solid waste audit of landfill

8/12/2019 Solid Waste Audit of Landfill

1/71

Lake Macquarie City Council

AWABA LANDFILL

WASTE AUDIT REPORT

May 2010

LAKE MACQAURIE CITY COUNCIL

AWABA LANDFILL WASTE AUDIT REPORT

Mike Ritchie & Associates ABN: 58 428 736 838


2/71

Mike Ritchie & Associates

ABN: 58 428 736 838

27 Barton Avenue

HABERFIELD NSW 2045

Australia

Tel: +61 408 663942

Lake Macquarie City Council

AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT

Author Elsie Nielsen

Checker Mike Ritchie Mike Ritchie

Approver Mike Ritchie Mike Ritchie

Report No 1

Date 24thOctober 2010

This report has been prepared for Lake Macquarie City

Council in accordance with the terms and conditions

of appointment for Awaba Landfill Audit Report 2010.

Mike Ritchie & Associates (ABN: 58 428 736 838)cannot

accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on

the contents of this report by any third party.


3/71




CONTENTS

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. - 1 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1

1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 7

2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 10

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Audit Methodology 11

3.1.1 Project inception meeting and OH&S induction ............................................... 11

3.1.2 Weighbridge - Data Gathering ............................................................................ 12

3.1.3 Visual Assessment .................................................................................................. 15

3.1.4 Data Matching ....................................................................................................... 18

3.1.5 Data Recording Limitations .................................................................................. 19

3.2 Data Analysis 19

4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 22

4.1 Overall Results 22

4.1.1 Summary of the overall results .............................................................................. 22

4.1.2 Overall composition of the landfill waste stream by weight ............................ 22

4.1.3 Comparison of the composition of the landfill waste stream by weight ........ 23

4.2 LMCC Parks Waste 31

4.2.1 Summary of the LMCC parks waste results ......................................................... 31

4.2.2 Composition of the LMCC parks waste stream by weight ............................... 31

4.2.3 Composition of the LMCC parks litter bins waste by percentage .................. 31

4.3 Commercial and Industrial Waste 37

4.3.1 Summary of the C&I waste results ....................................................................... 37

4.3.2 Composition of the C&I waste stream by weight.............................................. 37

4.4 Construction and Demolition Waste 41

4.4.1 Summary of the C&D waste results ..................................................................... 41

4.4.2 Composition of the C&D waste stream by weight ............................................ 41

4.5 Self Hauled Waste 45

4.5.1 Summary of the self hauled waste results ........................................................... 45

4.5.2 Composition of the self hauled waste stream by weight ................................. 45

4.6 LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste 49

4.6.1 Summary of the LMCC bulk hauled waste results ............................................. 49


4/71




4.6.2 Composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream by weight ................... 49

5. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 53

6. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX 1 WEIGHBRIDGE COLLECTION FORM ................................................................ 57

APPENDIX 2 TIPSITE COLLECTION FORM ............................................................................. 58

APPENDIX 3 - AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT OBSERVATIONS ...................................................... 59

APPENDIX 4 - DENSITY FACTORS ............................................................................................ 61

APPENDIX 5 ALLOCATION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE GARBAGE BAGS .......................... 62

APPENDIX 6 PHOTOS TAKEN ON SITE .................................................................................. 64

APPENDIX 7 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD ......................................................................... 67


5/71

1




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) is currently developing new, strategic and

flexible plans for waste management in the short, medium and long term. To assist in

its development, LMCC commissioned Anne Prince Consulting (APC) to undertake a

detailed audit of all waste arriving at the Awaba Waste Management Facility. Mike

Ritchie and Associates (MRA) were further commissioned to undertake the data

analysis and develop the final report for the Awaba Landfill Audit.

APC undertook the audit as specified in the NSW DECCW C&I Waste Audit

Methodology (2008) with a few minor modifications to the methodology. APC

conducted a visual assessment of almost every load, other than Council kerbside

domestic waste vehicles and fill that was delivered to the main tip face over three

days. This waste was classified into 40 categories, with the contents of all garbage

bags then allocated out across these categories.

Overall Results:

The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 272 loads audited

was calculated to equal 209.39 tonnes. Customers delivering to the landfill during

this audit period incurred a total charge of $22, 188.12. The top ten most significantmaterials found in the landfill waste stream were:

1.Vegetation and garden (13% or 27.12 tonnes)

2. Food and kitchen (11.4% or 23.81 tonnes)

3. Woodfurniture, painted wood (7.5% or 15.6 tonnes)

4. Rock, dirt and soil (7.3% or 15.36 tonnes)

5. Wooduntreated board (7.3% or 15.26 tonnes)

6. Plastics - Other (5.7% or 12.03 tonnes)

7. Concrete and cement (4.6% or 9.59 tonnes)8. Dry cardboard (4.2% or 8.76 tonnes)

9. Paperall other (3.9% or 8.8 tonnes)

10. Carpet and underlay (3.5% or 7.25 tonnes)

The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in the total waste

stream was 62.38% or 130.62 tonnes. The total component of packaging materials

was 7.50% or 15.69 tonnes. Figures are shown for the rest of the categories below:


6/71

2




Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight

Material AveragePercentage Tonnes

Vegetation / garden 13.0% 27.12

Food / Kitchen 11.4% 23.81

Wood - furniture, painted wood 7.5% 15.60

Rock/dirt/soil 7.3% 15.36

Wood - untreated board 7.3% 15.26

Plastic - other 5.7% 12.03

Concrete / cement 4.6% 9.59

Dry cardboard 4.2% 8.76

Paper - all other 3.9% 8.08

Carpet & underlay 3.5% 7.25

Wood - chipboard, MDF 3.4% 7.20

Cloth textiles 2.8% 5.91

Wood - treated board 2.2% 4.52Other items 2.1% 4.39

Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc 2.1% 4.32

Metals - ferrous (steel) 2.0% 4.11

Bricks 1.9% 3.93

Mattresses 1.6% 3.37

Covered furniture 1.5% 3.22

Wet cardboard 1.3% 2.73

Plasterboard 1.3% 2.72

Computers / office equipment 1.2% 2.55

Plastic - film 1.1% 2.37Electrical/Electronic small 0.9% 1.96

Wood - pallets 0.9% 1.87

Paper - office 0.9% 1.83

Glass - plate 0.9% 1.78

Tiles 0.8% 1.72

Glass - containers 0.5% 1.01

Rubber other 0.4% 0.90

Metals - non-ferrous 0.4% 0.82

Electrical and electric whitegoods 0.4% 0.74

Textiles /leather other 0.3% 0.67

Hazardous / special 0.3% 0.66

Plastic - containers recyclable 0.2% 0.47

Plastic - Polystyrene foam 0.2% 0.35

Tyres, tubes 0.2% 0.35

Toner cartridges 0.0% 0.04

Waxed cardboard 0.0% 0.00

Asphalt 0.0% 0.00

Total 100.0% 209.39

Table 1:The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight


7/71

3




Waste

Stream

Loads

No.

Total

Tonnes

Percentage % of material in the stream

Vege

tation

&Green

Foo

d&Kitc

hen

Wood

F

urn

iture

&pa

inted

Woo

du

ntrea

tedboard

Woo

d-

trea

ted

Woo

dC

hipboard

,MDF

Roc

ks

Dirt&So

il

Paper-

Other

PaperO

ffice

Dry

Card

board

We

tCard

board

Plas

tics-

other

Metals

F

errous

Stee

l

ClothTex

tiles

C

arpe

t&Un

derlay

Tex

tilesl

ea

ther,o

ther

Con

cre

tean

dcemen

t%

Bric

ks

Plas

terboard

GlassP

late

Ele

ctrica

l&e

lec

tron

ic

Other

items

LMCC

Parks25 36.57 25.02 21.54 16.97 6.34 1.79 2.07 4.78 2.05 2.18 2.04

C&I 51 44.98 6.25 28.55 3.95 6.24 4.81 2.82 6.03 7.23 6.29 3.74

C&D 41 46.86 3.97 19.68 21.68 3.05 6.76 2.96 6.9 8.33 3.88 3.45

Self

Hauled142 30.86 20.73 5.27 6.98 3.96 5.15 4.22 6.36 5.67 3.74 6.02

LMCC

Bulk14 49.38 13.74 5.95 6.38 9.04 5.76 6.45 8.88 4.95 4.57 5.28

Table 2:Summary of the results of the top ten waste products for each stream by weight


8/71

4




LMCC Parks Waste:

The total amount of waste audited from the LMCC parks waste stream was 36.57

tonnes. LMCC parks customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period

incurred a total charge of $1,609.21. The top ten most significant materials found in

this stream were:

1.Vegetation and garden(25.02% or 9.22 tonnes)




5. Plasticother (4.78% or 1.76 tonnes)

6. Bricks (2.18% or 0.80 tonnes)

7. Dry Cardboard (2.07% or 0.76 tonnes)

8. Concrete/cement (2.05% or 0.75 tonnes)9. Glass plate (2.04% or 0.75 tonnes)

10.Paperoffice (1.79% or 0.66 tonnes)

The weight of DOC materials made up a total of 63.48% or 23.39 tonnes of the parks

waste. The component of packaging materials was 6.08% or 2.24 tonnes.

Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Waste:

The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 51 C&I loads

audited was calculated to equal 44.98 tonnes. C&I customers delivering to thelandfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $7,131.94. The top ten most

significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were:


2. Cloth textiles (7.23% or 3.27 tonnes)

3. Concrete and cement (6.29% or 2.85 tonnes)

4. Vegetation and garden (6.25% or 2.83 tonnes)


6. Plasticother (6.03% or 2.73 tonnes)7. Dry cardboard (4.81% or 2.18 tonnes)


9. Other items (3.74% or 1.69 tonnes)

10. Wet cardboard (2.82% or 1.28 tonnes)

The weight of DOC material in the C&I stream made up a total of 65.9% or 29.86

tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream is far less at 11.58% or

5.25 tonnes.


9/71

5




Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste:

The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 41 C&D loads

audited was calculated to equal 46.86 tonnes. C&D customers delivering to the

landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $9,757.37. The top ten most

significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were:

1. Wooduntreated board (21.68% or 10.17 tonnes)

2. Woodfurniture, painted wood (19.68% or 9.22 tonnes)


4. Carpet and underlay (6.9% or 3.24 tonnes)


6. Vegetation and garden (3.97% or 1.86 tonnes)

7. Bricks (3.88% or 1.82 tonnes)

8. Plasterboard (3.45% or 1.62 tonnes)9. Woodchipboard, MDF (3.05% or 1.43 tonnes)

10. Plasticother (2.96% or 1.39 tonnes)

The weight of DOC material in the C&D stream made up a total of 64.54% or 30.26

tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream was 2.8% or 1.35

tonnes.

Self Hauled Waste:

The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 142 self hauledwaste loads audited was calculated to equal 30.86 tonnes. Self Haulage customers

delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $4,229.60.

The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were:

1. Vegetation and garden waste (20.73% or 6.41 tonnes)

2. Furniture and painted wood (6.98 % or 2.16 tonnes)

3. Dry cardboard (6.36% or 1.97 tonnes)


5. Other plastics (5.67% or 1.75 tonnes)6. Food and kitchen waste (5.27% or 1.63 tonnes)

7. Treated wood (5.15% or 1.59 tonnes)


9.Wooduntreated board (3.96% or 1.22 tonnes)

10.Carpet and underlay (3.74% or 1.16 tonnes)

The weight of DOC material in the self hauled waste stream made up a total of

63.71% or 19.71 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream was

8.11% or 2.51 tonnes.


10/71

6




LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste:

The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 14 LMCC bulk

hauled waste loads audited was calculated to equal 49.38 tonnes. There was no

charge for LMCC bulk hauled waste customers. The top ten most significant

materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were:

1. Vegetation and garden waste (13.74% or 6.79 tonnes)

2. Woodchipboard, MDF (9.04% or 4.47 tonnes)

3. Other plastics (8.88% or 4.39 tonnes)

4. Dry cardboard (6.45% or 3.19 tonnes)

5. Wood - untreated board (6.38% or 3.15 tonnes)

6. Furniture and painted wood (5.95% or 2.94 tonnes)


8. Electrical and electronic televisions etc (5.28% or 2.61 tonnes)9. Metalsferrous steel (4.95% or 2.45 tonnes)

10. Textiles/leather other (4.57% or 2.26 tonnes)

The overall weight of DOC material in the LMCC bulk hauled stream up a total of

55.46% or 27.41 tonnes. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream

was 8.8% or 4.35 tonnes.

MRA recommends that LMCC could make significant savings and increase their

diversion rates considerably through the following:

Investigate the way in which Council staff collect and deliver waste to the

landfill. Efficiencies may be achieved by using fewer vehicles for the pick-up of

Council works waste.

Investigate the current capture and diversion programs and/or new or extra

diversion strategies for those waste products demonstrated as being significant

throughout this audit.

Consider reusing rocks, dirt and soil on other Council land to keep these

materials out of landfill.

Review the landfill pricing structure, which seems to be inconsistent across

material types.

Further review the landfill pricing structure relating to charity vehicles and

consider charging all charity vehicles a fee for tipping at the landfill.

Investigate their current recording methods at the landfill to try and develop a

more robust form of data collection.


11/71

7




1. BACKGROUND

Lake Macquarie City is a coastal local government area (LGA) situated in the Hunter

region of NSW, Australia. It is the fourth largest city in NSW, with a population of

nearly 200,000. The population is predicted to grow at around 0.6% per annum.

Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) provides a diverse range of waste services to

the community, including domestic waste kerbside and recycling collections,

specialised waste collections (sharps, oil, hazardous waste), Commercial and

Industrial (C&I) collection services, as well as maintaining key associated waste

infrastructure such as Awaba landfill and Teralba Worm Farm.

The Awaba landfill, operated by LMCC is a Department of Environment, Climate

Change and Water (DECCW) licensed solid waste landfill and is located on the

western side of Lake Macquarie, off Wilton Road, Awaba. The license permits waste

defined by the Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines as Solid

Waste Class 1, to be disposed at the site.

Waste arrives at the landfill from a variety of sources, including Council collection

vehicles, waste collection contractors, and self-haulage by businesses and residents.

Upon entering the Awaba Waste Management Facility, the waste is classified andcharged in accordance with the following categories: Mixed waste e.g.

Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, organic garden waste, household

recyclables, special wastes e.g. Asbestos and clean fill.

The above waste categories incur varying fees in accordance with differing

environmental safeguards applicable to their management onsite. Table 1

summarises fees and charges at the Awaba site for the 2009-10 year. Source

separated loads of 100% household kerbside recyclable materials are not charged,

and go to the Reuse Centre. Mixed waste load fees are charged if recyclables are

co-mingled with other mixed wastes. Separated green waste is charged at a lower

rate to encourage source separation prior to arriving at the Awaba Waste

Management Facility.

LMCC has begun a process to develop an integrated Waste Strategy to manage

and implement new waste management services and facilities for Lake Macquarie,

using a holistic approach across all aspects of the waste hierarchy (consumption,

reuse, recycle, diversion and disposal).


12/71

8




The Waste Strategy Management Project requires high level analyses to address the

complex and interrelated issues of waste management practices, community

attitudes and potential solutions. Quantification of different waste materials

presenting at Awaba is one key to the development of an effective strategy. This

waste audit will assist waste options analysis and prioritisation of actions.

Table 1: Waste Fees for Awaba landfill extracted from Councils Pricing Policy 2009-10

Type ofWaste

Description Minimumcharge ($)

Price pertonne

Greenwaste

Garden Waste- Lawn Clippings- Prunings (Max. 300 mm Diameter, NoStumps)- Timber (excludes chemically treated,painted and man-made timbers andtimber with fittings, nail plates etcattached)

12.00 73.30

MixedWaste

12.00 160.00

SpecialWaste

For waste requiring special handling,including:-- Asbestos- Animals- Quarantine Waste- Offensive Waste

12.00 209.90

Clean fill Clean fill that can be used by Council foroperational purposes and subject to thefollowing criteria:-- Prior contact and approval with theAwaba Waste Facility Supervisor.- Quantities over 50 tonnes.- Suitability of material for operationalpurposes will be confirmed prior to delivery.- Evidence that material is free fromcontamination. (A contamination reportwill be required)

68.00

CharityandCommunityService

To be eligible the person or organisationdisposing of the waste must obtainapproval for the waste to be exemptedfrom the EPA levy. A copy of letterissued by the EPA, granting the exemptionand containing the approvalnumber must be given to the gatekeeper

0.00 0.00


13/71

9




General waste charges also include a $5.25 fee for tax invoice print for any loadspresenting at Awaba that request this service.


14/71

10




2. INTRODUCTION

Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) is currently developing new, strategic and

flexible plans for waste management in the short, medium and long term. The new

Waste Strategy will ensure LMCC meets the waste management needs and

expectations of the community in long-term financially, ecologically and socially

sustainable ways, as well as achieving NSW Avoidance and Resource Recovery

Strategy targets and reducing carbon liabilities from landfill.

The development of new waste management practices and facilities required an

analysis of current waste streams presenting at LMCCs Awaba landfill, so as toforecast waste volumes and types. Council collects information that is compiled on

a monthly basis regarding the volumes of different waste streams. These waste

streams include:

i) Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

ii) Commercial and Industrial waste(C&I)

iii) Construction and Demolition waste (C&D)

iv) Parks and gardens waste

v) Bulk waste kerbside collectionsvi) Self-hauled residential waste streams

However, more detailed information was needed in order to develop appropriate

and effective diversion management practices and/or processing possibilities for

different waste types currently presenting at Awaba landfill. Subsequently, LMCC

commissioned Anne Prince Consulting (APC) to undertake a detailed audit of these

wastes arriving at the landfill over a period of 3 days.

Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA) were further commissioned by Council toundertake an analysis of the data taken from the Awaba landfill audit completed

by APC. MRA was also commissioned to develop the final report for the Awaba

landfill audit.

The following report determines the material components of waste disposed at

Awaba landfill, as well as the degradable organic carbon packaging components

of the above waste streams. It also describes the characteristics of waste from LMCC

parks, LMCC bulk hauled, self hauled, C&D and C&I waste streams. This information

will help LMCC to make informed decisions around resource recovery for the future.


15/71

11




3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Audit Methodology

LMCC specified a methodology consistent with the NSW Department of Environment,

Climate Change and Water (DECCW) C&I Waste Audit Methodology (2008) which

specifies how to undertake a visual assessment of mixed C&I waste. APC undertook

the audit as specified in the LMCC brief and NSW DECCW C&I Waste Audit

Methodology (2008) with a few minor modifications to the methodology to allow for

the difference in vehicle movements and type of waste expected at Awaba landfill

compared to a large metropolitan based landfill.

To determine the composition of all waste delivered to the site and to quantify the

C&I waste stream, APC conducted a visual assessment of almost every load, other

than Council kerbside domestic waste vehicles and fill, delivered to the main tip

face over three days.

The visual assessment was conducted over two weekdays and a Saturday from the

8-10th April. In addition an audit was conducted on the 15thApril to capture bulk

waste loads. The weather during the audit period was generally fine and warm.

There were no unusual disruptions to the operation of the tip face for the duration of

the audit, other than to clean up the tip face, which is a normal part of the

operations conducted once to twice a day to make room for new loads.

3.1.1 Project inception meeting and OH&S induction

A project inception meeting was held at 1.30pm on the 7th of April 2010 with thefollowing participants:

Rick Brindley, Waste Sites Coordinator (LMCC)

Steve Merrett, Waste Site Field Supervisor (LMCC)

Janelle Booth, Senior Consultant - Local Government (APC)

Matt Glendenning, Senior Waste Auditor (APC)

David Hitchcock, Lead Auditor (APC)


16/71

12




An OH&S site induction was carried out. APC provided all relevant insurances to Rick

Brindley. Steve Merrett took APC staff on a site tour and during the site visit APC was

introduced to relevant site staff including Arthur (Tip Face Supervisor), John

(Weighbridge Operator), Tony, Justin, Neil (other landfill staff) and the staff from the

Reuse Centre.

3.1.2 Weighbridge - Data Gathering

DECCW methodology required the following information to be collated and

recorded for each load at the weighbridge:

Date

Time of entry

Vehicle registration number

Type of vehicle

Estimated vehicle volume

Load classification - C&I, C&D or domestic

Geographic source of the load

Disposal point if other than tip face

Type of business where most waste was generated (if load is mixed)

Source by industry

Industry data was coded according to ANZSIC classifications as required in the

DECCW Guidelines. These codes are shown in the table below.

Sector ANZSIC Code

Manufacturing C

Retail Trade G

Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants H

Property and Business Services L

Personal and Other Services Q

Shopping Centres G511

Office Waste N/A

Mixed SMEs N/A

Table 2:ANZSIC codes according to DECCW guidelines

APC had a staff member at the weighbridge to record all of this information and try

to determine the C&I type, for any distinctive loads the information was radioed

through the APC staff at the tip face.

APC anticipated a range of challenges in identifying the ANZSIC categories. For

example:


17/71

13




1.There may only be a small number of samples presented from some of the

ANZSIC categories, this may mean that the sample sizes are too small to be

statistically representative of the entire ANZSIC category and caution should

be used with extrapolating the results.

2.For mixed C&I loads in a compactor truck that has collected from a wide

range of businesses it is difficult to determine the contents of the bags of

rubbish so auditors are dependent on information from the vehicle operator

3.There are similarities in the types of waste generated from some of the ANZSIC

categories of waste so they may not be able to be distinguished.

APC attempted to obtain information related to the ANZSIC categories. For many

mixed loads it was difficult to determine and some drivers were unclear on

information about their loads. Where possible the C&I category was recorded and

verified based on the composition at the tip face. Some categories were not

present at all. Prior to undertaking the audit APC suggested some slight

amendments to the proposed categories. A list of categories and rationale are

outlined in Table 2.

DECCW/LMCC

proposed

categories

ANZSIC

Code

Sub Category examples Issues

Manufacturing C All manufacturing

businesses

Retail Trade G Grocery, furniture,

homewares, vehicle,

clothing, personal,

recreational stores

Duplicates shopping

centres

Accommodation,

Cafes &

Restaurants

H Pubs, bars, cafes,

restaurants,

accommodation

Property and

Business Services

L Property, real estate

agents, legal services,

marketing, computer,

scientific machinery

hiring services

Predominantly office

waste therefore it is

included with that

category.

Personal and

Other Services

Q Interest groups, religious

groups, emergency

Unlikely to find

distinctive samples from


18/71

14




services operating in

peoples houses i.e.

cleaners,

this category

Shopping Centres N/A As listed for retail trade

unless it needs to beprovided separately for

a specific reason and is

easily distinguishable as

baled waste.

Office Waste LKM Banks, financial investors,

superannuation,

accountants, insurance

companies, government

administration

Suggest that this

combine ANZSIC

categories LKM, which

are likely to present in a

similar compositionsMixed SMEs Not sure what this

would capture that isnt

proposed in the other

categories

Additional Categories Proposed:

Construction E Installation Trade Services

(i.e. electricians,

plumbers, carpenters)

Suggest that this

category is added

instead of Personal

and Other Services as it

is likely to be observed

at the landfill as

distinctive waste types.

Health and

Community

Services

O Hospitals, Veterinary,

Child Care, Medical and

Dental

Suggest that these

categories be added if

samples are identified

during the auditEducation N Schools, TAFE,

Table 3:ANZSIC Codes and issues identified by APC

Based on this, APC proposed a modified category list as shown in the table below.

In addition a charity category was added due to the large number of charity waste

loads observed.


19/71

15




Sector ANZSIC Code

Manufacturing C

Construction E

Retail Trade (inc Shopping Centres) G

Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants HOffice Waste (inc Property and Business

Services, Finance & Insurance, Government

Administration)

L, K, M

Categories to be added if samples are presented

Health & Community Services O

Education N

Charity

Table 4:Industry Sectors and ANZSIC Codes proposed by APC

A data collection form for the weighbridge developed by APC is provided in

Appendix 1.

LMCC provided a record, in excel format, of all vehicle movements which occurred

during the audit period for reconciliation with the weighbridge data collected and

the visual assessment undertaken. All Council vehicles on the weighbridge report

were recorded as asset numbers not registration numbers. To ensure consistency in

the records the asset numbers were translated into license plate numbers. The datafrom the gatehouse included net weight, vehicle type, vehicle registration number

and waste classification.

A photographic record of the types of vehicles entering the facility was developed

to assist as a quick and easy reference, to ensure that all incoming vehicles were

correctly identified.

During the audits general observations were also noted on particular areas or itemsof interest that took place whilst the auditors were working. This has been provided

with this report as Appendix 3.

3.1.3 Visual Assessment

The NSW DECCW Waste Audit Methodologies specify that the visual assessment must

be conducted on each load being discharged at the tip face and that such

observations will be recorded on approved data recording sheets. The material

categories as specified in the NSW DECCW Guidelines were used. An example of

the datasheet is contained in Appendix 2. Any other distinctive items or items found


20/71

16




in significant quantities were also recorded and photos were taken of some of the

parks waste and charity waste loads (provided in Appendix 6).

As there were peak usage times at the tip face, where multiple vehicles were

unloading at the same time, APC provided two waste auditors to visually assesseach incoming load. As each load of waste was tipped, an estimate of the volume

of the load contents was made. To verify the estimation a number of loads were

measured. Where safe and practical to do so, the contents of the load were

monitored during discharge of the load. The tip operators were very obliging in

spreading the load for mixed C&I and some parks waste loads. They directed those

discharging loads to various areas of the tip face to ensure loads being audited

were not mixed with new loads. Additionally, some loads were spread by the Reuse

Centre operators who were rummaging through boxes and bags for valuable items.

This assisted in determining the contents of some smaller and self hauled loads.

To assist with correlation of the weighbridge information and the visual assessment,

the registration number, time and type of vehicle were recorded. All data were

recorded in a consistent manner as a percentage of volume of the load. As the

weighbridge was approximately 400m from the tip face there was approximately 2-8

minutes between the time a vehicle arrived at the weighbridge and tipped their

load. Additionally, some vehicles claimed to have green waste but their load may

have been contaminated so they were sent back to the tip face with a partial or

entire load. This may have created anomalies between the tipface and

weighbridge data.

LMCC requested that the minimum number of loads assessed visually for each

stream required was:

Commercial and Industrial: 30 loadsConstruction and Demolition: 10 loads

Self hauled residential waste: 20 loads

LMCC Bulk waste kerbside collections: 10 loads

LMCC Parks collections: 1 load

Based on the vehicle movements APC attempted to audit this proportion of loads.

The following issues/observations were noted:

a) Commercial and Industrial Waste:

There were very few mixed C&I loads. Anecdotally, it is suggested that this is

because the gate fee prices at Awaba are higher than the gate fee price at

Newcastle landfill. Each mixed C&I load that arrived during the audit period was

tipped to the side of the active face. It was then audited and then the entire load

was spread for further observation. The initial audit observations were then refined.


21/71

17




There were a large number of smaller C&I loads that were recorded, of which a

small number were from retail, manufacturing businesses and accommodation.

However the majority were from various tradesmen. All of these were recorded to

exceed the required number of 30 loads.

b) Construction and Demolition Waste:

There were a large number of loads made up of C&D waste. Many were delivered

by self haul Do it Yourself (DIY) householders or tradesmen. In addition, there were

large commercial loads of C&D waste. The large commercial loads were primarily

from a school that was being demolished nearby. The company involved with the

demolition regularly use the Awaba landfill when they have jobs in the area,

however the composition would vary depending on the job. The large heavy loads

may influence the audit results.

c) Self Hauled Residential Waste:

Based on the preliminary gate figures provided prior to the audit, it was expected

that there would be a large number of self hauled residential loads. These loads

were generated from a wide variety of deceased estates being cleared out, spring

cleans, residents who missed their weekly garbage service, garden clear outs and

generally excess waste.

d) LMCC Bulk Waste:

Unfortunately the week of the audit was one of only two off weeks for Council

during the year where no bulk waste was being collected. One small missed

services load and one load that were cleared due to a Council maintenance works

being carried out were observed during the initial audit period. After speaking to

Debbie Cleary at LMCC, APC determined that an additional audit day should be

undertaken to capture the 10 bulk waste loads. 13 loads were analysed on the 15th

April 2010. As only 6 full loads are received each day, loads from the 14 April were

also tipped to the side of the tip face ready for observation when APC staff arrived

at 8.30am on the 15th April.

Generally the bulk waste is separated into green waste, metals and general waste

with three different collection vehicles. On busy roads only, the general waste

vehicle collects all of the material to reduce disruption to traffic and for the safety of

staff. The loads with a higher proportion of green waste were generally collected

from areas with major roads. There were two sizes of compactor collection vehicles

used. A smaller vehicle used for green waste collections is used to mop up the

general waste collections and delivered loads that APC also audited.


22/71

18




e) LMCC Parks Waste:

Parks waste refers to any Council collection truck that contains non-domestic waste.

This included the public litter bins, Council commercial waste customers, illegal

dumping, litter and infirm wheel out services (known as blue dot services at LMCC).

The intention of the one parks collection was to capture the public litter bin

composition. The only Parks load that collects entirely public litter bin waste is on a

Sunday. Due to the timing of the audits, the Sunday that the run was undertaken

was Easter Sunday 4th April. The load from that run was tipped to the side of the

active tip face. The load was spread for further analysis.

Based on the composition observed and that it was a public holiday weekend and

good weather on the Sunday, the waste may have been atypical as there would

have been a larger number of picnickers than usual. It was observed that there

were a large number of very small loads delivered by Council utilities and tippers,

possibly from the park maintenance staff, road crews, rangers and other Council

operations. A community service crew, supervised by a Council staff member,

regularly tips illegally dumped waste and bagged litter that they have collected.

These loads were all recorded to assist council in their understanding of current

council and tip operations.

Seaweed, dredgings and other similar loads from Council operations that were put

to the side as fill were generally not recorded. As a general observation these loads

were largely free from contamination (i.e. 99% organic).

To undertake the audits, all staff participating were issued with Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) including gloves, overalls, high visibility safety vests, safety boots,

eye protection and sunscreen.

Equipment used to visually assess loads for auditing included:

Two way radios and mobile phonesPensCameraTape measure

3.1.4 Data Matching

In as far as it was possible, each individual audited load was matched with thecorresponding weighbridge record. This was done using registration numbers, timeand vehicle type.


23/71

19




3.1.5 Data Recording Limitations

From time to time during the course of an audit a number of environmental and

other conditions can occur that limit the accuracy of the data being recorded. For

this particular audit these included:

Line of sight obstruction by plant, staff, customers, structures, topography and

other vehicles Dirty, damaged or obscured registration plates

The ambiguous nature of some vehicles and the contents of some loads The inability to safely approach some vehicles or loads to inspect them more

closely

As a result some data inconsistencies occur in relation to vehicle registration

numbers and the classification of the load. MRA deleted 40 loads from the record

where loads were either not classified or classified incorrectly.

Anomalies in weighbridge data may occur where vehicles do not go to the tippingarea but to other parts of the site such as the recycling areas or reuse area. These

were deleted from the data set.

3.2 Data Analysis

Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA) were commissioned by LMCC to analyse the

data from the Awaba landfill audit undertaken by Anne Prince Consulting (APC).

APC provided data to MRA in a raw format on three separate excel sheets. The first

excel sheet was the raw weighbridge data, the second and third were of the

percentage of the volume for each material from each load obtained from auditor

Matt Glendenning and auditor Janelle Booth.

The data from Janelle and Matt were consolidated into one sheet. From there, the

data were collapsed so that all the less significant items that had been audited

separately (and that were not a part of the original brief for the audit) were put into

one category, known as other items. The average percentages were taken for the

whole load.

The tonnes for each material were calculated by multiplying each materials

percentage by the overall volume and then by its corresponding density factor

(assuming it was a medium compacted load) according to the Density Factors

proposed for the NSW C&I Audit table which was provided to MRA by LMCC in the

initial project brief. This table is provided as Appendix 4.

This table did not provide density factors for mattresses or toner cartridges. Thus, the

density factor for covered furniture was used for mattresses and the density factor


24/71

20




for computers/office equipment/electrical and electronic items was used for toner

cartridges.

Once this was completed, the gross data sheet was then divided up into the 5

categories stipulated by LMCC. These included LMCC park waste, C&I, C&D, self

hauled waste and LMCC bulk hauled waste. A total of 40 loads of 272 (15%) were

removed from the total data set due to not being properly categorised during the

audit process or because they had insufficient information (i.e. no actual weights

were recorded for that particular vehicle). The 40 loads were Parks, C&I, C&D, self-

hauled, bulk waste loads and unclassified loads. There was no apparent common

features to which loads were inappropriately, or not, classified.

For each category the contents of the rubbish bags contained in a load were

extrapolated out into the various material categories. This was initially done by

multiplying the total volume of the bags of rubbish contained within a load using the

DECCWs average percentages of a C&I garbage bag taken from Commercial and

Industrial Waste in SydneyAn Overview (DECCW 2009). This information is provided

as Appendix 5.

The total weight (tonnes) for each waste material for each category was then able

to be calculated by multiplying the rest of the material percentages by the load

volume, and then by the corresponding density factor and adding it to the value

already calculated for the contents of the garbage bags. The data were then

plotted to show in graphs and tables the results of the Awaba landfill audit.

As specified by LMCC, the total Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) and total

packaging waste for each category was calculated.

To calculate the DOC component of each category the following streams were

added together:

Paper - office

Paper - other

Dry cardboard Wet Cardboard

Food/kitchen

Vegetation/garden

Woodpallets

Woodfurniture, painted wood

Woodchipboard MDF

Wooduntreated board

Woodtreated board

Carpet and underlay Cloth textiles

Textiles/leather other


25/71

21




To calculate the packaging component of each category the following streams

were added together:

Dry cardboard

Wet cardboard

Waxed cardboard Glass containers

Plasticcontainers recyclable Plasticfilm

PlasticPolystyrene foam


26/71

22




4. RESULTS

4.1 Overall Results

4.1.1 Summary of the overall results

Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads272

Total $ Dollars Charged $22,188.12

Total Load Volume (cubic metres)1,039.76

Total Weight (Tonnes)209.39

Table 6: Summary of the overall waste audit results

The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill

from the 272 loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 209.39 tonnes.

Customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of

$22, 188.12. Landfilling 209.39 tonnes at the mixed load (shingle) rate of

$160/tonne equates to total landfill fees of $33,502. The variation is due to:

Council trucks not being charged for the waste deposited (a function of

weighbridge protocols)

Green waste charged at the rate at $73.70

4.1.2 Overall composition of the landfill waste stream by weight

Table 7, Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the makeup of the overall waste stream before

the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories. The

materials that contributed most to the weight of the total waste steam at this stage

were vegetation and garden waste, concrete/cement, rock/soil/dirt, painted wood

and furniture, dry cardboard, wooduntreated board, and other plastics. Garbage

bags made up a total of 6.5% or 14 tonnes of the overall waste stream.


27/71

23




Table 8, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the makeup of the overall waste stream after the

contents of the garbage bags were calculated and allocated into waste categories.

This saw a subsequent change in the most significant materials, which now consist of:

vegetation and garden waste, food and kitchen waste, painted wood and furniture,

rock, dirt and soil, wooduntreated board and other plastics.

The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material that was found

to be disposed of at the landfill is quite significant, making up a total of 62.38% of the

weight or 130.62 tonnes of the total waste stream. The overall component of

packaging materials in this stream is at 7.50% or 15.69 tonnes.

4.1.3 Comparison of the composition of the landfill waste stream by weight

The data collected from the Awaba landfill audit was divided into five categories to

assist LMCC to gain a greater understanding of the various waste streams at Awabalandfill. These categories included LMCC parks waste, Commercial and Industrial

(C&I) waste, Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, self hauled waste and

LMCC bulk hauled waste. Figure 5 compares how the different waste materials are

distributed across the categories with the contents of the garbage bags allocated

across the material streams.

The overall data shows an early indication that there is great potential for further

diversion at the Awaba landfill with a large quantity of the significant waste

materials being Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) or recyclable materials. It willbe necessary for LMCC to ensure that these materials are being picked up in current

diversion operations or are captured in future diversion strategies.


28/71

24




Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight(with garbage bags included)

Material AveragePercentage Tonnes


Concrete / cement 9.2% 19.73Rock/dirt/soil 8.9% 19.14

Garbage bags of rubbish 6.5% 14.00Wood - furniture, painted wood 6.5% 13.91Wood - untreated board 4.5% 9.72Dry cardboard 4.5% 9.69Plastic - other 4.3% 9.20Wood - treated board 3.4% 7.34Bricks 2.9% 6.20Food / Kitchen 2.9% 6.17

Other items 2.9% 6.12

Carpet & underlay 2.8% 5.90Wood - chipboard, MDF 2.6% 5.55

Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc 2.5% 5.35Metals - ferrous (steel) 2.4% 5.12Plasterboard 2.2% 4.74Tiles 2.1% 4.50Cloth textiles 2.0% 4.36Paper - all other 1.7% 3.67Covered furniture 1.5% 3.22


Wood - pallets 1.4% 2.93Electrical/Electronic small 1.0% 2.07Plastic - film 0.9% 1.88

Electrical and electric whitegoods 0.8% 1.78Paper - office 0.4% 0.96Wet cardboard 0.4% 0.96Textiles /leather other 0.4% 0.83Computers / office equipment 0.4% 0.80Glass - plate 0.4% 0.75Metals - non-ferrous 0.3% 0.68Rubber other 0.3% 0.66Plastic - containers recyclable

0.2% 0.48Glass - containers 0.2% 0.34Plastic - Polystyrene foam 0.1% 0.30Hazardous / special 0.1% 0.24Tyres, tubes 0.1% 0.17Toner cartridges 0.0% 0.04Waxed cardboard 0.0% 0.00

Asphalt 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL 100.0% 214.42

Table 6: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight before the contents of the

garbage bags were allocated into waste categories.


29/71

25




6.5%

0.4% 1.7%

4.5% 0.4% 0.0%

2.9%

14.8%

1.4%

6.5%

2.6%4.5%3.4%2.8%

2.0%

1.5%

1.4%

0.4%0.1%

0.3%

0.2%0.4%

0.2%

0.9%

0.1%

4.3%

2.4%0.3%

0.4%

0.0%

0.8%

2.5%1.0%

9.2%

2.9%

2.1%

2.2%

8.9%

0.0%0.1%

2.9%

Garbage bags of rubbishPaper - officePaper -all otherDry cardboardWet cardboardWaxed cardboardFood / KitchenVegetation / gardenWood - palletsWood - furniture, painted woodWood - chipboard, MDFWood -untreated boardWood -treated boardCarpet & underlayCloth textilesCovered furniture

MattressesTextiles /leather otherTyres, tubesRubber otherGlass - containersGlass -platePlastic - containers recyclablePlastic - filmPlastic -Polystyrene foamPlastic - otherMetals - ferrous (steel)Metals -non-ferrousComputers / office equipmentToner cartridgesElectrical and electric whitegoodsElectrical/Electronic - televisions etcElectrical/Electronic smallConcrete / cementBricksTilesPlasterboardRock/dirt/soilAsphalt

Figure 1:The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (percentage) before the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste

categories


30/71

26




0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Figure 2: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (tonnes) before the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste

categories


31/71

27




Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by WeightMaterial Average

Percentage Tonnes













Wood - treated board 2.2% 4.52




Bricks 1.9% 3.93






Plastic - film 1.1% 2.37

Electrical/Electronic small 0.9% 1.96Wood - pallets 0.9% 1.87



Tiles 0.8% 1.72






Hazardous / special 0.3% 0.66Plastic - containers recyclable 0.2% 0.47





Asphalt 0.0% 0.00

Total 100.0% 209.39

Table 7: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight after the contents of the

garbage bags were allocated into waste categories.


32/71

28




0.9%

3.9%

4.2%

1.3%

0.0%

11.4%

13.0%

0.9%7.5%

3.4%

7.3%

2.2%

3.5%

2.8%

1.5%

1.6%

0.3%

0.2%

0.4%

0.5%

0.9%

0.2%

1.1%

0.2%5.7%

2.0%0.4%

1.2%

0.0%

0.4%

2.1%

0.9%

4.6%

1.9%0.8%

1.3%

7.3%

0.0%

0.3%

2.1%

Paper -officePaper -all otherDry cardboardWet cardboardWaxed cardboardFood / KitchenVegetation / gardenWood -palletsWood - furniture, painted woodWood - chipboard, MDFWood -un treated board

Wood - treated boardCarpet & underlayCloth textilesCovered furnitureMattressesTextiles /leather otherTyres, tubesRubber otherGlass -containersGlass -platePlastic - containers recyclablePlastic -filmPlastic - Polystyrene foamPlastic -otherMetals -ferrous (steel)Metals - non-ferrousCompute rs / office equipmentToner cartridgesElectri cal and e lectric whitegoodsElectri cal/Electronic -tel evisions etcElectri cal/Electronic smallConcrete / cementBricksTiles

PlasterboardRock/dirt/soilAsphaltHazardous / specialOther items

Figure 3:The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (percentage) after the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste

categories.


33/71

29




0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

Figure 4: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (tonnes) after the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste

categories.


34/71

30




0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Paper-office

Paper-allother

Drycardboard

Wetcardboard

Waxedcardboard

Food/Kitchen

Vegetation/garden

Wood-pallets

Wood-

furniture,

paintedwood

Wood-chipboard,

MDF

Wood-untreatedboard

Wood-treatedboard

Carpet&underlay

Clothtextiles

Coveredfurniture

Mattresses

Textiles/leatherother

Tyres,tubes

Rubberother

Glass-containers

Glass-plate

Plastic-containersrecyclable

Plastic-

film

Plastic-Polystyrenefoam

Plastic-other

Metals-

ferrous(steel)

Metals-non-ferrous

Computers/officeequipment

Tonercartridges

Electricalandelectricwhitegoods

Electrical/Electronic-televisionsetc

Electrical/Electronicsmall

Concrete/cement

Bricks

Tiles

Plasterboard

Rock/dirt/soil

Asphalt

Hazardous/special

Otheritems

Categories LMCC Parks

Categories C&I

Categories C&D

Categories Self Hauled

Categories LMCC Bulk

Figure 5:The overall composition of the landfill waste stream broken up into load categories by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the

garbage bags allocated into waste streams.


35/71

31




4.2 LMCC Parks Waste

4.2.1 Summary of the LMCC parks waste results

Summary of the LMCC Parks Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads 25

Total Load Volume (cubic metres) 140.3

Total Weight (tonnes) 36.57

Table 8: Summary of the LMCC Parks waste audit results


from the 25 LMCC parks waste loads audited was calculated to equal a total of

36.57 tonnes.

4.2.2 Composition of the LMCC parks waste stream by weight

The most significant materials that made up the percentage of the total LMCC parks

waste stream, as shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Table 9 were vegetation and

garden waste, food and kitchen waste, rock dirt and soil, other paper and other

plastics.

These data show that there is a huge amount of organic materials being generated

from the parks waste stream. There may be scope for greater diversion of these

products for recycling or energy production. There is also capacity for the large

amount of rock dirt and soil that is currently being disposed of at the landfill to be

reused in other Council areas or parks. Lastly, increased recycling and illegal

dumping education initiatives may help to decrease the amount of other plastics

and paper that are significantly contributing to this waste stream.

The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in this stream is

quite important, making up a total of 63.48% or 23.39 tonnes of the total LMCC parks

waste stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is

minimal at 6.08% or 2.24 tonnes.

4.2.3 Composition of the LMCC parks litter bins waste by percentage

There was one parks litter bintruck that delivered waste to the landfill during the

time of the audit. The contents of this truck have been analysed separately so as to


36/71

32




develop an understanding of the types of waste being collected from the LMCC

park litter bins.

The pie graph below shows the majority (63%) of the parks waste is made up of

garbage bags of waste. A further 8% if made up of other paper, 5% of vegetation

and garden waste, 4% carpet and underlay and 4% cloth textiles. This suggests that

some of the litter bins are being used by people for the disposal of household wastes,

rather than just for those wastes produced from patrons visiting the parks.


37/71

33




Figure 6: The percentage

of wastes audited from the

LMCC parks litter bin truck.

63.0%8.0%

1.0%

4.0%

2.0%

3.0%

0.3%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%5.0%

1.0%

1.0%

4.0%

1.0%1.5%

0.5%0.3%

1.3%

Garbage bags of rubbish

Paper - all other

Dry cardboard

Wet cardboard

Food / Kitchen

Vegetation / garden

Wood - pallets

Wood - chipboard, MDF

Carpet & underlay

Cloth textiles

Glass - containers

Plastic - containers recyclable

Plastic - film

Plastic - Polystyrene foam

Plastic - other

Metals - ferrous (steel)

Metals - non-ferrous

Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc

Electrical/Electronic small

Other items


38/71

34




Summary of the LMCC Parks waste by weight

MaterialAverage

Percentage TonnesVegetation / garden 25.02% 9.22





Bricks 2.18% 0.80

















Rubber other 0.49% 0.18Plastic - containers recyclable 0.44% 0.16










Tiles 0.07% 0.03Electrical/Electronic small 0.07% 0.03





Asphalt 0.00% 0.00

Total 100.00% 36.85

Table 9:The overall composition of the LMCC parks waste stream by weight


39/71

35




1.79%

6.34%2.07% 1.77%

0.00%

21.54%

25.02%

0.42%0.60%

0.28%

1.03%0.67%

0.54%

1.33%

0.87%

0.00%

0.10%

0.14%0.49%

1.15%2.04%

0.44%

0.57%

0.08%

4.78%1.41%

0.61%

0.29%

0.09%

0.05%0.29%

0.07%

2.05%

2.18%

0.07%

0.03%16.97%

0.00%

0.35% 1.49% Paper - officePaper -all otherDry cardboardWet cardboardWaxed cardboardFood / KitchenVegetation / gardenWood -palle tsWood -furni ture, painted woodWood - chipboard, MDFWood -unt reated boardWood - treated boardCarpet & underlayCloth textiles

Covered furnitureMattressesTextil es /leather otherTyres, tube sRubber otherGlass -containersGlass -platePlastic - containers recyclablePlastic -filmPlastic - Polystyrene foamPlastic -otherMetals -ferrous (steel)Metals - non-ferrousComputers / office equipmentToner cartridgesElectri cal and electric whitegoodsElectri cal/Electronic -tel evisions etcElectri cal/Electronic smallConcrete / cementBricksTilesPlasterboardRock/dirt/soilAsphalt

Hazardous / specialOther items

Figure 6:The overall composition of the LMCC parks waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste

streams


40/71

36




0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Figure 7:The overall composition of the LMCC parks waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste

stream


41/71

37




4.3 Commercial and Industrial Waste

4.3.1 Summary of the C&I waste results

Summary of the C&I Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads51

Total $ Dollars Charged7,131.94

Total Load Volume (cubic metres)214.72

Total Weight (Tonnes)

44.98

Table 10: Summary of the C&I waste audit results


from the 51 C&I loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 44.98 tonnes. C&I

customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of

$7,131.94.

4.3.2 Composition of the C&I waste stream by weight

The most significant materials that made up the Commercial and Industrial waste

stream, as shown in Table 11, Figure 8 and Figure 9 were food and kitchen waste ,

cloth textiles, concrete and cement, vegetation and garden waste, other paper

and other plastics.

The analysis of the C&I stream clearly shows that there is a high organic component

in this waste stream, that could have further opportunities for diversion. There is also

some capacity for increased recycling of plastics and paper, as well as, the captureand diversion of concrete. There was an unusually large amount of cloth textiles in

the C&I waste stream due to a large number of charity vehicles that are accessing

the landfill for free. LMCC should review their policy for accepting charity wastes for

free.


significant making up a total of 65.9% or 29.86 tonnes of the total C&I waste stream.

The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is far less at 11.58% or

5.25 tonnes of the total weight of the C&I stream.


42/71

38




Summary of the C&I Waste by Weight

MaterialAverage

Percentage TonnesFood / Kitchen 28.55% 12.94












Wood - furniture, painted wood 2.34% 1.06Bricks 1.65% 0.75
















Electrical/Electronic small 0.34% 0.15


Tiles 0.33% 0.15








Asphalt 0.00% 0.00

Total 100.00% 45.31

Table 11:The overall composition of the C&I waste stream by weight


43/71

39




1.19%

6.24%

4.81%2.82%

0.00%

28.55%

6.25%

1.14%2.34%

0.68%0.76%

0.87%2.81%

7.23%

1.33%0.50%

0.22%

0.37%

0.48%

0.83%1.18%

0.26%

2.49%0.36%

6.03%

1.50%0.33%

0.24%

0.00%

0.25%

0.99%

0.34%

6.29%

1.65%

0.33%

0.30%

3.95%

0.00%

0.37%

3.74%

Paper - officePaper -all otherDry cardboardWet cardboardWaxed cardboardFood / KitchenVegetation / gardenWood -palle tsWood - furniture, painted woodWood - chipboard, MDFWood -un treated boardWood - treated boardCarpet & underlayCloth textilesCovered furnitureMattressesTextiles /leather otherTyres, tube sRubber otherGlass -containersGlass -platePlastic - containers recyclablePlastic -filmPlastic - Polystyrene foamPlastic -otherMetals -ferrous (steel)Metals - non-ferrousComputer s / office equipmentToner cartridgesElectri cal and electric whitegoodsElectri cal/Electronic -tel evisions etcElectri cal/Electronic smallConcrete / cementBricksTilesPlasterboardRock/dirt/soil

AsphaltHazardous / specialOther items

Figure 8:The overall composition of the C&I waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream


44/71

40




0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Figure 9: The overall composition of the C&I waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream


45/71

41




4.4 Construction and Demolition Waste

4.4.1 Summary of the C&D waste results

Summary of the C&D Waste Audit Results


Total $ Dollars Charged 9,757.37


Total Weight (Tonnes) 46.86

Table 12: Summary of the C&D waste audit results


from the 41 C&D loads audited was to equal a total of 46.86 tonnes. C&D customers

delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $9,757.37.

4.4.2 Composition of the C&D waste stream by weight

The most significant materials in the Construction and Demolition waste stream, as

shown in Figure 10, Figure 11 and Table 13 were untreated board, painted wood

and furniture, concrete and cement, carpet and underlay, and rock, dirt and soil.

The C&D data shows that, not surprisingly this stream is mainly made up of building

materials. However many of the products that make up the largest quantities of this

stream are recyclable or reusable in some form and it would be worth LMCC

investigating the potential for greater diversion of these streams.


significant, making up a total of 64.54% or 30.26 tonnes of the total C&D waste

stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is minute in

comparison at 2.8% or 1.35 tonnes of the total weight of the C&D stream.


46/71

42




Summary of the C&D Waste by weight

MaterialAverage

Percentage TonnesWood - untreated board 21.68% 10.17






Bricks 3.88% 1.82








Tiles 1.33% 0.62

























Asphalt 0.00% 0.00

Total 100.00% 46.88

Table 13:The overall composition of the C&D waste stream by weight


47/71

43




0.12% 1.02% 1.40%0.02%

0.00% 1.32%

3.97%2.24%

19.68%

3.05%

21.68%

2.16%

6.90%

0.54%0.13%

0.04%

0.43%0.07%

0.08%

0.05%

0.27%0.09%

1.26%

0.06%2.96%

2.68%0.28%

0.01% 0.00%

0.49%

0.84%0.93% 8.33%

3.88%

1.33%3.45%

6.76%

0.00%

0.22% 1.24% Paper - officePaper -all otherDry cardboardWet cardboardWaxed cardboardFood / KitchenVegetation / gardenWood - palletsWood - furniture, painted woodWood - chipboard, MDFWood -un treated boardWood - treated boardCarpet & underlayCloth textiles

Covered furnitureMattressesTextil es /leather otherTyres, tube sRubber otherGlass -containersGlass -platePlastic - containers recyclablePlastic -filmPlastic - Polystyrene foamPlastic -otherMetals -ferrous (steel)Metals - non-ferrousComputers / office equipmentToner cartridgesElectri cal and electric whitegoodsElectri cal/Electronic -tel evisions etcElectri cal/Electronic smallConcrete / cementBricksTilesPlasterboardRock/dirt/soilAsphaltHazardous / special

Other items

Figure 10: The overall composition of the C&D waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste

streams


48/71

44




0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Figure 11:The overall composition of the C&D waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream


49/71

45




4.5 Self Hauled Waste

4.5.1 Summary of the self hauled waste results

Table 14: Summary of the self hauled waste audit results


from the 142 Self Hauled waste audited was calculated to be a total of 30.86 tonnes.

Self Haulage customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a

total charge of $4,229.60.

4.5.2 Composition of the self hauled waste stream by weight

The most significant material in the self hauled waste stream, as shown in Figure 12,

Figure 13 and Table 15 was vegetation and garden waste. The next largest

quantities of waste were furniture and painted wood, dry cardboard, concrete and

cement, other plastics, food and kitchen waste, treated wood and rock, dirt and soil.

Again, for the self hauled waste stream there is a large potential for increased

diversion of organic materials, which is further demonstrated by the overall weight of

Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material, which makes up a total of 63.71% or19.71 tonnes of the total self hauled waste stream. The overall component of

packaging materials in this stream is, on the other hand, only 8.11% or 2.51 tonnes of

the total weight of the self hauled stream.

Self-hauled waste is primarily household waste. However, this does not necessarily

exclude some small commercial operators bringing waste in under the self hauled

category.

Summary of the Self Hauled Waste Audit Results


Total $ Dollars Charged 4,229.60




50/71

46




Summary of the Self Hauled Waste by Weight

MaterialAverage

Percentage TonnesVegetation / garden 20.73% 6.41

















Tiles 1.97% 0.61





Electrical and electric whitegoods 0.87% 0.27Bricks 0.85% 0.26










Plastic - containers recyclable 0.26% 0.08Computers / office equipment 0.25% 0.08





Asphalt 0.00% 0.00

Total 100.00% 30.93

Table 15:The overall composition of the self hauled waste stream by weight


51/71

47




1.49%

3.54%

6.36%

0.44%

0.01%

5.27%

20.73%

0.38%6.98%

2.88%

3.96%5.15%

3.74%2.36%

1.67%

2.21%

0.43%0.11%

0.42%

0.30%0.71%

0.26%

0.61%

0.13%

5.67%

2.25%0.36%

0.25%0.03%

0.87%

2.47%

1.13%6.02%

0.85%

1.97% 1.09%

4.22%

0.00%

0.27%

2.43%Paper - officePaper -all otherDry cardboardWet cardboardWaxed cardboardFood / KitchenVegetation / gardenWood -palle tsWood -furni ture, painted woodWood - chipboard, MDFWood -un treated boardWood - treated boardCarpet & underlay

Cloth textilesCovered furnitureMattressesTextil es /leather otherTyres, tube sRubber otherGlass -containersGlass -platePlastic - containers recyclablePlastic -filmPlastic - Polystyrene foamPlastic -otherMetals -ferrous (steel)Metals - non-ferrousComputers / office equipmentToner cartridgesElectri cal and electric whitegoodsElectri cal/Electronic -tel evisions etcElectri cal/Electronic smallConcrete / cementBricksTilesPlasterboardRock/dirt/soil

AsphaltHazardous / special

Figure 12:The overall composition of the self hauled waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste

streams


52/71

48




0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Figure 13:The overall composition of the self hauled waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste

streams


53/71

49




4.6 LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste

4.6.1 Summary of the LMCC bulk hauled waste results

Summary of the LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste Audit Results


Total $ Dollars Charged 0.00

Total Load Volume (cubic metres) 284


Table 16: Summary of the LMCC bulk hauled waste audit results


from the 14 bulk hauled loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 49.38

tonnes. As all bulk hauled waste is transported by Council vehicles, there was no

charge for LMCC bulk hauled waste customers.

4.6.2 Composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream by weight

The most significant materials in the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream, as shown in

Figure 14, Figure 15 and Table 17 were vegetation and garden waste, MDF

chipboard, other plastics, dry cardboard, wood - untreated board, furniture and

painted wood, rock, dirt and soil, and electrical and electronic televisions etc.

The LMCC bulk hauled waste stream comprised a surprising amount of MDF

chipboard wood, as well as electrical and electronic goods. It is unclear as to

whether this is a normal characterization of this waste stream or if on the particular

day this stream was audited something occurred that caused a spike in thesefigures. The potential diversion of these products would be worth investigating further

by LMCC.

The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in this stream

was, like the other categories, extremely noticeable for the bulk waste stream,

making up a total of 55.46% or 27.41 tonnes of the total weight. The overall

component of packaging mater

solid waste audit of landfill

Documents