MUDs Waste Audit: Presentation of Organics and Other Recyclables

Transcription

1 MUDs Waste Audit: Presentation of Organics and Other Recyclables February 2011 REPORT PRODUCED FOR: Lake Macquarie City Council

2 EC Sustainable Environment Consultants Suites , 107 Walker Street, NORTH SYDNEY, NSW Phone (02) , Fax (02) or Copyright EC Sustainable Environment Consultants 2011 Reference PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY Name: EC Sustainable Environment Consultants Address: Suites , 107 Walker Street, NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060 Phone: Fax: Disclaimer: Acknowledgements: or Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith but on the basis that the authors are not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever, which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking action (as the case may be) in respect to any representation, statement or advice referred to herein. Ben Maddox and David Basil from Lake Macquarie City Council for assisting with overall project management and assisting with prompt implementation of the project through the coordination of Council requirements. Steven Merrett and Jeff McKenna from Lake Macquarie City Council respectively for providing safe sorting sites and managing Council waste collections around the audits. ii

3 Table of Contents Table of Contents... iii List of Tables... iv List of Figures... iv 1 Introduction Background Document Structure Project Methods What is a Waste Audit? Sampling Methods Collection Methods Bin Surveys Bagging and Transportation Sorting and Data Collection Location Sorting Categories Material Weighing Scale Calibration Confidentiality Occupational Health and Safety Data Verification and Accuracy Audit Monitoring Results Food Waste Audited in MUDs Compared to Background Levels Household Residual Waste Yield by Weight and Proportion Food Types Generated Average Waste Capacity Used by Volume by Unit Block Photos of Interest Comments iii

4 List of Tables Table 1 - Material Categories... 3 Table 2 - Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Used... 5 Table 3 - Comparison of Trial Organics Compared to Background Levels... 7 Table 4 - Residual Waste Stream Household Yield Weights (kg) and Proportion (%)... 7 List of Figures Figure 1 - Residual Waste Stream Overall Composition (% By Weight) Detailed... 9 Figure 2 - Residual Waste Stream Overall Composition (% By Weight) Summary Figure 3 - Food Types Audited (% By Weight) Figure 4 - Bin Proportion Full (%) by Value Recorded Figure 5 - Photos of Interest (Food Organics) Figure 6 - Photos of Interest (Garden Organics) Figure 7 - Photos of Interest (Other Recyclables) iv

5 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Lake Macquarie City Council has utilised EC Sustainable Environment Consultants (EC Sustainable) to conduct a residual waste audit of Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs) in the Council area. The key focus of the audit is to determine the proportion of recyclables in the residual waste in order to reduce the amount of domestic waste landfilled. The key recyclables include garden organics, food and fully commingled recyclables. Council is seeking to use the data to determine the need for particular services for MUDs that can target a reduction in the landfilled quantities of these materials. Lake Macquarie City Council is a regional urban Local Government Authority (LGA) located north of the Sydney Metropolitan Area (SMA). The Council area has a population of approximately 199,277 people living in approximately 68,038 dwellings at an average of 2.9 people household. The area is one of the fastest growing regions of the Hunter and is located on the coast and includes the largest coastal saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere spanning a circumference of 174km. The Lake Macquarie City Council region covers an area of square kilometres and is a largely retail, mining and tourist oriented LGA with 700,000 tourists every year. 1.2 Document Structure This report provides the methods used to obtain the data (Section 2) and the results of the kerbside audit (Section 3). Section 4 provides some of the photographs taken during the project and Section 5 provides some final comments. 2 Project Methods 2.1 What is a Waste Audit? A waste or recycling kerbside audit is an examination of a particular waste or recycling stream including the waste materials within that stream. It includes using classification methods to determine the physical waste stream composition, measurement of the size of the waste stream and verification of other statistics related to the waste stream for planning and decision-making purposes. 1

6 2.2 Sampling Methods The individual household sampling for the kerbside audit was consistent with the DECCW Guideline 2008 based on the target DECCW sample size from the 2008 guideline of 260 households. The sample size of 260 households is consistent with other kerbside audits conducted by Council across the LGA. 30 spare addresses were also collected and consequently there is a total sample size of 290 units. The sample addresses were selected randomly from a list of MUDs in the LGA. A range of MUD sizes based on the number of households present were chosen from 3 units to 24 units. 35 unit blocks were audited. 2.3 Collection Methods Bin Surveys The kerbside audit procedure included a bin survey of the following information: Date and time; Dwelling type; and House/unit number and street; Bin percentage (%) full Bagging and Transportation Consistent with DECCW Guidelines, sampling was conducted using a labelled bag collection system. The contents of the bins and waste types from each household sampled were manually bagged in Hessian bags. Clear tape was placed over the labels to prevent the ink running during transportation or storage at the sorting site. Samples were labelled with the sample ID information from the bin survey. The entire contents of all bins presented at each unit block was collected. The methods were the same as in the DECCW Guidelines whereby shared bin units were collected and sorted as one sample and the sample assumed to be from all units in the premises. No individual bin units were randomly selected, but if they had been these would been collected and sorted individually. 2

7 2.4 Sorting and Data Collection Location A safe undercover sorting site was provided by Lake Macquarie Council at the Teralba Worm Farm Sorting Categories The materials were sorted and classified for analysis using the categories shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Material Categories Material Categories Food/ Kitchen Garden Organics Other Organics Other Compostable Potentially Compostable Compostable Potentially Compostable Compostable Potentially Compostable Commingled Recyclables Residual Examples of Materials Food Scraps and Leftovers (Excluding Meat and Dairy) Unused and Packaged Food (Excluding Meat and Dairy) Meat and Dairy - Food Scraps and Leftovers Meat and Dairy - Unused and Packaged Food Fleshy / Putrescible Woody / Dry Other Compostable - Paper Not Fully Commingled Other Organics Aluminium and Steel Cans, Plastics 1-7, Glass, Recyclable Paper Includes plastic film, textiles, building materials, hazardous materials and all other materials Material Weighing The sorted material in each waste category was weighed on a daily basis, based on the delivered material for each day. An accuracy of 10g was used for the weighing using 30kg capacity scales. Each weight was verified by a second person for accuracy. 3

8 2.4.4 Scale Calibration All scales were calibrated by a senior staff member each day before the commencement of the kerbside audit and each time the scale is moved or if the scale is subject to any unusual impact. Two weights (1kg and 5kg) were used. If scales fail to read within 1% of the dedicated weight (for example, a 1kg weight should read between and 1.010kg), they are removed and a conforming replacement used. No scales read outside of the 1% allowable limit for scale calibration during the project. 2.5 Confidentiality All EC Sustainable staff signed a confidentiality agreement prior to commencement of the audit. Staff agreed to maintain the privacy of information when handling the waste materials throughout the process. In addition, results are only provided in an aggregated form in this report due to confidentiality requirements. No results are provided for individual premises. 2.6 Occupational Health and Safety An Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) was developed for the kerbside audit including completing a safe work method statement and hazard assessment check process for both the collection and sorting tasks in the kerbside audit. All staff wore PPE as outlined in the Safe Work Method Statement and shown in Table 2. 4

9 Table 2 - Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Used PPE Required Dust mask Gloves Heavy duty rubber or neoprene dipped Eye protection Low impact goggles with indirect ventilation (HT or CT with C, D optional) Hearing protection Ear plugs or muffs Overalls Full length protective trousers and shirts/ overalls Safety boots Steel toe capped fully enclosed boots High visibility vest Fluorescent with reflective strips Sunscreen Very high protection Sun Protection Factor 30+ (at all times when working outside) Applicable Standard Compliance AS/ NZS 1715: 2009 Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices. AS/ NZS 2161: 2000 Occupational protective gloves. AS/ NZS 1336: 1997 Recommended practices for occupational eye protection. AS/NZS 1270: 1999 Acoustics - hearing protectors. Not Applicable. AS/ NZS : 2000 Occupational Protective Footwear. AS/ NZS 4602: High visibility safety garments. AS/ NZS 2604: 1998 Sunscreen products, evaluation and classification. 2.7 Data Verification and Accuracy The raw data weights for each sample were entered into an Excel database and reporting model. Cross-checks of this information were made by an independent staff member to verify correct data entry. EC amended the database to create a model that provided data analyses and charts. 2.8 Audit Monitoring A dedicated management staff member was assigned the role of monitoring the kerbside audit. This included factors such as: Monitoring OH&S compliance and facilitating inductions and procedure management; Observing the correct sorting of materials, the correct logging of weights and data entry; Conducting tests on equipment such as scales to ensure accuracy and trucks to ensure safety. 5

10 3 Results 3.1 Food Waste Audited in MUDs Compared to Background Levels Table 3 provides a comparison of the benchmark of the food / kitchen and garden organics in the most recent Council wide audit (95% SODs) with the MUD audits. It shows that the food and garden organics yields are much lower in the MUDs than in the Council wide audit. This is because the bin yields tend to be much lower on average in MUDS than in SODs for two reasons: Typically MUDs have less people per household on average than SODs; and Where shared bins are included the result assumes that all properties presented waste. This may not be the case as there may be householders away or vacancies or other bins that are not presented. However, the proportions of both food and garden organics are similar in MUDs than in the Council wide audit. The food is approximately 2% higher in MUDs and garden organics is approximately 2% lower in MUDs than in the Council wide audit. 6

11 Table 3 - Comparison of Trial Organics Compared to Background Levels Council Wide Data Weight (kg/household) Proportion (%) Summer 2011 Summer 2011 Food / Kitchen Garden / Vegetation MUDs Summer 2011 Summer 2011 Food / Kitchen Garden / Vegetation Household Residual Waste Yield by Weight and Proportion Table 4 provides the residual waste stream household data, including yield per household (kg/ week) and mean bin proportion (% by weight). It compares the MUD data to the pre-trial audit data in the Trial Home Composting Program. Table 4 - Residual Waste Stream Household Yield Weights (kg) and Proportion (%) Material Type Compostable Food Other Food (Meat & Dairy) Garden Organics Other Organics Other Weight (kg/household) THCP Pretrial Audit MUDs Proportion (%) THCP Pretrial Audit MUDs Food Scraps and Leftovers Unused and Packaged Food Food Scraps and Leftovers Unused and Packaged Food Fleshy / Putrescible Woody / Dry Other Compostable - Paper Not Fully Commingled Other Organics - Not Compostable in Program Commingled Recyclables Residual TOTAL

12 Table 4 shows that compostable MUD food comprises over 28.17% of the residual waste stream based on materials that is currently deemed a compliant material in the Trial Home Composting Program. This compares to 21.91% in the pre-trial audit of SODs in Trial Home Composting Program itself % of the MUD residual waste stream is garden organics with the majority being fleshy and putrescible material which is most suited to home composting bin. This compares to 32.58% in the SODs in Trial Home Composting Program pre-trial audit. Commingled recyclables account for approximately 21% of the residual waste. This compares to approximately 12% in the SODs in Trial Home Composting Program pre-trial audit. The residual waste stream generation by proportion (% by weight) is charted in Figure 1 based on the detailed sorting categories. Figure 2 provides the residual waste stream generation by proportion (% by weight) based on the summary sorting categories. 8

13 Figure 1 - Residual Waste Stream Overall Composition (% By Weight) Detailed DATA TABLE THCP MUDs Compostable Food Food Scraps and Leftovers Unused and Packaged Food Other Food (Meat & Dairy) Food Scraps and Leftovers Unused and Packaged Food Garden Organics Fleshy / Putrescible Woody / Dry Other Organics Other Compostable - Paper Not Fully Commingled Other Organics - Not Compostable in Program Other Commingled Recyclables Residual Total

14 Figure 2 - Residual Waste Stream Overall Composition (% By Weight) Summary DATA TABLE THCP - Pre Trial MUDs Compostable Potentially Compostable Other Recyclables Not Compostable Total

15 3.3 Food Types Generated Figure 3 provides the types of food identified as a mean for all MUDs audited. Figure 3 - Food Types Audited (% By Weight) The data shows that for MUDs, almost all food is compostable food scraps and leftovers at 78.5%. This compares to 82.3% for SODs in the Trial Home Composting Program audits. 17.1% is compostable packaged food that is not meat or dairy. This compares to 12.4% for SODs in the Trial Home Composting Program audits. Therefore there is more packaged food as a proportion of the overall non meat and dairy food disposed. 11

16 4.4% of the food is meat and dairy in both the MUDS audits and the Trial Home Composting Program audits with SODs. Meat and Dairy food waste is not currently deemed a compliant material in the Trial Home Composting Program. 3.4 Average Waste Capacity Used by Volume by Unit Block The mean residual waste bin capacity used at each MUD is 59.7% full. The median is 58% full. Figure 4 provides the mean proportion full of the bins art each block by value recorded. It shows that most blocks (68.6%) have used 40% to 80% of the bin capacity. Very few bins were near capacity defined as 80% or more (17.1%) and there appears to generally be spare bin capacity available at MUDs. 14.3% of blocks had used 0-40% of their capacity. Figure 4 - Bin Proportion Full (%) by Value Recorded 12

17 4 Photos of Interest Figures 5, 6 and 7 provide some relevant kerbside audit pictures. Figure 5 - Photos of Interest (Food Organics)

18 Figure 6 - Photos of Interest (Garden Organics) While the first three images show home compostable garden organics, some materials may be hard to compost at home due to the volume. The materials tended to be more dry and branchy than in the SODs which had a higher proportion of weeds and grass. Commercial composters would shred the woody material to assist it to break down and assist re-use. This is not possible with home composting. 14

19 Figure 7 - Photos of Interest (Other Recyclables)

20 5 Comments Based on the results of these kerbside audits, the following comments are made: There is a significant amount of vegetation and food organics. The vegetation tended to be more branchy than in the SODs audited in the Council wide audits. The data shows that in MUDs audit, more than three quarters of all food is compostable food scraps and leftovers (78.5%). 17.1% is compostable packaged food that is not meat or dairy and 4.4% of the food is meat and dairy. In comparison to the Council wide audits in Summer 2010: o The proportions of both food and garden organics are similar in MUDs than in the Council wide audit. The food is approximately 2% higher in MUDs and garden organics is approximately 2% lower in MUDs than in the Council wide audit. o The food waste yield is approximately 2.2kg lower in the MUDs audited. o The garden organics yield is approximately 2.3kg lower in the MUDs audited. The organic material yield difference is because the bin yields tend to be much lower on average in MUDS than in SODs for two reasons: o Typically MUDs have less people per household on average than SODs; and o Where shared bins are included the result assumes that all properties presented waste. This may not be the case as there may be householders away or vacancies or other bins that are not presented. The mean residual waste bin proportion full (%) is 59.7%. The median is 58%. Most unit blocks (68.6%) have used 40% to 80% of the bin capacity. Very few bins were near capacity defined as 80% or more (17.1%) and there appears to generally be spare bin capacity available at MUDs. 14.3% of blocks had used 0-40% of their capacity. 16