strategic waste management plan 2016-2020...capes regional organisation of councils strategic waste...

STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2016-2020

CAPES REGIONAL ORGANISATION OF COUNCILS

30/05/2014

Capes Regional Organisation of Councils Strategic Waste Management Plan – 2014/2016 2

[blank page]


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 5

2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5

3. Vision .............................................................................................................................. 6

4. Strategic framework: National, State and Local Policies .................................................... 7

4.1 Waste and Resource Management at the National level ................................................................ 7

4.2 Western Australia’s Waste Avoidance and Recovery Act 2007 (WARR 2007) ................................. 8

4.3 Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment ............................................ 9

4.4 Regional Funding Program ............................................................................................................... 9

4.5 Local Government Act 1995 ........................................................................................................... 10

4.6 Local policies .................................................................................................................................. 10

4.6.1 City of Busselton .............................................................................................................. 10

4.6.2 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River...................................................................................... 11

4.6.3 Regional cooperation ....................................................................................................... 12

4.7 Waste hierarchy, best practice standards and landfill diversion ................................................... 13

5. Strategic principles ......................................................................................................... 15

Part II: CAPES REGIONAL WASTE STRATEGY

6. Region background information ..................................................................................... 17

6.1 City of Busselton ............................................................................................................................ 17

6.2 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River .................................................................................................... 18

6.3 Population in the CAPEROC region ................................................................................................ 18

7. Assessment of significant waste sources, quantities and classes ...................................... 19

7.1 Waste production ............................................................................................................................. 19

7.1.1 Mixed solid waste ............................................................................................................... 20

7.1.2 Construction and demolition waste .................................................................................... 21

7.1.3 Organic waste ..................................................................................................................... 22

7.1.4 Sorted end of life materials/products ................................................................................. 22

8. Review of waste management infrastructure and services .............................................. 23

8.1 Current waste infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 23

8.1.1 City of Busselton .............................................................................................................. 23

8.1.2 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River...................................................................................... 26

8.1.3 Private infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 27

8.2 Current waste services ................................................................................................................... 28

8.2.1 Waste collection............................................................................................................... 28

8.2.2 Kerbside recycling ............................................................................................................ 28

9. Assessment of options for waste reduction, management and disposal ........................... 29

9.1 C&D waste sorting and recycling ................................................................................................... 29

9.2 Three bin system ............................................................................................................................ 30

9.3 Mechanical-biological treatment ................................................................................................... 32

9.4 Waste to energy ............................................................................................................................. 33

9.5 Sorting cardboard at the tip face ................................................................................................... 34

9.6 Garden composting/worm farming ............................................................................................... 34

9.7 Best practice landfill disposal ......................................................................................................... 35


9.8 Best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station .................................................. 36

9.9 Assessment summary .................................................................................................................... 36

10. Capes region strategic waste management plan .............................................................. 38

10.1 Regional Priorities .......................................................................................................................... 38

10.2 Strategic objectives ........................................................................................................................ 39

10.3 Proposed management system configuration ............................................................................... 39

10.4 Key-projects ................................................................................................................................... 41

10.4.1 Construction and demolition waste recycling plant ........................................................ 42

10.4.2 Cardboard sorting plant ................................................................................................... 42

10.4.3 Garden composting/worm farming ................................................................................. 43

10.4.4 New best practice landfill (cell 1 at Vidler Rd.) ................................................................ 43

10.4.5 Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Stations ........................................................ 43

10.4.6 Other initiatives ............................................................................................................... 44

11. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 45


1. Background

The provision of an effective and long term solution to waste management is a critical service

provided to the community and one of the core functions of local government. In addition, waste

management has been identified by the State Government as a service area where regional and

shared co-operation and facilities are encouraged.

Recognizing that the development of a regional partnership for waste management would yield a

more cost-effective and sustainable approach to the implementation of a pro-active waste strategy

in alignment with state targets and regional priorities, the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-

Margaret River decided to pursue a regional waste project under the Capes Regional Organisation of

Councils (CAPEROC) framework.

The need for investigation into the feasibility of a regional landfill facility was identified by CAPEROC

as part of the long term planning for waste services in both local authorities. Therefore, regional

cooperation concerning waste management started with a scoping study for a regional (shared)

landfill facility between the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and City of Busselton, prepared in early

2013. In July 2013 CAPEROC endorsed a direction for further progression of the project which

included setting up of a working group comprised of key officers from both local governments to

investigate governance, management and financial and seek external funding.

While the major focus of CAPEROC to date has been to find a suitable site to secure long term

disposal options for both local governments, a larger scope of cooperation is proposed to be

endorsed by both Councils under the present Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP) – 2014-

2016, including a set of projects aligned with landfill diversion targets for the period 2015-2020.

2. Introduction

In simple terms waste can be considered as any material that is produced as a result of human

activity that no longer has a beneficial use, or is not beneficially used, and hence requires disposal or

is otherwise released into the environment.

A common concern in developed societies is that consumption is leading to an increase in waste

generation. So far there has been no decoupling between society’s increasing level of affluence and

waste generation, thus resulting in ‘throw away’ societal trends.

According to Western Australia’s Waste Authority, the State’s performance when benchmarked

against other mainland states is still poor and requires a significant boost if comparable outcomes

are to be achieved by 2015. (Western Australian Waste Strategy: “Creating the Right Environment”)

While waste management has been historically considered, first and foremost, as a public health

concern, a greater emphasis on environmental protection and sustainability has emerged during the

last quarter of the last century. There was, hence, a shift from the emphasis on sanitation to

resource recovery and efficiency as well as sustainable natural resource use.

Contemporary public policy options targeting waste increasingly need to consider sustainability-

based concepts such as product environmental life cycle, extended producer responsibility and the

waste hierarchy in addition to the more conventional role of the protection of human health.


The waste hierarchy, a hierarchy of preference to avoid, reduce, reuse and then recycle before

disposal, is a simple and common sense approach that sets an order of preference for action to

reduce and manage waste. Historically, this concept was introduced for the first time into European

waste policy through EU’s Waste Framework Directive (1975/442/EEC), but has since been widely

accepted and adopted in most other developed countries including Australia. In Western Australia it

is enshrined in the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 in the context of the

consideration of resource management options, as well as by reference to the principle of waste

minimisation established in the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Also, one of the State Waste Authority’s Waste Strategy principles is waste minimisation and waste

avoidance – in which all reasonable and practicable steps should be taken to minimise the

generation of waste and its discharge to landfill and the environment.

This Strategic Waste Management Plan has a primary focus of improving current waste minimisation

and management activities. To this end, in the order of priority, the Strategic Waste Management

Plan is focused on the following waste sources: (1) Residential Waste; (2) Commercial and Industrial

Waste and (3) Construction and Demolition Waste.

3. Vision

This vision comes about as a shared understanding of the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-

Margaret River regarding contemporary waste management challenges, under the CAPEROC

framework.

Both local governments see waste as a potential resource that shall be managed so as to reduce the

environmental impact of disposal and to maximize its economic value. To that end, both local

governments envision sustainable waste management practices adopted through:

fostering the potential of the local economy and its direct engagement in value-adding

activities, by dealing with waste in a closed loop, green-economy1 approach, turning it into a

true economic resource;

application of best practice guidelines in developing waste services and infrastructure, in

alignment with State waste avoidance, reduction and recycling targets and appropriate

disposal standards;

direct engagement of the Community with a clear focus on information, education and

participation, in order to facilitate waste avoidance, reduction and source separation

towards recycling.

This Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP) aims at leveraging and pooling together the

resources of both local governments under CAPEROC, to achieve waste management outcomes in

alignment with the above stated Vision, as well as with Western Australia’s Waste Policy Framework

and the Regional Priorities herein identified.

1 According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), green economy is one that results in improved human

well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive


4. Strategic Framework: National, State and Local Policies

The strategy objectives and key projects identified within this SWMP are intended to address the

objects set forth in relevant legislation in regards to waste management, the objectives of Western

Australian Waste Strategy and the Regional Funding Program’s Guidelines.

4.1 Waste and Resource Management at the National level

Waste policy in each Australia state and territory is founded on the National Strategy for Ecologically

Sustainable Development (1992), endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The

challenge identified thereupon is to improve the efficiency with which resources are used and

reduce the impact on the environment of waste disposal, and to improve the management of

hazardous wastes, avoid their generation and address clean-up issues.

The National Waste Policy brings in a new approach to waste management in Australia. The policy

was agreed by governments in November 2009 and endorsed by the Council of Australian

Governments in August 2010. It sets Australia's waste management and resource recovery direction

to 2020 and aims to reduce the amount of waste for disposal to landfill and manage waste as a

resource to deliver economic, environmental and social benefits (Australian Government,

Department of the Environment).

The Product Stewardship Act 2011 came into effect on 8 August 2011 and it provides the framework

to effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, and in particular

those impacts associated with the disposal of products (Australian Government, Department of the

Environment). The framework includes voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product

stewardship. The passage of the legislation delivers on a key commitment by the Australian

Government under the National Waste Policy.

National Packaging Covenant

Australian Environment Ministers have endorsed the Australian Packaging Covenant, which

commenced on 1 July 2010. It is the third iteration of the National Packaging Covenant, which has

been the leading instrument for managing the environmental impacts of packaging in Australia since

1999. It is the voluntary component of a co-regulatory arrangement based on the principle of shared

responsibility, through product stewardship, between key stakeholders in the packaging supply

chain and all spheres of government – Australian, State, Territory and Local.

The Australian Government's Australian Packaging Covenant Action Plan 2010 2015 outlines the

activities the government will undertake to assist the Australian Packaging Covenant in achieving its

objectives and goals. This document builds on activities undertaken under the previous National

Packaging Covenant and aims to make government operations more sustainable and drive a culture

of sustainability in Australia. Government agencies are responsible for implementing the

commitments in this action plan and reporting qualitative data through a new reporting template.

The action plan outlines how the Australian Government will incorporate the principles of the

covenant in its operations by:

implementing the covenant's Sustainable Packaging Guidelines


implementing recovery systems for used packaging materials and paper

purchasing products that include recycled materials

facilitating nationally effective product stewardship policies and programs relating to

packaging.

National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme

The National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme involves a combination of government

regulation and industry action to take responsibility for the collection and recycling of waste

televisions, computers, printers and computer products. Under the Scheme, householders and small

business can drop-off these items for free at designated access points, which may include

permanent collection sites, take-back events or through a mail-back option (Australian Government,

Department of the Environment).

4.2 Western Australia’s Waste Avoidance and Recovery Act 2007 (WARR 2007)

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (WARR Act) builds upon work undertaken by the

State Government since 1997, to progress the commitment of developing a comprehensive waste

legislation.

The primary objects of this Act are to contribute to sustainability, and the protection of human

health and the environment in Western Australia and the move towards a waste-free society by —

(a) promoting the most efficient use of resources, including resource recovery and waste

avoidance; and

(b) reducing environmental harm, including pollution through waste; and

(c) the consideration of resource management options against the following hierarchy —

(i) avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption;

(ii) resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery);

(iii) disposal.

In addition, the major new features of the WARR Act in the context of earlier public policies are the

following:

- establishing a statutory waste authority with various non-regulatory and advisory functions and

powers related to waste, including strategic policy and planning, the implementation of policies,

plans and programs to achieve that transition; and the administration of funds raised through

the collection of the landfill levy;

- allowing for regulations to be developed and implemented by the regulatory agency to effect

waste avoidance and resource recovery in Western Australia;

- providing powers of compliance enforcement in relation to those regulations;

- creating and enabling the head powers for establishing extended producer responsibility

schemes and product stewardship schemes, and implementation of the associated instruments

for significantly reducing "priority waste";

- consolidating certain waste provisions previously in the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the

Health Act 1911, and the Environmental Protection (Landfill) Levy Act 1998.


4.3 Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the right environment (2012)

According to the Vision set forth in the Western Australian Waste Strategy (2012-2020): “the primary

goal of sustainable waste management strategies is to reduce the environmental impact of waste

and maximise conservation of natural resources through reduced overall material use and increased

materials and energy recovery.”

Relevant targets within the strategy are as follows:

Municipal Solid Waste Sector Targets

30% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection in major regional centres by

30 June 2015 (non-metropolitan region recovery in 2009/10 was 15%);

50% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection in major regional centres by

30 June 2020

Busselton is a major regional centre for the purpose of Solid Waste Sector Targets above.

Construction and Demolition Waste Sector Targets

60% diversion from landfill of material presented for collection across the State by 30 June

2015 (Statewide recovery in 2009/10 was 29%);


2020.

Commercial and Industrial Waste Sector Targets


2015 (Statewide recovery in 2009/10 was 46%);


2020.

4.4 Regional Funding Program

The objectives of the Regional Funding Program are:

to encourage local governments to work together to provide regional waste management

solutions and increase efficiencies;

to facilitate improved local government waste management infrastructure and services

throughout the State, with measurable progress towards meeting Waste Strategy targets;

to facilitate continuous improvement in waste avoidance, resource recovery and disposal

for solid waste managed by local government in line with the relevant targets within the

Waste Strategy.

To that end, RFP applications will be supported by a Regional Investment Plan (RIP) which will need

to consider the regional strategic priorities, the contribution towards improvement in waste

avoidance, resource recovery or disposal.


4.5 Local Government Act 1995

According to the Act, the general function of a local government is to provide for the good

government of persons in its district, which include executive functions. In performing its executive

functions the local government may provide services and facilities.

In carrying out its functions a local government is to use its best endeavours to meet the needs of

current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social

advancement and economic prosperity.

Also, a local government is to satisfy itself that services and facilities that it provides: (a) integrate

and coordinate, so far as practicable, with any provided by the Commonwealth, the State or any

public body; and (…) (c) are managed efficiently and effectively.

In other words, the general implication of the Local Government Act 1995 is that, in their decision-

making, local governments are to integrate sustainability concerns and coordinate with National and

State authorities as far as practicable.

4.6 Local Policies

There has been no overarching strategy defined under CAPEROC to deal with waste management

services both local government members provide or to deal with sustainability and environmental

protection matters in general. Relevant local policies are, therefore, specific of each member local

government and can be characterized as follows.

4.6.1 City of Busselton

According to the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan (2013), Key Goal Area 5 Cared for and

Enhanced Environment, includes the following objectives:

- Our environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of the community and visitors.

- Growth is managed sustainably and our environment is protected and enhanced as we develop.

- Environment and climate change risks and impacts are understood and managed.

Relevant related Council strategies to support achievement of community objectives include the

development and implementation of a strategy for the responsible provision of waste management

services.

The City of Busselton formulated its Waste Strategy in 2013. This document is intended to provide

guidance for the development of waste services into the next decade and beyond. It includes a

comprehensive review of waste services and infrastructure, provides in-depth recommendations for

the improvement of waste services in alignment with the State’s Waste Authority targets and

provides costing figures to support long term financial planning and budgeting.

In order to work in alignment with the Waste Authority’s targets, according to the City of Busselton

Waste Strategy, the Council should work towards the following major initiatives:

- identify and reserve strategically located land for future waste infrastructure development,

including reserve future landfill sites for ongoing waste disposal;


- only landfill waste in lined landfill cells and remove recyclable materials from the waste

stream;

- invest in developing and maintaining an accurate database tracking the flow of waste

materials; a combination of weighbridge data, collections data and waste processing throughput

may be used to generate a working model and identify new opportunities to improve waste

diversion performance;

- ensure site operations are compliant with best practice guidelines published by the

Department of Environment Regulation (DER);

- keep abreast of the Waste authority’s current position on best practice systems for the

collection and processing of waste;

- work closely with the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to develop future waste management

infrastructure, including a new landfill site;

- align its ongoing strategic development of waste management services with the objectives of

the Western Australian Waste Strategy.

4.6.2 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

According to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Community Strategic Plan (2013) Goal 1 Valuing

the natural Environment, one of the outcomes is defined as sustainable waste management.

Major relevant related Council strategies include reducing the environmental impact of waste and

maximising conservation of natural resources, reducing raw material use and increase materials and

energy recovery and encouraging the community to reduce, reuse and recycle.

In April 2008 the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River has developed a Strategic Waste Management

Plan which identified the vision and guiding principles for waste management activities within the

Shire for the period 2008-2013. It presents a review of existing waste infrastructure and services,

baseline waste information and forecasts and provides a strategic direction for waste and recycling

services. It also includes sections on community engagement and education activities and a review

of the recommendations of the Zero Waste Plan.

The major key principles of the Strategic Waste Management Plan include the following:

- waste hierarchy and alignment with the State’s strategic direction.

- sustainability with consideration to social, environmental and economic impacts of its decisions

with respect to waste management.

- integration, meaning that it addresses legislative requirements, State Government direction and

is aligned with Shire policies and community outcomes.

- polluter-pays principle, under which the generator of waste should be responsible for paying

the cost of managing the waste in such a way that discourages waste production.

- promotion of waste reduction behaviour through direct community engagement, education

and social marketing programs.

- adequate resourcing of future actions with respect to funding and staffing.

- cooperation with neighbouring local governments and seeking partnerships that increase the

efficiency and effectiveness of waste management policy.

- ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and reviewed on a regular basis.


4.6.3 Regional cooperation

As the development of best practice waste management infrastructure requires a significant shift in

skills, practices and costs, local governments are increasingly looking at ways to cooperate in order

to share costs/pool shared resources, accrue economies of scale and possibly attract funding from

State Government.

The idea of cooperation between the City of Busselton and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River on a

regional basis for waste management goes back as far as 2003.

The Australian Local Government Association defines Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) as

“partnerships between groups of local government entities that agree to collaborate on matters of

common interest”.

The Capes Regional Organisation of Councils (CAPEROC) is a voluntary grouping of the City of

Busselton and the Shire of Augusta Margaret River, which seeks to enhance the capacity of both

local governments to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits to their communities and

the Capes region. CAPEROC’s mission is to oversee joint projects identified in the Capes Regional

Economic Development Strategy. The vision and focus of the strategy is to build on regional and

sectoral advantages that seek to promote economic growth, diversity and sustainability to enable

choices in employment, business and lifestyle.

CAPEROC thus provides an appropriate forum for a regional waste management project to become a

reality, drawing on the existing resources and planning for a suitable future regional cooperation

framework.

The need for investigation of a regional landfill facility was identified by CAPEROC as part of the long

term planning for waste services in both local authorities, as waste management has been identified

by the State Government as a service area where regional and shared co-operation and facilities are

encouraged.

A consultant was appointed to undertake the project on behalf of CAPEROC in December 2012. The

CAPEROC Regional Landfill Study Report represents a ‘first cut’ investigation of the broad viability of

undertaking a regional landfill facility. It concludes that there are inherent benefits for both local

authorities in further investigating and developing a regional facility.

The study also undertook high level investigation of a number of potential sites within both Local

Authorities for potential development as best practice waste landfill and reviewed a number of

governance models outlining broad options for formalising a regional agreement.

CAPEROC adopted a resolution that a Regional Landfill Working Group be formed comprising key

officers from both Local Governments. The group was to undertake more detailed and on-site

assessment of the preferred sites identified in the CAPEROC Regional Landfill Study Report and

further investigate governance, management, financial and tenure options for a Regional Landfill

Facility.


CAPEROC further decided to advance a regional Strategic Waste Management Plan to address waste

management priorities in line with the State’s Waste Authority targets and in response to the

specific needs of the region.

The present report integrates the major strategic principles and guidelines set forth by both

Councils; it applies them to a regional cooperative framework and outlines a number of strategic

projects in order to support a suitable Regional Investment Plan.

4.7 Waste hierarchy, best practice standards and landfill diversion

As detailed above, the Waste Hierarchy was first introduced in WA into the Environmental

Protection Act 1986 as a principle of waste minimisation. In its most practical form it states that

wastes should be managed in accordance with the following order of preference (Figure 1): (a)

avoidance; (b) re-use; (c) recycling; (d) recovery of energy; (e) treatment; (f) containment; and (g)

disposal.

Fig. 1 Waste hierarchy (Source: http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/)

Within the waste hierarchy framework, best practice standards for waste infrastructure and

operations were developed, for instance, by the State of Victoria (see http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/

and http://www.mwmg.vic.gov.au/ ), including the following:

Best practice environmental management – Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of

landfills (Landfill BPEM) (publication 788)

This best practice publication is used by EPA, industry and others in relation to works approval

applications and compliance activity. Applicants for a works approval or licence for a landfill

must meet the objectives and required outcomes set out in the Landfill BPEM.

EPA reviewed the Landfill BPEM in 2010 to incorporate new technology and the latest

understanding of improved management practices at landfills. The revisions to the document

also respond to a number of the recommendations of the Victorian Ombudsman's report

Brookland Greens Estate — Investigation into Methane Gas.

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/

http://www.mwmg.vic.gov.au/

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/publications/publication/2010/october/788-1

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/publications/publication/2010/october/788-1


Guide to Best Practice at Resource Recovery Centres

The Guide to Best Practice at Resource Recovery Centres (2009) addresses best practice planning

and siting, design and construction, operation and management and rehabilitation of resource

recovery centres/transfer stations.

Energy from waste guideline (publication 1559)

This guideline outlines how the Environment Protection Act 1970 and associated policies and

Regulations are applied to the assessment of proposals that recover energy from waste. The

document provides high-level guidance for industry, government and the community on EPA’s

expectations and requirements for the siting, design, construction and operation of such

facilities. This is a revised version of the draft guideline (publication 1549), which was released

for public comment between 6 September and 11 October 2013

The State of Victoria is credited to be quite progressive concerning waste management policy and

practice and these guidelines are also used in WA to assess conformance with best practice.

While bringing about a simple, generally consensual and robust framework for waste management

around the world, the waste hierarchy needs to be carefully addressed if it is to be used to set waste

diversion targets and obtain sound environmental policy outcomes.

In Australia, major calls to caution concerning the risks of a simplistic approach to the waste

hierarchy includes the key findings of the Australia’s Productivity Commission public inquiry on

Waste Generation and Resource Efficiency (2006).

According to the Commission’s report2, the objective of this inquiry is to identify policies that will

enable Australia to address market failures and externalities associated with the generation and

disposal of waste, including opportunities for resource use efficiency and recovery throughout then

product life-cycle. The inquiry included consideration of:

economic, environmental and social benefits and costs

factors that impede optimal resource efficiency and recovery, and waste management

the adequacy of current data on material flows and relevant economic activity

the impact of international trade and trade agreements

strategies that could be adopted by government and industry to encourage optimal resource

efficiency and recovery.

The Commission has also been asked to examine performance indicators, government and

commercial procurement practices, and the impacts of government support to production and

recovery industries.

One of the Commission’s key findings is that targets for waste diversion are virtually impossible to

set at an optimal level. Broad targets do not account for regional differences in waste diversion

2 Productivity Commission 2006, Waste Management, Report no. 38, Canberra

(http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/waste )

http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Publications-and-Research/Publications/Publications-Q-T



http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/publications/publication/2013/december/1559

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/waste


costs or the external costs of different types of waste. Nor are they sensitive to changes in market

or institutional settings.

The implications of these findings is that local governments’ strategic planning to achieve State’s

waste diversion targets should consider (a) their specific geographical and socio-economic context to

determine waste diversion costs; (b) the external costs (externality impacts) of different types of

waste; and (c) local and regional market dynamics (including market outlets for recycling) and

institutional settings.

Also, to the extent that local governments need to coordinate with State Government (in this case

align with the State Government’s strategic direction and targets), they are also required by the local

Government Act 1995 to integrate into their decision making, sustainability concerns. Councils are,

thus, to deliver optimal social, environmental and economic outcomes to their communities. Any

additional, unnecessary, costs imposed on communities through resource intensive alternative

waste management, for instance, would make it significantly more difficult to meet their obligations

under the Local Government Act

This regional strategic waste management plan recognises the distinct specific geographical and

socio-economic differences of the region in comparison to metropolitan areas or even to other

major regional centres. It considers local and regional opportunities for recycling, and it addresses

local constraints to waste management activities, along with the waste hierarchy, to achieve

environmentally, economically and socially sound policy outcomes.

5. Strategic principles

The above strategic framework lays down the foundation for waste management planning for the

region, along with the strategic vision. The following are the strategic principles or guidelines

adopted:

Successful recycling and landfill diversion are ultimately dependent on commercial industry and

the State Government, via the policy framework and the recycling markets (availability of

processing facilities) for the vast majority of the potentially recyclable materials in society.

Successful (efficient and effective) waste management planning and the capacity to predict

future demand for services and to best determine appropriate action strategies are ultimately

dependent on the reliability of information on waste sources, generation and composition.

Local governments (or regional groups thereof) are capable of influencing the community in

adhering to waste avoidance and source separation practices.

CAPEROC is, therefore, intent on:

Working with State Government and regional private partners to develop and implement waste

minimisation and waste recycling initiatives:

o Sourcing and maintaining end users for recyclable products; and,

o Developing partnership with value-adding waste recycling operators within the region,

o Providing solutions for the handling and disposal of potentially hazardous materials.

Providing extensive and ongoing community education programs. The community is seen as the

primary tool for minimising waste generation and maximising waste recycling.


Securing recycling and disposal infrastructure capacity and improvement, in line with best

practice guidelines and process streamlining.

Concentrating on priority waste streams to improve diversion rates while considering the

specific regional context and best value to rate-payers considerations (cost-effectiveness).


Part II: CAPES REGIONAL WASTE STRATEGY

6. Region background information

Within the region, the community is spread amongst a number of towns and small development

nodes and rural farms in both districts. The greatest concentration of population is in and around the

Towns of Busselton, Dunsborough, Yallingup, Augusta, Margaret River and Cowaramup.

Major economic activities in the region include tourism-related businesses and different types of

agricultural activities.

Climate in south-western Australia is Mediterranean, with hot dry summers and agriculture relying

heavily on winter rain. Higher winter rainfall and sufficient ground water supplies in the South-West

region allows irrigation of pastures for dairy and beef, fruit, and vineyards. Forestry has also been a

major industry in the past.

According to soil science Australian research group soilquality.org, the grain producing agricultural

zone of Western Australia is located in the south-west. The majority of soils in this region are

relatively low in clay and soil organic matter. Consequently their inherent soil quality is naturally

low3.

This aspect, combined with important agricultural use of the soil in the region, has direct relevance

to waste recycling: as a major component of municipal solid waste, organic waste does and is likely

to continue to provide an important source of raw materials for soil improvement products within

the region.

6.1 City of Busselton

The City of Busselton covers an area of approximately 1,454 km2 and is located approximately 220

km south of Perth. The City includes the town sites of Busselton, Dunsborough, Eagle Bay/Cape

Naturaliste, Vasse and Yallingup. These towns are extremely popular holiday destinations.

The City of Busselton’s resident population exceeds 31,000 people with growth projected to

continue at 4% annual rate, coupled with a high rate of economic growth. Approximately 67% of the

total population is located in the town of Busselton.

Main industries in the district are agriculture, tourism, dairy farming, grazing and viticulture.

Vegetable, dairy and beef production dominates the Swan Coastal Plain, with accessible

groundwater used for irrigation. The dune systems of this area are particularly sandy and susceptible

to nutrient leaching.

In addition, the City is committed to maintain the status of “Events capital of Regional WA”, which is

apparent from the amount and diversity of events hosted each year in the district. Each of these

events bring tourists to the area and due to the City’s distance to Perth, a large part of these visits

convert to overnight stays.

3 As measured by cation-exchange capacity (CEC). The CEC is largely determined by clay content and organic matter. Sandy

soils rely heavily on the high CEC of organic matter for the retention of nutrients in the topsoil. According to soilquality.org, 95% of soil samples in the Southwest are poor or very poor in regards to CEC.


6.2 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River is a rural municipality situated on the Indian and Southern

Ocean coasts approximately 250 kilometres South of Perth in the South West of Western Australia.

The Shire comprises valuable agricultural and natural resources while also being an important tourist

destination.

The Shire covers an area of approximately 2,370 km2 and contains eight major town sites including

Augusta, Cowaramup, Gnarabup. Gracetown, Margaret River, Prevelly Park, Rosa Brook and

Witchcliffee.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the Shire’s population was estimated at 13,168 in

June 2013, an increase of 3.9% on the 2012 estimate of 12,675.

The main economic activities in the region include dairy farming, beef cattle and sheep grazing,

horticulture, viticulture and wine production, market gardening, fishing, cottage industries, tourism

and retail trading.

6.3 Population in the Capes region

Figure 2 shows population forecast for the Capes region and for each district.

Fig. 2

An increasing population and steady economic growth are the biggest contributors to community

waste generation. The socio-economic make-up of the community is expected to drive both the

specific nature of the waste production and management challenge and the emergence of

opportunities to deal with it in a regional setting, engaging local actors and the community at large.

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Po

pu

lati

on

Th

ou

san

ds

Year

Population forecast based on historical growth rates

Caperoc

City of Busselton

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River


7. Assessment of significant waste sources, quantities and classes

According to the waste census submitted (2012/2013), both local governments have rates of

diversion from landfill of material presented for collection of 26%, falling short of the 30% target

applicable to major regional centres by 30 June 2015, set forth by the State’s Waste Authority.

The present section provides an overview and assessment of major waste sources and types,

quantified on the basis of the existing waste streams.

Typically waste sources fall into the following major/broad categories:

- Municipal Solid Waste (from kerbside collection, drop-off at Waste Sites and public place

collections);

- Commercial and Industrial Waste (from primary and manufacturing industries, food and tourism

sectors, as well as wholesale and retail);

- Construction and demolition waste, including inert waste (bricks and concrete);

- Green waste (from gardening and vegetation clearing activities);

- Sorted end of life materials (reusable materials, e-waste and white goods/scrap metal).

7.1 Waste production

Table 1 shows forecasted waste production tonnage for municipal solid waste (MSW), commercial

and industrial waste (C&I) and construction and demolition waste (C&D). These estimates are based

on assumed compounded population annual growth rates of 4.2% and 2.9% for the City of Busselton

and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River, respectively, yielding an overall compounded annual

growth rate of 3.8%.

Table 1: Forecasted waste tonnages per year of selected waste streams

CAPEROC Regional Group (tonnes/year)

MSW C&I C&D Total

2017/18 25,835 14,740 6,504 47,079

2022/23 32,171 18,370 7,980 58,521

2027/28 40,138 22,932 9,814 72,884

2032/33 50,169 28,672 12,095 90,936

The similarity in the nature of population and commercial and industrial activities between the two

districts allows a reasonable assumption that weighbridge data obtained from Dunsborough Waste

Facility is indicative of the waste stream composition of the wider region. The approximate

proportions of the total waste streams are 55% municipal solid waste (MSW), 30% commercial and

industrial waste (C&I) and 15% construction and demolition waste (C&D).


Typical composition of solid waste disposed of at landfills4 is indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Typical composition of selected waste streams

MATERIAL MSW C&I C&D

Food 35.0% 21.5% 0.0%

Paper and cardboard 13.0% 15.5% 3.0%

Garden and green 16.5% 4.0% 2.0%

Wood 1.0% 12.5% 6.0%

Textiles 1.5% 4.0% 0.0%

Sludge 0.0% 1.5% 0.0%

Nappies 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Rubber and leather 1.0% 3.5% 0.0%

Inert waste 28.0% 37.5% 89.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Based on the typical waste composition (from Table 2) and the relative weight of each waste stream

(55% MSW, 30% C&I and 15% C&D), Table 3 indicates the expected relative weight of different

materials for the overall waste generated within the region.

Table 3: Expected relative weight of different materials in waste

MATERIAL

% (w/w)

Inert waste

40.0%

Food

25.7%

Paper and cardboard

12.3%

Garden and green

10.6%

Wood

5.2%

Nappies

2.2%

Textiles

2.0%

Rubber and leather

1.6%

Sludge

0.5%

TOTAL

100.0%

It is apparent that inert waste, food waste, paper and cardboard and garden and green waste make

up in excess of 80% and are thus the prime targets for a suitable strategic waste management plan

that addresses waste diversion as a priority.

7.1.1 Mixed Solid Waste (municipal solid waste + commercial and industrial)

Within the region, tourism is one of the main activities and the fastest-growing industry. While

providing significant financial benefit to the region; however, it also adds significantly to the volume

of waste generated. This additional waste, estimated as 20 to 25%5 in the busy summer season,

increases the pressure on the waste management infrastructure and services.

4 As indicated in National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System Measurement technical guidelines (2012)

5 Based on Dunsborough Waste Facility weighbridge data.


Table 4 shows the amounts of mixed waste produced according to the waste census information of

both Councils (2012/2013). This includes mixed waste collected and transported directly to landfill or

transported to landfill via a transfer station (identified as ‘general) and mixed waste delivered to

drop-off facilities where residents self-haul their waste (identified as ‘drop-off’)

Table 4: Municipal solid waste (‘mixed waste’) produced according

to the waste census of both local governments (2012/2013)

Tonnes per year

General Drop-off Total

AMRS 5,377 6,580 11,957

CoB 12,115 2,175 14,290

Total 17,492 8,755 26,247

Table 5 shows amounts of waste recycled according to the waste census information of both

Councils (2012/2013).

Table 5: Waste recycled according


Tonnes per year

General Drop-off Total

AMRS 981 3,325 4,306

CoB 2,803 2,254 5,057

Total 3,784 5,579 9,363

Recycling (or waste diversion) rates for both Councils are thus 26.3%, according to the latest waste

census information.

7.1.2 Construction and Demolition waste

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste forms a relatively large percentage of the general waste

stream (particularly by weight). This waste stream is generally collected by private contractors and

the City of Busselton, representing in excess of 4,000 tonnes6 per year in the region (2012/2013).

This is a significant reduction from annual tonnages in excess of 6,000 tonnes which occurred prior

to 2012.

Such a significant reduction is probably due to both an increase in the gate fee charged by the City of

Busselton, driving better sorting and recycling by private contractors, as much as because of

increased C&D waste shipments to other landfills further north where gates fees were kept much

lower.

6 Based on amounts delivered annually at the Dunsborough Waste Facility. According to the Shire of Augusta Margaret

River Waste Strategy document


7.1.3 Organic waste

Economic activities within the region determine a fairly significant amount, albeit non-quantified, of

organic waste produced; from food waste from tourism (hotels, restaurants and cafes) to green

waste from vegetation clearing, gardening and agricultural activities, and grape skins and seeds from

the region’s wineries and storm waste.

Green waste is one of the major forms of organic waste, along with cardboard, food waste, wood

products and organic textiles. Organic waste forms a large percentage of the general waste stream.

The appropriate/alternative management of this waste stream could have a significant effect on the

quantity of waste being disposed of via landfill.

Given the fact that the region comprises a large rural area, and considering the existing predominant

type of household dwellings with garden areas, production of green waste/garden waste is also

expected to be quite significant.

With the increased building activity in and around the developed nodes within the region, there has

been a significant increase in the volume of bulk vegetation being cleared. Occasionally, storm clean-

up activities will also generate significant quantities of bulk vegetation that are typically dealt with

similarly.

Green waste deposited in the kerbside mobile garbage bins ends up in landfills. Although this

fraction is yet to be quantified, green waste seems to be a prime target for recycling.

Over recent years both Councils have gone from a situation of selling green waste collected to

paying for grinding and transport off site and paying for disposal.

According to the waste census, green waste recycled in 2012/2013 was as indicated in Table 6.

Table 6: Green waste recycled according


Drop-off (tonnes)

AMRS 1,020

CoB 1,188

Total 2,208

7.1.4 Sorted end of life materials/products

Both Councils operate reusable materials shops and provide electronic waste (e-waste), white goods

and scrap metal recycling areas for residents.

Davis Rd., Rendezvous Rd. and Vidler Rd. all have second hand goods shop facility for reusable

materials. Waste delivered to the facilities by ratepayers that is deemed to be suitable for reuse is

stored on site and offered to the general public for purchase at a nominal fee. Typically the reusable

material consists of bulky items such as furniture, beds, door frames and window frames. There is

also a range of smaller products for reuse applications, like bicycles.


It is estimated that approximately 20 tonnes of reusable material is diverted from landfill annually,

equating to a fairly significant volume if disposed of to landfill.

Electronic waste, comprised of computers, computer accessories and TVs is commonly referred to

as “e-waste.

Davis Rd., Rendezvous Rd. and Vidler Rd. all have an e-waste collection areas. These collected

materials are disposed of as part of TechCollect scheme, which was established under the Federal

Government’s National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS).

Quantity of e-waste produced in 2012/2013 was 117 tonnes (City of Busselton). This was the year

Augusta-Margaret River commenced recycling e-waste.

Davis Rd., Rendezvous Rd. and Vidler Rd. all have a scrap metal recycling area. According to the

waste census, scrap metal generation in 2012/2013 was as indicated in Table 7.

Table 7: Scrap metal generated according


Drop-off (tonnes)

AMRS 535

CoB 729

Total 1,264


8. Review of waste management infrastructure and services

The Capes Regional Organisation of Councils is committed to incorporating best practice sustainable

principles in its Strategic Waste Management Plan, while recognizing and considering the distinct,

specific geographical and socio-economic regional context.

Therefore, alignment with State’s waste diversion targets shall take into consideration both the

existing demographic, geographic and socio-economic context and the current waste management

practices implemented.

Also, the region’s waste disposal options, in particular for waste landfills, are largely constrained by

environmental protection values, including the Swan Coastal Plain and the Leeuwin-Naturaliste

National Park.

The present review is based on the updated information available from the City of Busselton Waste

Strategy (2013) and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Strategic Waste management Plan (2008),

and provides the baseline conditions to support future improvements addressed by this regional

Strategic Waste Management Plan.

8.1 Current waste infrastructure

The present section reviews existing waste infrastructure within the region in order to establish both

a baseline for improvement and the foundation of future potential strategic projects and regional

infrastructure.

8.1.1 City of Busselton

The City of Busselton operates staffed facilities at Rendezvous Rd. (Vasse) and Vidler Rd.

(Dunsborough). While CAPEROC is intent on achieving best practice standards, none of the current

facilities can be considered best practice.

The Busselton Waste Facility, also known as the Rendezvous Rd. site, has a total area of

approximately 26,400 m2. The site, which was originally a Council sand pit in the 1960s, was the

City’s primary landfill until it reached below-ground capacity in 2002. The City then operated the site

as an above ground landfill until June 2012.

The site is currently used as a transfer station and community recycling area. It is scheduled as a

Prescribed Premises and classified as Category 62 ‘Solid Waste Depot’ in accordance with the

Environmental Protection Act 1986. This prescribed premise classification is sufficient to cover

potential future uses as a community recycling centre and transfer station.

The site includes a former putrescible landfill to the West of the access road which ceased

acceptance of waste in 2012; and an older former putrescible and inert landfill area to the East of

the access road, where the current transfer station and recycling area are located

The existing community recycling and waste transfer station is open for acceptance of recyclables,

green waste and scrap metal.


There is a very simple reuse-shop and a community recycling area. Recyclables accepted include

commingled recycling materials, cardboard and paper, glass, e-waste, white goods, waste/motor

oils, gas bottles, tyres, fluorescent tubes, aluminium cans, car batteries and plastic drums (drum

muster). These materials are regularly collected by contractors and shipped for recycling.

Acceptance and bulk storage of green waste occurs to the East of the main community recycling

area. Users dispose of their green waste in one of a number of windrows. Processing of green waste

by mulching is generally undertaken biannually.

Scrap metal is accepted and stored in a large stockpile to the South of the main community recycling

area. White goods and scrap metal, and in the case of fridges degassed by a suitably qualified

technician, are transferred to the light metal pile. Scrap metal is generally transferred off-site once

annually, however the frequency of transfer off-site is largely dictated by the market price for scrap

metal.

A mixed waste acceptance area is open for domestic waste disposal on weekends only. The mixed

waste acceptance area consists of a designated drop-off area adjacent to a right-angled concrete

push wall.

Once the waste volume has reached a certain size a front loader is used to transfer the waste from

the ground into 30 m3 hook lift bins. Waste is then transferred off-site to the City’s waste landfill at

Dunsborough Waste Facility (Vidler Rd.). A total of 2,169 tonnes of mixed domestic waste was

received at the site in 2012/2013.

Dunsborough Waste Facility, also known as Vidler Rd. facility, is located approximately 5 km West of

Dunsborough, on a lot totalling 40 ha and has waste disposal activities that are undertaken on the

West side.

The site has been used as a landfill since 1984, with waste placed and buried to the North-West of

the site in expired sand pits. It is an unlined Class II landfill licensed in accordance with the

Environmental Protection Act 1986 and classified as a Category 64 ‘Putrescible waste landfill’

Prescribed Premise.

It also includes a community recycling area, a liquid waste facility comprised of septage ponds

(licensed as Category 61 Prescribed Premise), a green waste processing area, a light vehicle transfer

area and an asbestos pit.

The existing landfill site infrastructure includes perimeter fencing, entrance and site access roads,

weighbridge office and weighbridge, vehicle parking and hardstand area, ablutions, landfill plant

equipment and a bunded diesel storage tank for refuelling plant and equipment.

The facility is currently used by the City of Busselton and is also open to both commercial users and

the general public.

The areas for recyclables, green waste and scrap metal at Vidler Rd. accept the same materials and

operate under the same procedures as the community recycling drop-off area at Busselton Waste

Facility (Rendezvous Rd).


Sorted construction and demolition waste is also accepted at Vidler Rd., including concrete, bricks,

tiles, ceramics and soils and stones. Segregated inert waste materials are stockpiled and kept for

future resource recovery and recycling. Mixed inert waste is disposed of at the landfill.

8.1.2 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

The Shire operates staffed facilities at Davis Rd. (Witchcliffee), Cowaramup Bay Rd. (Cowaramup)

and Poole Rd. (Kudardup) and unstaffed facilities at Rosa Brook, Alexander Bridge and East Augusta.

None of these facilities can be considered best-practice.

The Davis Road Waste Management Facility is the primary waste management facility within the

Shire. This facility is located off Davis Road, 1 km South of Witchcliffee, within two Commonwealth

Reserves vested in the Shire for the purposes of gravel extraction and waste management. It is

comprised of an unlined putrescible (Class II) waste landfill with an estimated 48,000 m3 of airspace

remaining at 2012/2013, a bulk and inert waste landfill, a community recycling drop-off area, a

second hand goods shop, a green waste storage and processing area and a biosolids disposal facility.

Concerning the recycling/processing area the facility is able to accept several materials, separated

into type for recycling or processing, including glass bottles/jars, aluminium and steel cans, paper

and cardboard, plastic bottles and containers, beverage cartons, used motor oil, clean green waste,

car batteries and scrap metal.

The Cowaramup Bay Road (Cowaramup) is a (non-best practice) transfer station. The facility is

permanently staffed and consists of up to eight large hook-lift bins for the disposal of general waste,

green waste and recyclable materials. Used oil, paint and car batteries can also be disposed of on-

site. As and when necessary, the collected materials are taken to the Davis Road waste management

facility for either disposal to landfill (general waste) or for recycling.

The Kudardup (non-best practice) waste transfer station (sometimes referred to as the Poole Rd.

transfer station) is located off Poole Rd., Kudardup. This facility is laid out in a similar fashion as is

the Cowaramup transfer station; however, with a maximum capacity for six hook-lift bins and

accepts the same waste and recyclable materials

Unstaffed transfer facilities of Rosa Brook and Alexandra Bridge simply consist of up to three large

hook-lift bins for the disposal of general household waste, which is taken to the Davis Road waste

management facility for disposal to landfill as and when necessary.

The Rosa Brook waste transfer station is located off Bessell Rd., Rosa Brook, approximately 25km

from the Davis Road facility. There are no materials recycling services available at this facility.

The Alexandra Bridge waste transfer station is located off Beck Road, Alexandra Bridge, 20km from

the Kudardup transfer station. This facility is identical to the Rosa Brook waste transfer station;

however, with the addition of a limited recycling service.

Being unstaffed and remote, these two transfer stations are frequently abused by users avoiding

disposal fees, dumping commercial and prohibited waste. This creates problems in cleaning up the

site, wind-blown rubbish and overfull bins. Materials often have to be manually handled or plant


must be mobilised to remove rubbish dumped externally to the bins. Moreover, unstaffed sites are a

potential liability and also a fire hazard.

The East Augusta waste transfer station is located in Reserve 39434 Pericles Rd., East Augusta,

approximately 55km from the Kudardup transfer station. This facility consists of two small waste

bins only for domestic waste and a small Leeuwin Lions Club recycling collection point.

Currently, the vast majority of organics within the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River is received via the

Cowaramup and Kudardup waste transfer stations and at the Davis Road waste management facility.

The community source, separate and deposit the green waste into specially allocated collection bins

or dedicated stockpile areas.

All the collected material is taken to the Davis Road waste management facility where it is

consolidated and stockpiled until sufficient volume is available to justify the mobilisation of a

mulching machine. The stockpiled green waste is mulched and thereafter, either used by the Shire or

sold back to the local community as a garden product

8.1.3 Private infrastructure

In general, existing agricultural activities combined with poor quality coastal sandy soils provide a

potentially valuable outlet for waste-derived organic products, such as mulch and organic compost.

As seen above, the City of Busselton collects green waste at both of its waste management facilities.

All collected green waste is mulched and transported to a commercial composting facility nearby

(Landsave), where it is further processed and recycled into a marketable product.

And in fact high quality compost production is a relevant activity in the region, with this major

private manufacturer – Landsave – operating out of Vasse (Busselton), producing premium grade

humified compost from a variety of organic stocks sourced from the South West.

Landsave owns a Prescribed Premise Category 67A licensed for compost manufacturing and soil

blending, located 9 km by road West of the Busselton Waste Facility, at 295 Kaloorup Rd, Vasse. Its

composting plant currently incorporates the total amount of green waste mulched and delivered by

the City of Busselton, thus providing an important partnership in regards to waste recycling in the

region.

Landsave expressed interest in continuing receiving clean green waste, either shredded or

unshredded.

According to previous conversations between the City of Busselton and Landsave, the critical factors

for a continued and, possibly, extended partnership in this area would be to secure a regular supply

of feedstock material and the requirement to provide diligent supervision of the green waste

stockpile area at the waste facilities, in order to ensure the green waste is kept free of

contamination.


8.2 Current waste services

In addition to the waste infrastructure and services mentioned above, current waste services in both

Councils include waste collection and kerbside recycling.

8.2.1 Waste collection

The City of Busselton carries out its waste collection services in-house whereas the Shire of Augusta

Margaret-River contracts out its services to a local service provider. In both cases waste is collected

in a standard green 240 L or 120 L mobile garbage bin (MGB) on a weekly basis. Residents present

the MGBs for collection on the nominated service day.

In the City of Busselton a weekly domestic waste collection service operates within the urban and

prescribed area: Busselton, Port Geographe, Wonnerup, Broadwater, Vasse, Abbey, Dunsborough,

Quindalup, Yallingup, Eagle Bay and Vasse. The City undertakes MGB services for the collection of

municipal solid waste from domestic premises and commercial and industrial waste from

commercial premises; and collection of waste from parks, reserves and street litter bins.

All City of Busselton truck loads are weighed at the Dunsborough Waste Facility (City of Busselton).

Waste collections in the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River are undertaken in the following areas:

Margaret River, Augusta, Cowaramup, Gracetown, Prevelly, Witchcliffee, Karridale and Molloy

Island. In the absence of a weighbridge domestic kerbside waste collection data pertaining to the

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River can only be estimated based on the number of loads deposited at

the Davis Road waste facility.

8.2.2 Kerbside recycling

Perth Waste Green Recycling, based in Perth, operates the contract for kerbside recycling collection

to householders in specified areas in both Councils in an arrangement that was originally designed as

a regional scheme.

Under this arrangement a 240 litre Yellow Lid Bin recycling service is provided to residents and

commercial premises. Recycling bins are emptied once a fortnight, on the same day as the rubbish

bin.

Materials recycled include plastics (PET, HDPE and PVC), glass bottles/jars, beverage cartons, steel

and aluminium cans and paper and cardboard. These materials are collected and transported to

Perth Waste Green Recycling material recovery facility (MRF) located in its Perth Operations Centre,

Perth.


9. Assessment of options for waste reduction, management and disposal

The present section provides an assessment of the options for waste reduction, management and

disposal in order for the region to progress from the current 26% diversion rates of municipal solid

waste to the 30% diversion target by 2015, while also contributing towards the state-wide C&D

waste diversion targets as well and to the 2020 targets related to municipal solid waste.

Table 8 presents major constituents of landfill waste (as per Table 3 above), indicating the materials

that are prime targets for a strategic waste management plan aimed at improving landfill diversion,

and the corresponding recycling options.

Table 8: Prime target materials for landfill diversion and corresponding recycling options

MATERIAL

Recycling options

Inert waste

- C&D sorting and recycling

Food and/or green

- Source separation (3 bin system) - Mechanical biological treatment - Garden composting/worm farming

Paper and cardboard

- Sorting at tip face

The options listed can be seen either as alternatives or as clusters or bundles of technical solutions

and are in addition to other non-technological options, like recycling education and promotion.

The following sections present estimated cost per tonne of different management scenarios. These

estimates are based on the assumptions presented in each case. Given the technological complexity

of some of the options and unknown or uncertain local and policy constraints that they may face in

reality, these estimates provide only an approximate indication of the real costs, and would need to

be revised accordingly if some/any of the assumptions do not hold.

9.1 C&D waste sorting and recycling

Notwithstanding the fact that this waste stream has extremely limited negative environmental

impact in a landfill except to occupy space, by establishing individual state-wide targets for C&D

waste the State’s Waste Strategy has identified this as a priority waste stream requiring special

attention.

An appropriate/alternative management of this waste stream would have a significant effect on the

quantity of waste being disposed of at the landfills. Removing this material from the landfilled waste

stream would greatly extend the life of the landfill. In addition, C&D waste being mostly an inert

waste is able to be stockpiled on site without causing any environmental harm.

A recycling option would involve stockpiling of C&D waste, and ideally sorting it into different

product types until a significant quantity is available to justify mobilising a crusher to process the

material. Once crushed, the material can be used for a range of applications including on-site

material, landfill cover, landfill capping, sand and drainage aggregate and road base for road

construction. This way the Councils themselves can change from significant contributors to this

particular waste stream, to being net users of recycled construction and demolition waste-derived

products manufactured from crushed waste bricks and concrete to the applicable construction

specifications.


Recycling of large amounts of C&D waste can be undertaken in a fairly cost-effective way; basically

at the cost of installing a storage and hardstand areas and operating a skid steer loader to sort the

materials, as well as providing appropriate bins for the end products and having the materials

crushed and screened as needed.

Recycling of C&D waste at CAPEROC Councils would be expected to process in excess of 6,000

tonnes of input per year. Cost drivers are presented on Table 9.

Table 9: Cost drivers of C&D waste sorting and recycling

Throughput 6,000 tonnes per year

Capital outlays Impact crusher ............................................................................................. $800,000 Excavator/with jaw crusher attachment ....................................................... $ 400,000 Hardstand: 3 facilities x 300 m

2 each .............................................................. $ 90,000

Operating cost Crusher utilisation (700 plant hours per year @ $150 per hour charge out rate, 8 years depreciation) ..................................................... $ 105,000 per year ($ 17.5 per tonne)

Crusher labour costs (700 labour hours per

year @ $28 per hour) ............................................ $ 19,600 per year ($ 3.3 per tonne) Excavator utilisation (950 plant hours per year @ $40 per hour charge out rate, 8 year depreciation) .............................................. $ 38,000 per year ($ 6.3 per tonne)

Excavator labour costs (950 hours per year @ $28 per hour) ................................................. $ 26,600 per year ($ 4.4 per tonne)

Waste diversion 4.500 tonnes per year

Cost effectiveness Total cost: $32/tonne (of input)

9.2 Three bin system

The environmental disadvantage of disposing of the collected organic waste to landfill is not only

that the material consumes valuable airspace in the landfill but also, that it adds to the loading of

the leachate generated within the landfill and to landfill gas, as part of the decomposition process.

An increasing number of local authorities around Australia are switching to the mandatory three bin

system to secure source separation of organic waste. Failure of expensive alternative waste

technologies to deliver cost-effective waste minimisation has led to a rethink regarding the benefits

of source separation of waste.

Poor financial performance of alternative waste technologies have been compounded by high wear

and tear on processing infrastructure, poor quality end products, lack of suitable markets for

outputs, particularly heat energy, and high energy consumption.

In general, three bin systems can vary in scope from food and green waste basis, to green waste

only. Collection can also vary from weekly to fortnightly.

In addition to cost considerations, the major challenge of this kind of system is the degree of

contamination. In order to avoid significant contamination of the organics bin under a mandatory

three bin systems, extensive community education and engagement is required.

Three bin systems for source separation of organics, whether or not including food waste, also

require some sort of biological treatment downstream, which deals only with the organic fraction of

the waste. Therefore, while community education efforts can yield positive results in reducing


contamination, there is often the need to further pre-sort the material prior to admitting it to

processing at biological treatment facilities (composting or anaerobic digestion), so as to avoid

process contamination.

As an alternative to the conventional mandatory systems, there are also non-mandatory three bin

systems. According to the study “Performance review of a 3 bin municipal waste system” conducted

in 2008 by Bowman & Associates for the Waste Authority, several user-pays voluntary three bin

systems have been used in local governments in Victoria.

Based on the information presented in that study, those systems have been yielding contamination

levels below 2% and significant participation rates. Table 10 summarises the performance review for

those systems, updated with information from the local governments’ web sites.

Table 10: Performance review of selected voluntary 3 bin systems (all collections fortnightly)

Local government Population Scope Tonnes per annum

Kg per capita (population)

Participation rates

Rates and fees

City of Glen Eira 131,000 Green waste 4,000 30 unknown One off $55

City of Boroondara 160,000 Green waste 15,000 94 60% One off $105

City of Monee Valley 110,000 Green waste 5,000 45 51% $58.50 per annum pro

rata

City of Tea Tree Gully 95,000 Green waste and food

scraps

5,800 61 60% $33.65 per annum

City of Whittlesea 150,000 Green waste 10,000 67 47% $73.55 per annum

Based on these experiences, user-pays voluntary systems seem to have been successfully adopted

for the population range between 100,000 and 150,000 in Victoria. Cost drivers and costs associated

with three bin systems are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Cost drivers of dedicated separate collection of organics (‘third bin’)

Throughput 10,000 tonnes per year, organics, including food waste and green waste but not paper/cardboard

Capital outlays Side loading trucks (4 x $ 360,000) ............................................................. $1,440,000 Bins.......................................................................................................... $ 1,100,000

Operating cost Truck utilisation (4 x 1,700 hours per year @ $45 per hour charge out rate, 5 years depreciation) ..................................................... $ 306,000 per year ($ 30.6 per tonne)

Bin depreciation (5 years) .................................. $ 220,000 per year ($ 22 per tonne) Labour costs (4 x 1,700 hours per year @ $28 per hour) ........................................................... $ 190,400 per year ($ 19 per tonne)

Waste diversion 10,000 tonnes per year, an additional 28 percentage points of landfill diversion

Cost effectiveness Total cost: $72/tonne


Regardless of whether it’s a voluntary or mandatory scheme, three bin systems cannot be viewed in

isolation, but as a cluster of waste management technologies and practices that would necessarily

include an organics processing facility as well.

This could be either an existing commercial composting facility like Landsave’s, or CAPEROC’s own

facility. In that case the cost of setting up and operating a biological treatment plant for sorted

organics would add up to the collection costs indicated above.

Concerning the type of biological treatment – that is, a composting plant or an anaerobic digestion

plant, composting tends to be economically preferable to anaerobic digestion at scales at or below

20,000 tonnes per annum7.

Assuming that a composting plant would be adopted as the biological treatment solution

downstream of a three-bin collection system, the processing of sorted organics at a dedicated

composting plant would be expected to add up around $25 to $30 per tonne8 to the above cost.

9.3 Mechanical-biological treatment

Unsorted municipal solid waste can be separated and processed for organic recycling at a

mechanical-biological treatment plant. This plant could thus process the whole throughput of

around 25,000 tonnes per year of MSW. Table 12 presents the cost drivers related to an anaerobic

digestion type biological system with pre-screening of inputs and refining of compost material.

Table 12: Cost drivers of mechanical-biological treatment plant

Throughput 35,000 tonnes per year of MSW, 10,000 tonnes per year of organics, including food waste and green waste but not paper/cardboard (assuming 80% yield, from 48% food and green waste from material composition of waste)

Capital outlays Anerobic digestion plant with mechanical pre-screening of organics (including bag opener/shredder, 2 trommel screen separators, metal separators, conveyors, manual sorting platform, front loader, anaerobic reactor, aeration system, leachate treatment, densimetric separator, cyclone separator) ...................................................................................................... $ 10,000,000

Operating cost Plant utilisation (1,900 hours per year @ $380 per hour charge out rate, assuming 15 years plant depreciation) ........................................ $ 722,000 per year ($ 72.2 per tonne) Labour costs (3 x 1,900 hours per year @ $28 per hour) ................................................................ $ 159,600 per year ($ 16.0 per tonne)


Cost effectiveness Total cost: $88/tonne (of organics)

A mechanical treatment of this type would necessarily require a 3 phase electrical connection which

might not be available at all locations. If such a connection needs to be added, this might further

increase the cost indicated.

7 Murphy, JD and Powell NM. 2006, A technical, economic and environmental comparison of composting and anaerobic

digestion of biodegradable municipal waste, J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2006;41(5):865-79. 8 Capital of $1.5 million depreciated over 10 years and labour costs of 1.5 full time equivalent waste operatives (1900 hours

per year per full time equivalent), at a $28 per hour rate. Other operating costs would also need to be considered, such as power supply, process/plant maintenance and wastewater treatment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16702064


The output of a mechanical-biological treatment facility could either be sold as a finished soil

improvement additive or further refined and incorporated into a commercial compost product.

9.4 Waste-to-energy

Waste to energy plants constitute a practical method of energy recovery and waste diversion from

landfill. The sheer reduction in the space required to dispose of the 10 percent of waste that it does

produce relieves pressure on land, constituting a big saving. Waste to Energy (WTE) incinerating

plants have a significant advantage that they can produce electricity which in the long run can help

to reduce costs

In a waste to energy plant, 250 tonnes of waste can produce 6.5 megawatt-hours of electricity9 and

this itself can yield a significant income. Residual heat from waste-to-energy plants can also be used

for heating of offices and houses in locations near the plant. In addition to reducing waste volume

and related landfill airspace consumption, gas and leachate that are typically produced in landfills by

waste are totally eliminated; and the waste that is produced in waste to energy plants is mostly free

of any environmental risk. Some of it can be further recycled into useful products.

Conventional incinerators involve high temperature (850 -1200 °C) combustion of waste inside mass

burners, in the presence of oxygen, converting thermal energy into electricity and steam. These are

truly waste-powered power plants. Electricity is sold to the power grid and steam sold to

neighbouring industries or hot water used in district heating systems (in colder climate countries).

Gasification or pyrolysis-based waste to energy facilities do not directly burn the waste but rather

heat it to high temperatures in an air-starved chamber, generating different fuel streams (synthetic

gas, synthetic fuel and char).

According to EU and US experience current waste to energy plants operate well within acceptable

emission standards.

Table 13 presents the cost drivers related to a waste-to-energy plant.

Table 13: Cost drivers of waste-to energy plant10

Throughput 60,000 tonnes per year (capacity)

Capital outlays Gasification plant, including pollution control systems and connections ..................................................................................... $ 34,500,000

Operating cost Plant utilisation (1,900 hours per year @ $1,500 per hour charge out rate, assuming 15 years plant depreciation).............................................. $ 2,850,000 per year ($ 47 per tonne) Other operating costs .................................................. $ 5,000,000 per year ($ 82 per tonne) Environmental compliance ................................................ $ 400,000 per year ($ 6 per tonne)

Waste diversion 54,000 tonnes per year Plus environmental advantages of energy recovery

Cost effectiveness Energy income: $25 to 35 per tonne Net cost: $100 to $110/tonne

9 According to Bright Hub Engineering article “Pros and Cons of Incineration for Landfill Relief”, 2010

(http://www.brighthubengineering.com/structural-engineering/89810-pros-and-cons-of-incineration-for-landfill-relief/) 10

Adapted from DEFRA new Technologies Demonstrator Programme, Waste Preparation, Pyrolysis and Gasification Plant at Avonmouth, Bristol, Project Final Report, 2010.

http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/75432.aspx

http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/75432.aspx

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/structural-engineering/89810-pros-and-cons-of-incineration-for-landfill-relief/


9.5 Sorting cardboard at the tip face

The environmental disadvantage of disposing of paper and cardboard collected as mixed waste to

landfill is that the material consumes valuable airspace in the landfill and overtime will decompose

and add to the leachate and gas being generated within the landfill.

Based on visual inspection of mixed waste loads disposed at the Vidler Rd. site, there is considerable

evidence in regards to the viability of pre-sorting incoming cardboard loads.

For the long-distance transport of the collected paper and recycling, it is far more economically

viable if the material is baled prior to transfer.

This will significantly reduce the transport costs per tonne of material; however, there will be an

added cost for the baling activity. This is an activity that can adequately be undertaken; however,

this will involve the purchase of a suitable baler and ongoing operation thereof. Table 14 presents

the cost drivers related to cardboard sorting at the tip face.

Table 14: Cost drivers of cardboard sorting at the tip face

Throughput 2,000 tonnes per year (assuming 50% yield, from 15% cardboard from material composition of waste)

Capital outlays Three-phase power connection ............................................................................. $ 80,000 Excavator

11 grabber attachment ........................................................................... $ 50,000

Bins (2) ................................................................................................................... $ 20,000 Cardboard compactor/baler .................................................................................. $ 20,000 Shed (including concrete pad) ............................................................................... $ 15,000

Operating cost Three-phase power connection depreciation (20 year) ........................................................................... $ 4,000 per year ($ 2 per tonne) Excavator utilisation (950 plant hours per year @ $40 per hour charge out rate, 8 year depreciation) ................................................................ $ 38,000 per year ($ 19 per tonne) Bin depreciation (5 years) ............................................... $ 4,000 per year ($ 2 per tonne) Compactor/baler depreciation (5 years) ........................ $ 4,000 per year ($ 2 per tonne) Shed depreciation (5 years) ......................................... $ 3,000 per year ($ 1.5 per tonne) Labour costs (1 x 1,900 hours per year @ $28 per hour) ....................................................... $ 53,200 per year ($ 26.6 per tonne)



9.6 Garden composting/worm farming

It is in the region’s interest to actively encourage the community to divert organic waste from the general waste stream for landfill disposal, the advantages being significant volume reduction and also reduced organic loading of the waste stream.

The simplest and, possibly, more cost-effective way to divert organics from of the general waste stream is by encouraging the local community to develop composters or worm farms at home. These types of solutions do; however, require ongoing community involvement in order to maintain the success of this program.

11

This would be the same excavator used for C&D sorting and crushing.


The products of the composters, worm farms and fermentation processors can be used at home as a garden improvement product.

The advantage of waste avoidance project such as this is that it is highly flexible and can be scaled to

the intended size. Table 15 presents the cost drivers related to a garden composting project

comprising 3,000 households.

Table 15: Cost drivers of a garden composting project

Throughput 900 tonnes per year (assuming 30% yield, from 11% garden and green waste from material composition of waste)

Capital outlays Garden composting bins ($20 x 15% x 20,000 region households) ..................... $ 120,000

Operating cost Bin depreciation (5 years) ............................................ $ 24,000 per year ($ 27 per tonne) Labour cost recycling/composting education (1/2 x 1,900 hours per year @ $31 per hour) ............... $ 29,450 per year ($ 33 per tonne)

Waste diversion 900 tonnes per year, an additional 2.5 percentage points of landfill diversion


9.7 Best practice landfill disposal

According to the consultant’s report on the CAPEROC regional landfill study12, the combined total waste tonnage to be sent to landfill is expected to rise from 37,800 tonnes in 2012/2013 up to 90,000 tonnes in 2032/2033. According to the same report, by implementing resource recovery systems to meet the Waste Authority diversion targets, the waste volume generated in CAPEROC could be reduced by more than half by the end of 2032/2033.

The Dunsborough Waste Facility (licensed as the Vidler Rd. landfill site) currently serves the waste disposal needs of the City of Busselton. However, the existing landfill on the site is unlined and approaching its designed final capping height.

In line with current best practice for landfill design requirements and in addition to the waste avoidance and resource recovery options addressed above, both Councils recognize the need for a reliable and adequate long term solution in regards to waste disposal, justified on the basis of:

a) The need to secure airspace at a strategic site (outside of the Swan Coastal Plain) for a reliable and environmentally sound disposal option for the residual component of municipal solid waste for the region, well into the future;

b) The imperative to progress towards a best practice landfill facility for the region, in line with WA State policy;

c) The opportunity to benefit from cost sharing and economies of scale arising from a long-term regional cooperation project.

The Vidler Rd. site has enough area available to be set aside as a strategic waste management site for the next 20 years. It already has some of the required infrastructure (gatehouse, fencing, roads) and has no major constraints regarding the possibility of further development as a waste landfill.

CAPEROC is, thus, considering establishing a new lined landfill to the South of the existing unlined waste placement area, comprised of Cells 1 to 5, with additional possible expansion within the lot vested with the City of Busselton.

12

Margaret River/Busselton (CAPEROC) Regional Landfill Study, by Bowman and Associates (2013)


To that end, based on modelling13 undertaken on behalf of CAPEROC, a new (best practice, regional) landfill at that site would secure 1,367,000 tonnes capacity (or 1,977,432 m3 of airspace), with a lifetime in excess of 22 years, with capital cost of $17.4 per tonne, or a total of $ 23.71 million (including full potential extension scenario to adjoining City property and final capping).

As the initial part of the development of the new landfill, Cells 1 to 5 would secure 16 years of disposal, costing 8.5 million. Cell 1 has already been subject to a Works Approval and will have an available filling volume of 124,300 m3 and an expected lifespan of 3 years, costing an estimated $1.9 million.

According to Capes Regional Landfill Study (2013) report by Bowman & Associates regional study, the expected total cost for a regional landfill over the entire infrastructure lifespan would be between $50 to $60 per tonne14.

The regional arrangement would thus be more efficient than two individual landfills and certainly more viable than shipping waste to landfills outside of the region that would add a minimum of $35 per tonne15 to the cost of transferring the same amount of waste within the region, yielding a total estimated cost in excess of $80-90 per tonne, when added to a projected $45-5516 per tonne gate fee at a neighbouring landfill.

9.8 Best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station

Best practice regional transfer stations would be instrumental for the adoption of a regional landfill

model and in continuing to promote recycling drop-off from residents living outside of collection

prescribed areas and to promote better efficiencies in rubbish collection. Table 16 presents the cost

drivers related to regional community recycling centres and waste transfer stations (2 sites).

Table 16: Cost drivers of transfer station model

Throughput 25,000 tonnes per year (assuming the need to transfer 11,000 tonnes per year from Davis Rd. and 14,000 tonnes per year from Rendezvous Rd., to the regional landfill at Vidler Rd.)

Capital outlays Transfer station and community drop-off .................................................. 2 x $ 1,765,000 Truck and enclosed compaction bins .................................................................. $ 500,000

Operating cost Transfer plant charge out (15 years depreciation) ........................................................... $ 380,000 per year ($ 15.2 per tonne) Road train truck and compactor bins charge out (5 year depreciation) .......................................... $ 120,000 per year ($ 4.8 per tonne) Labour cost (7x1,900 hours per year @ $28 per hour) ........................................................................ $ 372,400 per year ($ 14.9 per tonne)

Waste diversion Improved recycling infrastructure. Environmental protection benefits from implementation of best practice standards.


9.9 Assessment summary

Table 17 presents the assessment summary for all options considered, sorted on the basis of the ratio of capital expenditure per tonne as a measure of cost effectiveness.

13

Dunsborough Waste Facility future expansion scenarios report, Bowman & Associates (2014). 14

In 2014 dollars, no fixed overheads, margins or contingency funds included. 15

Closest landfill is in Dardanup. Estimated transportation cost would be around $70 per tonne (on a 9 tonne per truck scenario) or half as much – $35 – if compacted and shipped via road train. Additional transport distance would be 60 km. 16

Dardanup Cleanaway landfill gate-fee.


Table 17: Assessment summary of waste management components considered

Options MSW diversion contribution Capital Total cost

(tonnes/year) (%) ($) ($/tonne)

C&D waste sorting and recycling 4,500 -- 1,290,000 $ 32

Sorting cardboard at tip face 2,000 6% 105,000 $ 53

Garden composting/worm farming 900 2.5% 140,000(1) $ 60

Three bin system 10,000 28% 2,300,000 $ 97 to $102

Mechanical-biological treatment 10,000 28% 10,000,000 $ 88

Waste to energy 54,000 100% 34,500,000 $ 100 to $110

New best practice regional landfill(2) -- -- 8,500,000(3) $ 50 to 60(4)

Community recycling and waste transfer station(2)

25,000 -- 3,900,000 $ 35

(1) Includes composting bins and MGB audit valued at $20,000 to support project planning. (2) A waste landfill is not optional, but a requirement for residual waste. (3) Construction costs. Would be $1,990,000 for building cell 1 only, in accordance with Works Approval issued for Vidler Rd and supply

and deployment of new weighbridge management system valued at $30,000. (4) Range of cost per tonne according to the Capes Regional Landfill Study (2013) report over the regional landfill lifespan. Includes

capital and operating costs.

Based on the capital budgeting requirements and total costs per tonne, waste diversion targets for 2015 seem to be achievable by increasing cardboard sorting at the tip face alone beyond the current 26% recycling figure. Promoting garden composting would further improve landfill diversion and minimise the risk of falling short of the targets.

Sorting and recycling of C&D waste would further contribute towards the State C&D recycling targets and could be achieved in a cost-effective way with fairly low capital costs.

For long term landfill diversion targets (2020) an additional recycling system would be required.

A Capes regional best practice landfill is also expected to benefit the region via economies of scale and cost sharing, providing a more efficient solution than 2 individual landfills or shipping the waste to landfills outside the region.


10. Capes Region strategic waste management plan

The present section deals with regional waste management priorities and related strategic

objectives and key projects.

10.1 Regional priorities

Given the strategic vision presented above, as well as the framework previously addressed (national,

state and local policies), Table 18 presents the strategic regional priorities that will, in turn, define

regional objectives and key-projects.

Table 18: Correspondence between strategic vision components and regional priorities

Strategic Vision components Regional priorities

Fostering the potential of the local economy and its direct engagement in value-adding activities, by dealing with waste in a closed loop, green-economy approach, turning it into a true economic resource

Adopting regional recycling and resource recovery solutions in line with sustainable waste management practices, working towards State waste recycling targets;

Engaging the regional economy in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

Application of best practice guidelines in developing waste services and infrastructure, in alignment with State waste avoidance, reduction and recycling targets and appropriate disposal standards

Implementing best practice and continuous improvement of waste management infrastructure and operations across the region.

Direct engagement of the Community with a clear focus on information, education and participation, in order to facilitate waste avoidance, reduction and source separation towards recycling

Empowering and engaging the Community in waste avoidance and recycling.


10.2 Strategic objectives

Given the regional priorities identified above for the Capes Region, Table 19 presents the

corresponding strategic objectives.

Table 19: Correspondence between regional priorities and strategic objectives

Regional priorities Strategic objectives

Adopting regional recycling and resource recovery solutions in line with sustainable waste management practices, working towards State waste recycling targets;

Improve recycling and resource recovery in line with State recycling targets and best practice guidelines, thus reducing reliance on landfill for waste disposal (waste diversion), community, C&D, green waste/organics

Engaging the regional economy in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

Engage local/regional recycling companies and charities in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

Implementing best practice and continuous improvement of waste management infrastructure and operations across the region.

Secure best practice waste transfer and disposal infrastructure for residual waste well into the future.

Improve efficiency of waste management operations, in line with intended service levels.

Improve waste management information for decision-making.

Empowering and engaging the Community in waste avoidance and recycling.

Improve community education, engagement and participation.

10.3 Proposed management system configuration

Given the outcome of assessment of options for reduction, management and disposal presented

above, the proposed options for regional system configuration are those that are aligned with the

regional priorities and strategic objectives stated above and meet the following criteria:

a) a meaningful landfill diversion contribution in line with WA’s Waste authority targets, in the

most cost-effective way;

b) securing of airspace and a strategic site for the residual component of municipal solid waste

well into the future, with best practice disposal design and management of operations.

Accordingly, the proposed regional system is to include the following general components:

(2014/2016):

1. Construction and demolition waste recycling plant (impact crusher and jaw crusher

excavator), to operate at Rendezvous Rd., Vidler Rd. and Davis Rd.

2. Garden composting/worm farming (including mobile garbage bin audit, delivery of up to

3,000 composting bins - 1 per household, promotion and communication materials and

training program for households that sign in)

3. New best practice regional landfill (cells 1 to 5 at Vidler Rd.), including sorting workstation

for target/selected materials (cardboard)

4. Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Rendezvous Rd

5. Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd


The combined contribution to MSW landfill diversion (components 2 and 3) would be around 8% and

would allow for an increase of the diversion rate from the current 26% to an estimated 34% by June

2015, well above the 30% target for major regional centres. Component 1 would contribute to

Statewide C&D recycling targets.

Other initiatives that will contribute towards the region’s strategic objectives in the short to medium

term include the following:

Partnership with local composting business Landsave to process all throughput of green

waste recycling, including free passes for direct delivery to composting plant from

neighbouring developments (within 10 km radius).

Recycling education and engagement programme for schools and community groups.

Recycling education program for commercial customers concerning cardboard recycling.

Recycling program and communication (public places and events).

Joint tender/provision of waste and recycling collection services.

(2016/2020):

As alternative waste treatment technology evolves and regional partnership with compost and soil

improvement manufacturer Landsave further develops, and based on the outcomes of the proposed

MGB waste audit, the region will look at adopting best practice cost-effective solutions to achieve

the diversion target set forth for the 2020 time frame.

This will mean considering either:

a) A regional waste-to-energy plant, yielding a diversion rate in excess of 90%;

or

b) a mechanical-biological treatment system comprised of pre-sorting and anaerobic digestion,

with product sent to commercial composting or further processed to compost on site,

yielding an expected contribution to landfill diversion around 28%, and total diversion ratio

of up to 62%.

In any case, landfill diversion would be well in excess the 50% target for major regional centres.


10.4 Key-projects

Given the strategic objectives and proposed regional system configuration and strategic initiatives

indicated above, Table 20 presents the corresponding key projects:

Table 20: Correspondence between strategic objectives and key project components

Strategic objectives Key project/initiative components Improve recycling and resource recovery in line with State recycling targets and best practice guidelines, thus reducing reliance on landfill for waste disposal (waste diversion), community, C&D, green waste/organics, in accordance with cost-effective options Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives: “3 e. Increase capacity of reprocessing infrastructure that supports best practice collection approaches by providing financial incentives for the establishment of processing facilities.” “3 g. Provide funding support to encourage the adoption of systems that achieve best practice outcomes.” “3 h. Provide funding support for programs to assist with the collection of problematic wastes.”

Busselton Community Recycling Centre (Rendezvous Rd.), including a C&D waste sorting/recycling area.

Dunsborough Community Recycling Centre, including a C&D waste sorting/recycling area.

Davis Road Community Recycling Centre, including a C&D waste sorting/recycling area.

Garden composting project for households.

Engage local/regional recycling companies and charities in waste avoidance, reuse and recycling. Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives: “5. Communicate messages for behaviour change and promote its adoption, and acknowledge the success of individuals and organisations that act in accord with the aims and principles in the Strategy and assist in its implementation.”

Contract partnership agreements with selected local charity(ies) to operate reuse sheds at some or all of the (new) four community recycling centres.

Contract partnership agreements with local composting and soil improvement business Landsave, to direct all green waste for composting.

Secure best practice waste transfer and disposal infrastructure for residual waste well into the future. Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives: “1. Initiate and maintain long-term planning for waste and recycling processing, and enable access to suitably located land with buffers sufficient to cater for the State’s waste management needs.” “3 g. Provide funding support to encourage the adoption of systems that achieve best practice outcomes.”

Develop Busselton best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station.

Develop Davis Road best practice Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station.

Develop regional best practice waste landfill at Vidler Rd (progressing cell 1 in accordance with Works Approval granted).

Improve efficiency of waste management operations, in line with intended service levels. Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives: “3. Develop best practice guidelines, measures and reporting frameworks and promote their adoption.”

Joint tender/provision of rubbish and recycling collection services.

Improve waste management information for decision-making. Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives: “3. Develop best practice guidelines, measures and reporting frameworks and promote their adoption.”

Perform MGB waste audit to improve recycling information.

New weighbridge management system at Vidler Rd. regional waste facility.

Improve community education, engagement and participation. Alignment with WA’s strategic objectives: “5. Communicate messages for behaviour change and promote its adoption, and acknowledge the success of individuals and organisations that act in accord with the aims and principles in the Strategy and assist in its implementation.”

Develop and deliver a comprehensive regional waste avoidance, reuse and recycling education programme, including schools, community groups, commercial customers, public places and events.


From the above listed components, proposed projects to be included in Regional Investment Plan

and estimated investment costs are identified in Table 21.

Table 21: Proposed strategic projects

Strategic projects Capital

($)

New best practice regional landfill (cells 1 to 5 at Vidler Rd.) 8,500,00017

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Rendezvous Rd. 1,855,00018

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd. 1,875,00019

Construction and demolition waste recycling plant (impact crusher and jaw crusher excavator)

1,200,000

Garden composting/worm farming (composting bins and mobile garbage bin audit)

140,000

Cardboard sorting plant (power connection, excavator grabber attachment, baler, bins and shed)

185,000

TOTAL 13,755,000

Detailed Regional Investment Plans indicating the timeframes and funding requirements for each of

the key projects will be submitted under the Regional Funding Programme (Phase II, Competitive

Funding Round).

The following sections present the major features of each of the strategic projects identified.

10.4.1 Construction and demolition waste recycling plant

Sorting, crushing and screening of C&D waste will be undertaken at the following sites:

Busselton Community Recycling Centre (Rendezvous Rd.);

Dunsborough Community Recycling Centre (Vidler Rd.);

Davis Road Community Recycling Centre.

Major project components and capital costs are as follows:

Impact crusher ......................................................................................................................... $800,000

Excavator with jaw crusher attachment ................................................................................. $ 400,000

For each of the 3 facilities a hardstand (300 m2 each) will also be required, totalling $ 90,000.

Plant will be mobilised to each of the sites as necessary to process the stockpiled materials.

10.4.2 Cardboard recycling

Cardboard sorting and recycling will be undertaken at the Dunsborough Waste Facility landfill (Vidler

Rd.). Major project components and capital costs are as follows:

Excavator grabber attachment ................................................................................................. $ 50,000

Bins (2) ...................................................................................................................................... $ 20,000

Cardboard compactor/baler ..................................................................................................... $ 20,000

17

Includes $ 1,990,000 for Cell 1 alone, including new weighbridge management system. 18

Includes $ 90,000 for detailed engineering design and $ 1,765 for construction. 19

Includes $ 20,000 for concept design, $ 90,000 for detailed engineering design and $ 1,765 for construction.


Shed (including concrete pad) .................................................................................................. $ 15,000

Cardboard will be sorted as it arrives in mixed waste loads. It will be stockpiled in the shed and

compacted/bailed as necessary. It will then be shipped for recycling by licensed recyclers.

10.4.3 Garden composting/worm farming

Garden composting/worm farming will be undertaken by residents. Both Councils will distribute a

total amount of 3,000 garden composters, covering about 15% of existing households on a voluntary

basis. Residents will apply for a composting bin and, when picking it up, they will receive an

information/education pack on how to do garden compost.

A follow up program will be implemented to monitor the outcomes of the project.

Major project components and capital costs are as follows:

MGB audit to support project planning and monitor outcomes .............................................. $ 20,000

Garden composting bins ($20 x 15% x 20,000 region households) ........................................ $ 120,000

10.4.4 New best practice regional landfill (cell 1 at Vidler Rd.)

Landfill Cell1 at Vidler Rd. will be the first development stage (within the first expansion scenario) of

a best practice waste landfill for the Capes region that is expected to last for more than 20 years for

the disposal of residual waste that cannot be otherwise reused or recycled. Attachment 1 presents

the report titled “Dunsborough Waste Facility Future Expansion Scenarios (2014)” with the airspace

modelling undertaken based on the Capes region population and waste generation forecasts. Cell 1

has been approved for construction (Works Approval) and requires an estimated capital cost of

$1,960,000, and will serve both of CAPEROC’S member Councils.

A new weighbridge management system at Vidler Rd. regional waste facility, including supply of

hardware, software and project deployment, has an estimated cost of $ 30,000.

10.4.5 Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Stations

Two regional Community Recycling Centres and Transfer Stations (CR&WTS) would be built at

Rendezvous Rd. (Vasse) and Davis Rd. (Witchcliffe), respectively.

To ensure that the proposed Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station satisfy current and

future waste management requirements, the recommended proposed activities for the sites include:

Office and Staff Facilities;

Reuse Facility;

Community Recycling Area;

Bulk Storage Areas; and

Multi-Tiered Drop-Off Facility.

The key design principles adopted for these projects include

minimise development footprints;


maximise the source separation of materials to maximise diversion from landfill (waste

hierarchy);

adopt best practice design and operational standards;

support linkages / flows between various Site operations to improve operational efficiency

minimise the on Site material handling requirements;

allow operational flexibility for the sites;

allow for future planning and expansion; and

maximise the visual amenity.

A major component of these projects will be a multi-tier drop-off area that will streamline:

tipping of residential waste directly into hooklift bins to be transferred to the regional

landfill;

compaction and transfer of waste from waste collection trucks.

The estimated overall capital expenditure for the Rendezvous Rd. Community Recycling and Waste

Transfer Station is around $1,855,000 including detailed engineering design, plant and works. The

Community Recycling and Waste Transfer Station at Davis Rd. is expected to cost about the same

amount, plus the cost of the concept design (approximately $20,000).

10.4.6 Other initiatives

Other initiatives directed at improving recycling and the efficiency of waste management operations

include:

Contract partnership agreements with selected local charity(ies) to operate reuse sheds at some

or all of the (new) four community recycling centres.

Contract partnership agreements with local composting and soil improvement business

Landsave, to direct all green waste for composting.

Joint tender/provision of rubbish and recycling collection services.

Develop and deliver a comprehensive regional waste avoidance, reuse and recycling education

programme, including schools, community groups, commercial customers, public places and

events.

These will be further detailed and developed as monitoring progresses and the CAPEROC partnership

advances.


11. Conclusion

This Strategic Waste Management Plan was initiated having in mind the shared need to pool the

resources of both of CAPEROC’s member Councils to work towards achieving the State’s recycling

targets.

Addressing the applicable strategic framework derived from the requirements set forth by National

policy and regulations, as well as relevant local policies; a set of strategic principles were established

to provide the foundation for the Strategic Waste Management Plan presented in this report.

A shared vision of the waste challenges, now and in the future, was established. Together with the

strategic principles and an assessment of the relevant regional context in terms of demographics,

waste production and review of current infrastructure and services, that Vision allowed us to

formulate a set of options for waste reduction, management and disposal.

Given all that foundational background, and following the assessment of those options, the region’s

strategic waste management plan was formulated, including an identification of the regional

priorities and related strategic objectives and the definition of the key projects selected.

This SWMP is, thus, intended to provide the basis for each project’s Regional Investment Plan to be

submitted to the State’s Waste Authority.

===

12/06/2014

strategic waste management plan 2016-2020...capes regional organisation of councils strategic waste...

Documents