SSROC Kerbside Waste Audit Regional Report including all participating councils (Individual councils not identified by name)

Transcription

1 2015 SSROC Kerbside Waste Audit Regional Report including all participating councils (Individual councils not identified by name) A.Prince Consulting ABN TH 4 / 28 West Street Nth Sydney NSW 2060 P: F: E: admin@aprince.com.au W:

2 This report was researched and prepared by A.Prince Consulting Pty Ltd ABN Web: TH 4/28 West St North Sydney NSW 2060 Phone: (02) Fax: (02) for: Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Inc. Level 7, 1 Lawson Square Redfern NSW 2016 Phone: (02) ssroc@ssroc.nsw.gov.au Document status Rev. no. Document purpose Authors Peer Review Editor Date 2 Final without M. Cumming Anne Prince Helen Cooney May 2016 Council names 3 Final amended M. Cumming Anne Prince June 2016 June 2016 APC DISCLAIMER Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith, but on the basis that APC is not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever, which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect to any representation, statement or advice referred to here. Page 1

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary Introduction The SSROC The project Project objectives Current collection systems Previous waste audits Reporting Methodology Project inception Sample size Sample selection Sample collection Sorting Quality assurance data verification Study Limitations Results Samples collected Presentation rates Amount of bagged material Weekly and annual waste generation The general waste stream The recycling stream The organics stream Household hazardous materials Stringy items Recovery rates Landfill diversion current and potential Bin capacity utilised Calorific value of the general waste stream Beverage containers in the kerbside bins Historical comparison and trends Historical waste generation comparison Historical general waste composition comparison Historical recycling composition comparison Historical recovery rate comparison Historical diversion rate comparison Historical bin volume comparison Key findings Bin presentation rates Page 2

4 6.2 Total waste and recycling General waste generation Composition of the general waste stream General waste bin usage Recycling generation Composition of the recycling stream Co-mingled recycling bin capacity Organics recycling generation Composition of the organics recycling stream Organics recycling bin capacity Household hazardous materials Recovery of recyclables Diversion from landfill Calorific value of the general waste stream Beverage containers in the general waste and recycling bins Recommendations References Appendix A Accepted materials by stream Appendix B Waste term definitions Appendix C Sorting categories and definitions Appendix D Beverage container sorting categories Appendix E Detailed waste composition data Appendix F Detailed calorific values Appendix G Review of moisture content sampling and testing procedure Page 3

5 IMAGES Image 1 Food scraps are the main contributor of calorific value Image 2 APC sorting facility at Suez Resource Recovery Centre, Chullora Image 3 Recycling ready for sorting Image 4 Stringy items in the waste and recycling Image 5 Median fullness of recycling bins at MUDs is 90% Image 6 Moisture-testing process INDEX OF TABLES Table 1 SSROC waste collection systems: single dwellings Table 2 SSROC waste collection systems: multi-unit dwellings Table 3 Proportion of SDs and MUDs sampled Table 4 Sample collections: four-stream councils Table 5 Sample collections: three-stream councils Table 6 Presentation rates for each council Table 7 Proportion of bagged material by council Table 8 Estimates of annual waste and recycling generation for each Council Table 9 General waste composition for each council Table 10 Recyclables in the general waste at each council Table 11 Detailed general waste composition: SSROC region Table 12 Recycling composition, by council (bagged material dispersed) (kg) Table 13 Detailed recycling composition, SSROC region Table 14 Detail of contaminants in the co-mingled recycling (bagged material dispersed)45 Table 15 Detailed organics composition, SSROC region Table 16 Hazardous items Table 17 Hazardous items: 2011 vs Table 18 Stringy items in the waste and recycling Table 19 Detailed diversion potential Table 20 Calorific values Table 21 Calorific value of general waste for each council Table 22 Accepted materials by stream Table 23 Material sorting categories definitions Table 24 Beverage container sorting categories Table 25 General waste composition by council Table 26 Recycling composition by council Table 27 Organics composition by council Table 28 Calorific values of general waste by material category Page 4

6 INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1 Proportion of households presenting a bin for collection Figure 2 Proportion of bagged material in each waste stream Figure 3 Waste generation: total of all waste streams Figure 4 Total waste generation whole region Figure 5 Total waste generation by council: SDs Figure 6 Total waste generation by council: MUDs Figure 7 Total waste generation by council: all dwelling types Figure 8 Estimates of annual waste and recycling generation SSROC region Figure 9 General waste generation Figure 10 Detail of general waste generation by housing type Figure 11 Consolidated general waste composition Figure 12 General waste generation and composition by council Figure 13 Detailed general waste composition Figure 14 Co-mingled recycling generation Figure 15 Co-mingled recycling generation and composition by housing type Figure 16 Recycling generation and composition, by council Figure 17 Composition of recycling Figure 18 Detailed composition of co-mingled recycling Figure 19 Contamination in the recycling Figure 20 Recycling contamination by council Figure 21 Bagged and unbagged recycling contamination levels by housing type Figure 22 Organics generation Figure 23 Detail of organics generation by housing type Figure 24 Organics generation and composition, by council Figure 25 Composition of organics Figure 26 Contamination in the organics stream, by council Figure 27 Stringy items in the general waste Figure 28 Stringy items in the recycling Figure 29 Recovery rates Figure 30 Recovery rate for each council Figure 31 Landfill diversion rates Figure 32 Potential landfill diversion Figure 33 Summary of bin utilisation Figure 34 Median general waste bin utilisation by council Figure 35 Median recycling bin utilisation by council Figure 36 Median organics bin utilisation by council Figure 37 Generation of beverage containers Figure 38 Beverage containers by material and product type Figure 39 Beverage containers by size and material Figure 41 Weekly weight of waste stream by household previous audits Figure 42 General waste generation by housing type 2005 to Figure 43 Consolidated composition of general waste previous audits Figure 44 Recyclables in the general waste over time Figure 45 Plastic film and textiles in the general waste Figure 46 Consolidated composition of recycling previous audits Figure 47 Paper generation over time Figure 48 Recovery rates all dwellings previous audits Figure 49 Diversion rates all dwellings previous audits Figure 50 Diversion rates SDs previous audits Figure 51 Diversion rates MUDs previous audits Figure 52 Median volume of bins used previous audits Page 5

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A.Prince Consulting (APC) undertook a kerbside domestic waste audit of 15 councils in the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) between August and December The participating councils were Ashfield, Bankstown, Botany Bay, Burwood, Canterbury, Hurstville, Kogarah, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Randwick, Rockdale, Sutherland, City of Sydney, Waverley and Woollahra. This was the sixth regional audit undertaken over the past 16 years, providing a comprehensive data set for the SSROC region. The 2015 audit was based on the Guidelines for Conducting Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2008 and Addendum Samples were selected from both single dwellings (SDs) and multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) to provide a representative proportion of each dwelling type in each council. In total, 10,523 bins were collected from 3,433 households. The samples were weighed, sorted and categorised into 75 categories. Beverage containers were also audited from selected councils. The project took more than 4,000 hours in the field, collecting and sorting 83 tonnes of waste. This comprised 34 tonnes of residual (general) waste, 27 tonnes of recyclables and 23 tonnes of garden organics. Each council has been provided a report detailing their individual results. This report summarises the findings of the SSROC region as a whole, outlining individual council results against the regional average. Findings from previous audits have been used as a basis for longitudinal comparison. The key findings of the 2015 audit are summarised below. Page 6

8 About the audit Audits of kerbside domestic waste in 15 councils in the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) were undertaken between August and December General waste, recycling and organics bins, representing 3,433 households and 10,523 bins, were collected and sorted into 75 waste categories. The audit included 66 tonnes of waste from 1,992 single dwelling households (SDs) and 17 tonnes of waste from 1,441 multi-unit dwelling households (MUDs). Each council has received an individual audit report. This report is for the whole SSROC region. Bin presentation rates Overall, 87% of households present a general waste bin for collection (SDs: 80%, MUDs: 100%). 84% of households present a recycling bin (SDs: 77%, MUDs: 100%). 54% of households present an organics bin (SDs: 51%, MUDs 64%). The bin presentation rate for all bin types has increased since the last regional audit in 2011, particularly for organics bins at MUDs, due to increased organics generation. All but one council increased MUD organics bin presentation rates, when compared with Total waste generated The average SSROC household generates a total of 18kg of waste, recycling and garden organics per week. Extrapolated to the whole region, this totals an estimated 513,500 tonnes per year. The average single dwelling produces twice the amount of waste, recycling and garden organics as the average multi-unit dwelling: 23kg per week for SDs and 11kg per week for MUDs. The overall amount of waste and recycling produced by SSROC households has fluctuated over time. In 2015, the overall waste and recycling generation has increased by 4% when compared to 2011, mainly due to increased garden organics generation. Household hazardous materials In total, 1,661 hazardous items were found during the audits. This averages half an item per household per week, down from 1.9 items per household per week in A total of 652 batteries were found, of which 651 were dry-cell batteries. The most common hazardous items found were electrical items/peripherals and dry-cell batteries. Smaller numbers of fluorescent tubes, toner cartridges, other batteries, computer equipment, mobile phones, gas bottles and vehicle batteries were also found. Page 7

9 General waste generation The average SSROC household produces 10kg of general waste per week. Extrapolated to the whole region, this totals an estimated 268,900 tonnes per year. SDs produce more per week (12kg) than MUDs (7kg). General waste generation has shown an overall upward trend over time. General waste generation in 2015 is the highest on record and has increased by 3% compared with 2011 levels. The increase over time has been most consistent at MUDs, potentially due to more families moving into MUD blocks. General waste composition The largest proportion of the general waste stream is loose (uncontainerised) food waste at 36%, followed by other organic material (23%), such as nappies and contaminated paper. Vegetation is 6% (slightly lower than in 2011) and e-waste is 1% (the same as in 2011). SDs produce almost twice as much food waste per household per week as MUDs. The amount of loose food in the general waste has reduced over time, however containerised food/liquid generation has increased. The proportion of recyclable paper in the general waste has reduced over time and is now the lowest on record, possibly as residents move to on-line news and bills. The proportion of garden organics in the general waste has generally declined over time. The amount of plastic film and textiles in the general waste has increased over time. Both SDs and MUDs have 17% of the general waste stream as material that should be in the recycling or garden organics stream this is down from 19% in 2011, mainly as the result of less paper in the general waste. There is also 1.3% e-waste that can be recycled and 0.3% other hazardous items that can be disposed of at drop-off points as they become available. 84% of general waste is presented in bags (up from 67% in 2011). All councils recorded increases in bagged general waste. Each household s weekly general waste includes an average of three (3) beverage containers that may be eligible under a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS). Stringy items that can interfere with waste processing machinery make up 0.7% of the general waste. General waste bin utilisation The median utilisation of the general waste bins is 90% for both SDs and MUDs. The utilisation of the general waste bin has increased at both housing types compared with Note median values are used rather than mean, for consistency with previous years. Page 8

10 Recycling generation The average SSROC household produces 4.5kg of co-mingled (or paper/cardboard and container) recycling per week. Extrapolated to the whole region, this totals an estimated 126,200 tonnes per year. Recycling generation is down from 5.3kg per household per week in This is largely due to a reduction in recyclable paper generation. SDs produce almost twice as much as MUDs (5.8kg per week for SDs, 2.9kg per week for MUDs). Recycling generation has fluctuated over time. Recycling generation in 2015 is 15% lower than in 2008 and 2011, mainly due to a reduction in the amount of paper recycled. Recycling composition The largest proportion of the recycling stream is paper and cardboard (43%) and containers (41%). Contamination in the recycling is 16%, up from 13% in Contamination levels have risen over time. Between 2011 and 2015, the increase in the proportion of contamination is due to an increase in bagged material in the recycling, as well as a reduction in overall recycling generation. The main contaminants are bagged material (3% of recycling), contaminated paper, and composites (these are usually brochures and magazines wrapped in plastic). Contamination levels are similar at SDs and MUDs. Each week, the average household s recycling bin contains 10 beverage containers that may be eligible under a Container Deposit Scheme. Stringy items that can interfere with recyclables processing make up 0.9% of the co-mingled recycling by weight. Recycling bin utilisation The median utilisation of recycling bins is 90% at both SDs and MUDs. Compared with 2011, the proportion of the recycling bin used has increased at both SDs and MUDs, despite a decrease in recycling generation. This could be due to lightweighting of plastics by manufacturers, whereby the same weight of containers equates to a larger number and volume of containers. Page 9

11 Organics generation The average SSROC household produces 3.7kg of organics recycling per week. Extrapolated to the whole region, this totals an estimated 118,400 tonnes per year. Organics generation is up from 2.5kg per household per week in The average rises to 4.1kg per household per week if Council 12 is excluded (Council 12 does not operate an organics service organics are processed with general waste at an alternative waste facility). SDs generate much more per household per week (5.6kg) than MUDs (0.8kg). Organics generation fluctuates with seasonal conditions. The 2015 organics generation is 48% higher than in 2011, probably due to the 2011 audit being undertaken in autumn/winter and the 2015 audit in late winter/spring. Between the 2011 and 2015 audits, garden organics services have been introduced at Council 6 SDs, and Council 7 and Council 11 have implemented garden organics bins at MUDs. The generation of garden organics recycling at MUDs has increased from 0.4kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 0.8kg/hhld/week in This has mainly been driven by the new MUD organics services introduced by Council 7 and Council 11, as well as the inclusion of Council 3 volumes which weren t audited previously, and a large increase in volumes at Council 13. Organics composition 98% of the organics stream is recyclable vegetation. Contamination in the organics recycling stream is 2%, down from 3% in The main contaminant is wood/timber. Organics bin utilisation The median usage of organics bins is 75% at SDs and 80% at MUDs. SDs used less of their organics bins in 2015 compared with 2011, despite an increase in generation. The increased generation of organics at MUDs since 2011 has led to an increase in the average MUD organics bin fullness (from 37% in 2011 to 80% in 2015). All but two councils increased organics bin fullness, when compared with Page 10

12 Recovery of recyclables The overall recovery rate is 83%, up from 79% in SDs achieve 86% and MUDs 69%. Garden organics are well recovered (94%) by both housing types. Glass and paper are well recovered by SDs. SDs outperform MUDs in all materials. Both housing types recover less than half of all steel, aluminium and other (non- PET/HDPE) plastics. Compared with previous audits, the recovery of garden organics in 2015 is very high, at 94%. This is partly due to a large increase in recovery at MUDs. All but three councils increased the recovery rate of garden organics at MUDs in 2015, compared to The overall improvement in recovery rate for garden organics at MUDs (from 59% in 2011 to 83% in 2015) was primarily driven by the new services at Council 7 and Council 11, as well as the inclusion of Council 3 s crate/bundle volumes in the calculations, and a large increase in recovery rates at Council 1. Recovery of glass, paper and cardboard are the next highest, with recovery levels reasonably consistent over time. Recovery of aluminium, steel and liquid paperboard has remained below 55% in all audits. Diversion from landfill SSROC currently diverts 46% of all municipal waste from landfill through the kerbside recycling and organics bins, and through Rockdale and City of Sydney s processing of waste at alternative waste treatment facilities. This is up from 41% in The increase in landfill diversion in 2015 compared with 2011 is due to increased garden organics tonnages as well as Council 12 and Council 6 processing waste at alternative waste treatment facilities. Single dwellings achieve 50% diversion and MUDs 33%. The difference is largely due to greater recovery of garden organics at SDs. These results are both higher than in If all recyclable paper/cardboard and containers were placed in the recycling stream, landfill diversion would increase to 52%. If all garden organics were recycled as well, landfill diversion would increase to 54%. In addition, diverting 60% of all food waste would increase diversion to 65%. In addition, diverting 60% of other organics to an advanced waste treatment facility would raise diversion to a potential maximum of 73%, which is in line with global best practice and would met the NSW 2021 diversion target. Page 11

13 Calorific value of the general waste The general waste generated by the average SSROC household has a calorific value (raw) of between 2 4 MJ per kilogram, or MJ (dry) per kilogram. This equates to a calorific value of MJ (raw) or MJ (dry) per household per week. The calorific value of the general waste generated by all households in SSROC each year is estimated at a maximum (dry) value of 3,257 Terajoules per year enough energy to supply electricity to over 105,000 homes for one year. The main contributors to calorific value in SSROC s general waste are vegetable scraps, disposable nappies and paper. Image 1 Food scraps are the main contributor of calorific value Page 12

14 Recommended actions While the proportion of recyclables in the general waste has reduced over time, the general waste still contains 17% materials that should be in the recycling or garden organics stream. Ongoing education to motivate residents to use the right bin to divert these materials could lift recovery and diversion rates. Materials to target include glass drink containers and cardboard. Contamination in the co-mingled recycling stream has risen over time and requires renewed emphasis with both housing types. Focus should be placed on the main contaminants: bagged material, contaminated paper and newspapers/magazines wrapped in plastic. Other contamination reduction initiatives could include removing containerised food/liquid from containers before recycling, and clarifying exactly which plastics are accepted in the recycling stream. Councils have the opportunity to work more closely with their waste collection contractors to identify households where contamination occurs regularly. To improve landfill diversion, councils can consider trialling combined weekly food and garden organics collections, with an associated reduction in general waste collection to fortnightly. The various free e-waste drop-off days or permanent e-waste collection points offered by councils should be promoted to residents, as e-waste is present in both the general waste and recycling bins. Councils could consider increasing the frequency of e-waste collection events. Community recycling centres for problem wastes such as household hazardous wastes should be actively promoted to residents as they are established and become operational. Promotion of battery recycling through new product stewardship schemes should also be actively promoted to residents. Opportunity exists for SSROC to lobby on a regional basis for more extended producer responsibility schemes for hazardous materials, user-friendly locations for drop-off centres established through such schemes, and future landfill bans of hazardous materials. Reducing the toxicity of the general waste stream will allow better quality end products to be produced when general waste is processed at alternative waste treatment facilities. Page 13

15 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The SSROC The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) represents 16 councils in the Southern Sydney metropolitan area, with approximately 1.6 million people housed in over 580,000 residences. The region is characterised by high population density and cultural and socio-economic diversity. More than 50% of all housing in the southern Sydney region is medium- or high-density, with more than 40% of the population living in this type of housing 1. The waste audit conducted in 2015 is the most recent in a series of regional audits conducted by A.Prince Consulting (APC) for SSROC. Previous audits were undertaken in 1999, 2001, 2005, 2008 and The following councils have participated in this 2015 audit: Ashfield Council Leichhardt Municipal Council Marrickville Council Bankstown City Council Kogarah City Council Randwick City Council Woollahra Municipal Council City of Botany Bay Council Hurstville City Council Rockdale City Council Waverley Council Burwood Council Canterbury City Council Sutherland Shire Council City of Sydney Council 1.2 The project SSROC awarded A.Prince Consulting Pty Ltd (APC) a contract to conduct domestic waste audits of 15 of its member councils commencing 19 July The agreed methodology for the domestic waste audits is the Guidelines for Conducting Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2008 including the audit Guidelines Addendum The project also requires reporting on calorific values of eligible material as specified under the Commonwealth s Office of Renewable Energy (ORER) Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in Waste for Electricity Generation (2001). Additional reporting is also required for stringy items, problem wastes and batteries. Materials accepted in each recycling stream are shown at Appendix A. 1 SSROC (2015) WAP RFQ Final Page 14

16 1.3 Project objectives The audit aims to establish the following information: The composition, amount, type and proportion of materials in selected waste streams The diversion rate for each category of recycled material The leakage of recyclable materials into the general waste The type of contaminants in recycling bins The calorific value of residual waste SSROC can use the audit results to: Compare current landfill diversion with previous audits Improve the quality and performance of existing waste services Design education campaigns to improve recycling Quantify embedded energy that could be recovered using energy-fromwaste technologies 1.4 Current collection systems Table 1 (single dwellings) and Table 2 (multi-unit dwellings) show the details of the general waste, recycling, and organics collection systems in place at each council. Council Table 1 SSROC waste collection systems: single dwellings General waste Recyclables Garden organics Bin size Frequency Bin size Frequency Bin size Frequency Council 1 120L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly (opt in) Council 2 120L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly Council 3 240L Weekly 240L Fortnightly Various Weekly Council 4 120L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly Council 5 140L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly 50/70/80/ 55L crate/70l/ Council 6 120/240L Weekly 80L/120L/240L Weekly 120 / 240L Fortnightly Council 7 120L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly Council 8 120L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly Council 9 55 / 80 / 120L Weekly 55L crate / 120L paper / containers Fortnightly alternate weeks 55/80/120 or 240L Fortnightly Council L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 140 / 240L Fortnightly (opt in) Council L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly Council L Weekly 240L Fortnightly No service Council L Weekly 240L Fortnightly 240L Fortnightly 140L paper / 140L 140 / 240L Council L Weekly containers Fortnightly optional Fortnightly Council / 120L 2 x weekly / weekly 55L / 120L / 240L Weekly 55L / 240L Weekly combined food and garden Page 15

17 Council Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Table 2 SSROC waste collection systems: multi-unit dwellings General waste Recyclables Garden organics Bin size Frequency Bin size Frequency Bin size Frequency 240L per 2 units 240L / 660L / 1100L 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 units, some 660L Weekly 240L per 2 units Fortnightly Weekly / 2 3 times per week Weekly 120L/240L per 2 units 240L per 2 units Fortnightly Weekly/ fortnightly Weekly 240L per 2 units Weekly 240L per 2 units Weekly 240L per 2 units Weekly 60L per unit; 60L per unit; bins bins 80/120/240/ 1, 2 or 3 1 or 2 80/120/240/ 660/1100L and collections collections 360/660/ uncontainerised per week per week 1100/1500/ flattened 1700/2000L cardboard 240L per 3 units 120L or 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 4 units 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 units 240L per 4 units 240L per 2 units Twice weekly 240L per 3 units Weekly Weekly 240L per 2 units Weekly Weekly 120L or 240L paper, 120L or 240L containers /2 4 units Weekly Weekly 240L per 2 units Fortnightly Weekly 240L per 2 units Fortnightly Twice weekly 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 units/ bundles 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 units Fortnightly Fortnightly Weekly Fortnightly 240L per 5 units Fortnightly No service 240L per 3 units 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 4 units 140L or 240L per 2 units 240L per 2 units 240L per 4 units Weekly No service Weekly 240L per 2 units Fortnightly 240L per 4 units Opt in, fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly Council L per 3 units Weekly 140L paper, 140L containers per 8 units Fortnightly 240L per 10 units Fortnightly optional service Council 15 55L, 120L or 240L per 2 units Twice weekly, weekly or more frequently 240L paper, 240L containers per 2 units Weekly 120L or 240L per 2 units Weekly includes food Page 16

18 Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional Total 1.5 Previous waste audits APC has conducted multiple previous kerbside waste audits for SSROC and member councils. The number of households sampled in each of the audits is shown below. Council Council Council ,712 Council Council Council ,813 Council Council ,158 Council ,412 Council ,040 Council ,345 Council ,131 Council ,177 Council ,166 Council ,296 Council ,595 Region ,457 The table above is provided for historical information. Some of the previous audit data has been used for historical trend analysis later in this report. 1.6 Reporting This report shows the method used and results for all councils that participated in the 2015 audit, without individual council results being identified by name. A separate regional report identifying council results by name has also been provided to SSROC. Each council has also received an individual report detailing their individual results, comparisons with previous audits and recommendations. The results from 2015 have been compared with previous audit data for the region as a whole. Waste terms used in the audit report have been defined at Appendix B. Page 17

19 METHODOLOGY The methodology for the kerbside waste audits, including the container deposit scheme (CDS) sub-audit, is based on the Guidelines for Conducting Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2008, including the audit Guidelines Addendum The methodology for the sample selection and measurement of calorific values is based on the Commonwealth s Office of Renewable Energy (ORER) Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in Waste for Electricity Generation (2001). 2.1 Project inception Prior to being awarded the project, APC staff met with the SSROC and council project managers to clarify the strategic and logistical aspects of the audit. This largely centred on discussing an aggregated collection method as opposed to a bin-by-bin collection as has been the collection methodology used in the past. The meeting also discussed logistics relating to scheduling audit components such as sample selection, collections, measuring calorific value, sorting and reporting. It was agreed that an aggregated collection methodology would be followed for the 2015 audits and that councils would be able to use the street and MUD selections from the 2011 audit or request new selections as required. Following confirmation of the audit logistics, and on being awarded the project, APC s project manager then liaised directly with the council staff to confirm the specific operational requirements for the SSROC waste audit. APC contracted United Resource Management (URM) to provide collection vehicles and drivers for the 2015 SSROC regional waste audit. APC also contracted Suez Environmental Australia (Suez) to provide a sorting site at its Chullora Resource Recovery Centre. APC provided an all-weather shelter for the physical sorting of samples. 2.2 Sample size The NSW Guidelines and Addendum 2010 require that matched pair data from 220 households (i.e. general waste and recycling bins from the same household) be used to measure household behaviour, including waste generation, composition, recovery and diversion. General waste and recycling bins constituted the matched pair for the 2015 SSROC domestic waste audits. In those councils where co-mingled recycling is collected on an alternate fortnightly cycle, the audit was conducted in the recycling collection zone that coincided with the first audit week along with the weekly general waste. In the two councils where paper and container recycling is collected on alternate fortnights, the audit was conducted in the paper collection zone along with the matched general waste. The container stream was then collected in the second audit week to capture the entire recycling stream. General waste and co-mingled recycling were collected in the same week for the council with a weekly service for all streams. In accordance with the NSW Guidelines, garden/food organics bins were only collected from those households and MUDs presenting a matched general waste and recycling bin collected in the first audit week. This provided whole-system data for those households included in the daily sample collection. Page 18

20 2.3 Sample selection The 2015 audit was undertaken in the same recycling zone as the 2011 audit for all but one council (Randwick). This means that the 2015 audit included a combination of SD and MUD addresses that had been previously selected in 2011, as well as SDs and MUDs from the 2011 reserve selections. New selections were made for the council that did not participate in 2011, as well as to make up any shortfall in the target and reserve lists of the remaining councils. All original and new streets and MUDs had been randomly selected from a database or service map as provided by the relevant council. When selecting streets for sampling, the Guidelines specify that: at the street level within each collection zone, the recommended number of households should be selected randomly. Any appropriate random sampling regime will be acceptable for this purpose. 2 For multi-unit dwellings the Guidelines recommend that: for those areas where a high proportion (greater than 10%) of MUDs exist, that stratified sampling is used as opposed to simple random sampling alone. This will involve identifying the ratio of SUDs to MUDs and altering sample sizes accordingly to accommodate these proportions. 3 The Addendum 2010 also recommends that: At least 10 individual MUD properties should make up the entire sample High-rise (more than three storeys) should be avoided. The reason for avoiding high-rise is to prevent any one or two large MUD properties skewing the overall MUD results. It also allows for a larger number of MUD samples to be taken as part of the sampling regime. A separate high-rise MUD audits was undertaken for City of Sydney Council, due to council s prevalence of high rise dwellings. The streets and MUDs for the 2015 audit had been randomly selected previously from a database provided by SSROC. As the 2015 audit is based on an aggregated collection, and for the purpose of reporting results for both MUDs and SDs, the collection was split between MUDs and SDs by collection day. Over the SSROC region, the sample was made up of 58% SD properties and 42% MUDs. In total, 1,992 SDs and 1,441 MUD households were sampled, as shown in Table 3. 2 Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2008, 4.3 p. 9 3 Addendum 2010 to Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas section 8, p. 5 Page 19

21 Council Table 3 Proportion of SDs and MUDs sampled Total household samples SD sample size MUD sample size Total bin sample Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Total 3,433 1,992 1,441 10, Sample collection The Addendum 2010 allows for aggregated sampling 4 to provide statistical analysis of variability where: At least one in four consecutive audits uses household-by-household auditing Aggregated sampling is conducted using at least five and preferably 10 separate sub-samples (e.g. if 220 households are to be audited, sub-samples of 22 or 44 households are taken separately). As the 2015 audit met the above criteria, it was agreed that an aggregated collection methodology would be followed for the 2015 audit. As the audit also included the calculation of calorific values, APC was required to follow the collection methodology of the Commonwealth s Office of Renewable Energy (ORER) Guidelines, which stipulates collection from every fifth SD household. The NSW Guidelines also specify that every second to fifth bin is selected from the start address. This allows for non-presentation of bins by some households and the next household being used as the replacement sample. It also reduces results being affected by households that put material in their neighbours bins. As APC was required to combine both collection methodologies, the first three councils included in the audit had samples collected from every fifth SD household. Following verbal and written approval from Commonwealth s Office of Renewable Energy (ORER), APC selected the SD samples from every second SD household for the remaining 12 SSROC member councils. This collection methodology complied with both sets of guidelines. 4 Addendum 2010 to Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas section 2 p. 2 Page 20

22 For most councils, APC commenced collection of general waste and the recycling stream/s on the night prior to the council s scheduled day of service. All collections were completed prior to 11pm. The remaining samples for the garden organics stream and alternate recycling streams in two councils were collected in the morning from 4.30am to 8am of the day of scheduled service. Where bins had been collected prior to sampling, APC returned to those streets in the following fortnight to collect the affected households recycling or organics bins. This ensured that the full household sample was collected in each council area. Where every fifth or second household did not present a bin, the following procedure was followed, as specified in the Guidelines: (i) Record non-presented MGBs as non presenters on the recording sheets (ii) Where a bin is not presented at a household which has been included in the sample, data collectors should move to the neighbouring household... 5 A data-collection sheet was used to record each individual sample, including the date of collection, dwelling type, waste stream, bin size, capacity used (bin fullness percentage), confirm MUD households in each MUD property and sample tally. In order to maintain positive public relations with the community, each member council provided a letter on council letterhead explaining the audit rationale. The letter included a contact name and number for specific enquiries. This letter was provided to any resident that enquired about the audit process during the sample collections. 2.5 Sorting Kerbside material Sorting was conducted at APC s sorting facility at the Suez Resource Recovery Centre at Chullora. Image 2 APC sorting facility at Suez Resource Recovery Centre, Chullora 5 Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 4.4 p. 9 Page 21

23 Following the sample collection, the separated streams were deposited at the sorting site. The weighbridge dockets were used for data-checking and data-quality purposes. The Addendum lists 68 sorting categories specified as part of the audit. APC included four additional categories, i.e. containerised food and liquid, plastic bags, plastic film and separation of PS packaging (recyclable) and EPS packaging (non-recyclable), as previously agreed with NSW EPA and SSROC. To match the ORER categories, food waste was separated into kitchen vegetable and kitchen meat. The EPA vegetation category was re-named municipal garden organics, in line with the ORER category. Additional battery categories for mobile phone batteries, power tool batteries and other batteries were also been included for reporting purposes by type and size as requested by SSROC. A total of 75 sorting categories were used and the sorting categories and definitions are at Appendix C. The methodology requires a preliminary sort of bagged material from loose waste. The purpose of this step is to determine the proportion of material contained in bags and therefore not available for recovery at a materials recovery facility (MRF) or advanced waste treatment (AWT) facility without added equipment (i.e. bag breakers or shredders to access the waste or recyclables). For each of the recycling and garden organics streams, any material in household shopping or garbage bags was weighed separately. The bagged waste was then placed on the sort table, opened, and the contents added in with the remainder of the material to be sorted by category. As the collections are aggregated by day, for the garbage stream, the unbagged material was weighed separately and deducted from the truck weight to provide the weight of the bagged material. Separated materials were placed in appropriate containers labelled by category, weighed on a set of electronic scales and the weight recorded. All electronic scales were calibrated just prior to commencing the SSROC audit. Sorted material was placed into general waste and recycling skips for disposal and processing as appropriate to the sorted material. Garden organics were sorted at the Suez dedicated garden organics area and processed accordingly. Any contamination was treated appropriately, according to the contaminant material, i.e. recyclable or landfill Stringy items, batteries and problem waste As part of the sorting process, APC was required to record the presence of stringy/rope items such as garden hose, washing line, rope, etc., as well as materials deemed problem waste, i.e. hazardous waste and batteries as noted in the sorting categories and definitions list at Appendix C. These materials are reported separately in the results section. These materials have been classified in the general sorting in and are included in the general waste or recycling analysis. Once the initial sort was done, stringy items and problem waste items were then separated as a supplementary audit, weighed and recorded. Page 22

24 2.5.3 Calorific assessment The ORER Guideline states that in order to determine the calorific value of a waste stream, the following steps should be carried out: Sample is sorted into the fractions CV upper is applied from known data (literature) CV upper is analysed for unknown fractions CV raw is calculated from formulas Moisture content of fractions is determined % hydrogen is applied from known data (literature) The ORER Guideline also provides a methodology for the collection of samples, which includes collecting from every fifth to twentieth bin. In SSROC, apart from the first three councils, APC collected from every second household based on written confirmation from ORER on varying the collection methodology to match the NSW Guidelines Addendum All bins at each MUD property were collected. Following the collection of the general waste samples, APC sorted the material into the required categories. A sub-sample of representative sample material was then selected for each of the ORER categories, placed in a foil tray and weighed. The net weight of the material was recorded on a datarecording sheet prior to the sample being placed in an oven (specifically hired for the purpose of determining moisture content) for a period of 24 hours at 105 C, as per the ORER Guideline. At the expiration of the 24-hour period, the sample was then removed and the dry weight recorded on the datarecording sheet, thus recording the moisture content of each sample. APC sampled 11 material categories per day over four sample collection days representing Monday through Thursday, for each council. HRL Technology Pty Ltd conducted a site inspection on 23 October 2015 and certified that the sampling method and total moisture content testing was in accordance with standards EN15442:2011 and EN15414:2010. The certificate provided by HRL Technology is contained at Appendix G Beverage containers The NSW Government has announced that it is committed to introducing a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) in 2017 that reduces litter, complements rather than competes with the kerbside recycling system, and increases beverage container recovery. The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) contracted A.Prince Consulting Pty Ltd (APC) to conduct a physical audit of beverage containers present in: Kerbside residual waste and recycling bins Litter bins in public places Gross pollutant traps or storm-water litter baskets Page 23

25 The kerbside recycling audit of beverage containers was undertaken as a sub-audit of the overall SSROC kerbside waste audit. The following nine SSROC councils underwent this additional audit of beverage containers from their kerbside bins: Ashfield Council City of Botany Bay Hurstville City Council Marrickville Council Leichhardt Municipal Council Kogarah City Council Rockdale City Council Waverley Council Woollahra Municipal Council The audit aimed to obtain data on the beverage container component of kerbside bins by: Material type (e.g. glass, plastic, aluminium) Product type (e.g. soft drink, flavoured milk) Beverage container size After the initial sort of the kerbside waste, the beverage containers from the kerbside bins were picked out and sorted into 7 material types, 51 product types and 6 size fractions. Sorting categories for the beverage container sub-audit are at Appendix D. 2.6 Quality assurance data verification A number of techniques and procedures were used to check and verify data. All collection vehicles are checked prior to leaving the depot to ensure that they are clean of any residual waste from previous collections. All collection vehicles are recorded on a weighbridge prior to and post discharging the sample so that the net weight of the sample is recorded. At the data-entry stage, each coded sheet on which sorting data is recorded is checked against the data collection sheets for that sample. The net weight of the sample, as recorded at the weighbridge, is matched against the total weight of the sorted material for each sample load. APC s analysis tool flags any difference between the sample load weight and the total weight of the sorted material categories and any significant differences are investigated. An independent staff member not involved in the data-entry process randomly checks all data for accuracy. APC has invested in a computer model to assist with the analysis of audits. This allows systematic error checking at the data-entry stage and ensures consistency in layout and the design of charts and tables. Page 24

26 STUDY LIMITATIONS The data for this study was collected and analysed using the best and most accurate methods available within the constraints of available time and budget. This study is a survey, which means that a relatively small amount of data has been collected and then treated as representative of the total. As in any survey, there are limitations to the accuracy of the data, as described below. Time frame Generally each audit was carried out over approximately 10 days, taking samples randomly distributed over the recycling zone coinciding with the first audit week. The data was then used as being representative of the whole council. Seasonal trends and weather events (e.g. high rainfall leading to grass growth) may change waste generation over time. The results of this audit should be treated with caution when comparing them with results from reports based on data taken at different times of year. Representative sample The sample for this audit is necessarily small due to the high percapita cost and resource-intensive nature of waste auditing. There is always a small probability of inadvertently collecting waste from atypical households, resulting in non-representative data. APC audits are carried out using strict random sampling, stratified by geographic area, to minimise the chance of this situation occurring. Sample size limitations All surveys carry an element of sampling error, which is the mathematical error associated with using a sample to represent a total population. Sampling error can be reduced by taking larger samples. The sampling error involved in waste audits is usually small and can be tabulated by producing estimates augmented by upper and lower confidence intervals. Weight-based analysis The collection of data for this audit was recorded by weight. This type of analysis may cause some materials to appear to be present in quite small proportions due to their comparatively low densities (e.g. plastic beverage containers). They can, however, consume large amounts of volume. Weight-based analysis has been used in this audit because it is a standard procedure and is the most accurate way to collect data on a number of different types of materials. Page 25

27 RESULTS All data in this section is weight-based unless otherwise stated. Some percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore some figures and descriptions may not add up to 100%. The main findings have been summarised in the section Key Findings. All data used in the analysis is provided at Appendix E. It should be noted that sample numbers are based on households sampled and may not be the same as the actual bins collected because some single-dwelling (SD) households may present more than one bin per stream. Multi-unit dwelling (MUD) household bins are typically shared and bin numbers do not equate to the number of households per MUD property but rather the allocation of bins per household per stream. 4.1 Samples collected Table 4 and Table 5 show the number of household samples included in the audit and the housing type from which they were collected. For the four-stream councils, the general waste and the paper stream constituted the matched pairs and the container recycling and garden organics streams were sourced from those matched pairs. A total of 3,433 households were sampled (1,992 SDs and 1,441 MUDs). A total of 10,523 bins were audited. Table 4 Sample collections: four-stream councils No. of hhlds: paper/ cardboard No. of households: container Suburbs No. of households: general waste recycling recycling No. of households: garden organics Council sampled SDs MUDs SDs MUDs SDs MUDs SDs MUDs Council Council Council Table 5 Suburbs sampled Sample collections: three-stream councils No. of households: general waste No. of households: recycling No. of households: organics SDs MUDs SDs MUDs SDs MUDs Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Page 26

28 4.2 Presentation rates Presentation rates are calculated as follows: The total number of households passed during the collection is divided by the number of households recorded as presenting bins. The Guidelines require that only matched-pair bins (garbage and one recycling) are collected from a household, so if a household presented no bins or only one bin, the bin/s were recorded as presented but not collected. As per the Guidelines there are no substitute bins included in the audit outside the matched-pair household sample. However, non-matched bins are recorded to calculate the participation rate for each stream. It should be noted that the accurate calculation of participation rates should be made by sampling a large number of households over several weeks of the general waste, recycling and organics collection cycles. The presentation rates in this report are based on bins presented at the time of sample collection for each stream and may not reflect the true presentation or participation rates. Presentation rates for general waste bins, recycling and organics bins for all councils combined are shown in Figure 1. The bin presentation rate for all bin types has increased since the last regional audit in 2011, particularly for organics bins at MUDs, due to increased generation. All but one Council increased MUD organics bin presentation rates, when compared with Single-dwelling households Figure 1 Proportion of households presenting a bin for collection Multi-unit dwelling households All dwellings combined General waste: 80% (up from 72% in 2011) Recycling: 77% (up from 69% in 2011) Organics: 51% (up from 33% in 2011) General waste: 100% (up from 98% in 2011) Recycling: 100% (up from 98% in 2011) Organics: 64% (up from 32% in 2011) General waste: 87% (up from 81% in 2011) Recycling: 84% (up from 79% in 2011) Organics: 54% (up from 33% in 2011) Presentation rates for each individual council are shown in Table 6. Page 27

29 Table 6 Presentation rates for each council Council Dwelling type General waste Co-mingled recycling Container recycling Paper / cardboard recycling Organics SDs 79% 74% 56% MUDs 100% 100% 52% Council 1 Overall 88% 85% 54% SDs 72% 73% 71% MUDs 100% 100% 57% Council 2 Overall 76% 76% 68% SDs 78% 73% 38% MUDs 100% 100% 63% Council 3 Overall 86% 83% 47% SDs 75% 76% 57% MUDs 100% 100% 53% Council 4 Overall 83% 84% 55% SDs 72% 64% 55% MUDs 100% 100% 76% Council 5 Overall 80% 74% 63% SDs 94% 94% 25% MUDs 100% 100% Council 6 Overall 98% 98% 25% SDs 79% 79% 63% MUDs 100% 100% 100% Council 7 Overall 84% 84% 73% SDs 75% 72% 76% MUDs 100% 100% 66% Council 8 Overall 82% 79% 73% SDs 88% 64% 85% 20% MUDs 100% 100% 89% 60% Council 9 Overall 91% 73% 86% 30% SDs 76% 75% 43% MUDs 100% 100% 46% Council 10 Overall 83% 82% 44% SDs 85% 82% 60% MUDs 100% 100% 62% Council 11 Overall 93% 92% 61% SDs 90% 86% MUDs 100% 100% Council 12 Overall 93% 90% SDs 84% 83% 79% MUDs 100% 100% 100% Council 13 Overall 88% 87% 84% SDs 87% 75% 82% 40% MUDs 100% 100% 97% 52% Council 14 Overall 94% 88% 90% 47% SDs 72% 67% 27% MUDs 100% 100% 48% Council 15 Overall 84% 81% 36% SSROC average SDs 80% 77% 70% 84% 51% MUDs 100% 100% 100% 93% 64% Overall 87% 84% 81% 88% 54% Page 28

30 4.3 Amount of bagged material The reason and method for measuring the amount of bagged material is shown below: The Guidelines require that bagged material is pre-sorted to determine the weight of items in each stream that are bagged. Bagged material is defined as any items that are in a tied shopping bag or garbage bag. It does not include items in plastic wrap, bread bags or other smaller bags. The purpose of pre-sorting bagged waste is to determine the component of each waste stream that would need pre-treatment in a waste processing facility. For example, in an advanced waste treatment (AWT) facility, bagged material may need to be processed through a bag opener. In an organics composting operation or MRF, bagged material would be treated as a contaminant and removed. Figure 2 shows the proportion of material in each waste stream that is presented in bags for the whole region. Unsurprisingly, a large proportion of general waste is bagged. In the co-mingled recycling bins, 4% of material is in bags. When the separate container and paper/cardboard recycling systems are included, overall bagged material in the recycling stream is 3%. Very little bagged material was found in the organics stream. General waste Figure 2 Proportion of bagged material in each waste stream Recycling Organics Bagged material is 84% Up from 67% in 2011 Bagged material is 3% Up from 1% in 2011 Bagged material is 0.1% Down from 0.2% in 2011 Page 29

31 Table 7 shows the proportion of bagged material for each participating council. Table 7 Proportion of bagged material by council Council General waste Co-mingled recycling Container recycling Paper / cardboard recycling Organics Council % 3.4% 0.0% Council % 7.1% 0.2% Council % 4.6% 0.0% Council % 4.7% 0.0% Council % 3.7% 0.1% Council % 5.7% 0.0% Council % 3.7% 0.0% Council % 3.3% 0.0% Council % - 1.6% 0.4% 0.4% Council % 1.5% 0.7% Council % 2.9% 0.0% Council % 6.8% - Council % 0.2% 0.0% Council % - 2.1% 2.1% 0.1% Council % 2.3% 0.0% SSROC average 84.4% 3.8% 1.9% 1.3% 0.1% 4.4 Weekly and annual waste generation The weekly household generation of all waste streams (garbage, recycling and organics combined) for the whole region is shown in Figure 3. Single dwellings Figure 3 Waste generation: total of all waste streams Multi-unit dwellings Average all dwellings Each household generates 23kg per week Each household generates 11kg per week Each household generates 18kg per week Figure 4 shows the amount of each waste type generated by the different housing types. Organics generation is averaged across the whole region, including Council 12 which has no organics service. Each SD household generates more than twice the amount of each MUD household each week. Page 30

32 Figure 4 Total waste generation whole region Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the generation of each waste type for each council, for SDs, MUDs and all dwellings respectively. Figure 5 Total waste generation by council: SDs Page 31

33 Figure 6 Total waste generation by council: MUDs Figure 7 Total waste generation by council: all dwelling types Annual waste generation has been approximated below using the rates of waste generation per household per week for each stream, multiplied by the number of households in the SSROC region (308,725 SDs and 222,508 MUDs). This may not be exactly the same as individual council records for waste generation per annum as it does not take into account seasonal fluctuations. Figure 8 Estimates of annual waste and recycling generation SSROC region General waste Recycling Garden organics Total SSROC residents generate 268,900 tonnes per year SSROC residents generate 126,200 tonnes per year SSROC residents generate 118,400 tonnes per year SSROC residents generate 513,500 tonnes per year Estimates of annual waste and recycling generation for each council are shown in Table 8. Page 32

34 Table 8 Estimates of annual waste and recycling generation for each Council Council General waste Recycling Garden organics Total waste Tonnes per year Tonnes per year Tonnes per year Tonnes per year Council 13 35,531 24,213 42, ,870 Council 2 37,426 15,779 23,842 77,047 Council 11 29,046 15,992 10,274 55,312 Council 5 28,240 9,346 10,715 48,301 Council 6 22,558 10,526 1,798 34,883 Council 12 24,735 7, ,417 Council 7 14,672 6,895 6,681 28,248 Council 10 14,464 7,064 3,396 24,924 Council 8 10,205 4,569 5,844 20,619 Council 15 8,531 5,471 3,678 17,680 Council 14 11,047 5,080 1,084 17,211 Council 9 10,472 5,198 1,425 17,095 Council 3 9,201 2,666 2,354 14,221 Council 4 6,388 2,643 3,028 12,059 Council 1 6,417 3,071 2,152 11,640 SSROC total 268, , , ,525 Image 3 Recycling ready for sorting Page 33

35 4.5 The general waste stream General waste generation by housing type Figure 9 shows that the average SSROC household produces 10kg per week of general waste. SDs produce more per household than MUDs. Both housing types have a similar proportion of recyclables in the general waste. Single dwellings Figure 9 General waste generation Multi-unit dwellings Average all dwellings Each household generates 12kg per week Up from 11kg in % recyclables in the general waste Each household generates 7kg per week Down slightly from % recyclables in the general waste Each household generates 10kg per week Slightly higher than 2011 Average 17% recyclables in the general waste Down from 19% in 2011 Figure 10 shows the amount of each waste category produced by the different housing types. SDs produce considerably more food waste per week than MUDs (SDs have 38% loose food waste compared with 32% at MUDs). Figure 10 Detail of general waste generation by housing type Note: quantities less than 0.1kg/hhld are not labelled. Page 34

36 4.5.2 Consolidated general waste composition Figure 11 shows the composition of the general waste stream from all audited dwellings, consolidated into some key categories. The largest proportion of the stream is loose (uncontainerised) food waste, at 36%, followed by other organic material (23%), such as nappies, textiles and contaminated paper (please refer to Figure 13 for more detail). Of the general waste stream, 17% is material that could be recovered through existing paper, container, co-mingled and organics recycling systems. These materials are recyclable containers (6.5% - these do not include containerised food/liquid), recyclable paper (5%) and garden organics (5.6%). This represents a decrease on the 19% recyclables in the general waste recorded in 2011, mainly due to a decrease in the proportion of recyclable paper in the general waste (from 6.2% in 2011 to 4.9% in 2015). More detail about recyclables in the general waste is contained in Table 10. E-waste and metals both represent 1% of general waste, the same as in Twenty-one per cent (21%) is residual material that would not be recoverable through recycling or organics processing. Hazardous waste is low, at 0.3%. Figure 11 Consolidated general waste composition Page 35

37 Figure 12 shows the general waste generation and composition for each council. The proportions of each material category are reasonably consistent across councils, with the exception of Council 12, which has a large proportion of garden organics because there is no separate garden organics collection (organics are recovered from general waste at the receiving waste-processing facility). Details of the generation of each category are shown in Table 9. Figure 12 General waste generation and composition by council Table 9 shows the weight of each category of general waste per household per week for each council. Detail of general waste composition, including all 75 audited material categories, is contained at Appendix E. Table 9 General waste composition for each council Recyclable paper / cardboard Recyclable containers Garden organics Food Other material Total general waste Council kg/hhld/week kg/hhld/week kg/hhld/week kg/hhld/week kg/hhld/week kg/hhld/week Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council SSROC average Page 36

38 Table 10 shows the percentage of recyclable materials in the general waste for each council. Council Table 10 Recyclables in the general waste at each council Recyclable paper and cardboard Recyclable containers 2 (plastic, steel, aluminium, glass) Garden organics Total recyclables Council % 4.9% 34.0% 43.0% Council 6 7.7% 12.4% 4.6% 24.6% Council 3 7.3% 5.7% 9.2% 22.1% Council % 7.8% 1.0% 17.2% Council 4 4.6% 7.3% 4.2% 16.1% Council 1 4.5% 6.4% 5.2% 16.1% Council14 5.3% 8.6% 1.0% 15.0% Council % 7.4% 1.3% 13.8% Council 8 4.5% 7.4% 1.6% 13.5% Council % 6.3% 1.1% 11.6% Council 2 3.9% 5.1% 2.5% 11.4% Council % 5.8% 1.8% 11.3% Council 5 4.1% 5.6% 1.4% 11.1% Council 9 4.5% 5.3% 0.9% 10.8% Council 7 3.6% 5.4% 1.6% 10.6% SSROC average 4.9% 6.5% 5.6% 17.1% 1 General waste from Council 12 is processed at UR3R alternative waste treatment facility to recover recyclables and garden organics. 2 Recyclable containers do not include containerised food and liquid Detailed general waste composition Figure 13 shows the detailed composition of the general waste stream from all dwellings audited. After uncontainerised food (36%), the largest categories are contaminated paper (7% of general waste), nappies (7%), plastic film (7%), vegetation (6%) and containerised food and liquid (5%). The main recyclable items placed in the general waste bin are cardboard (2%) and glass drink containers (2%). Other recyclables in the general waste include smaller amounts of steel packaging, other (nonbeverage) glass packaging, magazines, office paper and newspaper. Page 37

39 Figure 13 Detailed general waste composition Table 11 shows the generation per household per week, and overall percentage, of each material category in the general waste. Data for individual councils is provided at Appendix E. Table 11 Detailed general waste composition: SSROC region Amount General waste category including plastics identification number where relevant (kg/hhld/wk) Page 38 Per cent Food kitchen organics vegetable % Contaminated paper % Nappies % Plastic film % Municipal garden organics % Containerised food and liquid % Textile carpet % Other putrescible % Other plastic (7) % Food kitchen organics meat % Building materials % Flat cardboard % Glass drink containers % Plastic bags % Ceramics/dust/dirt/rock inert % Electrical items and peripherals % Wood/timber % PP packaging (5) %

40 General waste category including plastics identification number where relevant Amount (kg/hhld/wk) Per cent Steel packaging % Composite (mostly plastic) % Magazines % Office paper % Other packaging glass % Corrugated cardboard % Composite (mostly paper) % Newspaper % Steel other % HDPE packaging (2) % PET drink containers (1) % PET packaging (1) % Aluminium other % Disposable paper product % Other glass % Other % Composite (mostly ferrous) % Liquid paperboard % Aluminium packaging % Aluminium drink cans % EPS packaging (6) % HDPE drink containers (2) % PS packaging (6) % Rubber % PS and EPS other (6) % Household chemicals % Composite (mostly non-ferrous) % Computer equipment % PP Other (5) % Paint % Non-rechargeable batteries % Leather % Clinical (medical) % Vehicle batteries % LDPE packaging (4) % Oils % Fluorescent tubes % Other non-ferrous (specify) % Gas bottles % Mobile phones % Total % Page 39

41 4.6 The recycling stream Recycling generation Thirteen councils have a co-mingled recycling system, and two councils have separate paper/cardboard and container bins. Figure 14 shows that the average SSROC household produces 4.5kg per week of recycling. SDs produce twice as much recycling per household per week as MUDs. Single dwellings Figure 14 Co-mingled recycling generation Multi-unit dwellings Overall Generate 5.8kg per week per household Down from 6.5kg in 2011 Generate 2.9kg per week per household Down from 3.2kg in 2011 Generate 4.5kg per week per household Down from 5.3kg in 2011 Figure 15 shows the amount of each category produced by the different housing types. SD households produce more of each category per week than MUDs. Figure 15 Co-mingled recycling generation and composition by housing type Note: quantities less than 0.1kg/hhld are not labelled. Figure 16 shows the generation and composition of recycling by individual council. Page 40

42 Figure 16 Recycling generation and composition, by council Composition of recycling Figure 17 shows the composition of the recycling stream. The main components are recyclable paper (43%) and recyclable containers (41%). Contaminants in the recycling make up 16%, which is up from 13% in Loose contamination is 13%, also up from 12% in Bagged material is 3%, which has increased from 1% in If the bagged material is dispersed into categories (i.e. recyclable material in the bags is not counted as contamination), contamination is 14%, up from 11% in More detail about contamination is in Section Figure 17 Composition of recycling The composition of recycling for each council is shown in Table 12 below. Page 41

43 Table 12 Recycling composition, by council (bagged material dispersed) (kg) Recyclable paper/cardboard Recyclable containers Other material Total recycling Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council SSROC average Figure 18 below shows more detail about the co-mingled recycling composition. The main materials in the co-mingled recycling are glass drink containers (30%), magazines (12%), corrugated cardboard (11%) and newspaper (11%). Recyclable plastics make up 6% of the recycling (64% of this is HDPE and PET drink containers) and steel makes up 2%. Figure 18 Detailed composition of co-mingled recycling Table 13 shows detailed recycling composition for the SSROC region. Details of the recycling composition for each council are contained at Appendix E. Page 42

44 Table 13 Detailed recycling composition, SSROC region Material category Amount (kg/hhld/wk) Per cent Glass drink containers % Magazines % Corrugated cardboard % Newspaper % Flat cardboard % Office paper % Other packaging glass % PET drink containers (1) % Contaminated paper % Composite (mostly paper) % Steel packaging % HDPE drink containers (2) % Other plastic (7) % HDPE packaging (2) % Containerised food and liquid % Textile/carpet % PP packaging (5) % Plastic film % PET packaging (1) % Food kitchen organics vegetable % Liquid paperboard % Aluminium drink cans % Electrical items and peripherals % Steel other % Ceramics/dust/dirt/rock/inert % Disposable paper product % Composite (mostly plastic) % Wood/timber % Building materials % Paper packaging % Other glass % Composite (mostly ferrous) % Municipal garden organics % Nappies % Plastic bags % PP other (5) % Other putrescible % EPS packaging (6) % Other % Household chemicals % Computer equipment % LDPE packaging (4) % Composite (mostly non-ferrous) % PS and EPS other (6) % PS packaging (6) % Aluminium packaging % Aluminium other % Rubber % PVC drink containers (3) % Food kitchen organics meat % Page 43

45 Material category Amount (kg/hhld/wk) Per cent Other non-ferrous % Leather % PVC other (3) % Toner cartridges % Total % Recycling contamination Figure 19 shows the contamination levels in the recycling stream. When all bagged material is included as contamination, the overall SSROC contamination level is 16%, up from 13% in This is higher than the 5% contamination benchmark in the NSW EPA Preferred resource recovery practices by local councils, published in Figure 19 Contamination in the recycling Total contamination Contaminants in the recycling, including all bagged material, make up 16%. This is up from 13% in Loose and bagged contamination Loose contamination is 13%, up from 12% in Bagged material is 3%, up from 1% in If bagged recyclables are not counted as contamination If the bagged material is dispersed into categories (i.e. recyclable material in the bags is not counted as contamination), then contamination is 14%, up from 11% in 2011 Table 14 shows the materials that are contaminating the recycling stream, including the contaminants in bagged material. The main contaminants are contaminated paper and composites (these are usually magazines or brochures wrapped in plastic). The next main contaminants are non-recyclable plastics, containerised food and liquid, and textile/carpet. Page 44

46 Table 14 Detail of contaminants in the co-mingled recycling (bagged material dispersed) Material category and plastics identification code where relevant Amount (kg/hhld/wk) % of total contamination % of the total recycling stream Contaminated paper % 1.8% Composite (mostly paper) these are usually magazines or brochures wrapped in plastic % 1.8% Non-recyclable plastics % 1.3% Containerised food and liquid % 1.2% Textile/carpet % 1.1% Plastic film % 0.8% Loose food % 0.8% Electrical items and peripherals % 0.6% Non-recyclable steel % 0.5% Ceramics/dust/dirt/rock/inert % 0.5% Disposable paper products % 0.4% Composite (mostly plastic) % 0.4% Wood/timber % 0.4% Building materials % 0.3% Other glass % 0.3% Composite (mostly ferrous) % 0.2% Other material % 0.2% Municipal garden organics % 0.2% Nappies disposable % 0.1% Plastic bags % 0.1% PP other (5) % 0.1% Other putrescible % 0.1% EPS packaging (6) % 0.1% Household chemicals % 0.1% Computer equipment % 0.1% Composite (mostly non-ferrous) % 0.0% PS and EPS other (6) % 0.0% Aluminium other % 0.0% Rubber % 0.0% Total % 13.6% Figure 20 shows recycling contamination rates for each council. Page 45

47 Figure 20 Recycling contamination by council Figure 21 shows that contamination rates are similar at both housing types. Bagged material is a significant contaminant at both household types. Figure 21 Bagged and unbagged recycling contamination levels by housing type Single dwellings Multi-unit dwellings Overall Loose contamination is 13% If all bagged material is counted as contamination, contamination is 16% Loose contamination is 13% If all bagged material is counted as contamination, contamination is 17% Loose contamination is 13% If all bagged material is counted as contamination, contamination is 16% If we measure contamination in kilograms per household per week, the total contamination (loose contamination and all bagged material) has increased from 0.68kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 0.74kg/hhld/week in This increase is due to increased bagged material rather than increased loose contamination. If the bagged material is dispersed into its components, the increase is much smaller (0.59kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 0.61kg/hhld/week in 2015). This is because much of the bagged material is recyclable. However, in reality, if this material is presented in bags, it will not be recycled at the receiving facility. This increase in bagged material, as well as the overall decrease in recycling generation, has resulted in the increased percentage of contamination in the recycling between 2011 and Page 46

48 4.7 The organics stream Organics generation Figure 22 shows that the average SSROC household produces 3.7kg per week of organics recycling. Almost all of this is from SDs. If organics is averaged excluding Council 12 households, which have no organics service, the average per household is 4.1kg per week. Single dwellings Generate 5.6kg per week per household Up from 3.7kg in 2011 Figure 22 Organics generation Multi-unit dwellings Generate 0.8kg per week per household Up from 0.4kg in 2011 All dwellings combined Generate 3.7kg per week percouncil 12shousehold per week, B households are excluded) Up from 2.5kg in 2011 Between the 2011 and 2015 audits, garden organics services have been introduced at Council 6 SDs, and Council 7 and Council 11 have implemented garden organics bins at MUDs. The generation of garden organics recycling at MUDs has increased from 0.4kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 0.8kg/hhld/week in This has mainly been driven by the new MUD organics services introduced by Councils 7 and 11, as well as the inclusion of Council 3 volumes which weren t audited previously, and a large increase in volumes at Council 13. Figure 23 shows the amount of each category produced by each housing type. Figure 23 Detail of organics generation by housing type Note: includes food waste in organics bins in Council 15. Average per household includes Council 12, where there is no organics service. Page 47

49 Figure 24 shows the generation and composition of organics recycling per council. Figure 24 Organics generation and composition, by council Composition of organics Figure 25 shows the composition of the organics recycling stream. Vegetation makes up 98%. Contamination in the organics recycling is 2%. This is higher than the 1% organics contamination benchmark in the NSW EPA Preferred resource recovery practices by local councils, however this result is an improvement on the 3% contamination recorded in The main contaminant is wood/timber, followed by ceramics/dirt/dust, containerised food and liquid, food scraps and plastic film. Figure 25 Composition of organics Page 48

50 A detailed breakdown of the organics stream composition is shown in Table 15. Results for each council are contained at Appendix E. Table 15 Detailed organics composition, SSROC region Material category Amount (kg/hhld/wk) Per cent Municipal garden organics % Wood/timber % Ceramics/dust /dirt /rock /inert % Containerised food and liquid % Food kitchen organics vegetable % Plastic film % Other plastic (7) % Other (specify) % Corrugated cardboard % Building materials % Textile carpet % Newspaper % Contaminated paper % Other putrescible % Flat cardboard % Other packaging glass % Steel other % Plastic bags % Magazines % Paper packaging % Average SSROC (excluding Council 12) % Contamination rates in the organics stream per council are shown in Figure 26, as a percentage of total organics. If measured by the weight of contamination generated per household per week, Council 2, Council 7, Council 5 and Council 4 have the highest generation of organics contamination. Figure 26 Contamination in the organics stream, by council Page 49

51 Electrical items Dry-cell batteries Fluorescent tubes Toner cartridges Computer equipment Mobile phones Vehicle batteries Gas bottles Other Total 4.8 Household hazardous materials Table 16 identifies the quantity of particular hazardous items found during the audit. In total, 1,661 items were found. This averages almost half an item per household per week, down from 1.9 items per household per week in A total of 652 batteries were found, of which 651 were dry-cell batteries. The most common hazardous items found were electrical items/peripherals and dry-cell batteries. Smaller numbers of fluorescent tubes, toner cartridges, computer equipment, mobile phones, gas bottles and vehicle batteries were also found. Table 16 Hazardous items Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council SSROC total ,661 Table 17 shows the average number of each item per council, in both 2011 and The number of dry cell batteries has decreased significantly, perhaps as a result of greater education and options for their recycling. All other items have decreased in 2015 when compared with 2011, with the exception of electrical items which have increased. As the 2015 audit was an aggregated collection audit (rather than bin by bin), it is not possible to determine what percentage of households put hazardous items in their bins, or if there were any particular problem households contributing a large number of hazardous items. Page 50

52 Electrical items Dry-cell batteries Fluorescent tubes Toner cartridges Computer equipment Mobile phones Vehicle batteries Gas bottles Other Total Table 17 Hazardous items: 2011 vs 2015 Council Average per council Opportunity exists for SSROC to lobby on a regional basis for more extended producer responsibility schemes for hazardous materials, user-friendly locations for drop-off centres established through such schemes, and future landfill bans of hazardous materials. Reducing the toxicity of the general waste stream will allow better quality end products to be produced when general waste is processed at alternative waste treatment facilities. 4.9 Stringy items It is a requirement of the audit to report stringy items in the general waste and recycling stream. These items can interfere with waste-processing machinery and have been included in the audit to assist in waste-processing technology planning. These stringy items include: rope string hose cables and leads carpet textiles cords strips of plastic film, e.g. bubble wrap electrical wiring Figure 27 shows the amount of stringy items found in SSROC s general waste and recycling (paper/cardboard and container bins, or co-mingled recycling bins). These materials have been classified in the general sorting in the first instance (e.g. paper, plastic, etc.) and so are included in the general waste or recycling overall composition graphs in previous sections. Once the initial sort was done, stringy items were separated for weighing. The weight and percentage of stringy items in this report do not impact on other category percentages in earlier graphs. Figure 27 Stringy items in the general waste Weight of stringy items in the general waste Each household generates 70g per week of stringy items Stringy items represent 0.7% of general waste by weight Volume of stringy items in the general waste Each household generates 1.2 litres of stringy items per week Page 51

53 Figure 28 Stringy items in the recycling Weight of stringy items in the recycling Each household generates 40g per week of stringy items Stringy items represent 0.9% of co-mingled recycling by weight Volume of stringy items in the recycling Each household generates 0.7 litres of stringy items per week Stringy items in the waste and recycling for each council are shown in Table 18. % stringy by weight Table 18 Stringy items in the waste and recycling General waste kg/hhld/week litres/hhld/ week % stringy by weight Recycling kg/hhld/week litres/hhld/ week Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % Council % % SSROC 0.70% % Image 4 Stringy items in the waste and recycling Page 52

54 4.10 Recovery rates Recovery rates can by calculated by specific material, as well as overall, and are useful for determining materials that should be the focus of education initiatives. Recovery rates are calculated as follows: Recovery rate = Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + organics in the organics bin X 100 (Weight of recyclables in recycling bins + weight of organics in organics bin + weight of recyclables & organics in general waste bin) Recovery rates are assessed as follows: Over 90% Good performance Recovery of the material is being maximised 60 90% OK performance, but room for improvement Less than 60% Low recovery These materials should be the focus of education efforts Figure 29 shows the recovery rates for each dwelling type and all dwellings combined. The overall SSROC recovery rate is 83%, up from 79% in SDs achieve 86% and MUDs 69%. The overall recovery rate for dry recyclables (i.e. excluding garden organics) is 74%. This almost meets the 75% recovery rate benchmark for dry recyclables in the NSW EPA Preferred resource recovery practices by local councils, published in Garden organics are well recovered by both housing types. Glass and paper are well recovered by SDs. SDs outperform MUDs in all materials. Both housing types recover less than half of all steel, aluminium and other (non-pet/hdpe) plastics. Steel and other plastics both make up 1% of general waste so may be worth targeting in education campaigns. Recyclable aluminium makes up only 0.4% of general waste. Liquid paperboard recovery rates are also low; liquid paperboard makes up only 0.3% of general waste, however, and so, like aluminium, may not be worth focussing on in education campaigns. Page 53

55 Figure 29 Recovery rates Note: calculations exclude garden organics in Council 12. Figure 30 shows the recovery rate for all dwellings for each council. Figure 30 Recovery rate for each council Page 54

56 4.11 Landfill diversion current and potential The diversion rates are helpful for understanding the total amount of waste diverted from landfill. This is calculated as follows: Weight of recyclables in the recycling bins + vegetation Diversion rate in the organics bin minus contaminants (proportion of waste diverted from landfill) = (Weight of the contents of the general waste bins + weight of the contents of the recycling bins + weight of contents of the organics bins) x 100 The diversion rate may be slightly different to that calculated by individual councils using the overall general waste, recycling and organics tonnages generated during the year. This is because the audit is conducted as a snapshot of that particular time period and does not factor in seasonal fluctuations or other annual trends. The analysis provides an indication of the additional diversion potential through either modified collection or processing systems or by increasing education. It should be noted, however, that maximum diversion rates are based on 100% participation rates, 100% correct presentation of materials and 100% recovery of the materials at the processing facilities. Therefore, these are maximum theoretical diversion rates. Councils may realistically aim to achieve 60% of the additional potential diversion for any of the targeted streams. Current diversion from landfill from SSROC s kerbside recycling and organics collections is 41%, as shown in Figure 31. This is the same as in SDs perform better than MUD, largely due to the garden organics recycled by SDs. Council 12 currently sends mixed general waste and garden organics to the UR3R alternative waste treatment facility for processing. When this is added to the diversion (assuming 65% diversion achieved at the UR3R facility), then the overall SSROC diversion rate increases to 44%. Council 6 sends all their general waste to the SUEZ SAWT alternative waste treatment facility for processing. Using the assumption that 60% of all general waste is recovered at this facility, this increases the overall SSROC diversion rate to 46%. Single dwellings Figure 31 Landfill diversion rates 2015 Multi-unit dwellings Average all dwellings Current landfill diversion from kerbside recycling and organics bins is 44% If the diversion from AWT processing of Council 12 general waste and organics and Council 6 general waste is added, diversion is 50% Current landfill diversion from kerbside recycling and organics bins is 28% If the diversion from AWT processing of Council 12 general waste and organics and Council 6 general waste is added, diversion is 33% Current landfill diversion from kerbside recycling and organics bins is 41% If the diversion from AWT processing of Council 12 general waste and organics and Council 6 general waste is added, diversion is 46% Page 55

57 Overall landfill diversion would increase from 46% to 52% if all recyclables were placed in the correct bin, and to 54% if all garden organics was diverted. Diverting 60% of remaining food waste as well (which is more realistic than diverting 100% of food waste) would raise landfill diversion to 65%. This can be achieved through combined food and garden waste collection systems. In addition to this, diverting 60% of other organics (e.g. at an alternative waste technology facility) would raise diversion to a potential maximum of 73%, which is in line with global best practice and would achieve the NSW state diversion target of 70% municipal waste recovery by 2021 (NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy ). Figure 32 shows the current and potential diversion at each housing type (including AWT diversion of Council 12 s general waste and garden organics, and Council 6 s general waste). Figure 32 Potential landfill diversion The detailed diversion rates shown in Table 19 show the potential for additional landfill diversion by focussing on recovery of particular waste streams at each council. Current diversion rate Table 19 Detailed diversion potential Additional diversion if all recyclables recovered Additional diversion if all garden organics recovered Additional diversion if 60% of all food recovered Additional diversion if 60% of all other organics recovered Page 56 Total potential diversion rate Council Council % 6.8% 2.9% 12.3% 8.7% 71.3% Council % 5.5% 1.3% 13.1% 7.7% 71.7% Council % 9.1% 6.0% 12.3% 9.5% 69.4% Council % 7.2% 2.2% 13.0% 7.1% 72.2% Council % 6.4% 0.8% 14.2% 9.9% 68.2% Council % 5.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 77.4%

58 Current diversion rate Additional diversion if all recyclables recovered Additional diversion if all garden organics recovered Additional diversion if 60% of all food recovered Additional diversion if 60% of all other organics recovered Total potential diversion rate Council Council % 5.5% 0.8% 13.0% 8.7% 71.1% Council % 6.5% 0.8% 11.8% 7.6% 73.7% Council % 6.6% 0.6% 13.5% 11.4% 68.4% Council % 6.0% 1.1% 13.0% 10.6% 68.9% Council % 7.3% 0.7% 12.0% 7.9% 71.3% Council % 7.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.0% Council % 3.7% 0.4% 7.1% 6.1% 79.5% Council % 10.1% 0.7% 13.5% 10.4% 65.4% Council % 8.5% 0.5% 10.4% 8.1% 74.2% SSROC average 45.7% 6.7% 1.4% 11.0% 8.2% 73.0% Eight SSROC Councils have contracted Veolia Environmental Services to process their general waste, utilising the proposed Woodlawn Alternative Sorting and Processing facility, which will be operational from July Sending waste to this facility should enable the recovery of food waste and other organics from general waste, so that SSROC can raise diversion levels towards the NSW target of 70% municipal waste recovery by 2021 (NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy ) Bin capacity utilised The audit measured the fullness of the bins at each housing type for each waste stream. Results are summarised in Figure 33 below. Figure 33 Summary of bin utilisation Single dwellings General waste bin median fullness is 90%. Co-mingled recycling bin median fullness is 90%. Organics bin median fullness is 75%. Multi-unit dwellings General waste bin median fullness is 90%. Co-mingled recycling bin median fullness is 90%. Organics bin median fullness is 80%. The figures below show detail of bin utilisation at each housing type for each bin type. Page 57

59 Figure 34 Median general waste bin utilisation by council Figure 35 Median recycling bin utilisation by council Page 58

60 Figure 36 Median organics bin utilisation by council Note: Council 3 used various crates/bundles for organics instead of bins at the time of the audit, so no volume was recorded. Council 6 did not have a MUD organics service at the time of the audit. Council 12 does not have a separate garden organics bin (garden organics go in with the general waste to be processed at the UR3R facility). Image 5 Median fullness of recycling bins at MUDs is 90% Page 59

61 4.13 Calorific value of the general waste stream To assist in assessing the potential for future energy-from-waste solutions for domestic waste, calorific values (CV) were calculated for eligible materials as per the Office of Renewable Energy Regulator Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in Waste for Electricity Generation, 2001 (ORER Guideline). Eligible materials listed in the Guideline are the following: Kitchen organics: vegetable Kitchen organics: meat Municpal garden organics Composite paper Mixed paper Liquid paperboard * Wood Disposable nappies* Cardboard Magazines Newspaper * renewable component only The ORER categories represent existing NSW EPA categories as per the NSW Guidelines Addendum 2010 with the exception of the two organics categories that have been divided from the NSW EPA category food into kitchen organics vegetable and kitchen organics meat. The category municipal garden organics has been re-named from the NSW EPA category vegetation. Moisture content affects calorific value. When the moisture content of waste is high, it takes more energy to dry it out before it combusts to create energy. The wetter the waste, therefore, the lower the raw calorific value. Hydrogen has a very high calorific value, so the hydrogen content of a waste type also influences its calorific value. The ORER Guideline provides a formula 6 for determining the CV of individual material categories as follows: CVraw = ((1-w) x (CVupper (2441* x 9) x H)) 2441 x w Where: CV = calorific value ( raw is real as delivered value, upper is value for dried material) in kj/kg w = % moisture content (by weight) H = % hydrogen content (from literature values) * vaporisation enthalpy of water (2441 kj/kg at 250 C) 6 Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in waste for electricity Generation 4.1 Calorific Values of Components, p. 6. Page 60

62 Image 6 provides a photographic record of the moisture-testing process. Image 6 Moisture-testing process Foil trays for drying samples Material placed for drying Samples in oven set at 105 C Moisture-testing data-recording sheet The data-recording sheets were submitted to APC for calculation of the calorific value (CV) at the completion of the sorting period. Values recorded were entered into an Excel spreadsheet using the values and formulae as per the ORER Guideline. The values are presented two ways: Raw Dry 'as received' includes moisture content that is present when the material is collected from the kerb this is the 'upper' value assumes the moisture has been removed from the material following processing in the oven Table 20 provides the average raw and dry calorific values for all dwelling types per general waste kilograms and per household per week. Page 61

63 Table 20 Average calorific values Calorific value per kg of general waste (MJ) Calorific value per household per week (MJ) All dwellings All dwellings Raw 3 33 Dry The calorific value of the total general waste generated by all households in SSROC each year is estimated at a maximum of 3,257 Terajoules per year (this is the upper, or dry, value). Theoretically, this is enough energy to supply electricity to more than 105,000 households for one year 7. Table 28 at Appendix F provides the CV detail by material category. The main contributors to calorific value in SSROC s general waste are kitchen vegetable scraps, disposable nappies and paper. Calorific values of the general waste for each council are shown below in Table 21. The calorific value per kilogram of general waste does not vary significantly between councils. The calorific value per household per week varies between Councils as a function of the amount of general waste generated per household per week. Table 21 Calorific value of general waste for each council Calorific value per kg of general waste Calorific value per kg of general waste Calorific value per household per week Calorific value per household per week (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) raw dry raw dry Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council SSROC average Page 62

64 4.14 Beverage containers in the kerbside bins This section shows the results of the beverage container audit for kerbside residual waste and recycling bins. Results in this section are not by weight. They are by number or count of beverage containers. This section shows the combined results for the nine SSROC councils whose kerbside bins underwent this additional beverage container audit. Figure 37 shows that the average SSROC household generates 13 beverage containers per week. Figure 37 Generation of beverage containers Single dwellings Multi-unit dwellings All dwellings average Generate 16 beverage containers per week per household (3 containers in the garbage stream and 12 in the recycling stream, difference due to rounding) Generate 7 beverage containers per week per household (2 containers in the garbage stream and 5 in the recycling stream) Generate 13 beverage containers per week per household (3 containers in the garbage stream and 10 in the recycling). Figure 38 shows that glass, PET and aluminium are the most common container types. The glass containers are mostly beer bottles, and the PET containers are mostly non-carbonated water bottles and carbonated water/soft drink bottles. Aluminium containers are mainly carbonated water/soft drink cans. Page 63

65 Figure 38 Beverage containers by material and product type Figure 39 shows that almost half (48%) of beverage containers are in the size range of 151 to 500ml (mainly glass and aluminium). The second most common beverage container size is 501ml to 1 litre (mainly glass and PET) at 29%. These size ranges are similar to that found in litter bins. Figure 39 Beverage containers by size and material Page 64

66 HISTORICAL COMPARISON AND TRENDS Data in this section has been compared with previous audit results where relevant data was available. Thirteen councils were audited in 2011 and fifteen councils in Slightly different methodologies and categories have been used in each audit that may account for some of the differences in the results. 5.1 Historical waste generation comparison Figure 40 shows the weight of general waste, recycling and organics generated per household per week for all dwelling types. Figure 40 Weekly weight of waste stream by household previous audits The overall amount of waste and recycling produced by SSROC households has fluctuated over time. In 2015, the overall waste and recycling generation has increased by 4% when compared to 2011, mainly due to increased garden organics. General waste generation has shown an overall upward trend over time. General waste generation in 2015 is the highest on record and has increased by 3% compared with Figure 41 below shows that, since 2008, the increase in general waste generation has been more consistent at MUDs than at SDs. This may be due to more families living in MUDs than in previous years. The councils with the largest increases in general waste generation at MUDs (Council 9 and Council 3) also showed the largest increases in nappies in the general waste, suggesting that more families are moving into MUDs in these areas, affecting general waste generation levels. Page 65

67 Figure 41 General waste generation by housing type 2005 to 2015 Recycling generation has fluctuated over time. It is 15% lower in 2015 than in 2008 and The amount of recyclable containers generated per household per week has remained static since The amount of cardboard has increased slightly over time, and the amount of recyclable paper has decreased each year since The reduction in recyclables generation in 2015 compared with 2011 is largely due to a 0.93kg/hhld/week reduction in the amount of paper recycled per household per week. Organics generation fluctuates with seasonal conditions. Organics generation in 2015 is 48% higher than 2011, probably due to the 2011 audit being undertaken in autumn/winter and the 2015 audit in spring/summer. 5.2 Historical general waste composition comparison Figure 42 shows the consolidated composition of the general waste stream by weight in 2015 compared with previous audits. Page 66

68 Figure 42 Consolidated composition of general waste previous audits The amount and proportion of loose food waste in the general waste has reduced over time. SSROC households reduced their loose food waste generation by an average of 1.3kg per household per week in 2015 compared with However, there has been an increase in the generation of containerised food and liquid since this category was first audited in Containerised food and liquid generation increased from 3.7kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 5.1kg/hhld/week in The overall amount of recyclable material in the general waste has reduced over time and is now the lowest on record, as shown in Figure 43. Since 2008, the reduction has been mainly due to less recyclable paper in the general waste. Figure 43 Recyclables in the general waste over time Page 67

69 The proportion of garden organics in the general waste has generally declined over time, as councils have introduced separate organics collections. As loose food waste, garden organics and recyclables reduce over time, there is a greater proportion of other material in the general waste. This other material consists mainly of contaminated paper, nappies, plastic film and containerised food and liquid. The materials within this category that have increased the most significantly are plastic film and textiles, as shown in Figure 44. Plastic film generation increased from 0.37kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 0.65kg/hhld/week in Figure 44 Plastic film and textiles in the general waste The amount of bagged material in the general waste rose from 67% in 2011 to 85% in Every council audited recorded an increase in bagged material in the general waste. 5.3 Historical recycling composition comparison Figure 45 shows the consolidated composition of the recycling stream in 2015 compared with previous audits. The amount of contamination has been increasing over time and is now the highest on record. For consistency with previous years, this graph shows contamination levels if the recyclable material presented in bags is not counted as contamination. Bagged material in the recycling has increased from 1% in 2011 to 3% in Page 68

70 Figure 45 Consolidated composition of recycling previous audits The proportion of paper/cardboard in the recycling in 2015 is lower than ever, and this is due to a reduction in paper rather than in cardboard. The large decrease in the generation of paper (newspaper, magazines and office paper), as shown in Figure 46, is possibly due to residents moving towards on-line news and bills rather than paper versions. Figure 46 Paper generation over time Page 69

71 5.4 Historical recovery rate comparison Figure 47 shows the recovery rates from all dwellings in previous audits. The overall 2015 recovery rate is higher than 2011 but slightly lower than The recovery of garden organics in 2015 is very high, at 94%. This is partly due to a large increase in recovery at MUDs. All but three councils increased the recovery rate of garden organics at MUDs in 2015, compared to The overall improvement in recovery rate for garden organics at MUDs (from 59% in 2011 to 83% in 2015) was primarily driven by the new services at Councils 7 and 11, as well as the inclusion of Council 3 s crate/bundle volumes in the calculations, and a large increase in recovery rates at Council 1. Recovery of glass, paper and cardboard is the next highest, with recovery levels reasonably consistent over time. Recovery of aluminium, steel and liquid paperboard has remained below 55% in all audits. Steel makes up 1% of general waste so may be worth targeting in education campaigns. Aluminium and liquid paperboard both make up less than 0.5% of general waste, so these may not be worth focussing on in education campaigns. Figure 47 Recovery rates all dwellings previous audits 5.5 Historical diversion rate comparison The overall diversion rate in 2015, shown in Figure 48, is higher than all previous years except The recovery rate is strongly influenced by the amount of garden organics available for recovery, which was particularly large in 2008 leading to a strong recovery rate in that year. In 2015, garden organics generation was higher than 2011, and Council 12 and Council 6 processed waste at AWT facilities. These two factors lifted diversion rates from 41% in 2011 to 46% in Page 70

72 Figure 48 Diversion rates all dwellings previous audits Figure 49 shows the actual diversion rate for single dwellings in 2015 and for previous audits, as well as potential diversion rates if certain other materials were recovered. The landfill diversion for SDs in 2015 is higher than Figure 49 Diversion rates SDs previous audits Figure 50 shows the actual diversion rate for multi-unit dwellings in 2015 and for previous audits, as well as potential diversion rates if certain other materials were recovered. The diversion rate in 2015 is the highest on record, due to greater AWT processing and greater recycling of garden organics. Page 71

73 Figure 50 Diversion rates MUDs previous audits 5.6 Historical bin volume comparison Figure 51 shows the median bin utilisation for 2015 compared with previous years. SDs use of their general waste and recycling bins has increased since 2011, and the use of the organics bins is lower, despite an increase in the generation of organics since the previous audit. MUDs used more of all their bins in 2015 compared with 2011, despite a reduction in recyclables generation. The most marked increase at MUDs was in the use of the garden organics bin. The increased generation of organics at MUDs since 2011 has led to an increase in the average MUD organics bin fullness (from 37% in 2011 to 80% in 2015). All but two councils increased organics bin fullness, when compared with Figure 51 Median volume of bins used previous audits Page 72

74 KEY FINDINGS 6.1 Bin presentation rates Overall, 87% of households present a general waste bin for collection (SDs: 80%, MUDs: 100%). 84% of households present a co-mingled recycling bin (SDs: 77%, MUD: 100%). 54% of households present an organics bin for collection (SDs: 51%, MUDs 64%). The bin presentation rate for all bin types has increased since the last regional audit in 2011, particularly for organics bins at MUDs, due to increased generation. All but one Council increased MUD organics bin presentation rates, when compared with Total waste and recycling The average SSROC household generates a total of 18kg of waste, recycling and organics per week, which totals an estimated 513,500 tonnes per year across the region. The average single dwelling produces more than double the average multi-unit dwelling: 23kg per week for SDs and 11kg per week for MUDs. The overall amount of waste and recycling produced by SSROC households has fluctuated over time. In 2015, the overall waste and recycling generation has increased by 4% when compared to 2011, mainly due to increased garden organics. 6.3 General waste generation The average SSROC household produces 10kg of general waste per household per week, up from 9.7kg in SDs produce more per week (12kg) than MUDs (7kg). General waste generation has shown an overall upward trend over time. General waste generation in 2015 is the highest on record and has increased by 3% when compared with The increase over time has been most consistent at MUDs, potentially due to more families moving into MUD blocks. Extrapolating to the total number of households in the region, it is estimated that SSROC residents generate a total of 268,900 tonnes of general waste per year. 6.4 Composition of the general waste stream The largest proportion of the stream is loose (uncontainerised) food waste, at 36%, followed by other organic material at 23% (such as nappies, textiles, contaminated paper). Page 73

75 Materials that could be recovered through the existing recycling and garden organics services are 17%, down from 19% in The decrease is mainly due to a reduction in recyclable paper in the general waste. Paper and cardboard makes up 5%, containers 6% and garden waste 6%. Both SDs and MUDs have 17% recyclables in the general waste bin. E-waste and metals both represent 1% of general waste, the same as in Vegetation is 6%, down slightly from The amount of loose food waste in the general waste has reduced over time from a high of 43% in 2005 to 36% in While SSROC households produced over a kilogram less loose food waste per week in 2015 compared with 2011, there was a commensurate increase in the amount of containerised food/liquid generated. SDs produce almost twice as much food waste per household per week when compared with MUDs. The amount and proportion of plastic film and textiles in the general waste have increased over time. 84% of general waste is presented in bags (up from 67% in 2011). Every council recorded an increase in the proportion of general waste that is presented in bags. Stringy items that can interfere with waste-processing machinery make up 0.7% of the general waste by weight. 6.5 General waste bin usage Median usage of the general waste bins is 90% at both SDs and MUDs. The usage of the general waste bin has increased at both housing types since Recycling generation The average SSROC household produces 4.5kg of recycling per week, down from 5.3kg in SDs produce twice as much as MUDs (5.8kg per week for SDs, 2.9kg per week for MUDs). Recycling generation has fluctuated over time. Recycling generation is 15% lower in 2015 than in 2008 and 2011, mainly due to a reduction in the amount of paper recycled. Extrapolating to the total number of households in the region, it is estimated that SSROC residents generate a total of 126,200 tonnes of recycling per year. 6.7 Composition of the recycling stream The largest proportion of the stream is glass drink containers, at 30%, followed by magazines (12%), corrugated cardboard (11%) and newspaper (11%). Page 74

76 Contamination in the recycling stream is 16%, up from 13% in Contamination levels have risen over time. Between 2011 and 2015, the increase in the proportion of contamination is due to an increase in bagged material in the recycling, as well as a reduction in overall recycling generation. The main contaminants are bagged material (3% of recycling), contaminated paper, and composites (these are usually brochures and magazines wrapped in plastic). Contamination levels are similar at SDs and MUDs. Stringy items that can interfere with recyclables processing make up 0.9% of the co-mingled recycling by weight. 6.8 Co-mingled recycling bin capacity The median usage of recycling bins is 90% at both SDs and MUDs. Compared with 2011, the proportion of the recycling bin used has increased at both SDs and MUDs, despite a reduction in recyclables generation. This could be due to lightweighting of plastics by manufacturers, whereby the same weight of containers equates to a larger number and volume of containers. 6.9 Organics recycling generation The average SSROC household produces 3.7kg of organics recycling per week. This is up from 2.5kg in The average is 4.1kg per household per week if Council 12 is excluded (Council 12 does not have an organics service). SDs generate much more per household per week (5.6kg) than MUDs (0.8kg). Organics generation fluctuates with seasonal conditions. The organics generation rate in 2015 is 48% higher than 2011 and this is probably due to the 2011 audit being undertaken in autumn/winter and the 2015 audit in late winter/spring. Between the 2011 and 2015 audits, garden organics services have been introduced at Council 6 SDs, and Councils 7 and 11 have implemented garden organics bins at MUDs. The generation of garden organics recycling at MUDs has increased from 0.4kg/hhld/week in 2011 to 0.8kg/hhld/week in This has mainly been driven by the new MUD organics services introduced by Councils 7 and 11, as well as the inclusion of Council 3 volumes which weren t audited previously, and a large increase in volumes Council 13. Extrapolating to the total number of households in the region, it is estimated that SSROC SD residents generate a total of 118,400 tonnes of organics recycling per year. Page 75

77 6.10 Composition of the organics recycling stream 98% of the organics stream is recyclable vegetation. Contamination in the organics recycling stream is 2%, down from 3% in The main contaminant is wood/timber Organics recycling bin capacity The median usage of organics bins is 75% at SDs and 80% at MUDs. SDs used less of their organics bins in 2015 compared with 2011, despite increased generation. The increased generation of organics at MUDs since 2011 has led to an increase in the average MUD organics bin fullness (from 37% in 2011 to 80% in 2015). All but two councils increased organics bin fullness, when compared with Household hazardous materials In total, 1,661 hazardous items were found during the audits, which averages almost half an item per household per week, down from 1.9 items per household per week in A total of 652 batteries were found, of which 651 were dry-cell batteries. The most common hazardous items found were electrical items/peripherals and dry-cell batteries. Smaller numbers of fluorescent tubes, toner cartridges, computer equipment, mobile phones, gas bottles and vehicle batteries were also found. Compared with 2011, the number of dry cell batteries in the waste and recycling has decreased significantly, perhaps as a result of greater education and options for their recycling. All other items have decreased in 2015 compared with 2011, except for electrical items which have increased 6.13 Recovery of recyclables The overall recovery rate for the SSROC region is 83%, up from 79% in SDs achieve 86% and MUDs 69%. Garden organics are well recovered by both housing types. Glass and paper are well recovered by SDs. SDs outperform MUDs in all materials. Both housing types recover less than half of all steel, aluminium and other (non-pet/hdpe) plastics. Compared with previous audits, the recovery of garden organics in 2015 is very high, at 94%. Page 76

78 Compared with previous audits, the recovery of garden organics in 2015 is very high, at 94%. This is partly due to a large increase in recovery at MUDs. All but three councils increased the recovery rate of garden organics at MUDs in 2015, compared to The overall improvement in recovery rate for garden organics at MUDs (from 59% in 2011 to 83% in 2015) was primarily driven by the new MUD organics services at Councils 7 and 11, as well as the inclusion of Council 3 s crate/bundle volumes in the calculations, and a large increase in recovery rates at Council 1. Recovery of glass, paper and cardboard are the next highest, with recovery levels reasonably consistent over time. Recovery of aluminium, steel and liquid paperboard has remained below 55% in all audits Diversion from landfill SSROC currently diverts 46% of all municipal waste from landfill through the recycling and organics kerbside recovery systems, Council 12 s processing of general and garden waste at UR3R, and Council 6 s processing of general waste at SUEZ SAWT. This is up from 41% in The increase in landfill diversion in 2015, compared with 2011, is due to increased garden organics tonnages as well as Council 12 and Council 6 processing waste at alternative waste treatment facilities. Single dwellings achieve 50% and MUDs 33%. The difference between SDs and MUDs is largely due to greater recovery of garden organics at SDs. These results are both higher than in If all recyclable paper/cardboard and containers were put in the right bin, landfill diversion would increase to 52%. If all garden organics were recycled as well, landfill diversion would increase to 54%. Diverting 60% of food waste as well would raise landfill diversion to 65%. Diverting 60% of other organics (e.g. to an advanced waste treatment facility) on top of this would raise diversion to a potential maximum of 73% Calorific value of the general waste stream The general waste generated by the average SSROC household has a calorific value (raw) of between 2 4 MJ per kilogram, or MJ (dry) per kilogram. This equates to a calorific value of MJ (raw) or MJ (dry) per household per week. The calorific value of the general waste generated by all households in SSROC each year is estimated at a maximum of 3,257 Terajoules per year enough energy to supply electricity to over 105,000 homes for one year. The main contributors to calorific value in SSROC s general waste are vegetable scraps, disposable nappies and paper. Page 77

79 6.16 Beverage containers in the general waste and recycling bins The average SSROC household generates 13 beverage containers per week (10 in the recycling and 3 in the general waste). The most common beverage container materials are glass, PET and aluminium. The glass containers are mostly beer bottles, and the PET containers are mostly non-carbonated water bottles and carbonated water/soft drink bottles. Aluminium containers are mainly carbonated water/soft drink cans. Almost half (48%) of beverage containers are in the size range of 151 to 500ml (mainly glass and aluminium), with 29% of beverage containers in the size range 501ml to 1 litre (mainly glass and PET). Page 78

80 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That a tailored communications program be developed seeking to motivate residents to use the correct bin for the disposal of waste specifically targeting the 17% of recyclables and garden waste present in the general waste stream. Key messages should target recovery of glass drink containers, cardboard and garden waste. This will assist in lifting both recovery and diversion rates. 2. That a community education program be developed targeting bagged material, contaminated paper and brochures/magazines wrapped in plastic to address the increased contamination in the recycling stream, which is now at 16%. Other contamination reduction initiatives could include removing containerised food/liquid from containers before putting the container in the recycling, and clarifying for residents exactly which plastics are accepted in the recycling stream. 3. That councils should liaise with their waste collection contractors and seek the support of drivers to identify households where contamination regularly occurs so that councils can undertake targeted approaches. 4. The next significant step change to improve landfill diversion is for councils to consider trialling combined weekly food and garden organics (FOGO) collections, with an associated reduction in general waste collection to fortnightly. 5. That in an effort to reduce the amount of problem and household hazardous wastes including e- waste in both the general waste and recycling stream SSROC and member councils should promote extensively the establishment of community recycling centres and the various free e-waste drop-off days offered by member councils 6. That SSROC should lobby the State and Commonwealth governments to expand Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for household hazardous materials to reduce the toxicity of the general waste stream and enable quality end products to be produced from alternative waste treatment facilities. 7. That SSROC should lobby the State government to introduce landfill bans for household hazardous materials after Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are introduced to reduce the toxicity of the general waste stream to be processed at alternative waste treatment facilities. Page 79

81 REFERENCES A.Prince Consulting (2016) SSROC 2015 Waste Audit Report for each participating council A.Prince Consulting (2005) Regional Waste Audit Report for SSROC: results for all participating councils A.Prince Consulting (2008) Regional Waste Audit Report for Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils: results for all participating councils A.Prince Consulting (2011) Regional Waste Audit for SSROC: results for all participating councils Australian/New Zealand Standard (1998) AS/NZS 3831:1998 Waste Management Glossary of terms NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008) Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (2010) Addendum 2010 to Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas NSW EPA (2012) Preferred resource recovery practices by local councils Office of Renewable Energy (ORER) (2001) Guideline for Determining the Renewable Components in Waste for Electricity Generation Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (2015) WAP RFQ Final Page 80

82 APPENDIX A ACCEPTED MATERIALS BY STREAM Recycling accepted Newspaper Magazines/brochures Paper packaging Corrugated cardboard Flat cardboard Liquid paperboard containers Print/ writing/ office paper Glass drink containers Other packaging glass PET drink containers PET packaging HDPE drink containers HDPE packaging PVC containers PVC packaging LDPE packaging Polypropylene packaging PS packaging Steel drink containers Steel packaging Aluminium drink cans Aluminium packaging Table 22 Accepted materials by stream Recycling not accepted Disposable paper product Composite (mainly paper) Contaminated soiled paper Glass fines Other glass PET other HDPE other PVC other LDPE other Polypropylene other Expanded polystyrene (EPS) packaging Polystyrene & EPS other Polystyrene other Other plastic Composite mostly plastic Plastic bags Plastic film Steel other Aluminium other Containerised food and liquid Garden organics accepted Vegetation Other putrescible (Council 15) Not accepted All other materials Page 81

83 APPENDIX B WASTE TERM DEFINITIONS Containerised food and liquid: Bottle or takeaway container with food and liquid still in it that would be considered a contaminant in a recycling or waste treatment facility. Contaminant: Item that is not accepted for processing in the bin it is placed in. Co-mingled collection*: Pick up and transportation of mixed dry recyclable materials. Diversion rate: The percentage of the total kerbside waste stream diverted from disposal not including clean-up collections, loose vegetation collections and drop-off systems. Diversion rate (proportion of waste diverted from landfill) = Weight of recyclables in the recycling bins and garden organics in the garden organics bin contaminants (Weight of the contents of the general waste bins + weight of the contents of the recycling bins + weight of garden organics in the garden organics bins) x 100 Recyclable*: Able to be recovered, processed and used as a raw material for the manufacture of useful new product through a commercial process. Recycling stream: Material source-separated for the purposes of recycling. Recovery rate*: The amount of material recovered from a product group as a percentage of overall consumption. Recovery rate = Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + garden organics in the garden organics bin (Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + weight of garden organics in garden organics bin + weight of recyclables & garden organics in general waste bin) X 100 Segregation: Keeping the components of an assorted waste stream separated. Source separation*: Physical sorting of the waste stream into its components at the point of generation. Stringy materials: Rope, string, hose, electrical cable, carpet, textiles, cords, strips of bubble wrap and other plastic film, electrical lead, electrical wiring. Problem waste: Hazardous waste and batteries, as noted in the sorting categories and definitions list at Appendix D. Total waste stream: The combined waste, recycling and garden organics streams. Waste composition*: Component material types by proportion of weight or volume. * Source: AS/NZS 3831:1998 Page 82

84 APPENDIX C SORTING CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS Australian Waste Database Code Table 23 Material type and plastics identification code where relevant Material sorting categories definitions Material items A01 Newspapers Newspapers, newspaper-like pamphlets A02 Magazines Magazines (glossy and non-glossy), pamphlets, brochures A03 Paper packaging Wrapping paper, labels, paper packaging (no plastic or wax coatings) A04 Corrugated cardboard Cardboard with corrugation A05 Flat cardboard Cardboard without corrugation (glossy and non-glossy), cereal boxes, business cards A06 Liquid paperboard Soy milk cartons, some fruit juice cartons, UHT/long-life milk A07 Disposable paper products Hand towels, coffee cups, paper napkins, paper food bags (unsoiled) A08 Office paper A4 document paper, writing pads, letters, envelopes, books A09 Composite (mostly paper) Composite paper items for which the weight of the paper is estimated to be greater than the weight of the other materials A90 Nappies Used disposable nappies A092 Contaminated paper Paper not suitable for recycling, mixed and other paper, used tissues, soiled paper B01 Food kitchen organics vegetable B01 Food kitchen organics meat Vegetable/fruit scraps Meat scraps B02 Municipal garden organics Grass clippings, tree trimmings/prunings, flowers, tree wood (< 20 mm diameter) B03 Other putrescible Animal excrement, mixed compostable items, cellophane, kitty litter C01 Wood/timber Milled wood/timber, children s wooden toys, wooden skewers, garden trees (> 20 mm diameter) C02 Textile/carpet Wool, cotton and natural fibre materials C03 Leather Leather clothing, craft leather, some shoes, belts with belt buckle C04 Rubber Rubber bands, rubber toys, shoes, latex gloves C05 Oils Used car oil, motor D012 Glass drink containers Recyclable (all colours) beer bottles, wine bottles, spirit cider/fruit-based, flavoured water, fruit juice, sports drinks, plain water D012 Other packaging glass Non-beverage containers (all colours) sauce bottles, jam jars, vegetable oils, other food containers D02 Other glass Plate glass (window and windscreen), Pyrex, mirror glass, Corning ware, light globes, laboratory and medical glass, white opaque glass (e.g. Malibu alcohol bottles) D050 Glass fines Mixed glass or glass fines < 4.75 mm E01 PET drink containers (1) (Polyethylene) soft drink, flavoured water, fruit juice, sports drinks, plain water (carbonated/non-carb) E01 PET packaging (1) Food containers, mouthwash containers, detergent bottles E01 PET other (1) Pillow and sleeping bag filler, laminated sheets, carpet fibres E02 HDPE drink containers (2) (High-density polyethylene) milk and flavoured milk bottles E02 HDPE packaging (2) Bleach bottles, oil containers, food containers Page 83

85 Australian Waste Database Code Material type and plastics identification code where relevant Material items E02 HDPE other (2) Buckets, rigid ag pipe, crates, pallets, bins, rigid moulded products E03 PVC drink containers (3) (Polyvinyl chloride) clear cordial and juice bottles E03 PVC Packaging (3) Detergent bottles E03 PVC other (3) Electrical conduit, plumbing pipes and fittings, garden hose, shoe sole, tubing, rainwear E04 LDPE packaging (4) (Low-density polyethylene) squeeze bottles E04 LDPE other (4) Garbage bags, garbage bins E05 PP packaging (5) Bottles and containers E05 PP other (5) Appliance parts, crates and boxes, toys, houseware/kitchenware, furniture, plant pots, mouldings, irrigation fittings E06 EPS packaging (6) Meat and poultry trays, vending cups, fragile-item packaging E06 PS & EPS other (6) Panel insulation, refrigerator bins and crispers, moulded products, office accessories, spools, rulers, video cases, building and picture frame mouldings, cutlery E06 PS packaging (6) Yoghurt and dairy containers, vending cups, clam shells E08 Composite (mostly plastic) Cigarette butts, composite plastic items for which the weight of the plastic is estimated to be greater than the other material items E072 Plastic bags Plastic shopping bags E073 Plastic film Plastic film F01 Steel drink containers Alcoholic sodas and spirit-based mixers, beer, soft drink F01 Steel packaging Food cans, pet food cans, aerosols, industrial cans, clean/empty paint cans F02 Steel other 100% ferrous items that are not cans/tins/packaging materials, any other steel F03 G01 Composite (mostly ferrous) Aluminium drink containers Aluminium packaging Aluminium other Beer bottle tops, jar lids, composite ferrous items for which the weight of the ferrous metal is estimated to be greater than the other material items Alcoholic sodas and spirit-based mixers, beer and soft drink Food cans, pet food cans, aerosols, industrial cans Foils 100% aluminium items that are not cans/tins/or packaging materials, any other aluminium G02 Non-ferrous (specify) Copper/brass/bronze items, other metals (not ferrous/aluminium) G03 Composite (mostly nonferrous) Composite non-ferrous metal items for which the weight of the metal is estimated to be greater than the other material items. I50 Building materials Building materials (not included in other material categories) includes plasterboard, composite fittings, etc. 10 Ceramics, dust, dirt, rock, inert, ash Containerised food & liquid XX00 Other Other, please specify Ceramic cups, bowls, pottery items, vacuum bag contents, soil, rocks, dirt, concrete, ash Any rigid container including food & liquid heavier than the container, i.e. drink bottle containing water, takeaway container with food, vegetable oils, shampoo, liquid soaps Page 84

86 Australian Waste Database Code Material type and plastics identification code where relevant Material items H01 Paint Containers containing paint (dry or wet) H02 Fluorescent tubes Fluorescent tubes; compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) H03 Non-rechargeable batteries Common batteries, AAA, AA etc. single-use H03 Rechargeable batteries Common batteries (rechargeable), AAA, AA etc. rechargeable H04 Vehicle batteries Large batteries used in vehicles or other machinery Mobile phone batteries Power tool batteries Other batteries Batteries used in mobile phones Batteries used in power tools All other battery types H05 Household chemicals Containers containing bleach, cleaning products, unused medical pills H061 Asbestos Asbestos and asbestos containing products or building materials H07 Clinical (medical) Sharps, human tissue, bulk bodily fluids and blood, any blood-stained disposable material or equipment H08 Gas bottles Gas bottles H00 Hazardous other Any other hazardous material Computer equipment TVs Mobile phones Electrical items & peripherals Keyboard, monitor, hard drives, printers, etc. TVs Y571 Toner cartridges Printer and toner cartridges Mobile phones, phones, pads, charges, car kits, bluetooth Radio, ipod, Gameboys, stereos, speakers, VCR, DVD players, power tools, wiring and cables, small electrical items (toaster, blender, etc.), computer discs, cassettes, DVDs, CDs Grey-shaded categories are ORER categories Orange-shaded categories are deemed problem materials Page 85

87 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council APPENDIX D BEVERAGE CONTAINER SORTING CATEGORIES Table 24 Beverage container sorting categories Council SD / MUD RECYCLING BIN / GARBAGE BIN DATE: DAY: Alumimium Alcoholic sodas & spirit-based mixers Beer cider/fruit based etc flav water/soft drink (carbonated) flav water/soft drink (non-carb) Other Steel Alcoholic sodas & spirit-based mixers Beer cider/fruit based etc flav water/soft drink (carbonated) flav water/soft drink (non-carb) Other LPB milk flavoured milk fruit juice NLI - categories flav water/sports drink, non-carb Other HDPE milk drink pouches flav. Milk flav water/ sports drink etc (non-carb) flav water/soft drink (carbonated) fruit juice plain water (carbonated or non-carb) Other PET milk drink pouches flav. Milk flav water/ sports drink etc (non-carb) flav water/soft drink (carbonated) fruit juice plain water (carbonated or non-carb) Other plastic other milk drink pouches flav. Milk flav water/ sports drink etc (non-carb) flav water/soft drink (carbonated) fruit juice plain water (carbonated or non-carb) wine bladders Other Glass Alcoholic sodas/spirit-based mixers Beer Cider/fruit based etc Flav water/soft drink (carbonated) Fruit juice Plain water (carbonated or non-carb) Wine Wine cooler Spirit Count 0-150ml ml 500-1litre 1L - 1.5L 1.5-3l >3L Page 86

88 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council APPENDIX E DETAILED WASTE COMPOSITION DATA Table 25 General waste composition by council General waste Kilograms per household per week Newspaper Magazines Paper Packaging Corrugated Cardboard Flat Cardboard Liquidpaperboard Disposable Paper Product Office Paper Composite (mostly paper) Nappies Contaminated Paper Food Kitchen Organics - vegetable Food Kitchen organics - meat Municipal garden organics Other Putrescible Wood / Timber Textile Carpet Leather Rubber Oils Glass Drink Containers Other packaging glass Other glass Glass fines Page 87

89 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council General waste Kilograms per household per week PET Drink containers (1) PET Packaging (1) PET Other (1) HDPE Drink Containers (2) HDPE Packaging (2) HDPE Other (2) PVC Drink Containers (3) PVC Packaging (3) PVC Other (3) LDPE Packaging (4) LDPE Other (4) PP Packaging (5) PP Other (5) EPS Packaging (6) PS & EPS Other (6) PS Packaging (6) Other Plastic (7) Composite (mostly plastic) Plastic Bags Plastic Film Steel Drink Containers Steel Packaging Steel Other Composite (mostly ferrous) Aluminium drink cans Aluminium packaging Aluminium other Other non-ferrous (specify) Page 88

90 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council General waste Kilograms per household per week Composite (mostly non-ferrous) Paint Fluorescent tubes Non-rechargeable batteries Rechargeable batteries Vehicle Batteries Mobile phone batteries Power tool batteries Other batteries Household Chemicals Asbestos Clinical (Medical) Gas Bottles Hazardous Other (specify) Building Materials Ceramics/ Dust / Dirt / Rock / Inert Computer equipment TVs Mobile phones Electrical items & peripherals Toner cartridges Containerised food & liquid Other (specify) Page 89

91 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council Table 26 Recycling composition by council Recycling Kilograms per household per week Newspaper Magazines Paper Packaging Corrugated Cardboard Flat Cardboard Liquid paperboard Disposable Paper Product Office Paper Composite (mostly paper) Nappies Contaminated Paper Food Kitchen Organics - vegetable Food Kitchen organics - meat Municipal garden organics Other Putrescible Wood / Timber Textile Carpet Leather Rubber Oils Glass Drink Containers Other packaging glass Other glass Glass fines PET Drink containers (1) PET Packaging (1) PET Other (1) Page 90

92 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council Recycling Kilograms per household per week HDPE Drink Containers (2) HDPE Packaging (2) HDPE Other (2) PVC Drink Containers (3) PVC Packaging (3) PVC Other (3) LDPE Packaging (4) LDPE Other (4) PP Packaging (5) PP Other (5) EPS Packaging (6) PS & EPS Other (6) PS Packaging (6) Other Plastic (7) Composite (mostly plastic) Plastic Bags Plastic Film Steel Drink Containers Steel Packaging Steel Other Composite (mostly ferrous) Aluminium drink cans Aluminium packaging Aluminium other Other non-ferrous (specify) Composite (mostly non-ferrous) Paint Fluorescent tubes Page 91

93 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council Recycling Kilograms per household per week Non-rechargeable batteries Rechargeable batteries Vehicle Batteries Mobile phone batteries Power tool batteries Other batteries Household Chemicals Asbestos Clinical (Medical) Gas Bottles Hazardous Other (specify) Building Materials Ceramics/ Dust / Dirt / Rock / Inert Computer equipment TVs Mobile phones Electrical items & peripherals Toner cartridges Containerised food & liquid Other (specify) Page 92

94 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC excl. Council SSROC SSROC City Council Table 27 Organics composition by council Organics Kilograms per household per week Newspaper Magazines Paper Packaging Corrugated Cardboard Flat Cardboard Liquidpaperboard Disposable Paper Product Office Paper Composite (mostly paper) Nappies Contaminated Paper Food Kitchen Organics - vegetable Food Kitchen organics - meat Municipal garden organics Other Putrescible Wood / Timber Textile Carpet Leather Rubber Oils Glass Drink Containers Other packaging glass Other glass Glass fines PET Drink containers (1) PET Packaging (1) PET Other (1) Page 93

95 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC excl. Council SSROC SSROC City Council Organics Kilograms per household per week HDPE Drink Containers (2) HDPE Packaging (2) HDPE Other (2) PVC Drink Containers (3) PVC Packaging (3) PVC Other (3) LDPE Packaging (4) LDPE Other (4) PP Packaging (5) PP Other (5) EPS Packaging (6) PS & EPS Other (6) PS Packaging (6) Other Plastic (7) Composite (mostly plastic) Plastic Bags Plastic Film Steel Drink Containers Steel Packaging Steel Other Composite (mostly ferrous) Aluminium drink cans Aluminium packaging Aluminium other Other non-ferrous (specify) Composite (mostly non-ferrous) Paint Fluorescent tubes Page 94

96 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 7 Council 8 Council 9 Council 10 Council 11 Council 12 Council 13 Council 14 Council 15 SSROC excl. Council SSROC SSROC City Council Organics Kilograms per household per week Non rechargeable batteries Rechargeable batteries Vehicle Batteries Mobile phone batteries Power tool batteries Other batteries Household Chemicals Asbestos Clinical (Medical) Gas Bottles Hazardous Other (specify) Building Materials Ceramics/ Dust / Dirt / Rock / Inert Computer equipment TVs Mobile phones Electrical items & peripherals Toner cartridges Containerised food & liquid Other (specify) Page 95

97 Kitchen vegetable Kitchen meat Municipal garden organics Paper composite Mixed paper Liquid paperboard Newspaper Magazines Cardboard Disposable nappies Wood 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council APPENDIX F DETAILED CALORIFIC VALUES Table 28 Calorific values of general waste by material category Eligible materials Hydrogen content 6.2% 9.4% 6.0% 7.5% 5.8% 7.5% 6.1% 5.1% 5.9% 6.4% 6.0% Adjust for eligible components 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 66% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% CV upper (dry) (kj/kg) 19,800 11,900 16,800 21,450 15,150 21,450 17,330 13,500 18,670 22,900 20,638 Moisture content 71.3% 47.7% 64.5% 12.6% 38.2% 18.9% 17.1% 10.3% 13.8% 52.6% 16.6% CV raw (kj per kg) 3,547 3,982 3,924 17,006 7,648 10,345 12,835 10,856 14,646 4,452 15,715 All dwellings combined, SSROC region % of general waste 34% 2% 6% 1% 8% 0% 1% 1% 2% 7% 1% kj/kg of general waste, raw ,281 kj/kg of general waste, upper (dry) ,790 Total CV (kj per kg of general waste) Page 96

98 2015 SSROC SSROC City Council APPENDIX G REVIEW OF MOISTURE CONTENT SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURE Page 97