an initiative of Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Singleton Councils, is also planning to introduce a C&I recycling collection service, similar in nature to Council’s current recycling service offered to households. Businesses will have a large range of bin sizes to choose from and can opt into the service. HRR believes that there is a strong requirement for such a service throughout the region, as the Cessnock, Singleton and Maitland LGAs are the highest C&I waste generators throughout the Hunter Valley (HRR, 2013). This service has been progressively introduced since July 2013 and if it is widely adopted throughout the aforementioned LGAs, it may significantly contribute to diverting C&I from the CWRC landfill.

Figure 11 C&I Waste Received at CWRC (2007-2012)

Although local councils are not mandated to provide services for the collection of C&I waste, this does not rule out the possibility of taking action on the issue. For example, education is integral to improving waste diversion rates for the commercial sector. Therefore, Council can still play an active role in influencing C&I management practices, particularly in regard to reducing waste generation, encouraging source separation of wastes to allow for greater recycling and discouraging the landfilling of waste.


15

4.6 Construction and Demolition WasteC&D waste received at CWRC has followed a similar trend to C&I. The highest annual quantity of C&D was received during 2011 while during 2012, CWRC received 11,919 tonnes (Figure 12). CWRC is already working to process and reuse as much C&D as possible. For example, bricks and concrete are diverted from landfill to be processed and reused and bulk metals are also diverted and stored onsite for future sale or reuse. In addition, Council has integrated differential pricing structures to encourage better source separation and improve the recovery of waste.

Figure 12 C&D Waste Received at CWRC (2007-2012)

Markets for recycled C&D are generally stronger and more stable than those for C&I, which in turn encourages a greater diversion of C&D from landfill. Moreover C&D is generally heavier than C&I and is therefore more responsive to landfill gate fee price increases (usually expressed in dollar per tonne), allowing greater influence over C&D waste management practices. However, C&D diversion rates can still be improved, although not all forms are easy to target, particularly hazardous construction materials such as asbestos. Commercial operators in the Cessnock region are also looking to establish waste processing facilities, as an extension of their current operations. These facilities may potentially include the construction of energy and waste recovery plants as well as infrastructure that can treat a large variety of industrial and organic wastes. If established, the facilities will have the potential to divert significant amounts of both C&I and C&D from landfill through the processing and reuse of waste materials. A business education program throughout the Cessnock LGA may also lead to an increased rate of diversion of C&D from landfill and improved source separation. For example, business waste audits could be offered to the C&D sector in order to highlight ways in which better waste management practices can be adopted.


16

5 WASTE SERVICES

5.1 Existing waste services Council currently offers a weekly kerbside household waste service and a fortnightly kerbside recycling service to approximately 20,000 households in the Cessnock LGA. Whilst Council is responsible for the residual waste collection, Hunter Resource Recovery provides the recycling collection, under contract with Solo Resource Recovery. Households use a 240L red-lidded bin for residual waste and a 240L or 360L yellow-lidded bin for recyclable materials (Table 5). Some residents who live in outer rural areas do not have access to the waste collection service for a number of operational reasons including safety, road/bridge limits and economic feasibility. These residents are able to purchase landfill disposal vouchers at a subsidised price. Additional recycling services for problematic and hazardous materials are offered at the CWRC. For example:

Drop-off of containers covered under the DrumMUSTER program; Domestic quantities of used engine oil; Bulk metals; E-waste; Household items such as bric-a-brac; and Dry recyclables such as paper, cardboard, plastic and glass.

Residents are also encouraged to drop off their garden organics at the CWRC. Council offers a free lawn-clipping drop off option and differential pricing for clean, source separated garden organics. In addition to this, 250 households throughout the LGA have opted to use subsidised home composting kits and worm farms, which promote the decentralised processing of organics. In support of this initiative, Council also runs workshops and events pertaining to the management of home composting.

Table 5 Waste Services and Quantities

Kerbside residual Kerbside recycling Landfill facility Rural service Bin Red-lid, 240L Yellow-lid, 240L or

360L* - -

Number of services Approx. 20,000 Approx. 20,000 - Self-haul Frequency of service Weekly Fortnightly - - Collected/received (tonnes per annum)

18,000 4,500 50,000 (including MSW, C&I and C&D)

Included in landfill total

Notes Operated by council.

Managed by Hunter Resource Recovery. New contract has been awarded to Solo Resource Recovery

Operated by council with occasional assistance from specialist contractors.

Residents outside of waste collection catchment can purchase landfill disposal vouchers at subsidised price

5.2 Two-bin vs. three-bin household collection systemsThere is a range of policy settings available to councils from maximum diversion to minimum cost, depending on each council’s ability to subsidise the recycling markets. Most recycling in Australia is subsidised, due to the fact that of all the major kerbside streams that can be recycled, only the metals (aluminium and steel) and fibres (paper and cardboard) have inherent


17

commercial value. The remainder materials of glass, plastic 1-7 and minor streams generally cost more to recycle than their inherent commodity value. Therefore, the overall value of the mixed basket of commodities is less than the cost of sorting them out and recyclers need to either be subsidised, or recover the cost of separation by charging the waste generators as they bring their waste into the facility. For that reason, many materials recycling operators charge a gate fee to recycle. The same is true for most organics streams. It often costs more to compost organic waste than the inherent commodity value of the resulting compost. Consequently compost operators also charge a gate fee when accepting organics. Put simply, recycling and composting cost money, and the more councils recycle, the more expensive it becomes, particularly when recycling minor streams. However, councils should be also aware of the “opportunity cost” of recycling. In most cases that is the cost of landfilling. If the cost of landfill is cheap then the cost of recycling is comparatively high. If on the other hand the cost of landfill is high, then many recycling options make commercial sense. In determining their priorities, councils have a number of options from a public policy perspective. These range from maximising recycling (or ‘diversion from landfill’, which also often implies maximum costs), through to maximising landfilling (which in most of Australia will involve minimum costs due to the relatively low cost of landfilling compared to the costs of recycling). In practice, for councils these policy options manifest themselves into a choice between different kerbside bin systems. In broad terms, more bins maximise diversion and fewer bins minimise costs. The spectrum of options is illustrated in Figure 13 and detailed in the following sections.

Figure 13 Graph of cost vs. diversion for waste management options

5.2.1 Two-bin system; minimum recycling; minimum cost: This option only requires a Two-Bin system comprising a yellow top recycling bin and a red top residual bin. The average household recycling rates in Australia via these systems is 17% of total waste and in turn this option is the cheapest but typically generates low recycling rates. Over 90% of Australian households have access to recycling services. The average gate fee for a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) sorting kerbside recyclables is $30-$40/t. However, there are some councils in Australia that receive payments of up to $40/t for recyclables.


18

5.2.2 Hybrid two-bin system; moderate recycling; moderate cost Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT):

This option retains the two bins from the previous system but directs the residual bin to an AWT facility. However, the AWT experience in Australia has been mixed; several anaerobic digesters have attempted to digest the content of the residual bin, but have been unable to continue operations due to equipment malfunctions and issues with input material. The Global Renewables plant in Western Sydney and the Arrowbio plant in Jacks Gully are the highest profile failed projects, whereby both have been converted into residual composting plants. Composting of the residual bin is a proven and comparatively robust technology. It produces relatively low-grade compost, which in NSW is classed as AWTDORF (AWT Derived Organic Rich Fraction). The use of this compost product is limited to landfill rehabilitation, forestry, mining and broad acre agriculture and application rates are strictly controlled. The experience with AWT residual composting plants suggests that they are achieving 40-50% diversion rates. Consequently this 2-bin option can deliver 50-60% total diversion from landfill when combined with the kerbside recycling bin. The dry residual material from such organic AWTs is a high calorific stream made up of a majority of plastic and textiles. This lends itself to a thermal treatment processing option via gasification, pyrolysis or waste to energy. If this material is thermally treated this option can achieve a 90% plus diversion rate. However, currently this AWT residual material is almost universally landfilled in Australia.

5.2.3 Three-bin system; maximum recycling, maximum cost: This option involves a three-bin solution with yellow top recycling, red top residual bin and green top organics bins. There are two variations of the 3-bin scenario. These are garden waste only, or garden waste and food in the same bin. GO tend to be processed via composting technologies to produce woody mulch and a low nutrient compost product. A three bin GO system generally achieves a 40-50% household recycling rate, comprising a 17% kerbside recycling and 30% garden organics recycling rate. The FOGO is similarly composted but generates a higher value compost product, with higher nitrogen loading due to the presence of food. A three bin FOGO system generally achieves a 50-65% household recycling rate, depending on the uptake of food recycling (17% kerbside recycling; 30% garden organics recycling and up to 20% attributed to food recycling). Neither of these streams can readily be anaerobically digested since woody materials cannot be digested easily. These options also produce a residual waste stream that is largely depleted of organics and therefore has two distinct advantages:

First, being organics-depleted, any residual waste that is landfilled will generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, the absence of organics in the bin means that the residual waste stream contains a larger proportion of high calorific materials such as plastics and textiles, and therefore lends itself to thermal processing via gasification, pyrolysis or waste to energy. If the material is thermally treated this option can achieve a 90% plus diversion rate.


19

5.2.4 Bin system options summaryIn summary:

If Council chooses a 2 bin solution then it can either: o Landfill the residual bin (17% diversion) or o Send it to an AWT (50-60% diversion).

If Council chooses a 3 bin solution then it can either: o Collect and compost only the green waste (40-50% diversion) or o Both green and food organics (50-65% diversion).

Three bin systems generally deliver higher diversion rates. However, the two-bin AWT solutions can deliver comparable diversion rates to 3 bin GO systems.

Any decision made by Council should also take into account the fact that the cost of recycling is currently more than landfilling in most states of Australia (with the Sydney Metropolitan Area being the significant exception).

5.3 Review of Council waste management resource programs

Waste collection and management contracts are the highest value contracts that Council would procure, and they often have complex terms and conditions. Council needs to develop and implement an annual contract review process, with clear contract management guidelines, procedures and responsibilities. Accountability is essential in managing these complex contracts, and Council needs to establish and allocate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for its waste operations. Once all requirements, rights and responsibilities under the contract are identified, it is best practice to review the resources required to implement these actions. Based on the quantities of waste; resource recovery; and, acceptance of drop-off materials at the CWRC site, an example of what may be adequate staffing levels for Council’s CWRC activities is shown in Table 6 below. In addition to these, Council would need 1 to 3 dedicated officers to coordinate waste education, waste contracts and waste minimisation initiatives.

Table 6 Suggested staff levels at the landfill

Position/Role Staff Number Site manager Supervise overall operation. Stand in for landfill supervisor when absent.

1

Weighbridge operator 1 Administration & Weighbridge backup 1 Landfill supervisor for municipal garbage Supervisor to provide relief to plant operator 1

Landfill machinery operator for compaction and placement of waste 1 C&I and C&D operation supervision and machinery operator 1 Garden Organics supervision 0.5 Recycling operation and drop-off 1.5 Relief plant operators to work across the organics, C&I and C&D areas. Move and place VENM 2

Casual backup operator on an as required basis 0.5 Total landfill staff 10.5


20

Table 7 Current number of staff across all waste divisions

Position/Role Staff Number Coordinator (for landfill and waste collection service) 1 Team Leader (for landfill and waste collection service) 1 Operating waste collection vehicles 4 Running the landfill 4 Weighbridge Operator 1 Plant Operator (various roles) 2 Waste Manager 1 Waste Education/Administration Officer 1 Total 15 Table 7 details the number of staff and their respective roles, currently involved in CWRC activities as well as the number of waste officers dedicated to waste education, contracts and minimisation initiatives. Comparison of this table and Table 6 suggests that Cessnock currently employs more than the recommended number of staff (11.5 to 13.5) and that the roles of existing staff do not align with the recommendations made in Table 6. In turn, Council may need to reconsider the number and structure of waste management staff. Overall, staff should be adequately trained to keep a watching brief on new technology in their own field of expertise, to ensure that Council benefits from the best value for money option available.

5.4 Voucher system for bulky waste During 1997/98 Council introduced a voucher system to replace their annual kerbside bulky waste clean-up service. Under the voucher system four vouchers are issued to each household that receives Council waste services and each voucher has a face value of 500kg. During 2010, the voucher participation rate was approximately 40-45% of total vouchers distributed and the average weight of material taken to landfill under this system was 220kg per household (Table 8). From the 1st of July 2012 to the 30th of June 2013, 31,321 voucher transactions were recorded at CWRC. Over this period, approximately 80,000 vouchers were in circulation (four vouchers per household receiving Council waste services) and therefore, this number represents a 39% voucher usage rate for 2012/13, which is in keeping with the historical rate of use.

Table 8 Bulky Waste Voucher Use

Year No. of waste vouchers presented

Average weight per voucher

Total value waste NSW waste levy per tonne

2007/8 29.163 230kgs $569,661 $31.60 2008/9 29.802 215kgs $733,946 $40,00 2009/10 30,412 220kgs $887,000 $52.40 2010/11 26,968 223kgs $890,440 $65.30 2011/12 30,764 220kgs $1,121,090 $78.60 2012/13 31,321 219kgs $1,952,420 $93.00 The voucher system was introduced in tandem with Council’s move towards single person side-load waste collection vehicles, which meant that a bulky waste collection service could not be provided in-house. This was introduced due to a number of reasons, primarily due to the previous Council collection service posing considerable occupational, health and safety risks to workers; that there would be greater exposure to issues associated with public liability for Council; and, that bulky wastes on the side of footpaths are often unsightly and aesthetically unappealing.


21

There is also the possibility that a bulky waste kerbside collection service may encourage a ‘throw away’ culture throughout the community, rather than encouraging a reduction in waste generation. The voucher system proves favourable when compared to providing a kerbside bulky waste collection service. A bulky waste collection entails significant costs pertaining to the collection, disposal and waste levy. Furthermore, Council’s commitment to the State Government’s Waste & Sustainability Improvement Program (WASIP) includes an undertaking that “Any new contracts entered into after 30 June 2007, for the collection and disposal of household clean-up material, are to have recycling/resource recovery as a component of the service contract.” This would then increase costs by requiring several collection passes of each household or roadside sorting. If a kerbside bulky waste collection system was reintroduced, collection costs would either be in the form of day labour or contracting the service out, the latter being the significantly cheaper option (estimated to be $120,000pa as opposed to $635,000pa for day labour during 2010). In the absence of a voucher system, residents would shoulder the standard disposal rate when depositing their waste that is not collected in a bulky waste service. Finally, Council must pay a levy on all waste that is deposited into landfill through either a voucher or a bulky waste collection. Environmental considerations must also be taken into account. The main concern is that the removal of the clean-up service may increase illegal dumping throughout the LGA. Stakeholders such as the Office of Environment and Heritage and the Land & Property Management Authority were concerned that not having a bulky waste collection would risk an increase in illegal dumping throughout the area. However, there is yet to be any empirical evidence on this trend, at local or State level. Several neighbouring councils provide a bulky waste collection service. Lake Macquarie City Council provides a bulky waste collection service for all households twice per year and notifies residents of the upcoming collection via mail, two weeks prior to the collection date. Singleton City Council also provides a bulky waste collection but this is done on an annual basis, to all households that receive a weekly waste collection service (SCC, 2013). Newcastle City Council offers its residents a choice between the option to utilise an on-call service or request a self-haul voucher for bulky waste. In regard to community perceptions, most residents see the kerbside clean up service as being aesthetically unappealing, which is a particular concern for tourist industries throughout the area. The many volunteer groups involved in litter collection and visual presentation of the area have indicated that a reintroduction of this service would hinder their work and may result in the withdrawal of their participation. Over one third of the community saw vouchers as a convenient system for bulky waste collection.

5.5 Waste educationCouncil is involved with and has instigated a number of waste education initiatives. For example, Cessnock City Council participates in HRR’s ‘Recycle Right’ program, which provides information to the community on how to ensure they are recycling effectively. Information is provided in regard to different waste materials such as plastic bottles and rigid containers, steel and aluminium cans, glass bottles and jars, paper and cardboard. Council is also a member of the Hunter Waste Education Group (HWEG), which comprises local and state government waste educators from within the Hunter Valley region. HWEG’s waste education initiatives include the ‘7 Wicked Wastes’, campaign that aims to prevent hazardous wastes (paint, motor oil, fluorescent lights, printer cartridges, plastic bags, mobile phones and batteries) from entering the kerbside waste stream. HWEG also holds an annual ‘Waste as Art’ community art exhibition, which strives to demonstrate to the public that there is value to be found in waste.


22

Council also runs a number of its own waste education initiatives, including the ‘Don’t Waste Your Organics: worm farms and compost bins’ initiative, which alerts residents to the amount of organic waste entering landfill and the reasons why this is a negative environmental impact. Residents are also able to take advantage of the option to purchase a subsidised $35 compost bin or worm farm, after having completed an online quiz. Finally, Council promotes a number of community programs in regard to waste management. For example, the Love Food Hate Waste program is a community orientated program, which aims to reduce food waste through assisting residents by suggesting measures such as planning meals ahead and storing food correctly. Cessnock also takes part in the Clean Up Australia, Adopt-a-Road and Tidy Towns programs, all of which promote better community education and participation in addressing waste issues. However, there are still gaps within Council’s waste education programs, for example, the lack of initiatives to encourage waste diversion in the C&I and C&D sectors. Therefore, Council strives to develop its current education programs further in order to address current shortcomings and to continue to encourage a sense of ownership throughout the community.

5.6 Litter and illegal dumping

5.6.1 Cessnock City Council Illegal Dumping and Litter PlanThroughout Cessnock, illegal dumping is seen as an issue of community concern and the rates of illegal dumping are expected to increase in future. From 2009/10 to 2010/11 alone, there was a 45% increase in the number of illegal dumping complaints around the Cessnock LGA. During 2010/11 Council spent a total of $60,000 in dealing with illegal dumping issues. It is likely that the real cost of illegal dumping is close to $100,000 per annum, as illegal dumping costs are often absorbed into other Council costs. Council recognised the need for a change in strategy during 2010, due to the perceived lack of impact associated with previous strategies. Current litter control programs such as Clean Up Australia Day, Adopt-a-Road and Tidy Towns have been successful but they mainly focus on removing the litter rather than preventing it. Roadside litter is the most prevalent littering concern and this is often linked to fast food restaurants. To counter this, Council has strived to further educate the community and commercial sector (namely restaurants and food outlets) about the negative impacts of littering. Overall, littering and illegal dumping are issues that impact upon the community as a whole and as such, resolving these issues is the responsibility of the whole community. One of Council’s strategy objectives is to assist the community to embrace this attitude and therefore help reduce the incidence of both littering and illegal dumping, due to social, environmental and financial drivers.

5.6.2 Trends in litter and illegal dumping managementThroughout Australia, a mix of education and enforcement by regional waste management groups and State authorities is generally used to prevent littering and illegal dumping of waste, while local councils are primarily responsible for managing the waste once it has been illegally deposited. Illegal Dumping is the ‘unlawful disposal of waste larger than litter onto land or into water’ (NSW EPA, 2012). This can range in size from a small bag of garbage to larger disposal of hazardous wastes or illegal landfilling. Illegal dumping costs over $10 million per annum in NSW, with 55% of this being spent on clean-up costs, 39% on enforcement and only 6% invested on community education on the issue (DECC, 2007).


23

Combating illegal dumping is a key priority for the NSW Government and local communities as demonstrated by the recently announced ‘Waste Less, Recycle More’ Initiative (WLRM), instigated by the NSW Minister for the Environment. As part of the WLRM Initiative, combating illegal dumping is likely to include:

Capacity building; Strategic enforcement; Education and community engagement; Prevention and deterrence infrastructure; and Building an evidence base.

Illegal dumping has environmental, social and financial costs

During 2008, the DECC also released the ‘Crackdown on Illegal Dumping- Handbook for Local Government’. The report found that illegal dumping is a ‘constant and highly visible problem in NSW’ and that parties that partake in illegal dumping often do so to avoid the associated costs of waste disposal or effort required to follow legal waste disposal procedures (DECC, 2008). Throughout NSW, litter is increasingly being viewed as an environmental issue and cause for serious concern, rather than simply an aesthetic issue (EPA, 2013). People also commonly regard litter as being ‘dangerous, offensive, unhygienic, lasting a long time’. However, some forms of litter, including graffiti and chewing gum, are regarded as being ‘somewhat acceptable’ (EPA, 2013). Increases in litter have been associated with changes in peoples’ lifestyles, namely becoming more time-poor and relying on take away food and grazing, rather than taking the time to eat proper meals (EPA, 2013). People generally litter because they do not regard the material as being litter, they cannot find a bin, there is a lack of social pressure to do the right thing or there is an absence of penalties to prevent littering, amongst other factors (EPA, 2013).

5.6.3 Targeting Illegal Dumping HotspotsOnce illegal dumping hotspots are identified with the use of a database kept by Council and populated through community feedback and Council officers’ observations, recommended actions to combat dumping include:

Installing signage based on a chosen campaign slogan; Purchasing and installing cameras to be moved between hot spots; Increasing lighting with the purchase of sensor lights; Creating strategic community education materials based on a tagline for the campaign, such as ‘Dob in a dumper’ or ‘Dumping, it’s dumb’; Promoting technology such as the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app for smart phones; and Providing education materials to businesses and tradespeople in the region to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities regarding waste disposal as well as the options available to them.

5.6.4 Engaging the CommunityThe community has a large part to play in combatting illegal dumping. It is critical to provide the community with effective tools to do the right thing and ensure that they know their legal responsibilities regarding waste and relevant processes for reporting illegal activities. At a Council level, recommended actions include:

Developing a community tagline;


24

Engaging and obtaining input on communications materials from stakeholders (including compliance officers) to ensure an integrated approach; Working with communications to create mass media around the new tagline advertising and promote a council call centre to report dumping. This may include advertising, billboards, websites and press releases; Promoting interactive initiatives such as phone apps; and Publicising all illegal dumping civil and criminal prosecutions.

5.7 Public place bin policy and procedureCouncil wishes to implement a public place bin policy, plan and procedure in order to formulate a guide for the implementation of public place litterbins. Installation of litterbins will reduce the costs to Council associated with dealing with litter and will also provide an extra service to the community. In turn, this will assist in improving waste management practices. The installation of litterbins is also likely to improve the Cessnock region aesthetically, as the incidence of litter decreases in public spaces. The Cessnock LGA has over 200 parks and public spaces thus it would be impractical to place litterbins in each one of these locations. Furthermore, the costs of doing so would be prohibitive. For example, if two bins were placed in each location and each bin was serviced twice per week, this would equate to 800 lifts per week. The cost of service per bin lift would be approximately three times the normal rate (up to $5.10), therefore the total cost per year for servicing litterbins would be $212,160. Furthermore, funds would need to be allocated to the maintenance and general upkeep of bins and surrounding areas. A more cost efficient alternative is to strategically place bins in areas that are most in need of litterbins. Placement of litterbins is dependent upon a number of factors related to the occurrence of litter. Litter is most likely to be deposited in outdoor areas that are used frequently by the public, for example, transport stations, parks and other recreational areas, shopping centres and walkways. A council will generally consider the implementation of litter bins based on litter observations, litter impacts on operational/maintenance activities, community feedback, the location of sites of significance and high visitation areas, the presence of infrastructure and environmental impacts (Sutherland Shire Council, 2013). Following appropriate guidelines in terms of the design and placement of litterbins will help ensure that they are successful in reducing litter in public areas. Litterbins should be:

Placed in areas that are convenient and easily accessible to the public in order to encourage the correct disposal of waste. Bins should be visible and easily recognisable, with a consistent design to enhance their familiarity throughout the community; Covered and have an encasing to avoid weather damage and openings should be large enough to accept litter generated in particular areas (for example, food packaging) but small enough to discourage illegal dumping and interference from local wildlife; Sized so as to reduce the frequency of emptying required; and MGBs in order to minimise possible Work Health and Safety risks to workers emptying the bins (Sutherland Shire Council, 2013).

The cost of installing and servicing public place litterbins is significantly higher than that of household MGBs. The cost of a public place litterbin can range significantly, from $200-$400 for a bin with a plastic enclosure to $400-$2500 for a bin with an aluminium enclosure. The Taree trial public place litterbin enclosures were designed to be particularly visually pleasing and included an environmental image, in turn their cost was towards the upper end of this range. The cost of a bin stand is approximately $250 (concrete block and metal stand, including installation) and $40 for the MGB. The cost of servicing public place litterbins is estimated to be in the order of $5.10/lift/bin. Once again, this cost is significantly higher than that of servicing a household MGB due to the extra labour required for collection.


25

Funding for public place litterbins may be obtainable under the National Bin Network. This is an initiative based on the National Bin Network proposal brought forward by companies in the beverage manufacturing and packaging sector (Amcor Australasia, Coca-Cola Amatil, Lion, Schweppes Australia and Visy) to expand the existing Australian Packaging Covenant to focus on key problem areas (National Bin Network 2011). The focus of these initiatives is on away-from-home recycling and litter reduction through a national rollout of bins in public places and other initiatives to improve recovery and recycling of beverage containers, particularly of glass, PET plastics and aluminium, consumed away-from-home.

However, the National Bin Network has so far only offered to cover the costs of the bins to be used in public places, not including the bin enclosure or bin stand. Furthermore, this offer does not cover the cost of servicing the bins, (up to 1-10 times a day, depending on the placement of the bin). Therefore, this offer would not reduce costs to Council by a significant amount, given that the equivalent cost of a bin ($40) may be spent in one day, on bin lifts.

An alternative option for funding the introduction of public place litterbins is to increase the cleansing charge to ratepayers.


26

6 WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE

6.1 Location of landfills, drop off centres, transfer stations and depots

Council owns and operates the Cessnock Waste and Reuse Centre, located on Old Maitland Road, Cessnock. The Greta Transfer Station is also located in the LGA, on Hollingshed Street and only accepts household waste. The waste received at the transfer station is later disposed off at the landfill. In addition to these two waste facilities, Council owns four side-load single-person waste collection vehicles. CWRC has been in operation for almost thirty years. The landfill takes in an average of 60,000tpa and the current landfill footprint has an estimated two years of life left. However an extension is underway. Council has operated CWRC since 1979 and it has been the only landfill in the LGA since 1992. Landfilling at CWRC commenced when the original Council waste depot had reached capacity. The Eastern point of the current site was originally the location of the Neath Open Cut Coal Mine and the land to the centre and west of the site originally comprised gravel pits. When landfilling commenced at CWRC, it was undertaken throughout the eastern area of the site, which has since been turned into a roadway. Landfilling is now being undertaken to the northern area of the site. CWRC also hosts a reuse/recycling depot located near the site’s entrance and operated by a private contractor. It accepts items that can be reused, resold or recycled, including steel scrap goods, furniture, household goods, glass, non-ferrous metals and batteries. CWRC also receives materials to be reprocessed, including car tyres and garden organics that are stockpiled onsite (Figure 14). All other waste is landfilled. Building and demolition wastes are subject to differential pricing at the landfill gate, in order to promote the recycling and better source separation of materials.

Figure 14 Cessnock Waste and Reuse Centre (Cessnock City Council, 2013b)


27

In recent years, Council has adopted a number of measures to encourage waste minimisation and resource recovery, such as the introduction of differential pricing for clean, source separated C&D waste and garden organics at the landfill gate, establishment of the recycling/reuse centre and provision of drop off facilities for excess dry recyclables, waste oil, metals, lawn clippings and e-waste. Landfill fees have also risen in recent years for several reasons, including increased landfill levies, carbon liabilities, accounting for the cost of meeting landfill environment protection measures, the requirement for landfill operators to insure themselves against environmental risks and in order to set aside funds for landfill rehabilitation and continuing management post landfill closure. Efficient and optimal management of waste infrastructure is essential to upholding best practice environmental standards and is a prerequisite to implementing an effective waste strategy. Council strives to ensure that it has the required infrastructure and capacity to accommodate increases in population growth and legislative requirements, whilst ensuring the best possible utilisation of its resources.

6.2 CWRC’s future and rehabilitation

6.2.1 CWRC extensionIn response to the limited remaining landfill life, Council secured Development Approval for extending the current landfill onto adjacent property that has been purchased for this purpose. Once completed, the landfill extension will encompass an area of 13 hectares of currently degraded land. This will result in the creation of an additional one million cubic metres of void space, which equates to approximately 20 years of landfill life at current rates of filling. There is also the possibility that development of landfill cells could expand into more adjoining Crown land, which would give an additional 40 years of landfill life. The process by which additional space is made available for landfilling will determine the impact upon the cost of landfilling. If the entire landfill expansion is developed in the short term then this will require the total capital costs of expansion (approximately $20 million) to be incorporated into the gate fee, which would significantly increase the cost per tonne of landfilling. If, on the other hand, smaller cells are developed and subsequently closed off gradually, this will reduce the amount of capital costs that need to be incorporated into the gate fee (for example, to $2 million every five years). MRA recommends that the latter approach to expansion be adopted, with the general rule of thumb being to delay required capital expenditure for as long as possible, in order to evenly distribute capital costs across current and future gate fee prices and avoid paying interest on large sums of borrowed money. If the latter approach is adopted and the current rate of developing and closing off landfill cells is maintained, then it is unlikely that this will have a significant impact on gate fees. In turn, a continuation of the current price per tonne for landfilling will not greatly influence the options for waste collection and processing. If the former approach is adopted and CWRC landfill gate fees are increased by a substantial amount, this will enhance the case for adopting a FOGO system of collection and processing, as the maximum amount of material is diverted from landfill. Key aspects of the proposed landfill extension include improved leachate, surface water and gas management systems, a small vehicle receival area and planning for future rehabilitation. The landfill extension will form part of a newly developed Resource Management Park, which will also include a waste management centre. In addition to this, land has also been set aside for potential future subdivision suitable for industrial development, intended to process or recycle materials sourced from the facility. A previous proposal for extension of the CWRC landfill was submitted during 1998. This proposal included the creation of additional landfill capacity to dispose of a portion of waste from the Sydney region as well as solid, domestic and commercial waste from the Cessnock region. The proposed extension encompassed


28

an area of 93ha with a 9 million tonne filling capacity, as well as renewed infrastructure and service facilities. This proposal was abandoned during 1999 when Council resolved not to accept waste from the Sydney region. Council had also explored the processing of its waste in a regional initiative, through Hunter Integrated Resources (HIR). HIR was formed during 1999 as a joint venture between the councils of Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle and Cessnock. The focus of the organisation was to work on developing a regional waste project. The main option considered was that of establishing a mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plan, with Thiess Services. Development of a regional waste solution was intended to divert up to 160,000tpa of waste from landfill throughout the region, reduce emission of GHGs by up to 152,000 tpa, achieve savings through economics of scale and create direct and indirect employment opportunities. However, despite ongoing discussions with Thiess from 2007-2009, the councils resolved to terminate the project in 2009, as a result of the global financial crisis and uncertainty in an evolving regulatory environment (Cessnock, 2009).

6.2.2 Post closure CWRC site management Once the landfill reaches full capacity a range of rehabilitation and monitoring operations need to be undertaken to ensure safe use of the site into the future. Best practice landfill management guidelines recommend the preparation of a Rehabilitation Management Plan and an Aftercare Management Plan once it has been determined that the site will cease accepting waste, in order to detail how the site will be closed. The main issues to be included in the Rehabilitation Management Plan typically include:

A final topographic plan for the site including height, slope and contours; Details on the final cap profile, including the material to be used to cover the landfill and what vegetation is to be grown; References to the Aftercare Management Plan and how the cap integrity will be maintained during the period of post closure; Specifications of all materials used during the construction of the final cap (Council could in part use compost from a FOGO facility); Details on how construction work will be carried out including the method of construction; and A Quality Assurance Plan to document the methods of inspection and testing regimes required during the construction phase.

While the Rehabilitation Management Plan provides the information needed to construct the final cover over the landfill, the Aftercare Management Plan sets out the activities and responsibilities for maintaining the capping system so as not to cause environmental harm or degradation of the cap, the leachate management system or the landfill gas capture system. The plan identifies the tasks and an inspection procedure required to ensure the integrity of the final cover system, and documents the requirement to maintain the existing monitoring programmes for groundwater, surface water and leachate. It also ensures that the current licence reporting mechanism is maintained in the event of an environmental incident. Aftercare management in landfills may also include active emissions management.

6.3 Long term management of CWRCCouncil should consider options for use of the landfill site after the landfill reaches capacity, and ensure that the landfill will be properly rehabilitated with adequate aftercare procedures in place.


29

Council could replace the existing landfill activity with either: Other best practice waste management services to the community, by using the site’s licence to develop activities such as waste transfer, Alternative Waste Treatment or Energy from Waste; or Rescind its licence to accept, store, manage or dispose of waste and use the site for entirely different purposes such as a playing field, a light industrial park, a nursery, dirt bike track etc.

However, with only a few hectares around the outside of the site being virgin land, the possible uses of the site as a whole are very limited. In addition to this, the landfill gas capture system and gas well heads would be prominent and therefore the site cannot easily be used for recreational purposes until the gas heads are removed. As a general recommendation MRA would advise Council to continue to use the site as a waste management facility. However, Council should consider the whole of the community’s long term needs, and draft a Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) to cover the long-term financial cost of rehabilitation. The LTFP for the landfill should include estimate of costs for:

Capping of the existing landfill; Revegetation of the existing landfill; Gas well maintenance; Gas CFI credit value and ownership; and Leachate monitoring and management.

It will also calculate the gate fee necessary to close the current landfill, monitor it for 40 years as well as make an initial provision for the capital costs of developing the new landfill cells. The section gives a rule of thumb estimate of likely long-term costs, but does not replace a thorough Rehabilitation Management Plan, Aftercare Management Plan, or LTFP. Capping works would cost approximately $350,000 per hectare, whilst on-going landfill gas and leachate monitoring and maintenance may cost about $25,000pa over 40 years after closure. To cover these costs, Council needs to calculate the gate fee necessary to cover the cost of closing the current landfill and monitor it for 40 years. Roughly these capping, gas and leachate monitoring costs are equivalent to a gate fee surcharge of $8/t over 1,000,000t. In addition, Council would need to make an initial provision for the capital costs of developing the new landfill cells of about $8,000,000 for each 1 million cubic metres of void space. The current landfill gate fee is set at $320/t for general waste (inclusive of GST, levy and other taxes). This price level is currently seen as sufficient to cover all future liabilities and allow Council to make all the necessary provisions for extending the landfill and rehabilitation. In the long term, Council needs to ensure that the use of the landfill and the real costs of landfilling are fairly allocated to all landfill users, including internal Council users. Not charging the full costs creates an unfunded liability and sends a weak price signal for recycling. Passing on the real costs will ensure that all users including Council Works departments are encouraged to recycle where it is cost effective.


30

7 MOVING FORWARD

7.1 Increase diversion of waste from landfillAs Council collects approximately 18,800 tonnes of waste per annum from kerbside services and up to 50% of this comprises FOGO, Council could divert up to 8,000 tonnes (including GO currently self-hauled) from landfill by introducing a FOGO bin, assuming a 60% capture rate of FO and 90% diversio

regional waste – recovery and recycling business case ... · council’s overriding objective is...

Documents