WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS

Transcription

1 WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS State of New South Wales through the Department of Natural Resources SEPTEMBER 2009 Prepared for: Lake Macquarie City Council LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p1 of 120

2 LIMITATIONS STATEMENT This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services agreed upon by the above named client and Sustainable Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd (SIA). To the best of SIA s knowledge, the information presented herein represents the above named client s intentions at the time of printing the report. In preparing this report, SIA has relied upon data, surveys, analyses, plans and other information provided by the above named client and other individuals and organisations. Except as otherwise stated in this report, SIA has not verified the accuracy or completeness of such data, surveys, analyses, plans and other information. The information presented herein is copyright SIA. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p2 of 120

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary pp 9 1. Introduction.. pp The Current Waste Management System... pp Waste Management Priorities for LMCC... pp Waste Infrastructure Options pp Option 1: Extension of the Current Awaba Landfill Site... pp Current Capacity and Life of Awaba Landfill... pp Options for Expansion on current footprint..... pp Alternate Options for Filling at Awaba... pp Comparative Assessment of Option 1.. pp Future Planning... pp Capital Expenditure pp Waste Diversion Impact pp GHG Risk and Impact..... pp Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts... pp Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months].... pp Social and Community Issues..... pp Risk Assessment for LMCC.. pp Waste Hierarchy Impact.... pp Option 2: Development of a New Landfill Site within the Lake Macquarie Municipality... pp Site Options for Landfill in LMCC... pp Options for New Landfill Development at Awaba. pp Planning and Development Requirements for a New Landfill.. pp Comparative Assessment of Option 2.. pp Future Planning... pp Capital Expenditure pp Waste Diversion Impact pp GHG Risk and Impact..... pp Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts... pp Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months].... pp Social and Community Issues..... pp Risk Assessment for LMCC.. pp 43 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p3 of 120

4 6.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact.... pp Option 3: Development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) Facility Within the Lake Macquarie Municipality... pp Review of AWT Technology in Australia and Overseas... pp Review of AWT Experience in Australia.. pp Process and Time Frames to Develop an AWT.... pp Comparative Assessment of Option 3.. pp Future Planning... pp Capital Expenditure pp Waste Diversion impact pp GHG Risk and Impact..... pp Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts... pp Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months]..... pp Social and Community Issues..... pp Risk Assessment for LMCC.. pp Waste Hierarchy Impact.... pp Option 4: Export of Residual Waste to Facilities (Landfill/AWT) Outside of the Lake Macquarie Municipality....pp Review of Waste Volumes for Export.... pp External Options for Waste Export..... pp Transport, Compaction and Waste Transfer Options.... pp Comparative Assessment of Option pp Future Planning... pp Capital Expenditure pp Waste Diversion Impact pp GHG Risk and Impact..... pp Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts... pp Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months].... pp Social and Community Issues..... pp Risk Assessment for LMCC.. pp Waste Hierarchy Impact.... pp Option 5: SIA Option: A Waste Management System Focussed on Source Segregation and Specific Recovery/ Management of Each Waste Stream... pp Reduction and Diversion pp Household Waste Reduction.... pp Household Waste Segregation pp Household Re-use of Materials.... pp Education and Awareness Campaigns. pp 76 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p4 of 120

5 9.1.5 Pricing Policy... pp Business Engagement pp Organic Waste Management Options... pp International Best Practice Examples. pp Home Composting..... pp Organic Waste Collection Systems... pp Organic Waste Treatment Options.... pp C&D Waste Management Options.... pp Recycling Options.... pp Resource Recovery Options.... pp Residual Waste Disposal Options pp Energy Recovery. pp Comparative Assessment of Option pp Future planning... pp Capital Expenditure pp Waste Diversion impact..... pp GHG Risk and Impact..... pp Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts... pp Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months].... pp Social and Community Issues..... pp Risk Assessment for LMCC.. pp Waste Hierarchy Impact.... pp Comparative Analysis of Options.. pp Future Planning..... pp Capital Expenditure pp Waste Diversion Impact pp GHG Risk and Impact pp Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts..... pp Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months]..... pp Social and Community Issues pp Risk Assessment for LMCC... pp Waste Hierarchy Impact..... pp Recommendations... pp First Recommendation.. pp Second Recommendation.... pp Conclusion... pp 108 Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations and Acronyms... pp 109 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p5 of 120

6 Appendix 2: DECC Regulations for New/Expanded Landfills.... pp 112 Appendix 3: Population Estimates Used in Waste to Landfill Graphs.. pp 114 Appendix 4: References... pp 116 List of Figures and Tables Figures: Figure 1: Preliminary Waste to Landfill Graph... pp 18 Figure 2: Waste Hierarchy... pp 19 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Awaba Landfill Site..... pp 21 Figure 4: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 1... pp 22 Figure 5: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 1... pp 28 Figure 6: Waste Received at Awaba Landfill..... pp 30 Figure 7: GHG Emissions at Awaba Landfill.. pp 31 Figure 8: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 1... pp 34 Figure 9: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 2... pp 35 Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of Lake Macquarie City Council... pp 36 Figure 11: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option pp 39 Figure 12: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option pp 45 Figure 13: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 3... pp 46 Figure 14: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option pp 56 Figure 15: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option pp 59 Figure 16: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 4... pp 60 Figure 17: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 4... pp 61 Figure 18: Diagram of Wingecaribee WTS... pp 63 Figure 19: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option pp 66 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p6 of 120

7 Figure 20: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option pp 70 Figure 21: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 5... pp 72 Figure 22: LaTrobe Composting Trial Results... pp 77 Figure 23: Home Composting... pp 83 Figure 24: Community Education Programs... pp 86 Figure 25: Aerated Static Pile Composting at ANL..... pp 90 Figure 26: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option 5... pp 96 Figure 27: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 5... pp 101 Figure 28: Total Cost of Landfill for Each Option... pp 103 Figure 29: Comparative Waste to Landfill Graph.. pp 104 Tables: Table 1: Future Planning for Option pp 26 Table 2: Vehicle Types at Awaba Landfill... pp 27 Table 3: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 1... pp 33 Table 4: Future Planning for Option 2... pp 37 Table 5: Social and Community Issues for Option 2... pp 42 Table 6: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 2... pp 44 Table 7: AWT Facilities in Australia... pp 51 Table 8: Future Planning for Option 3... pp 54 Table 9: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 3... pp 58 Table 10: External Options for Waste Export... pp 62 Table 11: Future Planning for Option 4... pp 64 Table 12: Capital Expenditure at Summerhill and Buttonderry..... pp 65 Table 13: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option pp 69 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p7 of 120

8 Table 14: Estimated amount of waste streams disposed to landfill (Australia ).... pp 80 Table 15: Home Composting Systems... pp 84 Table 16: Worm Farms... pp 85 Table 17: Future Planning for Option 5... pp 95 Table 18: Short term Actions for Option 5... pp 98 Table 19: Social and Community Issues for Option pp 98 Table 20: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option pp 100 Table 21: First Recommendation and Time Frames... pp 106 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p8 of 120

9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) currently faces the position that its key waste infrastructure (Awaba Landfill site) will reach the end of its current capacity within the next five years (around 2014). With the termination of the Theiss AWT HIR regional facility LMCC needs to rapidly assess options and take actions for future waste infrastructure planning. Sustainable Infrastructure Australia (SIA) was engaged by Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) in March 2009 to undertake a review to assess the following: Identify infrastructure options for LMCC in recognition of the pending closure of Awaba landfill Provide recommendations on the structure of the Council waste management system Identify international and national best practice waste infrastructure, solutions and systems Identify areas of key risk and strategies to mitigate those risks This report assessed five options including four proposed by LMCC and an additional option (Option 5.) proposed by SIA after initial investigation of the current waste management system. The options considered were as follows: Option 1: Extension of the current Awaba Landfill Site Option 2: Development of a new Landfill site within the Lake Macquarie City Option 3: Development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) facility within the Lake Macquarie City Option 4: Export of residual Waste to facilities (Landfill/AWT) outside of the Lake Macquarie City Option 5: SIA Option: A waste management system focussed on source segregation and specific recovery/ management of each waste stream Each option has been evaluated against a range of criteria to assist Council with its strategic planning and decision making process. These criteria included: 1) Technical and operational review of infrastructure option 2) Assessment of waste diversion impact 3) Flexibility of infrastructure option for future planning 4) Assessment of capital cost 5) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) risk and impact 6) Impact on the broader waste management system 7) Short term actions required 8) Social and community issues 9) Risk assessment 10) Waste hierarchy impact A summary of each evaluation is provided below with detailed evaluation provided in the report. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p9 of 120

10 OPTION 1: EXTENSION OF THE AWABA LANDFILL SITE This option assessed the extension of the footprint of the existing landfill site at Awaba. The primary findings of this assessment were as follows: Extension of the site will provide a significantly lower cost option than a new Greenfield landfill site for LMCC. There are difficulties with expanding the current site due to previous engineering and filling practices reducing the options for use of existing air space. There will likely be challenges with permitting due to site geography and potential flora and fauna issues within the surrounding footprint. There is always the potential that approvals will not be granted. A rehabilitation and capping plan for the current site is urgently required to maximise the sites existing use and reduce long term cost and liabilities for LMCC. A range of waste diversion and improved site management actions will potentially provide an additional 1-4 years longevity to the current site. Although yet to be determined site extension will only lead to a near term infrastructure solution potentially providing an additional years air space. With increasing state landfill levies and CPRS liabilities it is within LMCC s interest to quickly pursue waste reduction and diversion strategies (Outlined in Option 5.) to reduce the long term cost of waste management for Council and the community. OPTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LANDFILL SITE WITHIN LAKE MACQUARIE CITY This option assessed the development of a new green field landfill within the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA). The primary findings of this assessment were as follows: Development of a new landfill will be a major challenge for the LGA considering the space required including a suitable buffer for a site (>100 hectares) Planning and development requirements will be costly and challenging and there is a risk that significant time and capital can be committed with no guarantee of approvals for the site being granted. The development of a green field site may result in strong community opposition specifically regarding nearby residents. The development of a best practice landfill facility is likely to provide LMCC with a long term infrastructure solution. The commercial investment in site development and ongoing operation may provide conflicting drivers for LMCC to divert waste or improve other aspects of the waste management system. Rising state landfill levies and CPRS liabilities are likely to present a significant cost of landfill disposal in future years. OPTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE WASTE TREATMENT (AWT) FACILITY WITHIN LAKE MACQUARIE CITY This option assessed the development of an AWT to treat co-mingled or segregated municipal solid waste (MSW) within the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA). The primary findings of this assessment were as follows: Development of a dedicated AWT facility for LMCC is possible however due to scale and waste supply risk this may come at a premium price. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p10 of 120

11 A flexible 10 year contract is likely to result in a gate fee 20-30% higher than a twenty year contract. An AWT facility will provide strong short term waste diversion however over time this is not likely to reduce significantly as the facility will require waste volume to be feasible. There are likely to be significant issues and costs associated with resource recovered materials (organics) from the facility and this may be a significant liability to Council. Residual MSW waste from the facility will need to have a disposal point. Transport and gate fees are an additional significant cost. An AWT may provide some cost savings in waste kerbside collection services if a comingled MSW bin is used. OPTION 4: EXPORT OF WASTE OUTSIDE OF LAKE MACQUARIE CITY This option assessed the establishment of a major waste transfer station (WTS)/ resource recovery facility to divert and reduce residual MSW volumes on an ongoing basis. This residual volume would then be exported to a landfill/awt outside of the Lake Macquarie Local Government Area (LGA). The primary findings of this assessment were as follows: The development of a waste export model would require short term measures to reduce, divert and recover as much MSW as feasible. This model would be heavily focussed on cost reduction and efficiency to minimise external volumes being exported. A range of options for waste export are available to LMCC however within the scope of this report have not been discussed with third parties at any high level of detail. This model would present waste disposal risk unless strategic long term contracts are developed with third parties to significantly reduce that risk. Through segregation and resource recovery a focus on emerging commercial opportunities would underpin future waste management. A functional WTS/resource recovery facility would play a significant role in diversion and commercial sale of resources. It would also be a central educational and learning facility for the community and provide additional community services. OPTION 5: SIA MODEL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOCUSSED ON SEGREGATION, DIVERSION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY This option assessed the approach of reducing and actively segregating each waste stream to optimise the waste management system over time. This includes a separate organic/green waste collection organic/green waste treatment - establishment of a major waste transfer station (WTS)/ resource recovery facility other actions to reduce, divert and recover resources. This model is based on increasing reducing the volume of MSW for disposal over time. The primary findings of this assessment were as follows: The development of this option would require short term measures to reduce, divert and recover as much MSW as feasible. This model would be heavily focussed on cost reduction and efficiency to minimise waste generation and disposal over time. Two options for residual MSW would be pursued including an extension to the current Awaba landfill site and/or waste export (options 1. and 4.) This model provides long term flexibility for LMCC however would require ongoing management. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p11 of 120

12 A functional WTS/resource recovery facility would play a significant role in diversion and commercial sale of resources. It would also be a central educational and learning facility for the community and provide additional community services. The primary goal of this model is to reduce the requirement for an end of pipe solution and reduce long term costs and liability for Council. If pursued Option 5. would result in LMCC taking a leadership position in its waste management approach both nationally and internationally. Strategic Considerations As a key finding of this study SIA would recommend that LMCC undertake the following considerations: 1) The timelines for infrastructure and system development are limited and Council needs to get started on delivery of its preferred approach as soon as possible otherwise its runs considerable risk both in terms of cost and limitation of options. 2) LMCC needs to develop a key decision path in the short term to establish its primary approach to waste management considering the three options of a) Landfill b) Alternative Waste Treatment or c) alternative waste management approaches such as those assessed in the report. 3) LMCC needs to give detailed consideration to ensure that options pursued align with its core requirements (short term and long term). Recommendations SIA has provided two recommendations based on its assessment of options. These are outlined in more detail within the report. Recommendation 1: LMCC take a multiple level approach to reducing and diverting waste. LMCC implement a separate organic/ green waste kerbside collection service for residents. LMCC take a market driven approach and tender the treatment organic/green waste from kerbside collection. LMCC roll out an optional home composting facilitation service on a campaign basis. Take immediate steps to extend the existing life of the Awaba landfill. LMCC pursue both the extension of the Awaba landfill site and waste export options as a disposal alternative. LMCC establish a waste transfer station (WTS) /resource recovery facility or Eco Park. LMCC fund a substantive and ongoing education and awareness campaign alongside key initiatives to drive waste reduction and waste diversion. Recommendation 2: LMCC clearly articulate its desired waste management outcomes and put this out to the market as an expression of interest (EOI) to determine optimal infrastructure and commercial solutions that may be available. Based on the result of the EOI, LMCC may be able to achieve an optimal or improved outcome for part or all of its waste management requirements. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p12 of 120

13 1. INTRODUCTION Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) currently faces the position that its key waste infrastructure (Awaba Landfill site) will reach the end of its current capacity within the next five years (around 2014). With the recent termination of the proposed Theiss AWT HIR regional facility LMCC needs to rapidly assess options and take actions for future waste infrastructure planning. This represents a short term threat for Council and the Lake Macquarie community whilst at the same time a significant opportunity to significantly reform current waste management systems, infrastructure and approaches. Sustainable Infrastructure Australia (SIA) was engaged by Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) in late March 2009 to provide a consultancy for the review of waste infrastructure options for the Local Government Area (LGA) now and into the future. With the termination of the HIR regional AWT project in March SIA was also requested to consider the more immediate needs of the municipality in light of the anticipated closure of the Awaba landfill facility. The primary purpose of this options study is to address the following issues: 1) Identify infrastructure options for LMCC in recognition of the pending closure of Awaba landfill 2) Provide recommendations on the structure of the Council waste management system 3) Identify international and national best practice waste infrastructure, solutions and systems 4) Identify areas of key risk and strategies to mitigate those risks LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p13 of 120

14 2. THE CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LMCC currently operates a waste management system with a diverse structure of contracts with internal and external service providers meeting the needs of the Council and the community. The current waste management system achieves an estimated diversion rate of just under 20% of the waste stream from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill disposal (most of this is achieved through kerbside recycling collection). With the termination of the HIR regional AWT project LMCC is now in a position to undertake a structured and robust review of its waste management requirements moving forward. This provides an opportunity for Council to review its options effectively as a blank canvas and create a strategic path forward that will meet not only the short term but also the longer term strategic requirements of the LGA. Within this context Council can give consideration to key factors such as: Efficiency and potential short, medium and long term financial risk mitigation Environmental outcomes that align with Council s broader strategies and provide leadership in a fast changing market Strategic options that provide Council with flexibility into the future as technology, legislative requirements, infrastructure, markets, community values and waste management will change The short term and long term impacts of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and carbon reduction strategies Improvements in community service delivery and waste management solutions LMCC is in a fortunate position being one of the larger councils in Australia (10 th largest) providing scale and a budget to expand the options of meaningful waste system and infrastructure solutions. Within this context LMCC also enjoys the significant benefits of a larger region with existing waste and transport infrastructure not only in the Hunter region but also the Central Coast and Greater Sydney to the South. Both of these aspects significantly increase the number of options for LMCC s short term and for long term infrastructure planning. From the initial review and stakeholder discussions SIA have assessed LMCC s current position as follows: Awaba Landfill Based on the current filling rate of approximately 125,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) and an annual increase of between 4-7% and the current filling management plan the primary MSW disposal option of Awaba Landfill will become non viable within 4-6 years ( ). Waste currently taken to the site is primarily MSW household collection, CiviLake or Council waste from operations, green waste household collection and drop off (accounting for approximately 9,839 tpa) and other materials such as C&D drop off, council hard waste collection and other small volumes of drop off from residents and smaller private contractors. A further approximately 1,300tpa is salvaged by the existing Reuse Centre contractor. There is significant landfill capacity within the region at sites such as Summerhill, Cessnock and Buttonderry within reasonable transport distance, however getting other facilities to accept LMCC s waste on a commercial basis may have challenges. Based on current information there are few known sites within the LMCC LGA for greenfield landfill development. Extension of the current Awaba landfill site needs to be reviewed in detail, however there are potentially significant hurdles based on a number of aspects including site topography, flora and fauna and leachate management. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p14 of 120

15 Due to the proximity of much of the municipality s population catchment being closer to waste infrastructure in Newcastle City Council (NCC) than LMCC, an unknown volume of non-msw waste is going to Council or private facilities within the NCC municipality. Kerbside MSW MSW is collected from the kerbside via Council s day labour force on a weekly collection cycle using a 240L bin. Kerbside Recycling Kerbside recycling is collected from households in a split bin (240L) on a fortnightly basis and this is undertaken by a private contractor Solo Resource Recovery who utilise the current Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at Gateshead as a transfer station to cart the materials south (60+km) to the Central Coast region (Somersby MRF operated by Earthcare). The kerbside recycling contract is managed through Hunter Resource Recovery with participation of Lower Hunter Councils (Maitland and Cessnock). Kerbside recycling is diverting approximately 18% of MSW from landfill, and Solo has stated very low contamination rates. Construction and Demolition Waste Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste in the LGA is taken to a number of sites including the Awaba landfill, Summerhill landfill as well as dedicated private facilities such as Concrush in LMCC and other private facilities in the Newcastle/Hunter region. CiviLake are progressing with a dedicated hard waste facility to be located at Teralba. CiviLake intend to develop this site over the next three years with the facility becoming fully operational in 2012.This facility is intended through resource recovery activities on site to provide key materials for civil, construction and maintenance works such as roads, pavements, parks etc. to meet CiviLake s demands (over 100,000 tpa). Commercial and Industrial Waste Commercial and Industrial waste in the region is mostly taken by private contractors to dedicated facilities including the Awaba landfill or Newcastle City Council s (NCC) Summerhill landfill due to proximity and cost factors. With LMCC recently announcing a rise in Awaba gate fees of $10 a tonne to cover future CPRS liabilities it is expected more of this waste will be diverted to other facilities outside LMCC. This will potentially reduce volumes of commercial and some residential waste being taken to Awaba. Green Waste Green waste is currently collected bi-annually at kerbside by council from residents and taken to Awaba landfill where it is stockpiled and shredded. Additional volumes come to site through residential and commercial drop off at Awaba. Ozmulch shred the green waste under contract were it is composted offsite using open windrows. This material is sold onto the commercial market. Hazardous Waste Household hazardous waste is currently collected annually using DECC s annual Clean Out Program. Resource Recovery A number of resource recovery initiatives are being delivered in LMCC and include: o Reuse Centre at Awaba landfill site o Life Cycle for the collection and reuse of unwanted household goods o Bulk waste kerbside collection including recycling of green waste and metals. o Public place recycling LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p15 of 120

16 o o o o o o Oil recycling Sharps collection E-Waste collection via Hunter Resource Recovery Teralba Worm Farm organics recycling MobileMuster collections at the Administration Building and Swansea Library and other commercial outlets Community education and awareness of other recycling and resource recovery programs Education and Awareness Programs LMCC has taken a forward thinking and proactive position to educate and inform the community of good waste management practice and service options for residents. The Sustainability Department within Council has a team of Community Empowerment Officers (CEO s) responsible for education and awareness programs regarding sustainability including: o Waste o Consumption o Energy o Water o Transport o Climate Change o Seal Level Rise o Biodiversity- etc. All these factors, combined with few long term contracts or current capital commitments allow for a broad range of options to be considered and also a level of flexibility for LMCC to implement its preferred option. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p16 of 120

17 3. WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR LMCC As an important part of this options study SIA have developed a Preliminary Report for LMCC and engaged in detailed stakeholder discussions with Council to ensure there is an alignment in understanding LMCC s objectives and requirements. The following priorities have been developed from those initial discussions in March and April Holistic Waste Management Approach A holistic approach needs to be taken in evaluating the entire waste management system not simply looking at end of pipe solutions such as landfill. All aspects of the waste management system work together from education and awareness, source segregation, collection, contract management, transport, facilities and facility operation contracts. Focussing on one specific area in isolation often results in waste management failures and problems to deal with elsewhere. Strategic Focus for Short Term and Long Term objectives Council wishes to look strategically at both long term and short term options to provide flexibility of approach. This is critical as technology, infrastructure, community values and waste management will change progressively over time. The proposed approach by LMCC is to evaluate options over a 35 year period (2014, 2024, 2034 and 2044 years or variations of) in which each interval allows for a revision of approach and flexibility to change and improve and ensure early decisions do not preclude Council from undertaking a specific direction with regard to solid waste management. Given the recent termination of the HIR regional AWT and the limited life span of the Awaba facility, LMCC needs to also give serious consideration to short term actions and options (within context of a broader strategy). If LMCC fails to take proactive short term actions it may place itself in a difficult position where it is left with limited choices and considerable risk in meeting the future waste management requirements of the municipality. Mitigate risks of Climate Change With Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions from landfill to be included in the proposed National Emission Trading Scheme (CPRS), LMCC needs to ensure that all options take into consideration GHG risk, liability and also effective integration of GHG reduction strategies within any waste management plan. Focus on international best practice and leadership Council wishes to be progressive in taking the high path in pursuing best practice approaches. This provides significant opportunity to set LMCC ahead as an international leader in waste management by looking beyond the context of standard approaches taken by other councils or regions elsewhere. By incorporating this approach and using innovation (and GHG reduction targets) as a key driver, LMCC may be able to not only meet its future statutory requirements, but also provide leadership and significant win/win scenarios for residents, for Council and for waste management nationally. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p17 of 120

18 Environmental principles of reducing waste generation and increasing waste diversion rates Council have implemented a policy goal of reducing waste generation per capita over time. The key focus and assessment for each option will be to evaluate how it performs against the goal of reducing waste generation per capita by 3% per year for 35 years, 2% per year for 35 years and constant waste generation per capita for 35 years. (see Figure 1 below). Calculations for the population estimates used to create this graph, and all other Waste to Landfill graphs can be found in Appendix 3. Figure 1: Preliminary Waste to Landfill Graph Total Waste Landfilled Per Annum (Tonnes) Year Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum All approaches to waste management need be forward thinking and incorporate models that meet LMCC s broader focus of ongoing continual improvement and waste reduction. Waste is fundamentally a symptom of broader sustainability issues associated with consumption and material use in context of current and future change. The Waste hierarchy (below) should be seen and implemented within the context of its priorities rather than the current approaches which often results in a strong focus down the pyramid such as recycling and disposal. LMCC wishes to pursue a top down focus on realistic and meaningful change. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p18 of 120

19 Figure 2: Waste Hierarchy LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p19 of 120

20 4. WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS During the initial assessment process it was agreed five waste management options would be reviewed focussing on primary infrastructure approaches. It must be strongly stated that these options were chosen for evaluation purposes only and are not exclusive in their focus or approach. The recommendations provided in Section 11. of this report draw from a number of these options. The five options considered include: Option 1: Extension of the current Awaba Landfill Site - (Section 5) Option 2: Development of a new Landfill site within the Lake Macquarie City- (Section 6) Option 3: Development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) facility within the Lake Macquarie City- (Section 7) Option 4: Export of residual Waste to facilities (Landfill/AWT) outside of the Lake Macquarie City- (Section 8) Option 5: SIA Option: A waste management system focussed on source segregation and specific recovery/ management of each waste stream - (Section 9) Each option is reviewed on a comparative basis in section 10. of this report. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p20 of 120

21 5. OPTION 1: EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT AWABA LANDFILL SITE The first infrastructure option considered for future waste management within Lake Macquarie is the expansion of the current Awaba Landfill. This option explores the potential for expansion of the footprint of the current Awaba site, including the possible development of new cells. The option relies on utilising existing infrastructure and minimises other potential associated costs and changes to the current waste management system. However, it is not considered a long-term infrastructure solution as there are significant limitations with respect to the topography of the current site limiting the potential for airspace. There are also considerable geological constraints and implications for protected flora and fauna making the potential permitting process high risk, extensive and costly. Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Awaba Landfill Site LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p21 of 120

22 Figure 4: Waste Stream Diagram for Option Current Capacity and Life of Awaba Landfill The Awaba landfill site was originally developed in 1986 to meet the growing needs of Lake Macquarie. At this time the Redhead landfill facility and other sites were also being used. With the closure of the Redhead landfill in 1994 and the strong growth in population and development within the district, the Awaba Landfill has come close to its capacity considering cell expansion in that the site development has not been strategically managed over the decades. Based on current Lake Macquarie City Council estimates with the current filling regime and the airspace available in the current landfill cell the facility has approximately five years life remaining (site closure in 2014). LMCC are about to embark on the development of a Landfill Capping and Rehabilitation Plan which will provide a much more detailed evaluation of the approximate closure point for the site. It is anticipated as a result of the present study a number of initiatives will be implemented to extend the life of this site including: Review of filling regime and site management Waste diversion of Organic Waste and C&D waste LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p22 of 120

23 Point source segregation of recyclables and organic/green waste reducing the residual MSW by volume Improved resource recovery at site Potential options such as waste shredding If implemented promptly these combined initiatives are likely to provide an additional 2-5 years airspace in the current Awaba site. 5.2 Options for Expansion on Current Footprint The options for expansion on the current footprint are limited due to the site being developed over a number of years based on engineering structures that are no longer acceptable today. This has resulted in the current footprint approaching site boundaries (ridged areas surrounding the site). These ridged areas and surrounds are inhabited by protected flora and fauna which will make any license application for expansion of the site beyond the current boundaries substantially difficult with DECC and the community. DECC have indicated that of all the options proposed in this study that expansion over the current footprint (piggybacking) from an engineering and environmental perspective is least desirable. DECC regulations for new and expanded landfill can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. 5.3 Alternative Options for Filling at Awaba Filling regime and site management SIA believe that it is of fundamental importance to LMCC to develop a detailed Rehabilitation and Aftercare Plan as soon as practical. There are several key drivers for this: 1. In order to extend the operational life of Awaba a detailed and unambiguous capping regime needs to be developed in order to provide clear day to day direction to management on what areas need to be filled, capped and closed and therefore identifying where residual waste should be directed on site. 2. It is clear that in order to minimise the residual waste to landfill other activities such as mulching and shredding will need to take place on site. For these additional activities to take place they need to be located in a manner that will not hinder their operation or that of day to day landfill activities. 3. It is essential for robust financial management that Awaba is still generating a revenue stream through the gate fees. It can only achieve this if the rehabilitation plan is coordinated in a manner that works with the day to day operation of Awaba. If the rehabilitation and aftercare plan is implemented along side the working Awaba site it will also allow for approved activities to take place on the rehabilitated areas. This has the option of providing more than one revenue stream to assist in the costly rehabilitation and aftercare plan. 4. Further to point three LMCC needs to ensure that detailed and realistic budgetary requirements are developed and put in place. SIA understands that LMCC has allocated at this stage approximately $2.2 million for this budget with a forecast requirement for $5.9 million for the capping and closure of the Awaba site. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p23 of 120

24 Waste diversion of organics The diversion of organics from the waste stream has two profound impacts: 1. It increases significantly the life of the Awaba landfill and 2. The absences of organics will have a direct and positive impact on the reduction of methane generation at Awaba and will reduce the volume and nature of leachate with particular regard to any new cell. SIA believes there will be a ban on organics to landfill sometime in the future and these actions now will put LMCC in an advantageous position. A substantial education campaign will be required to ensure point source segregation of the organic waste stream is maximised. Further diversion of C&D waste The diversion of untreated C&D waste to landfill will have an impact in the order of 16% added life per annum for each year Awaba is operating. This is a significant saving and represents an enormous financial benefit to LMCC. Point source separation LMCC should give consideration to the roll out of an effective program and key initiatives to promote waste reduction and point source segregation at a household level which will have a significant impact on reducing the volume of waste going to landfill. Combined with diversion of C&D and Organic waste a strong focus on education and awareness as well as financial drivers will see greater volumes of waste diverted for recycling, organic waste collection and C&D waste. The nature of both organic and C&D waste is significant as they are heavier materials and will provide strong diversion rates (by weight). It is realistic to expect that through these measures (detailed further in Option 5) will create waste diversion of at least an additional 40% allowing LMCC to achieve a total diversion over 60% within the next five years. This will have a significant impact on filling rates extending airspace at the Awaba site. Resource Recovery at site There is a Resource Recovery operation located at Awaba but it is limited and or constrained by many factors. A point of sale resource recovery operation only recovers a small amount of waste from the waste stream (approximately 0.9%). This is not a significant amount in terms of adding life to the site. However the educative role and community engagement function can not and should not be underestimated. However SIA believes that there is substantially more resource recovery that can occur on site given the right community profile and operational footprint. This would include but not be limited to industrial resource recovery and the potential for micro market generation. SIA understands that LMCC has renewed the contract for the current resource recovery facility.the new contract commenced 6 July 2009 with a contract term of 2 years. Council has the option to extend the term by 12 months + 12 months. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p24 of 120

25 Waste Shredding The performance of the shredder varies depending on the waste stream being managed. It is estimated that the shredder will have a far greater impact on bulking items such as residual C&D waste than on other waste streams such as municipal waste. Assuming the diversion of untreated C&D waste to landfill will have an impact in the order of 16% added life per annum for each year Awaba is operating. This is a significant saving and represents an enormous financial benefit to LMCC. When evaluating shredding of waste to increase airspace it is critical that LMCC has maximised any resource recovery opportunity prior to shredding. Waste shredding has more significant outcomes for the C&D waste stream than for example MSW. There is the possibility for LMCC to develop a market with neighbouring councils in order to offset the cost of the plant and in fact generate a revenue stream. There is the real possibility to provide a service on a campaign basis to these Councils. Neighbouring councils such as Wyong, Cessnock, Maitland and Newcastle find themselves in a predicament of exceptional population growth (Maitland Council) and in many cases with extremely limited landfill space. Wyong for example is exploring other options for what has been dedicated landfill use. A shredder owned and operated by LMCC and hire to Wyong for example would greatly assist them in achieving their objectives. Cessnock is exploring a new landfill site within their municipal area but require the ability to maximise the life of their existing landfill. A shredder owned and operated by LMCC could develop a revenue stream derived from these Councils on a campaign basis allowing LMCC to have the time to reduce their residual waste by volume. In addition the shredder could satisfy market demand with regard to Metal recycling through shredding and increasing tonnage per load transported Tyre shredding for down stream processing and reuse Green organics mulching for composting or on site usage as part of rehabilitation and aftercare Industrial and commercial waste reduction by volume Preparation of high calorific fuels Any other bulky waste Campaign operations for neighbouring Councils would be charged out at an estimated $450-$500 per hour including transport equating to a cost of approximately $13 per tonne for external councils. SIA strongly recommend a detailed cost benefit analysis be undertaken incorporating a careful market evaluation and contract potential prior to any decision being made. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p25 of 120

26 5.4 Comparative Assessment of Option Future Planning for Option 1. Table 1: Future Planning for Option 1. Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year Year Year Year 35 New cells established and operating by 2014 Close and rehabilitate existing cells New cells are estimated to be full by this stage New cells are full by this stage Satisfy all DECC approvals Satisfy all LMCC planning approvals Ensure all aspects of Flora and fauna are addressed utilizing LMCC and NRM Establish filling regime Improve all aspects of on site waste minimisation Improve on site resource recovery operations Relocate all security parameters Maintenance programme in place Maintenance programme in place Approval for extension of existing landfill footprint will be difficult and will incur considerable time and costs. Piggybacking on existing landfill will be difficult Ensure all arrangements are in place with LMS Large cost for a relatively finite period Dependant upon diversion rates Rehabilitation and aftercare ongoing Capital expenditure Option 1 As already stated the development of new cells comes with a significant cost both in planning approvals and the establishment of each cell. These costs are further exacerbated with the expense of close-out, rehabilitation and aftercare and any additional liability issues associated with the development of new cells. There is significant capital expenditure in the creation of additional cells. The additional life for the capital expenditure is limited and will not be likely to exceed years. This estimate is dependant on the diversion rates LMCC is able to achieve. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p26 of 120

27 It should also be noted that the life of the existing plant is very limited and will not be operational for the life of any new cell(s) and further investment and upgrading of existing plant will be required. Table 2: Vehicle Types at Awaba Landfill Expenditure and Indicative costs* Infrastructure Undertake geotechnical and $800,000 + environmental assessment Planning and approvals $500,000+ LMS unknown Security parameter $47.00 per metre Construction costs Contract development $30,000 Internal site changes $200,000 Plant upgrade $480,000 Close out final cell $580,000 Capping including final cap 54 per metre 2 Rehabilitation and aftercare Dependant on size and nature of approved cells Unknown but not less than $500,000 Sundry $90,000 Estimated Total $3,180,000 + including additions * Cost have been estimated on general assumptions and these will increase significantly in future years Note: Sundry includes but not limited to any addition to power, roads and insurances. Costs associated with any aspect of resource recovery or waste minimisation infrastructure are not included nor are any additional operating costs associated with the management of additional cells. Note: Rehabilitation and aftercare costs have been calculated on a period of 5 years LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p27 of 120

28 5.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact Figure 5: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option Total Waste Landfilled Per Annum (Tonnes) Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 1: Extension of Awaba Year The graph above shows that key initiatives of organic separation and C&D waste diversion as well as a sustained program to enhance household source segregation have a major impact on waste diversion figures. LMCC s current diversion rate can climb to a position above 50% diversion within the next four years. On an ongoing basis this diversion can reach over 60% with a range of initiatives such as further resource recovery initiatives and greater education and awareness campaigns. The forecast diversion rates would result from the following: 27-30% Council, Domestic and Commercial C&D Waste 4-6% Commercial and Industrial Waste 18-25% Domestic and Commercial organic waste 2-6% Increased Diversion of Recyclables GHG Risk and Impact The Australian Government has committed to introducing a national emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which is scheduled to begin 1 July While the final design is still to be determined, the Government has produced various fact sheets and information documents for an estimation of the liability to be faced by participants. For the purposes of this report, an estimation of CPRS liability is made based on information known to date. A more accurate calculation of CPRS liability should be made when there is more certainty around the methodology and carbon price. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p28 of 120

29 Landfills and the CPRS The CPRS seeks to achieve a broad coverage of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sources to ensure the widest range of sectors share in the task of reducing national carbon emissions. Waste is a covered sector under the CPRS which specifies an obligation to acquit permits for emissions not captured at landfill facilities. Operators of landfills will be liable under the scheme if they emit above 25kt carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per annum, and those facilities above 10kt CO2e per annum that are in close proximity to a site triggering the 25kt CO2e threshold and accepting similar classifications of waste. The distance determining the lower threshold, or the prescribed distance rule, aims to avoid waste displacement from covered to uncovered sites. The rule will be outlined in regulations and fixed for five years from the start of the scheme to provide certainty for industry. Central to the impact of the CPRS on the waste sector are the issues of the specific part of the methane generation profile that should be included (given that waste produces emissions over years) and which sites should be covered. It has been determined that emissions from waste deposited prior to commencement of the CPRS (legacy emissions), will not be liable under the scheme. Legacy emissions will however continue to be reported and counted towards a facility threshold in order to ensure broad coverage of new waste emissions (DCC, 2009). Emissions from landfills that closed before 30 June 2008 will also not be covered under the scheme. The cost of permits will be fixed at $10/tonne CO2e in the first year and will be at market prices in the subsequent years (DCC, 2009). This figure is highly sensitive to the trajectory path of emissions targets which are yet to be set by the Government. No discount rates have been applied to cost calculations in this report, and they are indicative only. GHG emissions estimation methodology The accuracy of any calculation of GHG emissions from landfills is dependent on the assumed proportion between waste streams (i.e. MSW, C&I and C&D) and waste types (i.e. food, paper/card, green/garden, timber). The amount of GHG generated by the solid waste stock is calculated by determining, for each waste type, decomposition of degradable organic carbon (a function of existing and new waste stock). The methane emissions for Awaba landfill have been calculated using Method 1 in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Technical Guidelines 2008 v1.1 (DCC, 2009). It is intended that methane generated from solid waste disposal is estimated using data on the solid waste stock at the landfill and the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 First Order Decay (FOD) model (DCC, 2008). Methane generated from the landfill site at any point in time depends on the stock of degradable organic carbon inside the landfill. The opening stock of degradable organic carbon at the beginning of the year decays over the rest of the year resulting in the generation of landfill gas with the remainder going to the year s closing stock. Degradable organic carbon enters the landfill system through the deposition of new waste during the year, with a portion decaying over that year (DCC assume this to occur in the 7 th month). The remainder contributes to the closing stock of degradable organic carbon. LMCC CPRS liability LMCC will be liable under the CPRS if the amount of legacy waste in Awaba landfill and the amount received after the start of the scheme (2011/12) generates enough GHG to trigger the threshold. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p29 of 120

30 Summerhill landfill, which is 18 kms (27 kms by road) from Awaba, receives a greater amount of waste than Awaba so may trigger the 25kt CO2e threshold, in which case LMCC will have a liability if Awaba landfill generates more than 10kt CO2e. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that Awaba landfill will trigger the 25kt threshold only. There are also a number of surrounding landfills within close proximity to Awaba which may trigger the threshold due to the prescribed distance rule, for example Buttonderry, Cessnock and Maitland Council landfills, which are all within under 50kms from Awaba. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste for Awaba landfill forecasted until 2050, based on the forecasts for waste received in Section Landfill closure years will differ for the various options in this report. For Option 1, it is expected that the landfill will close in 2030/31, so will be receiving waste until that date. Figure 7 shows the resulting GHG emissions up until closure and continuing until LMCC will continue to run several key waste diversion and resource recovery initiatives to reduce the tonnes of waste to landfill on an ongoing basis up until closure, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Figure 6: Waste received at Awaba landfill Tonnes of waste 160, , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Forecast years Option 1 (expansion ) Option 2 (new landfill) Option 3 (AWT) Option 4 (export) Option 5 (SIA) BAU LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p30 of 120

31 Figure 7: CPRS Liability for Awaba landfill CPRS liability for LMCC LMCC cost of carbon ($/tonne CO2e) 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, , Forecast years Option 1 (expand) Option 2 (new landfill) Option 3 (AWT) Option 4 (export) Option 5 (SIA) Option 6 (BAU) To calculate the CPRS liability for Option 1, legacy waste is excluded from the calculation in the first year under the current arrangements for the CPRS. In 2011/12, Awaba landfill therefore will receive 92.3kt of waste, producing 1.8kt CO2e. In addition, a proportion of the total amount of methane emitted during the year is captured and utilised in the Landfill Gas Management System (LMS) for electricity generation or flared thereby removing it as an emitted GHG. It has been calculated from monthly landfill gas reports provided by LMCC (2009) that the portion captured is 35%. It is also assumed that 10% of the methane generated is oxidised within the landfill. The indicative CPRS liability cost for LMCC for 2011/12, at a carbon permit cost of $10/tonne CO2e, will be $18,140. In the following years, LMCC will need to purchase carbon permits to cover any emissions at the market cost. The market cost is unknown at this stage, however will be assumed to be $25 per tonne CO2e and that the market price for carbon permits will remain constant for the period considered. Under the current CPRS arrangements, from 2012/13 onwards, the GHG emissions from the opening stock of waste are included in the total emissions for that year. The total amount of waste received for that year is forecasted to be 80.8kt. The amount of GHG produced is calculated at about 5kt CO2e. Assuming a carbon price of $25/tonne CO2e, an indicative total carbon cost in 2012/13 would be $127,100. At closure in 2030, Awaba will receive about 69kt of waste, and be emitting 33kt CO2e (including emissions from legacy waste). Assuming a carbon price of $25 per tonne CO2e, the indicative cost of carbon would be about $834,550. LMCC s cost of carbon will continue to fluctuate but generally decrease in the following years depending on the market price Impact on the Broader Waste Management System including Contracts The impact of the expansion of the Awaba site is likely to result in a number of changes to the waste management system under the proposed option. This includes the following: Residual Waste reduction initiatives resulting in potential new collection contracts and diversion of green and organic wastes LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p31 of 120

32 Review of contracts and current operations at the Awaba site Diversion of C&D waste from site through a number of measures such as CiviLake s proposed Teralba facility and establishment of a resource recovery park Household and business waste education, reduction and diversion programs Review of current kerbside hard waste collection The result of these actions will drive a significant reduction in residual waste being filled at Awaba and allow for the current cells and extensions to provide a longer term infrastructure solution Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC for this option. Complete rehabilitation and aftercare plan including community consultation and development application Undertake Geotechnical and environmental review of site Commence planning and Development application for new cells (EPN) Submit application to DECC Amend Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) and EPA License regarding extension of landfill. DA to State Government for determining development consent. Review and tender of contracts described in section to start residual waste diversion Develop budgetary approvals and identify budgetary constraints Ensure the eco mapping of existing buffer and any impacts associated with flora and fauna are clearly identified It must be noted that regardless of which option is pursued that reducing residual waste for disposal can only be a positive environmental and commercial outcome for LMCC. With all options proposed (other than Option 3 AWT) it is considered that these initiatives should commence as soon as feasible Social and Community Issues The extension of the existing Awaba site combined with the implementation of a major program to reduce residual waste is likely to have the following impacts on the LMCC community: Residents and community already know where current facilities are therefore further education on facility site location is not required Source segregation and waste diversion approaches are likely to place some additional change and burden on some multiple dwelling units Improved hard waste collection and education campaigns are likely to improve services offered to LMCC residents The overall impact on the LMCC community of this option will be minimal. However, some major changes to household education and waste management are likely to have a significant impact for all options proposed. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p32 of 120

33 5.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC Table 3: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 1 Risk Potential Impact Level of Risk Residual waste Lifespan of Awaba with extension decreases High reduction strategies are and current airspace fills at the current rate not successful Extension of site is not Leaves LMCC in a precarious position leading High approved or delayed out to 2014 with no significant short term option for waste disposal Levies and CPRS The ongoing operation of the site specifically under an extension is likely to lead to significant waste disposal cost and potentially high risk leading out 5+ years. High DA and extension is a costly exercise Future ban on putrescible landfill High short term capital cost that may deliver only a short to medium term waste disposal option Although only discussed at this stage an eventual ban on putrescible waste going to landfill as occurs under the European Directive 1999/31/EC is unlikely in the near term but may be a longer term risk. Medium Low Waste Hierarchy Impact The impact of expansion of the Awaba site combined with a range of source segregation, diversion and resource recovery initiatives is likely to translate into a heavy focus on the bottom end of the waste hierarchy treatment and disposal. Recycling will remain a prominent aspect with the current kerbside recyclable collection. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p33 of 120

34 Figure 8: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 1 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p34 of 120

35 6. OPTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LANDFILL SITE WITHIN THE LAKE MACQUARIE MUNICIPALITY The second infrastructure option for future waste management is the development of a new landfill within the LMCC municipality. This new landfill would be on a greenfield site, separate from the existing Awaba landfill. This option could ensure long-term waste disposal at a local site, and may also have the potential to generate revenue from regional disposal. The process of developing a new landfill is a significant challenge and is likely to result in community opposition. A new landfill will also represent a long term liability for Council in terms of future site management, emissions and remediation. The community is likely to have significant concerns regarding the establishment of a greenfield site. Landfill levies and CPRS exposure are also likely to provide an ongoing risk to Council. Figure 9: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 2 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p35 of 120

36 6.1 Site Options for Landfill in LMCC Due to the geography of the Lake Macquarie City predominately being dominated by the largest salt lake in the Southern Hemisphere, and a large growing urban population (dispersed population with no major centre) around the Lake catchment, there are limiting options for the design and development of a major new landfill other than primarily to the west of the LGA. Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of Lake Macquarie City Council 6.2 Options for New Landfill Development at Awaba A landfill to cater for the long term needs of the LGA (50 to 100 years) and allowing for a steady population increase over this period and assuming a landfill rate at present levels LMCC would need to allocate space for approximately 7.5 million m 3 or a foot print of at least 100 hectares and a significant buffer zone. If the establishment of a greenfield site was pursued by LMCC the old Hawkmount quarry would be suitable in terms of size with a boundary area of approximately 519 hectares allowing an adequate buffer zone. Through investigation to date the following potential sites have been identified however further detailed investigation would be required and there are significant doubts surrounding the viability of some of these sites. Sites identified to date include: 1) Hawkmount Road Quarry (519 hectares) 2) Land adjacent to the current Awaba Landfill 3) A private developer is progressing discussions with a prospective site within the LGA and has outlined this information is commercial-in-confidence at this stage. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p36 of 120

37 Further detailed investigation may establish alternative sites however it is considered few sites will be large enough with an appropriate buffer around them to be suitable. DECC has made it clear that what ever site LMCC chooses to explore the same set of criteria will apply. 6.3 Planning and Development Requirements for a New Landfill Planning and Development requirements for a new landfill site will be extensive but similar to those proposed for Option 1. Please refer to Appendix 2 for DECC details. 6.4 Comparative Assessment of Option Future planning for Option 2 Table 4: Future Planning for Option 2 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year Year 15 New landfill established and Operating New landfill operating and all planned resource recovery and waste diversions in place Filling regime is in place and managed Undertake detailed due diligence studies Meet all planning approvals Satisfy DECC requirements Traffic impact assessments and other amenity issues Satisfy all community concerns/issues Review existing contractual arrangements including LAWA Purchase new plant LMS is in place Expand existing scope of the resource recovery contract to include Eco park All operational schedules are in place and functioning Explore options to import waste Need to implement new collection contracts and change household behaviour/ practices Facility based on a life exceeding 2050 Substantial cost Based on the existing life of Awaba including implementing waste minimisation strategies the time frames are very short GHG liability related issues will need to be managed accordingly Importing of waste could be a significant revenue stream Year 25 Maintain all operational and compliance issues Explore all options for implementing new technology and or practices at this point Maintain and review all operational and compliance schedules Council could undertake further advances towards source separation and waste minimisation. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p37 of 120

38 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2044 Year 35 Review life of new site and commence planing future for future requirements Maintain all operational and compliance issues Unknown at this stage Capital Expenditure The level of capital expenditure required for the development of a new landfill site within the municipal area of LMCC in the order of 100 hectare capacity would be substantial. Providing an accurate estimate of these costs is difficult within the scope of this report. However SIA has endeavoured to provide an indicative cost as a guide only. This cost has included those one of costs associated directly with the establishment of a greenfield landfill site such as; Fencing Weighbridge Gatehouse Office Amenities Reuse Centre Environmental monitoring and controls Workshop Professional consultation Community consultation including traffic and noise management DA and EMP including all permitting Any specific site preparation (not cell development) For the costing evaluation purpose only SIA has assumed that Hawkmount would be used based on size, Crown ownership and LMCC previous usage. It does not include those issues associated with resource recovery, day to day management or rehabilitation and aftercare. Significant constraint mapping to determine an appropriate greenfield site will be required. This process would include but not be limited to; Flood areas Water course Hydrology reports Geological reports Flora and Fauna (ecology assessment) Traffic management Residential and farming populations In addition the costs would also need to include those costs associated with the state regulatory body (DECC) requirements. Further it is estimated that the process will take approximately five years to complete. Based around the listed constraints it is estimated that the initial costs will be in excess of $6 million (excluding cell development). LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p38 of 120

39 6.4.3 Waste Diversion Impact The establishment of a new landfill would have some conflicting drivers both representing a need to fill airspace to make the capital and operating expense of a new facility viable, at the same time being impacted by the NSW State landfill levy and CPRS liabilities acting as a deterrent for filling space. The impact this infrastructure option would have on waste reduction and increasing waste diversion rates would be minimal compared to the alternative of options 3, 4 and 5 in this report. Figure 11: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option Total Waste Landfilled Per Annum (Tonnes) Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 2: Creation of New Landfill Year GHG Risk and Impact Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste received by Awaba landfill forecasted until 2050, based on the forecasts for waste received in Section For Option 2, it is expected that the landfill will close in 2014/15, so will be receiving waste until that date, and the new landfill is to be developed and receiving waste in 2015/16. Figure 7 shows the resulting GHG emissions up until closure and until 2050, assuming waste is diverted to a new landfill after closure. Similarly to Option 1, to calculate the CPRS liability for Option 2, legacy waste is excluded from the calculation in the first year. As the amount of waste received is the same as Option 2, the GHG emissions and CPRS liability will therefore be the same as Option 1 until 2014/15 and then reduce as waste is diverted to the new landfill in the following years. In 2014/15 GHG emissions will be 10,020 tonnes CO2e which includes GHG emissions from the opening stock of waste, less GHG captured by LMS and amount oxidised. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p39 of 120

40 An indicative cost of a CPRS liability for LMCC for the Awaba site for 2014/15, at a carbon permit cost of $25/tonne CO2e will be about $ The carbon cost for LMCC will generally decrease until 2050 after a slight increase in 2016/17. The location of the new landfill is as not yet known, however we can assume that it will be within close proximity to Awaba landfill. As operators of landfills will be liable under the scheme if they emit above 25kt CO2-e per annum, or are above 10kt CO2-e per annum and in close proximity to a site triggering the 25kt CO2-e threshold and accepting similar classifications of waste, we can assume the new landfill will also have a CPRS liability. It must be noted that the close proximity rule will be reviewed each year and as such the future liability is uncertain as the CPRS rules may change Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts The development of a new greenfield landfill site will have impacts both on the existing broader waste management operations and the development of new waste management strategies. Assuming these existing arrangements are in place at the commencement of a greenfield site operation the following will apply. Existing Impact Impacts on existing arrangements and services include but are not limited to: Kerbside recycling collection contract Limited or no impact due to existing contractual arrangements. Kerbside refuse collection Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. Amendments of existing collection arrangements may be required. GHG emissions Distances to transport waste by all sectors (including council, domestic self haul and commercial and industrial) will change. Bulk waste collection Additional cost per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. Amendments of existing collection arrangements may be required. Green organic collection Amendments of existing collection arrangements will be required. Redrafting of existing contract with Ozmulch to process and transport processed green organic. Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p40 of 120

41 Commercial collection services Amendments of existing collection arrangements will be required. Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. Public Place Waste and Recycling Amendments of existing collection arrangements may be required. Additional cost per bin per tenement collection due to change in distances travelled. Potential increased disposal costs associated with a greenfield site. Plant and equipment The thinking behind the use of existing plant and equipment will need to change to reflect the new procedures and methodologies of a greenfield site. The machinery will need to be upgraded and altered to suit. New Impact Change in management protocols This will encompass all aspects of site management on a day to day basis including interface with customers. Work place safety protocols The work place safety protocols have been given a separate heading due to the extraordinary importance SIA place on safety both to the workforce and customers who use the site. This process will require significant capital both in terms of money and time. Plant and Equipment The contractual agreements for new plant and equipment will need to be reviewed and re written. Reporting protocols This will require a comprehensive review and will need to meet the reporting needs of LMCC and DECC. Traffic management principles The development of a greenfield site will potentially have a profound impact on the general public with regard to road use and traffic protocols. Although in part an aspect of work place safety protocols this is more comprehensive as it entails all aspects of traffic management and for all road users. Education Education of all waste stream generators and transporters in terms of location, usage and traffic management is critical (see Option 5). Recycling and Resource Recovery In addition there will be a number of broader areas that will require attention including on site recycling and resource recovery. SIA has highlighted some of the above issues in order to demonstrate the complex and thorough review of all systems that will be required to develop a new facility. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p41 of 120

42 6.4.6 Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months] As already stated, if LMCC is to proceed with the development of a new greenfield landfill site there are a number of actions that require immediate attention. These have been kept broad and in a hierarchical order and include; Early discussion with DECC and Department of Planning SIA believes it is critical for LMCC to establish clear channels of communication clearly and unambiguously defining what LMCC s intentions are to the state regulatory bodies. This ongoing dialog with the state regulatory bodies would include issues such as development applications, environmental management plans, and site preparations and would include significant constraint mapping process to determine scope and limitations appropriate to a greenfield site. Allocation of capital A detailed analysis of the significant capital costs needs to be undertaken. Once complete it is essential that LMCC develops an appropriate allocation for these budget items. Community consultation A detailed community consultation process should be developed. This process would include a detailed interface with the community on issues such as flood areas, flora and fauna including any endangered species, geological and hydrological reports, water courses, traffic and noise management and any other issue that maybe of interest to the general public. SIA would like to make it clear in the context of this report that at no point along the establishment continuum of a greenfield landfill site would the final approval be granted by DECC. As a core aspect of the approval process permission would only happen once DECC had been satisfied the proposal met all aspects of their (DECC) requirements. In short LMCC could spend considerable time and money to find that a greenfield site was not possible Social and Community Issues Within the context of developing a greenfield landfill site there are a number of issues that the community will have particular interest in. These include; Table 5: Social and Community Issues for Option 2 Litter Odour and Dust Community Health & Safety Litter is an issue often raised by the community. The community often do not articulate the difference between types of litter. Litter therefore is to include all types of litter including windblown rubbish. This is a major community concern and often relates to poor waste management practices. The community often express a concern with lifestyle amenity and this can be manifested as health and safety. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p42 of 120

43 Traffic Noise Environmental Damage including Ground & Surface Water Contamination Impact on Wildlife, Vermin (birds, rats, flies etc) Proximity to Residents Impact on Tourism Perceived Land Value Reduction (Poor Image/Appearance) Fire Hazard Hazardous Waste Illegal Dumping Volume, type, frequency and speed (commercial and industrial, small or large and domestic self haul) are often issues of concern. In addition the community often have issues with regard to point of origin of vehicles using the landfill facility. Relating to traffic frequency is of concern to the general public but so is the noise generated from the operation of the landfill. The construction of a new landfill and its potential to cause lasting environmental harm is of significant concern to the community. This includes but is not limited to leachate monitoring, groundwater management and management of windblown litter. In conjunction with the potential for environmental degradation the community is concerned about the impact on flora, fauna with particular attention to native species. Vermin is also seen as a critical issue with particular emphases on nearby communities. Their concerns are often related to migration activities. Within this context SIA has found that birds (although not often identified immediately) often become the major source of complaint. SIA has experienced the location of a greenfield landfill site often comes with two conflicting issues. It needs to be close to the generators of waste (population) to reduce transport costs but needs to be as far away as possible from residential communities. This issue often presents itself as a major concern to the community and problematic for Council. In addition to the proximity issue there is often a concern with loss of public amenity and the potential subsequent impact on tourism. This perceived lack of amenity can also manifest in public perception as a decline in neighbouring land values. This perception is based on historically poor performing landfills nationally. This is off concern to the community with particular regard to environmental degradation and a danger to both residential and commercial premises The creation of a cell suitable for the disposal hazardous waste will generate an entirely new level of public interest and concern over and above that of a standard greenfield site. Illegal dumping in the vicinity of a new landfill may increase due to self haulers of waste not accepting disposal costs and/or inappropriate facility opening hours. It is critical to seek an understanding of the social, cultural and psychological components of public opposition to locating and developing a greenfield landfill site for such a facility that would be required by LMCC. It should also be noted that community priorities and concerns will change during the creation and life of the greenfield landfill site including close monitoring of management and performance. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p43 of 120

44 6.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC The establishment of a greenfield landfill site by Council and operation has a plethora of issues that requires a detailed and analytical approach in order to evaluate the risks. The risks can be broken into three key areas; Environmental Social Financial Table 6: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 2 Key Area of Risk Potential Impact Risk Level Environmental CPRS Risks High Litter Environmental Damage/ Ground Surface Water Contamination Impact on Wildlife Hazardous Waste Odour Fire Hazard Social Community Backlash to Site High Location Traffic Vermin Impact on Tourism Community Health and Safety Proximity to Residents Noise Perceived Land Value Reduction (Due to poor image/appearance) Financial Landfill Levies (State rising costs) Up-front Capital Costs Time Frame for Planning, Approvals and Development High Risks associated with a private landfill being developed are similar to those outlined above however largely born by the site developer. In the case of private site development/ownership there is also the associated risk of Council becoming a key price taker. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p44 of 120

45 6.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact In a similar position to Option 1, the establishment of a new landfill in LMCC would place a strong focus on the bottom end of the waste hierarchy. This option would, over time, put conflicting financial pressures on Council, specifically in regards to taking more waste in order to generate revenue to cover facility capital and operating costs. Having said this the value of future airspace at a new Greenfield site in 20+ years time would be significant but the role of the landfill facility and volumes it receives will ultimately decline. Figure 12: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 2 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p45 of 120

46 7. OPTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE WASTE TREATMENT (AWT) FACILITY WITHIN THE LAKE MACQUARIE LGA The third option for future waste management in Lake Macquarie is the development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) Facility within the LMCC LGA. This new facility could have the potential capacity to treat not only LMCC s municipal solid waste, but also the waste from other Hunter regional Councils. This option provides a strong basis for waste diversion and an outlet for waste other than landfill, and therefore can reduce the costs associated with levies and CPRS liabilities for greenhouse gas emissions. However, this option carries fairly high capital cost and risk, and is also associated with potential residual disposal issues. Residual materials (potentially organic) also need a disposal end point and potentially a requirement for landfill or waste export. For the definition of this study Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) is referred to as technology that accepts a mixed or segregated Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream. Other technologies that treat or processes hazardous, organic, industrial, commercial and construction and demolition wastes may be considered to be AWT but are not included in this specific options evaluation. The specific treatment of source segregated Organic waste is discussed in further detail in Section of this report. Figure 13: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 3 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p46 of 120

47 7.1 Review of AWT Technology in Australia and Overseas The trend away from non traditional waste management processes (landfill and incineration) has grown substantially over the past three decades. This has largely been led by initiatives in Europe to deal with both a shortage of landfill space due to dense population and also past emission problems with incineration plants. In Europe this has led to two key important directives that have changed waste management fundamentally (Council Directives 1999/31/EC and 2000/76/EC). This has led to the generation (primarily initiated in Germany) of a range of mechanical, thermal and biological treatment processes to separate, treat, reduce or recover materials from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream. Other factors driving the uptake of new technology in Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific have included: Limited land availability with appropriate buffer distances for new landfill Concerns over contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies Opportunities for high value materials and resources to be recovered or utilised Requirements for reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from landfill Air emission concerns with respect to older incineration technologies This has in turn led to the development of a broad range of treatment technologies to manage MSW commonly referred to as Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT). The broad level of these technologies consist of mechanical and biological treatment processes and are often referred to as Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). The experience of AWT globally has been mixed as the technologies largest challenge in treating the MSW stream is both the variability of the materials in both volume and consistency. Traditional engineering approaches often fail to deal with the nature of the feedstock and many early stage technologies and plants have failed due to either technical or commercial reasons. The other significant problem that has impacted on AWT technologies success has been the key issue of viable uses for the output from the process and securing long-term off-take contracts for these materials. Issues with primary outputs are discussed below: One of the significant outputs of AWT is the organic fraction or compost. As this is mostly derived from the mixed MSW stream the end materials require significant processes to remove contaminants. At best this material usually only meets a base grade of compost specification due to contaminants such as metals, chemicals and other materials from the MSW stream. In most cases this material is landfilled, used as landfill cover or for other low grade remedial purposes such as legacy site remediation. The commercial value of the material is often zero with the facility operator required to pay transport to have the materials removed. Although there have been strong expectations for market demand for this material in most cases this has not eventuated creating an expensive process to produce a product with limited application and demand. There have also been major challenges associated with using the output as a fuel. This has been trialled extensively in Europe in particular, there are numerous technical issues associated with such applications focused predominantly around the variability of the Calorific Value and also policy restriction on co-firing of specific materials. The recovery of other materials such as metals, glass, plastics and paper is good in most facilities however diversion rates for these materials are often not dissimilar to a standard MRF and in some cases worse due to contamination levels from co-mingled waste. There is a need to realistically evaluate the requirement for an AWT by undertaking an assessment of materials in and out as well as the cost of treatment. Considering the market and technical failures and successes of specific AWT technology other options including more LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p47 of 120

48 conventional waste management systems and practices also need to be assessed. In all cases AWT processes assessed have not provided a silver bullet solution to waste management issues, rather AWT is another approach in the mix that can meet specific waste management requirements. Output options for AWT are: Bio-gas SRF (solid recovered fuel) or RDF (refuse derived fuel) Bio-stabilized residues for landfill Bio-treated residues such as compost Combining options such as bio-gas plus land remediation bio-soil Outlined below is a brief overview of the various types of AWT technologies. Pyrolysis and Gasification Pyrolysis, often incorporating gasification, is a thermal process where organic materials in the waste are broken down under pressure and in the absence of oxygen. The process works best when the input waste is carbon-rich, preferably sorted or pre-sorted. Best results are obtained from single stream wastes such as sewage sludge, plastics, wood, tyres, or agricultural wastes. Where MSW is to be used it should be pre-sorted to remove the majority of the non-organics and processed to homogenise the feedstock. The Pyrolysis process produces a liquid residue and gaseous output which may be combusted to generate electricity. A solid slag is also produced which may require disposal or additional processing. There are two distinct type of Pyrolysis 1. Slow Pyrolysis Slow Pyrolysis is fundamentally the process associated with high carbon capture. Often it requires a smaller footprint to operate and comes at a far less cost than that associated with flash Pyrolysis. 2. Flash Pyrolysis The defining difference with flash Pyrolysis is that less carbon is captured in the process but there is an increase in gas and liquid capture that can be used as a fuel source. Flash Pyrolysis requires a large infrastructure and comes with a greater operating costs and capital expenditure. Gasification is a process that operates at a higher temperature range to pyrolysis and converts waste materials into fuel gases methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen by reacting the raw material at high temperatures with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. The resulting gas mixture is called synthesis gas or syngas and is itself a fuel. Gasification is a method for extracting energy from many different types of organic materials. The advantage of gasification is that using the syngas is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of the original fuel because it can be combusted at higher temperatures. Syngas may be burned directly in internal combustion engines, used to produce methanol and hydrogen, or converted into synthetic fuel. Chemical processing of the syngas may produce other synthetic fuels, such as diesel, at greater efficiency than is the case with the generation, reticulation and use of electricity. Gasification can also begin with materials that are not otherwise useful fuels, such as biomass or organic waste. In addition, the high-temperature combustion removes corrosive ash elements such as chloride, sodium and potassium, allowing clean gas production from otherwise problematic fuels. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p48 of 120

49 Gasification relies on chemical processes at elevated temperatures >700 C, which distinguishes it from biological processes such as anaerobic digestion that produce biogas. Despite application of the gasification route over more than one hundred years, and especially for industrial and organic residues and wastes during wartime, the process is not much in evidence today. There are small waste fuelled gas plants in use in many developing nations at village level where the health and safety aspect of cool clean fuel gas, versus wood, charcoal and dung for heating and cooking is an obvious advantage. A number of gasification processes have been developed as waste treatment options for a range of wastes. However Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) processes for treatment of MSW (such as the SWERF process developed by EDL in Wollongong) have proved unsuccessful. Gasification works well on specific fairly homogenous waste streams (such as C&I wastes), however has proven to be a failure to date on mixed and variable streams such as MSW. Another major challenge for waste gasification technologies is to reach an acceptable (positive) gross electric efficiency. The high efficiency of converting syngas to electric power is counteracted by significant power consumption in the waste pre-processing, the consumption of large amounts of pure oxygen (which is often used as a gasification agent), and gas cleaning. Another challenge becoming apparent when implementing the processes in real life is to obtain long service intervals in the plants, so that it is not necessary to close down the plant every few months for cleaning the reactor. One plant (in Japan using the Thermoselect process) has been processing industrial waste since year 2000, but has not yet documented positive net energy production from the process. Mechanical Biological Treatment Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is the term used for most AWT systems and is not a single concept but, instead, is a family of possible process elements that can be combined in many different ways. A variable mix of configurations can be developed to treat different waste streams in different ways. MBT systems have been in operation for more than ten years in Europe. MBT partially processes mixed household waste, by mechanically removing some parts of the waste and by biologically treating others, so that the residual fraction is smaller, more stable and more suitable for a number of possible uses. MBT processes incorporate mechanical sorting and separation of the waste stream to separate the biodegradable materials, which are sent to a biological process, from the non-biodegradable materials. The mechanical process can be configured to further separate the non-biodegradables into clean fractions for recycling. Although waste diversion from MBT plants can be high, the main challenge associated with MBT is contamination of output and finding viable uses for these outputs. This can be a significant process to produce products that could be cleaner and have a higher resource value if separated at source rather than through the AWT process. Quoting UK experience, it appears there would be sufficient outlets for these products if they were to embrace MBT as the primary method of processing the residual fraction of household waste. However, the policy framework that affects the viability of such applications has significant uncertainties specifically in relation to quality standards and allowable application or use. As long as these uncertainties remain, it may be difficult to finalise waste management contracts that rely on such applications. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p49 of 120

50 Apart from the proprietary hub of each process most of the equipment involved is readily available, conveyors, pumps, blowers, etc. and it is the manner in which this equipment is used that varies most from process to process. Some have opted for totally dry systems to avoid wet processing and the effluents generated, these generally produce less clean more contaminated outputs, generally not for fuel applications. The capital and operating costs of MBT processes vary widely, because of the diversity of configurations. Increasingly MBT is becoming more viable as other fiscal drivers such as landfill taxes and CPRS are changing the economics. However the big issue still arises as to whether the output from an MBT is a source of revenue or another disposal cost. Waste Autoclave A waste autoclave is a form of solid waste treatment that utilises heat, steam and pressure of an industrial autoclave in the processing of waste. Waste autoclaves process waste in batches. Saturated steam is pumped into the autoclave at temperatures around 160 C. The pressure in the vessel is maintained at 5 bar gauge for a period of up to 45 minutes to allow the process to fully 'cook' the waste.. The autoclave process gives a very high rate of pathogen and virus kill and has been extensively used for 30 years or more for treating quarantine, hospital, veterinary, clinical, bio-medical waste (BMW), and the cost (A$0.25/kg) would have been prohibitive for MSW in earlier days. Such an application would have to rely upon the value of the recovered products, not on the waste disposal fee. The 'cooking' process causes plastics to soften and flatten, paper and other fibrous material to disintegrate into a fibrous mass, bottles and metal objects to be cleaned, and labels etc. to be removed. The process reduces the volume of the waste by ~60%. After 'cooking', the steam flow is stopped and the pressure vented via a condenser. When depressurised, the autoclave door is opened, and by rotating the drum the 'cooked' material can be discharged and separated by a series of screens and recovery systems. After fibre separation, the secondary streams comprise of mixed plastics, which have normally been softened and deformed which eases separation, a glass and aggregate stream, which can be exceptionally clean of both plastic and paper, and separate ferrous and non ferrous metals. The heat, steam and rotating action of the autoclave vessel strip off labels and glues from food cans leaving a very high quality ferrous/non-ferrous stream for recycling. The size of the vessel varies between vendors. Experience shows that "small" vessels are not productive enough; while if the vessel is too large, the pressures in the vessel and the heavy weight of the vessel can cause equipment failures. There is a large interest in autoclave technology, but only a few vessels have been built and operated successfully at full scale. Many would-be vendors will have to scale-up their equipment and will be relying on a first contract to furnish the way to do this. The Coffs Harbour facility being built by Biomass Solutions will be the first such AWT in Australia. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p50 of 120

51 7.2 Review of AWT experience in Australia Australia has had a mixed experience with AWT only becoming an alternative to landfill in recent times (late 1990 s). To date there are twelve AWT facilities currently operating or being developed in Australia to treat MSW: 7 facilities in NSW 4 facilities in WA 1 facility in QLD See table below for reference of AWT plants and details. Early experiences of AWT have generally proved costly (for either operators or councils) and the results of resource recovery and residual waste reduction have been mixed. Through experience and technology/process development AWT is achieving greater levels of operational efficiency and improved waste diversion in Australia although many associated issues with the problems of material output still remain. Increasingly with strong drivers to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed CPRS, increasing state landfill levies, urban encroachment reducing landfill options and a desire for higher waste diversion rates, AWT is experiencing strong interest in many areas of Australia including the anticipation of further facilities in NSW, VIC, QLD and WA in the short term. Outlined below is a brief summary of each facility currently operating. Table 7: AWT Facilities in Australia Type Location Description of Technology Capacity Inputs Saleable Outputs* Diversion Rate Capital Cost ArrowBio SAWT (SITA Advanced Waste Treatment) Macarthur Region, Sydney, NSW Kemps Creek, NSW Water-based separation method for processing mixed solid waste Mechanical biological treatment with resource recovery 90,000tpa at full capacity with 2 modules 120,000tpa- 40,000t organics and 80,000t residual Unsorted MSW MSWorganics and residuals processed separately 10,000MWh excess energy 10,000tpa organic material 15,000tpa highgrade compost 20,000tpa mediumgrade compost 70% when fully operational 94% for organic stream (Penrith) and 68% for residual stream (Liverpool) $50 million $40-50 million SITA Eweson Digester Drum- Cairns SITA Eweson Digester Drum- Port Stephens SITA Mindarie Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) Cairns, QLD Port Stephens, NSW Mindarie, WA Mechanical and biological treatment Mechanical and biological treatment Waste is presorted, shredded, mixed, and held in a rotating drum. This crude compost is then sorted, screened and further refined in windrows 120,000tpa 40,000tpa 100,000tpa MSW and C&I solid organics, including biosolids MSW and C&I solid organics (no biosolids) Unsorted MSW 28,000tpa organics- compost sold to cane farmers 50% 12,000tpa organics- recycled quality soil conditioners 50% Recycling and 36,000tpa highquality compost 70% $40 million (2002) $12 million (1999) $80 million LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p51 of 120

52 Type Veolia WASP (Woodlawn Alternative Sorting and Processing Facility) Location Woodlawn, NSW (near Goulburn) Description of Technology Capacity Inputs Dry mechanical separation techniques including Designed for separation into initial capacity inert and organic of 120,000tpa, streams and the but can be recovery of doubled to Unsorted recyclables 240,000tpa MSW Saleable Outputs* Compost for mine site rehabilitation, refuse derived fuel (RDF) type material and metals 80% Diversion Rate Capital Cost $15 million AnaeCo DiCOM System BioMass Solutions- SPP Autoclave Process and Agitated Bay Composting Remondis ORRF (Organic Resource Recovery Facility) Emergent Capital UR-3R (Urban Resource- Reduction, Recovery and Recycling) Bedminster- Canning Vale MBT Shenton Park, WA Coffs Harbour, NSW Port Macquarie, NSW Eastern Creek, NSW Hybrid biological system that integrates the natural aerobic and anaerobic bioconversion cycles in a continuous, invessel process. Organic feedstock is loaded into composting bays MSW is steampressurised, to separate from the remaining inorganic material and recyclables 2 process lines: one utilises mechanical mixing and in-vessel composting, and the other utilises mechanical separation and composting on an aerated static floor Mechanical and biological treatment (including mechanical and hand sorting, energy recovery from anaerobic digestion, intensive enclosed composting, maturation and refining) 55,000tpa modules 20,000tpa for each SPP vessel and 3,750tpa for each composting bay 41,000tpa- Sourceseparated organics: 20,000tpa, MSW and C&I: 21,000tpa Feasible 150, ,000tpa or more, Modules of 50,000tpa Canning Vale, WA Aerobic MBT 109,000tpa All MSW and some C&I Sourceseparated organics, including food and/or biosolids, and all MSW Sourceseparated organics, biosolids, residual MSW and C&I Sourceseparated organics and all MSW 8,760MWh energy and 27,000tpa of compost from a 55,000tpa module 80-85% Organics turned into Grade A compost, Biomass is currently composted and used for rehabilitation, but proposed future use will be as renewable fuel 99% for organics, 70% for MSW 13,000tpa highgrade compost and 500tpa steel 55% 10% recyclables, 27% compost, 10-20kWh renewable energy for every tonne of MSW 70% MSW and Mixed Biosolids N/A 35-50% Stirling MBT Stirling, WA Aerobic MBT 60,000tpa MSW N/A N/A N/A Some technology providers have not been forthcoming on verifiable details at this stage, including information on outputs and tonnage of residual waste to landfill Detailed technical and commercial review of each specific AWT technology can be provided upon Council s request however due to legal liability issues for assessing specific technology in a document that may become public SIA would prefer to undertake this task external to this report if requested. Currently involved in ongoing tender $20 million for 20,000tp a SPP and 22,5000t pa composti ng bays $10 million $110 million for 200,000t pa $60m for 160,000t pa LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p52 of 120

53 A TALE OF TWO CITIES The recently commissioned SITA alternative waste treatment facility in Kemps Creek, SAWT, is currently accepting waste from two city councils: Penrith and Liverpool. This facility uses mechanical separation technology combined with aerobic tunnel composting to recycle organic waste, and includes environmental controls for odour, dust and noise abatement. Penrith and Liverpool show two different paths of treating the broader MSW stream. PENRITH Penrith City Council has recently made the switch to using a 3-bin system for the collection on household waste. The three mobile bins will collect: - Organics (garden and food waste) o 240 litre bin o Collected weekly - Dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, bottles, cans) o 240 litre bin o Colleted fortnightly - Residual waste o 140 litre bin o Collected fortnightly The contents of the recycling bin are taken to the VISY Recycling Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located at Smithfield for recycling. The contents of the green organics bin are taken to the SAWT facility at Kemps Creek, where the diversion rate for this stream is expected to be 94%, with saleable outputs of 15,000tpa high-grade compost ($25-35 a cubic metre) The contents of the residual MSW waste bin are currently being taken to landfill. However, Penrith City Council is working with WSN ArrowBio to create a new facility that will take their residual waste and divert some of it from landfill. The facility is expected to be located in Seven Hills and to be operational in 3 to 4 years and is anticipated to reach a diversion rate of between 40-50% of this residual waste stream. LIVERPOOL Liverpool Council also utilises a 3-bin system. However, for Liverpool the organics bin can only accept garden waste, and all kitchen waste and food scraps are included in the residual waste bin. The three bins will collect: - Garden waste o 240 litre bin o Collected fortnightly - Dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, bottles, cans) o 240 litre bin o Collected fortnightly - Residual waste (including food waste) o 140 litre bin o Collected weekly The contents of the recycling bin are taken to the VISY Recycling Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located at Smithfield for recycling. The contents of the garden waste bin and residual waste bin are taken to the SAWT at Kemps Creek. The diversion rate for the residual stream is expected to be 68%, with outputs of 20,000tpa medium-grade compost to be used for land rehabilitation and roadside vegetation (cost of transport >$30 a tonne). LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report August 2009 p53 of 120

54 7.3 Process and Time Frames to Develop an AWT Outlined below is an indicative time frame for the development of an AWT facility for Lake Macquarie City Council. It must be noted that these time frames are dependant heavily on the technology, the site location and the two contractual parties. There is significant opportunity if not managed correctly for this time frame to expand greatly as was experienced in the HIR regional AWT project. Action Expression of Interest (EOI) Tender Contract Negotiation Facility Approvals Delivery design and construct Commissioning Total Time Frame 3 months 6 months 3-6 months 9-18 months months 3-6 months months 7.4 Comparative Assessment of Option Future Planning Table 8: Future Planning for Option 3 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Facility Established and Year 5 Operating 2024 Year Year Year 35 Facility Operating and waste diversion improving Revise current waste management strategy and consider upgrading existing facility or new alternatives New facility or waste management approach in place Full requirements for tender and plant development Residual waste to Awaba for 1-4 years Contractual obligations may not support investment in key waste reduction/diversion activities Residual waste export required to another landfill or facility LMCC would be in a good position to focus on new technology and or practices at this point May need to implement new collection arrangements and change household behaviour/ practices Unknown at this stage Facility based on a year contract Council may incur significant extra costs associated with high waste volumes and the need to manage residual materials Council would be in a strong position at this point but may need to embark on changing resident behaviour towards source segregation Unknown at this stage LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p54 of 120

55 7.4.2 Capital Expenditure Due to the considerable variability of treatment options any costs regarding AWT s will only be realised during contractual negotiations. For comparative assessment the following estimates have been provided based on recent pricing. The estimate capital cost for Development of an AWT to treat 100,000 tonnes of mixed MSW is as follows. Option 1: commingled MSW stream- $50-80m (this would also provide savings going to a one bin system) Option 2: segregated Organics and recycling $35-65m (this will include the additional cost of a green organics collection service) Resource Recovery Facility (C&D and C&I) $10m An AWT is unlikely to meet all of LMCC s waste requirements and an alternative option for residual waste disposal will be required with the close of Awaba. Separation of the organic volume within the AWT will help reduce the tonnage of residual waste required for disposal. An AWT is likely to have a relatively high operation and maintenance running cost and will likely need staffing of between people depending on the technology and the scale. Proposed gate fees for facilities vary significantly however it is expected that in consideration of LMCC s current waste volumes a facility gate fee in the region of $150 to $250 a tonne is likely. Both the volume of waste and contract term provide the most significant factor in the gate fee and the following figures represent the indication of variable contract terms on the gate fee: 10 year contract indicative gate fee of $ year contract indicative gate fee of $ year contract indicative gate fee of $165 Although LMCC would retain greater flexibility in proceeding with a 10 year contract this is likely to represent a 20-30% increase in gate fees over the life of the contract compared to a twenty year term. A facility will also determine gate fees based on secured contracts for waste volume and therefore there is likely to be little incentive for LMCC to reduce household waste. Some technologies will not deem LMCC s MSW volumes to be adequate and would need to secure additional volumes from other Councils who may have limited landfill capacity such as Maitland Council. It is likely that minimum MSW volumes for most AWT facilities to be commercially viable will be a plant throughput of 70,000 tonnes of MSW p.a. or greater Waste Diversion Impact Waste diversion rates by weight from AWT compared to other waste management approaches are relatively high. This is primarily due to the large organic fraction removed (and high moisture content of the organic stream) from the MSW stream and high material recovery from the MSW separation process. AWT facilities will generally reach diversion rates of between 50-70% of the MSW waste stream and some technologies claim higher rates however are not always able to verify this with working plants. A significant % of this diversion is often the compost from the organic stream which in many cases is used as landfill cover or transported for purposes such as legacy site remediation. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p55 of 120

56 Figure 14: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option Total Waste Landfilled Per Annum (Tonnes) Year Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 3: Creation of AWT GHG Risk and Impact In Option 3 it is expected that the Awaba landfill will be closed in 2014/15 and the AWT receiving waste in the following years. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste for Awaba landfill forecasted for Option 3 until Figure 7 shows the GHG emissions for Awaba landfill forecast until closure in 2014/15 based on the forecasts for waste received in Section The volume of waste to landfill and resulting GHG emissions will be lower than the previous options due waste diverted to the AWT. As in the previous options, the CPRS liability is calculated for 2011/12 based on the amount of waste received for that year. It has been forecast that about 43kt of residual waste will be received at the Awaba landfill, producing 847 tonnes CO2e. Assuming a carbon prices of $10/tonne CO2e, the total cost at the beginning of the CPRS in 2011/12 would be $8470, excluding legacy emissions and GHG captured by the LMS and amount oxidised. At closure in 2014/15 the GHG emissions are forecasted to be 5581 tco2e with an indicative carbon cost of $ ($25 per tco2e) which includes GHG emissions from the opening stock of waste, less GHG captured by Landfill Gas Management Systems (LMS) and amount oxidised. Similar to the previous options, Awaba will continue to have a reducing carbon cost after closure after a slight increase in 2015/16. The aim of the CPRS is to internalise the cost of carbon to drive low cost abatement options. As such the cost of carbon permits will impact on decisions about adopting alternative waste treatment options. In the early years of the CPRS, the carbon price is expected to remain low and LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p56 of 120

57 may not fully capture the carbon externality and may not drive alternative waste treatment approaches. In later years, however, a high carbon price is expected to encourage lower-carbon technologies. MBT plants may generate low levels of methane and nitrous oxide during the composting/digestion process. Site measurements may be necessary to estimate emissions as there is a lot of variation in treatment processes for different technologies, as well as the variation in waste characteristics. The DCC provides default emission factors for methane and nitrous oxide from composting and anaerobic digestion facilities Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts Depending on the AWT technology and process chosen the implementation of an AWT plant in LMCC would have some major impacts on the waste management system including: A decision regarding bin collection services and wether to commingle recyclable material with the MSW stream. A decision for or against a combined green/waste organics collection depending on the technology chosen and collection frequency. C&D waste and other materials will require an infrastructure option as these are not likely to be taken at the AWT facility. Options for some C&I waste need to be considered. Contractual issues need to be developed to promote the reduction of the waste stream (and potentially household source segregation dependant on the process). Transport and disposal options for the residual waste materials and potential compost need to be considered. This may require transport to another landfill facility. If a facility was of suitable scale there may be options and issues for import of waste from other neighbouring councils for treatment Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC prior to the construction of an AWT facility. Expression of Interest (EOI) for contractual parties and technologies Release tender, tender assessment and award of tender Contract Negotiation Preliminary facility land acquisition and DA support Review of existing contracts, facilities and collection systems based on preferred tender Environmental Impact Assessment Implement a differential pricing structure at the Awaba landfill to further encourage source separation of wastes, particularly C&D wastes Development Consent process Social and Community Issues There are likely to be different impacts on the community depending on which process is selected through the AWT technology. A simplified waste collection system may operate to meet all household s needs. There is a concern that developing an AWT is still focussing on the symptom of the problem rather than the cause which is household waste generation. There may not be significant commercial drivers to make any real impact in this area over time. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p57 of 120

58 The upfront capital cost and gate fees associated with an AWT facility may have a considerably higher impact on rate increases depending on the technology and collection system required to make this work Risk Assessment for LMCC Table 9: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 3 Risk Potential Impact Risk Level Technical/process risk of Council could be lumbered with a white High facility elephant and significant costs to Commercial risk of facility and contractor (risk allocation) Long Term Infrastructure commitment Inflexible to changes in the waste management system Market Demand for saleable outputs Cost and liability for disposal of material and residual outputs manage ongoing waste arising. If too large a commercial risk is placed on either council or the contractor then this may lead to project failure. Facilities of such scale >$30m are usually financed over a minimum of years which will require long term contracts placing Council into a long term risk position should its requirements or other options change. Councils such as Penrith and Liverpool have recently negotiated 10 year contracts however a shorter term contract will come at an extra price premium (increased gate fee). Depending on the contract period, contract risk and debt/equity finance structure a 10 year contract is likely to result in a gate fee of between 20-30% above that of a 20 year contract. Fixed infrastructure of this nature can be upgraded but usually at a significant cost. Waste characteristics, volumes and other technology or process innovations will change over the years and possibly make the technology or the process outdated over a period of time. The demand and cost for transport, sale or disposal of material outputs represent a real risk as these markets can fluctuate and in some cases are not fully developed. Prices may vary significantly over time affecting the viability of the facility. There may be significant costs associated with the disposal of materials from the facility including the residual waste fraction, contaminated non saleable materials and compost. The transport and disposal of such materials will also likely be impacted by increased cost for alternative disposal through the CPRS and landfill levies. High High High High High LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p58 of 120

59 7.4.9 Waste Hierarchy Impact The impact AWT will have on the waste hierarchy is considerably better than that proposed by landfill. This will result in higher diversion of recyclable materials and waste treatment resulting in less MSW going to final disposal (landfill). AWT however has only a minor impact on the higher levels of the waste hierarchy promoting waste avoidance, reduction and re-use. Figure 15: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 3 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p59 of 120

60 8. OPTION 4: EXPORT OF RESIDUAL WASTE TO FACILITIES (LANDFILL/AWT) OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE MACQUARIE LGA The fourth option for future waste management in the LMCC is the export of waste outside the LMCC LGA. This option takes into account LMCC s position in a broader regional context and explores the possibility of exporting waste out of the LGA to either a landfill or AWT facility. This option explores the various alternatives that exist for transfer and transport of waste out of the LGA. It is premised largely on the model of following a broad number of initiatives as outlined in Option 5 to reduce the residual MSW component to as small a volume as feasible. It may alleviate some of the costs associated with the future liability of waste sites within the LGA, but comes with the potential for high preparation, cartage and disposal costs. Figure 16: Waste Stream Diagram for Option 4 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p60 of 120

61 8.1 Review of Waste Volumes for Export This option is predicated on a strong front end focus of undertaking as much waste diversion, recycling and resource recovery as possible to minimise on an ongoing basis the residual waste volume for export. The following data provides a model for planned waste diversion under the implementation of actions identified in Option 5. With this focus it is feasible that the residual volume of MSW can be driven down year upon year as further initiatives, technologies and resource recovery markets are established. Figure 17: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option Total Waste Landfilled Per Annum (Tonnes) Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 4: Export of Waste Year External Options for Waste Export Due to LMCC s location in the broader Hunter, Central Coast and Sydney region there are a number of options for waste export. Two important factors must be noted: LMCC currently has over 30% of its waste stream exported outside of the region (recyclables go to Somersby and a high volume of C&I and C&D waste goes to facilities in the broader Hunter region) Waste export is becoming a common practice throughout Australia however it is often smaller councils exporting to larger councils. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p61 of 120

62 The following details in the table below show a number of potential waste export options. It is important to note that this list is not exhaustive and discussions to date have shown additional alternatives that may be viable. It is also important to recognise that these options are based on waste compaction and specialist transport vehicles to achieve efficiency. The other key factor is standard gate prices have been used and in most cases these can be negotiated down significantly within contract negotiations for volume and term of contract. Table 10: External Options for Waste Export Facility Ability to take LMCC capacity Waste Transport option Distance from Lake Macquarie- Boolaroo (km) Estimated transport cost per tonne MSW Estimated preparation/ compaction cost per tonne MSW Estimated Gate Fee (per tonne MSW) Total per MSW cost tonne Comments Summerhill- Newcastle Yes Road 8 $1.92 $7.20 $120 $ At this point, Summerhill is not looking to accept waste from outside sources Cessnock Yes Road 41 $9.84 $7.20 $ $ $ Wyong- Buttonderry SITA- Port Stephens Veolia- Woodlawn At this point, Cessnock is not looking to accept waste from outside sources Yes Road 49 $11.76 $7.20 $125 $ At this stage Buttonderry is building a new resource recovery facility and improved traffic management on the site. A new cell has just been completed. No, but Road 75 $18 $7.20 $121 $ SITA has expressed planning for interest in expanding future and accepting waste expansion from outside sources Yes Rail 370 $25 $8-10 $ $ $ Note: The creation of a new regional AWT or landfill will create further waste export options. Issues would need to be addressed with licensing conditions for rail transfer 8.3 Transport, Compaction and Waste Transfer Options All waste export systems will rely heavily on a functional transfer facility with high capacity for: Large volume waste handling including compaction systems Maximise material segregation and resource recovery (the more material that can be diverted the greater the cost reduction) An ability to cater for significant traffic movements Capacity for volume variances and waste storage Wingecaribee is a good example of a facility that has been developed to undertake the functional role of waste management. The major advantages of a large transfer/ resource recovery facility are: Maximise cost effective material separation and recycling LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p62 of 120

63 Maximise resource recovery Flexibility to adapt to changes in waste management practice and technology An ability to use commercial drivers to get environmental results Flexibility to capture and change as market demand and commercial drivers change It is estimated that a multi-purpose resource recovery facility (also providing a WTS and resource recovery service to the community) of suitable scale would cost in the vicinity of between $8 to $15 million dependant largely upon process technology and site infrastructure requirements. This could be scaled down if it was simply a transfer point for waste transfer, compaction and loading. Wingecaribee Waste Transfer Station Wingecarribee Shire Council has implemented two waste/recycling collection systems, in 1994 and 2002, which are working examples of sustainability in waste minimisation. Domestic waste generation in the Shire is amongst the lowest in Australia and less than half the national average. The Shire has also seen the closure of three landfills in the above timeframe. In 2005, Wingecaribee Council and 3 other regional Councils (Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly) formed the South Western Sydney Councils Resource Recovery Project (SWSCRRP) and resolved to engage WSN Environmental Solutions for 15 years to process residual waste, recyclables and garden organics. Resources of the four councils were combined to seek and deliver a sustainable solution to the region s needs. The system is designed to recover up to 75% of material from the residual waste stream currently delivered to Jack s Gully landfill at Narellan. Figure 18: Diagram of Wingecaribee WTS LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p63 of 120

64 8.4 Comparative Assessment of Option Future Planning Table 11: Future Planning for Option 4 Years Goal Task/Action Further Details 2014 Year 5 Establish Tender for WTS Primary activities functional WTS and resource and resource recovery park. would need to take place in Year 1 recovery facility to Implement meet LMCC s future measures to extend Awaba life. requirements. Progress contract Expand life of Awaba to 7-10 years Negotiate discussions with all potential parties for waste export. strategic long term Implement contracts with fail safe alternative options for contracts and key initiatives under Option 5. disposal Maximise waste diversion by adopting key initiatives outlined in Option Year 15 LMCC residual MSW waste reduced significantly Waste being exported to alternative facility High commercial recovery of segregated waste streams Review and assess alternative options for residual MSW 2034 Year 25 Continue to export waste or develop AWT options 2044 Year 35 Unknown at this stage Continual focus and programs to reduce residual MSW stream EOI for alternative options for residual MSW treatment or disposal Unknown at this stage Unknown at this stage Alternative technology maturity may be achieved at this point and offer significant long term cost savings LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p64 of 120

65 8.4.2 Capital Expenditure Estimate totals based on waste volumes for residual MSW 130,000m 3 based on existing rates. Estimated total fixed cost of facilities and trucks based on 20 year contractual term. The 20 year term is used for the amortisation of infrastructure. A 20 year contractual term would relate solely to the transport of residual waste and therefore does not come with significant drawbacks. This would not impede LMCC s ability to take full advantage of the social, environmental and financial possibilities that new technologies and markets may bring. Table 12: Capital Expenditure for Waste Export (2 options) Equipment and Cost at Locations: infrastructure Summerhill Buttonderry Cartage costs $2 per tonne $12 per tonne Sundry $85,000 $85,000 Gate fees $120 per tonne $125 per tonne Compaction unit $5,040,000 $5,040,000 x 3 rental Walking floor $500,000 $500,000 Loading $5,000,000 $5,000,000 infrastructure Repair and $36,400 $36,400 maintenance Total $10,661,400 plus $122 per tonne waste $10,661,400 plus $145 per tonne waste Sundry includes but is not limited to power, roads, insurances, transport variables. It does not include critical resource recovery costs or waste minimisation infrastructure. Nor does it include operating costs Waste Diversion Impact The impact from the waste export option requires a strong level of waste diversion for LMCC based on the waste system being highly driven by reducing the residual MSW stream to minimise costs. This is a key driver that if implemented successfully with the waste reduction and segregation strategies outlined in Option 5 would bring a waste diversion figure of greater than 60% over the five year period. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p65 of 120

66 Figure 19: Waste to Landfill Graph for Option Total Waste Landfilled Per Annum (Tonnes) Current waste per capita 2% reduction per capita per annum 3% reduction per capita per annum Option 4: Export of Waste Year GHG Risk and Impact For Option 4 the life of the Awaba landfill is expected to be extended to 2020/21 and then closed with waste exported to another site. Figure 6 shows the tonnes of waste received by Awaba based on the forecasts for waste received in Section 8.4.3, forecast until Figure 7 shows the GHG emissions for Awaba landfill forecast until GHG emissions and resulting CPRS liability will be slightly lower than Options 1 and 2 until 2014/15 and then continue as the landfill will continue to receive waste until 2020/21. As in the previous options, the CPRS liability is calculated for 2011/12 based on the amount of waste received for that year. The amount of waste received in 2011/12 is forecasted to be about 76kt, producing 1494t CO2e. An indicative cost of carbon in 2011/12 due to a CPRS liability will be $ at a permit cost of $10/tonne CO2e. Assuming a carbon price of $25/tonne CO2e in the following years, the cost at closure in 2020/21 would be around $ , and continue to decline in the following years after a slight increase in 2021/22. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p66 of 120

67 8.4.5 Impact on the Broader Waste Management System Including Contracts The critical aspect of the success of this option will be for LMCC to use the leverage of contract options available. The treatment or disposal of LMCC waste by external facilities will be seen as commercially a very attractive proposition and LMCC will be best to lock in a long term contract with options for the preferred facility. The impact on the current waste management system will be significant and will include a need to: Change the existing kerbside refuse collection arrangements to meet the changes in end disposal point Alter existing kerbside collection arrangements such as bulk waste to meet the changes in the end disposal point The need to develop sophisticated external cartage contracts To develop in house contract management expertise to manage the increase in LMCC waste contracts. One of the distinct advantages of the establishment of a well designed and managed WTS is its ability to maximise resource recovery and ensure only the minimal amount of residual waste goes to landfill and at the same time provide LMCC with a high degree of flexibility. This flexibility will allow LMCC to capitalise on any new markets or technological change that may arise in the future. It also means that the initial capital expenditure has added value to LMCC in as much the well run and designed WTS can also take advantage of new markets when they arise and thus generate new revenue streams with little financial expenditure. A well designed WTS has several advantages The capital costs and operating costs are easily defined Transport and gate fee costs are readily definable Total cost per tonne of waste disposal from a WTS is quantifiable Total cost associated with resource recovery including recycling is quantifiable Resource recovery is a financially driven aspect of waste The WTS facilities SIA has designed, built and operated in the past have achieved up to 60% reduction in waste to landfill in the first 2 years of operation Short Term Actions Required by LMCC [12 months] There are a number of immediate short term actions required by LMCC to ensure the maximisation of waste diversion. Site Selection This includes actions by LMCC ranging from community consultation, development applications, traffic management assessments and noise monitoring as well as others. Tender for Facility The extensive development of all associated contracts will need to be undertaken along with a tender process. This will require sophisticated project management skills by LMCC. Negotiate long term disposal contracts Again this will require high level contract management. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p67 of 120

68 Budget allocation LMCC would need to establish a budget line item including a set performance indicator to ensure budget allocations are met. Community engagement SIA believes that community engagement in all aspects of waste management is critical to its short and long term successes Social and Community Issues The extension of the existing Awaba site combined with the implementation of a major program to reduce residual waste is likely to have the following impacts on the LMCC community: Residents and community will need to be made aware of the location of the new WTS. The immediate and broader community will need to be engaged to discuss any concerns. Education programmes will need to be put in place to ensure the facility is used in the manner for which it was designed. Communities receiving LMCC waste will need to be educated and informed of any likely impacts. Source segregation and waste diversion approaches are likely to place some additional change and burden on some multiple dwelling units. Improved hard waste collection and education campaigns are likely to improve services offered to LMCC residents. The overall impact on the LMCC community of this option will be minimal. However, some major changes to household education and waste management are likely to have a significant impact for all options proposed. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p68 of 120

69 8.4.8 Risk Assessment for LMCC Table 13: Primary Risks for LMCC under Option 4 Risk Potential Impact Level of Risk Residual waste reduction There is a greater volume of High strategies are not residual MSW to be exported successful costing Council additional Risk of facility not being able to take LMCC residual MSW Public opposition to waste export in other areas Risk of CPRS and Levy exposure with the gate fee Traffic Impact Assessment No managerial control over alternative facility Site Maintenance WTS WTS site DA fees. Although this is a significant risk it can be largely mitigated through sound contracts and alternative options should that situation ever occur. This is a substantial risk in as much LMCC has little or no control in the distribution of information and the process of community education in other local government areas. This is a real risk, however is one that LMCC is likely to face with whichever option it pursues. This can be partially managed through sound contracts. Significant consultation and investigation in the short term to ensure minimal disruption. A prime portion of the traffic impact assessment will be undertaken outside the LMCC s boundary. The disposal point of residual waste could be closed or limited by DECC for any number of breaches. This could result in major and immediate waste disposal problems for LMCC. LMCC has not managed a WTS before. The nature of the infrastructure and it s daily usage and management are all critical issues associated with success. Development applications will be required. This is an expensive and time consuming process. It also represents an ideal time for community engagement in the process. High High High High Medium Medium Medium LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p69 of 120

70 8.4.9 Waste Hierarchy impact The key driver of this Option is reducing the MSW residual volume to minimise the costs associated with waste export. This option will place a much higher focus on the top end of the waste hierarchy through initiatives outlined in Option 5. The impact on the waste hierarchy may change depending on the end point of the residual MSW as this may be treated at an AWT or disposed of at landfill. Figure 20: Waste Hierarchy Impact for Option 4 LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p70 of 120

71 9. OPTION 5: A WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOCUSSED ON SOURCE SEGREGATION AND RECOVERY/ MANAGEMENT OF EACH WASTE STREAM The fifth option proposed for evaluation has been developed by SIA focused on an alternate approach removing the emphasis on end of pipe solutions and focussing at the top of the waste hierarchy on: Waste reduction Education and behavioural change Source segregation Resource recovery Nearly all waste systems focus on disposal or managing the problem (the symptoms rather than the cause). The proposed option provides a paradigm shift for waste management approaches in Australia by providing a focus on optimising resource efficiency and commercial drivers for each particular waste stream. SIA is of the belief that the real long and short term solutions to ensuring positive outcomes with regard to social, environmental and financial drivers rely on putting the focus back on point source segregation in conjunction with a comprehensive management strategy encompassing all aspects of the waste stream. Rather than seeking out a silver bullet approach SIA believes an approach that encompasses a holistic view to waste management in conjunction with sound and comprehensive community engagement will provide the best and most sustainable outcomes for all key stakeholders. In addition the approach SIA is proposing provides the flexibility to both Council and the community to take full advantage of new and proven technological changes with regard to waste minimisation and maximising resource recovery. SIA believes this cooperative approach to waste management meets all elements in the waste hierarchy and provides avenues for further changes that will have an impact on both behavioural and attitudinal approaches to waste management and more, importantly waste minimisation. LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p71 of 120

72 Figure 21: Waste Stream Diagram for Option Reduction and Diversion The key approach to the system is to focus heavily on front end reduction through functional waste management approaches, strong education and awareness on a continual program basis to implement lasting habitual change and cost drivers to promote improved awareness and behaviour. The system needs to be flexible in its approach to make use of new technology, practices and changing markets and commercial drivers Household Waste Reduction Household waste reduction is only likely to occur if people have a fundamental awareness of their consumption habits and a motivation to improve or alter these. It must be understood that the significant issue we have in the developed world regarding waste generation, management and disposal is a direct result of societal behaviour focussed around consumption. Each year per LMCC Waste Management Options LMCC Final Report September 2009 p72 of 120