MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS FINAL REPORT

2 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd ABN Level 16, 31 Queen Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia Tel: Fax: MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF MAITLAND CITY COUNCIL WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS FINAL REPORT Author Jessica North, Ylva Engqvist Checker Ron Wainberg Approver Ron Wainberg Report No AA R01-02 Date 29 September 2011 This report has been prepared for Maitland City Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Final Report dated 30 March Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN ) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. i Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

3

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Overview Maitland City Council s existing landfill site at Mount Vincent is due to reach capacity in 2014 (or 2019, pending the outcome of a current DA for extension of the landfill). In an effort to reduce future reliance on landfilling of waste, the Council seeks to assess and compare a number of alternative options for treating and disposing of municipal solid waste (MSW), and possibly also commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, to This study also investigates options for managing bulky waste. In undertaking this study, Council s current waste management systems were reviewed and consultation was conducted with the Lower Hunter Valley councils to gain a regional perspective. A set of twelve waste treatment scenarios were identified to provide future solutions for treatment and disposal of Maitland s MSW (and in some cases also C&I waste). Options for collection systems were not considered within the scope of the current study. In all but one scenario, waste is assumed to be disposed of at Mt Vincent Landfill until 2014, regardless of the outcomes of the current DA for landfill extension. In one scenario, waste is assumed to be disposed of at Mt Vincent landfill until 2016, due to lead-times for development of an Alternative Waste Treatment (AWT) facility. The waste treatment options considered after the closure of the Mt Vincent Landfill site are outlined in the Table 1 below: Table 1 Summary of Waste Treatment Options Considered Scenario Waste Treatment Option 1 Development of transfer station at Mount Vincent site with transfer of compacted MSW to Summerhill Landfill (Newcastle) 2 Development of Dirty MRF at Mount Vincent site with residual waste disposal to Cessnock landfill 3 Development of an AWT at the Mount Vincent site with reject material disposal to Cessnock landfill 4 Development of transfer station at Mount Vincent site with transfer of compacted MSW to SITA AWT (Port Stephens) 5 Introduction of 3 rd bin for household organics (food and garden) and development of transfer station at Mount Vincent site with transfer of separate compacted streams (organics and residual) to separate processing lines of SITA AWT (Port Stephens) 6 Introduction of 3 rd bin for household organics (food and garden) and development of transfer station at Mount Vincent site with transfer of compacted organics stream to composting facility (Lake Macquarie) and transfer of compacted residual stream to SITA AWT (Port Stephens) 7-12 Same as the above scenarios for MSW, but also including collection and treatment of C&I waste The options were assessed using the following evaluation criteria: Environmental (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) from landfilling and alternative treatment of residual waste, composting of the organic waste fraction and transfer of waste. iii Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

5 Financial - using financial projection of current day cost estimates for waste transfer, processing and disposal and revenue from recovered materials (as a cost benefit). Social criteria including: Equitable and convenient access to waste services Positive behavioural change Nuisance impacts (disamenity) such as traffic, noise and odour Flexibility and ability to adapt to the needs of future generations Local job creation Consultation was conducted in the Lower Hunter region to scope potential regional waste treatment solutions and to investigate willingness and capacity of nearby LGAs to accept MSW from Maitland. It was found that although the Lower Hunter councils are not specifically seeking additional waste input to existing landfill sites, most are willing to accept MSW from Maitland at commercial rates. The exception is Cessnock City Council, which stipulated that only pre-sorted and treated MSW would be accepted at their landfill. In addition, Muswellbrook Council is also seeking expressions of interest to develop a new landfill site with input from the region. Results GHG emissions from landfilling and alternative treatment of residual waste, as well as emissions from composting of the organic waste fraction and transfer of waste were assessed across the scenarios. The lowest GHG emissions are estimated for Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 (MSW only) and Scenario 10, 11 and 12 (MSW + C&I), which is due to the higher rates of diversion of organic waste from landfill. Scenarios 1 and 7 all waste to landfill result in the highest emissions since no waste is diverted. Scenarios 1 (only MSW) and 7 (MSW + C&I), all waste to landfill, are the most expensive options (if and when a carbon tax applies to waste processing, they also generate the highest levels of GHG emissions). For MSW only the least expensive option is Scenario 2, although this depends very much on the validity of assumptions regarding dirty MRF reject rates and revenue from recycled materials. For MSW and C&I waste the least expensive option is Scenario 9, largely due to the two additional years of landfilling at Mount Vincent (until 2016), and the assumed ~30% reject rate of incoming C&I waste. If the reject rate were significantly greater, this would increase costs of landfilling material in this scenario. Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 (MSW only) are comparable in cost, as are Scenarios 10, 11 and 12 (MSW and C&I waste). However, it should be emphasised again that Scenarios 5, 6, 11 and 12 do not include the cost of introducing a 3 rd bin collection service. The results of the assessment of scenarios against social criteria show that all options are considered to have a slight positive impact under the equity and convenience criterion, as they all assume the relevant facility will incorporate self-haul, drop-off, recycling and a reuse store. Conversely, all options are considered to have a slight negative impact according to the nuisance impacts criterion noise, increased traffic, and possibly odour are potential impacts associated with all scenarios. Scenarios 5, 6, 11 and 12 perform very well under the positive behavioural change criterion, as they all require householders to source separate their organic wastes using a three bin system. Conversely, those scenarios which required no change in residents treatment of their household waste performed least well against this criterion. Scenarios 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 scored relatively well according to the flexibility and job criteria as they involve greater recovery from the residual waste stream, which in turn requires additional labour. Conversely, the remaining scenarios represent no change to the status quo. iv Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

6 Recommendations Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Clearly, continued reliance on landfilling (Scenarios 1 and 7) presents the least attractive option for Maitland City Council, being expensive, high in GHG emissions, and not resulting in positive social impacts. In contrast, there is no clear winner among the scenarios: Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 (and 10, 11 and 12) perform well in terms of GHG emissions, but present the next most expensive options. Scenarios 5 and 6 (and 11 and 12) have the potential to generate the most positive social impacts. Several key strategic issues require Council s consideration in order to frame the selection of a preferred option, as follows: 1 What is Council s position regarding C&I waste? Is there a desire to attract commercial operators and thereby generate revenue? The fees estimated for all scenarios barring Scenario 8 are not competitive with commercial rates currently charged at existing facilities. 2 Does Council wish to invest in waste processing infrastructure (AWT) in Maitland? The current cost estimation assumes that there is an end-user for the composted output from AWT, although no revenue is included. However, if the material required disposal to landfill if no end-user could be found then Scenarios 3 and 9 become the most expensive. This is a potential risk for Council. 3 What is Council s position regarding waste diversion? If maximum diversion rates are of key strategic importance, then source separation of organics and use of AWT-type facilities will be essential. Management of Bulky Waste Based on the research presented above, Hyder recommends that Council consider the following system for bulky waste management: Provision of a self-haul, resource recovery park with differential fees to encourage separation and recycling Implementation of an at-call collection service (the most suitable delivery mechanism must be investigated by Council) Recovery targets built in to the collection contract (if an external provider) A thorough and prolonged public education programme to introduce the new service Support and promotion of reuse initiatives The elements listed above have been addressed in the discussion of Australian and international practice in bulky waste management, with a clear indication of advantages and disadvantages. The suggested system provides a service that is popular with the community, but remains flexible and responsive, thereby alleviating some of the issues arising from regular, scheduled collections. A resource recovery park, and recovery targets in collection contracts, promote material reuse and reduce disposal. The recovery park can also be used to encourage behavioural change and increase public awareness. v Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

7 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... iii Project Overview... iii Results... iv Recommendations... v 1 INTRODUCTION Background Regional Context WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SCENARIOS List of Scenarios EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS Assessment Criteria Methodology Assumptions Results Discussion and Recommendations MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD BULKY WASTE Description of Existing Services Review of Bulky Waste Collection Systems Recommendations REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A Waste flows Appendix B C&I waste composition Appendix C Survey Results for Lower Hunter Region Councils vi Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

8 1 INTRODUCTION Maitland City Council owns and operates the Mount Vincent Waste Facility, which accepts domestic and commercial waste from within the Maitland City Council boundaries. The landfill has finite future capacity, and is due to cease operation in 2014 (or 2019, pending the outcome of a current DA for extension of the landfill). Council is seeking to reduce reliance on landfilling in the future, and increase resource recovery. To this end, Council engaged Hyder to undertake the present study to identify and assess a number of scenarios for treating and disposing of municipal solid waste, and possibly also commercial waste, to As part of this study, Hyder was also commissioned to investigate options for managing bulky waste. 1.1 Background When the Mount Vincent landfill ceases operation, it is understood that there will be no further landfilling of putrescible waste within the boundaries of Maitland City Council. This is due in part to the lack of suitable, available land for siting an additional landfill, but also due to Council s goal to pursue more sustainable approaches for waste management, with maximum resource recovery and minimal disposal of residuals. Maitland City Council has the opportunity to benefit from close regional ties with other councils in the Lower Hunter Valley, specifically Lake Macquarie Council, Cessnock City Council, Port Stephens Council and Newcastle City Council. Alternative options for waste treatment and disposal exist in the region; therefore Maitland City Council does not necessarily need to create a solution within its own jurisdictional area. Maitland also wishes to meet its kerbside waste diversion target of 66% by 2014 under the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) programme administered by the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW. Through the WaSIP Program the NSW Government will invest some $256 million to assist councils in the regulated area to invest in actions and on programs that will improve waste avoidance, resource recovery, the use of secondary resources and waste management outcomes, and that will deliver improvements in environmental sustainability across their local government area (OEH 2011) Current Waste Management The Mount Vincent landfill currently accepts around 65,000 tonnes of waste each year, of which 62% is municipal solid waste (MSW), 28% is commercial and industrial waste (C&I), and 10% construction and demolition (C&D). MSW includes domestic waste and a proportion of commercial waste (i.e. retail) that is collected kerbside in Council wheelie bins. Maitland City Council provides a weekly kerbside collection service for MSW in 240-L wheelie bins, using a Council-owned and operated fleet. Commercial operators dispose of C&I waste at the Mount Vincent landfill and significantly contribute to the site s revenue gate fees charged for commercial waste are around $155 per tonne. Council does not feel obliged to process C&I waste, and would elect to not accept C&I material if it were no longer deemed commercially viable or strategically appropriate. However, there is some concern that illegal dumping would increase if C&I waste were not accepted at the Council waste facility. Mixed dry recyclable material is collected fortnightly in divided 240-L wheelie bins (paper and cardboard one side; other recyclables on the other side) by SOLO Waste, which operates the collection service for Hunter Resource Recovery (HRR). HRR is a partnership between Maitland City Council, Lake Macquarie Council and Cessnock City Council (although the partnership may extend to other Hunter councils in the near future). The public has access to the Mount Vincent landfill for self-haul (there are no additional transfer stations in Maitland). Green waste may be dropped off at the site on weekends for free green waste is charged per load during the week. E-waste may be dropped off for free at any time, 1 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

9 and HRR provides a regular (every 2-3 months) collection point in Maitland for e-waste and small, reusable household items. Mattresses are charged at $27.50 per item for disposal at the landfill (note that the recent implementation of this charge has led to increased illegal dumping of mattresses). 1.2 Regional Context As part of the current study, Hyder engaged neighbouring councils, the Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (HCCREMS), and SITA at Port Stephens in a consultation on regional waste issues and potential future solutions. Maitland City Council has demonstrated a willingness and commitment to engage in regional solutions for waste management, in part through its current involvement in the HRR partnership and previous involvement in the Hunter Integrated Resources (HIR) initiative. HIR was a joint venture company established to facilitate a joint initiative of Cessnock City Council, Lake Macquarie City Council, Maitland City Council and Newcastle City Council with the assistance of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), NSW (now the OEH). The focus of HIR was to identify and procure a regional facility to treat MSW with maximum resource recovery. The project began in 2004 and ceased in 2009 when agreement could not be reached regarding procurement of a mechanical biological treatment facility with anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. The process has left the partner councils understandably wary of pursuing further regional collaborations. Maitland City Council staff has also indicated that AD technology would not be the preferred option in future considerations of technology. However, regional collaborations of some nature are still of interest, and HIR still exists as a company. A key focus of the consultation with neighbouring councils was willingness and availability of facilities to accept MSW from Maitland. Responses are summarised in Table 2. There was general willingness among Lower Hunter councils to accept MSW at existing landfills, at commercial rates, although none of the councils were seeking additional waste input to sites. Apart from Muswellbrook Council, which is seeking expressions of interest to develop a new landfill site with input from the region, there is a general aim to preserve landfill space in the Lower Hunter. Cessnock City Council stipulated that only pre-sorted, treated MSW would be accepted at their landfill. Lake Macquarie is pursuing a treatment facility for source-separated organic waste although they wish to develop a stand-alone business plan (i.e. no reliance on external sources of material), they would accept organic wastes from Maitland. SITA has already presented a regional solution to the Lower Hunter councils, and would develop/expand facilities to meet commercial demand. 2 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

10 Table 2 Summary of regional consultation Council / organisation Current and past involvement in regional waste initiatives Willingness to accept waste from Maitland CC Current and future capacity of waste facilities Additional comments Lake Macquarie Council Current member HRR; was involved in HIR Willing to accept source-separated green waste (from 2012) and food waste (from 2014). But not actively pursuing additional tonnes. Estimated $150 per tonne gate fee at organics processing facility. Green waste windrow composting from 2012; enclosed tunnel green and food waste composting from Capacity to accept waste currently is material specifying facility for tender. LMC wishes to develop a standalone business plan with no reliance on external sources of Newcastle Council Was involved in HIR Willing to accept MCC s waste in 8 million m 3 if the DA is principle, providing the DA to increase granted. the capacity of the landfill is approved for post The gate fee would be based on current rates of $160 per tonne plus the levy and CPI. Despite the somewhat rocky history, there is no bar to regional cooperation as far as NCC is concerned Cessnock City Current member Council HRR; was involved in HIR Willing to accept pre-sorted/treated MSW only, at commercial rates. Limited capacity, pending development of additional landfill cell. Port Stephens City Council N/A N/A N/A Waste is processed by SITA AWT Muswellbrook Council N/A Currently seeking expressions of interest in development of a former mine site as a landfill Has landfill capacity and are looking to take waste Singleton Council Considering joining HRR Not interested in accepting additional waste Depends on outcome of DA approval process if successful 20 years capacity at 30,000 tpa. SITA N/A Providing planning approval is Depends on planning granted to expand Port Stephens approval for expansion. facility, SITA is willing to accept mixed residual and source separated organics, subject to negotiation. Estimated $150 per tonne plus 50% of applicable waste levy and CPI gate fee depending on bin composition. SITA have provided technical specifications and a regional plan to all Hunter councils. 3 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

11 2 WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SCENARIOS Hyder has examined Council s current waste management systems, consulted with the Lower Hunter Valley councils to gain a regional perspective, and identified a number of potential scenarios, which provide solutions for treatment and disposal of Maitland s MSW (and C&I waste in some scenarios). It should be emphasised that collection systems were not considered within the scope of the current study, but would evidently be required for scenarios involving a third bin for source-separated household organics. 2.1 List of Scenarios The following table presents the list of waste treatment and disposal options, identified in consultation with Council as providing feasible options for Maitland City Council s MSW (or MSW and C&I waste). In all but one scenario, waste is assumed to be disposed of at Mt Vincent Landfill until 2014, regardless of the outcomes of the current DA for landfill extension. In one scenario, waste is assumed to be disposed of at Mt Vincent landfill until 2016, due to lead-times for development of an AWT. Should the DA be approved, the additional 4-5 years of landfill capacity would provide a buffer in case of technology failure or other unforeseen circumstance. In all scenarios, a facility at Mt Vincent would incorporate a self-haul drop-off area, recycling station, and a reuse shop. Table 3 describes scenarios for MSW (domestic) waste only. Table 4 describes scenarios treating both MSW and C&I waste (effectively the same six scenarios, but with inclusion of C&I waste). 4 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

12 Table 3 System characteristics of short-listed scenarios treating MSW (domestic) waste Scenario System Characteristics Comments Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario All MSW to Mt Vincent landfill Waste transfer station (WTS) at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer and disposal of waste to Summerhill landfill in Newcastle All MSW to Mt Vincent landfill Dirty MRF at Mt Vincent site metals, plastics, glass and garden waste separated. Garden waste is mulched and composted on site. Remaining residual waste is transferred and disposed to Cessnock landfill All MSW to Mt Vincent landfill AWT at Mt Vincent site recyclables separated and organic fraction composted Rejected waste is transferred and disposed off to Cessnock landfill All MSW to Mt Vincent landfill Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer of waste to Port Stephens and process of waste in SITA s AWT All MSW to Mt Vincent landfill 3 rd bin for household organics Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer of food and garden organics to Port Stephens and processing Newcastle would accept Maitland waste at standard commercial rates. WTS is operational by 2014 (2-year lead time for planning, construction, etc). WTS owned and operated by Maitland CC. WTS comprises shed, pit, excavator, front-end loader. Cessnock Landfill is the preferred destination for Maitland waste, and Cessnock would be more amenable to receiving residuals from a sorting facility, subject to obtaining development approval. AWT is owned/operated by private sector. AWT is operational by 2016 (4-year lead time for planning, construction, etc). Aerobic mechanical-biological treatment facility. Organics processing takes-place on-site (i.e. enclosed maturation bays, similar to SAWT plant). The Mt Vincent site may not accommodate an AWT facility in entirety the maturation phase of composting may have to take place off-site, which would incur further transport costs (not included in the assessment). End-markets for all materials recovered from the AWT process (metals, plastics and organics) are assumed to exist, with market risk borne by the private operator. Uncertain financial viability of a dedicated AWT because of the low throughput capacity. SITA has indicated that they would have capacity to accept Maitland s domestic waste, subject to obtaining development approval. SITA has indicated that they would have capacity to accept Maitland s domestic waste, and ability to expand facility to accommodate sourceseparated organics processing subject to obtaining the necessary approvals. 5 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

13 Scenario in SITA s AWT (separate organics line) Transfer of residuals to Port Stephens and processing in SITA s AWT (separate residual line) All MSW to Mt Vincent landfill 3 rd bin for household organics Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer of food and garden organics to Lake Macquarie for composting. Organic contamination is disposed off to Summerhill landfill. Transfer of residuals to Port Stephens and processing in SITA s AWT Lake Macquarie would accept Maitland household organics (although Maitland would be responsible for disposal of any residual contaminants in organics bins). SITA are willing to take the residual waste when householders source separate organics for Lake Macquarie. 6 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

14 Table 4 System characteristics of short-listed scenarios treating MSW and C&I waste Scenario System Characteristics Comments Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario All MSW and C&I to Mt Vincent landfill Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer and disposal of waste to Summerhill landfill in Newcastle All MSW and C&I to Mt Vincent landfill Dirty MRF at Mt Vincent site metals, plastics, glass and garden waste separated. Garden waste is mulched and composted on site. Remaining residual waste is transferred and disposed off to Cessnock landfill All MSW and C&I to Mt Vincent landfill AWT at Mt Vincent site recyclables separated and organic fraction composted Rejected waste is transferred and disposed off to Cessnock landfill All MSW and C&I to Mt Vincent landfill Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer of waste to Port Stephens and process of waste in SITA s AWT All MSW and C&I to Mt Vincent landfill 3 rd bin for household organics Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer of MSW food and garden organics to Port Stephens and processing in SITA s AWT (separate organics line) Transfer of MSW and C&I residuals to Port Stephens and processing in SITA s AWT (separate residual line) All MSW and C&I to Mt Vincent landfill 3 rd bin for household organics Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site compaction of waste for transfer Transfer of MSW food and garden organics to Lake Macquarie for composting. Organic contamination is disposed off to Summerhill landfill. Transfer of MSW and C&I residuals to Port Stephens and processing in SITA s AWT This scenario requires a premium to be charged for C&I waste which may restrict the quantity available in reality given the other options for C&I waste disposal in the region, such as Summerhill). If the C&I waste contains valuable recyclable material, then there could be a business case for including C&I in this scenario. Inclusion of C&I waste may make this scenario more financially feasible (economies of scale); however, supply contracts would need to be secured with commercial operators. See also comments above (Scenario 5). This scenario requires a premium to be charged for C&I waste which may restrict the quantity available in reality given the other options for C&I waste disposal in the region, such as Summerhill). This scenario requires a premium to be charged for C&I waste which may restrict the quantity available in reality given the other options for C&I waste disposal in the region, such as Summerhill). This scenario requires a premium to be charged for C&I waste which may restrict the quantity available in reality given the other options for C&I waste disposal in the region, such as Summerhill). 7 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

15 2.1.1 Flow diagrams The flow diagrams in Figure 1 - Figure 6 below illustrate the waste disposal or treatment options for the 12 scenarios. The green dotted lines display the system boundaries of the greenhouse gas and financial assessments. It should be noted that, for scenarios involving AWT, landfill emissions from the disposal of reject material from the AWT process have not been calculated this is due to the fact that reject material is assumed to be largely bulky, inert material. 8 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

16 Scenarios 1 and 7 Scenarios 2 and 8 Figure 1 Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site and disposal at Summerhill landfill in Newcastle Figure 2 Waste sorting facility at Mt Vincent site, composting of garden organics at Mount Vincent and disposal of residuals at Cessnock Landfill 9 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

17 Scenarios 3 and 9 Scenarios 4 and 10 Figure 3 AWT at Mt Vincent site Figure 4 Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site and transfer of waste to SITA s AWT in Port Stephens 10 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

18 Scenarios 5 and 11 Scenarios 6 and 12 Figure 5 Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site and transfer of waste to SITA s AWT (separate organics line and residual line in Port Stephens) Figure 6 Waste transfer station at Mt Vincent site and transfer of residual waste to SITA s AWT in Port Stephens and MSW food and garden organics to Lake Macquarie s composting facility 11 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

19 3 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS The 12 waste disposal scenarios considered for Maitland are evaluated from 2011/12 to 2029/30, using the methods described in the following sections. Results are indicated for years 2020 and Based on feasible lead-times for the development of infrastructure, 2014 (or 2016 in scenario 3 see Table 3 and Table 4) were chosen as the years by which all new infrastructure for each scenario is assumed to be fully commissioned and operational. The year 2020 and 2030 was chosen to illustrate the impacts on the systems from increased population and waste generation. 3.1 Assessment Criteria In consultation with Council, Hyder selected the following environmental, financial and social assessment criteria for the scenario appraisal Environmental criteria Environmental impacts of the scenarios were assessed in terms of climate change impact and the results are presented as tonnes CO 2 -equivalent (this terminology is explained in further detail in the following methodology sections). The scenarios were assessed in terms of direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfill disposal, transport between transfer station, landfill and AWT, and from alternative treatment of waste. Indirect upstream emissions (i.e. construction of facilities) and indirect downstream emission (i.e. carbon benefit of compost use) have not been included. The methodology adopted to estimate the GHG emissions is further detailed in Section Financial criteria Financial impacts were assessed using financial projection of current day cost estimates. Included in the financial assessment are costs of waste transfer, processing and disposal and revenue from recovered materials, as a cost benefit. All costs were assumed to increase with CPI at a rate of 3.5% p.a. The financial assessment is further detailed in Section Social criteria The following criteria were selected to evaluate the potential social impact of scenarios on the Maitland community: Equitable and convenient access to waste services: This criterion considers whether the proposed services particularly advantage or disadvantage any component of the community (i.e. the elderly) or impact on accessibility of services for the wider community (i.e. reduced or increased level of service). Positive behavioural change encouragement of sustainable waste practices in the community: Assessment of this criterion examines whether the change in service has the potential to promote a positive shift in a community s awareness of, and behaviour in regards to, more sustainable waste practices. Nuisance impacts (disamenity) such as traffic, noise and odour: New services may reduce or contribute to traffic congestion, noise, and odour. These impacts may be specific to waste facilities and/or associated with collection services. Communities are generally highly sensitive to disamenity impacts, particularly in the immediate vicinity of waste infrastructure. Flexibility and ability to adapt to the needs of future generations: This criterion refers to the ability of proposed waste services and infrastructure to provide a solution that can 12 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

20 handle changing waste compositions, recovery targets, and quantities in response to future shifts in waste strategy and patterns of waste generation. Local job creation: New waste services may simply employ staff from replaced services, or may generate or reduce employment opportunities. Landfill operation generally requires minimal staff, whereas a waste processing facility may employ additional staff depending on the level of manual labour required (i.e. manual sorting). It should be noted that the jobs created may not be necessarily desirable exposing a greater proportion of the workforce to raw waste is in many ways not beneficial to the community. 3.2 Methodology Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions Climate impact is assessed in terms of direct GHG emissions from landfill disposal, transport between transfer station, landfill and AWT, and from alternative treatment of waste. Indirect upstream emissions (i.e. construction of facilities) and indirect downstream emission (i.e. carbon benefit of compost use and disposal of compost/awt rejects) have not been included. GHG emissions - landfill Household and C&I waste generally contains a high proportion of organic material, such as food, paper, wood, and garden trimmings. Once waste is deposited in a landfill, microbes begin to consume the carbon in the organic matter, causing decomposition. There are a number of complex, sequential microbial phases that develop. Under the anaerobic conditions in landfills, the methane-producing bacteria prevail within the microbial communities. As the microbes gradually decompose organic matter over time, methane (CH 4 ) (approximately 50%), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) (approximately 50%), and other trace amounts of gaseous compounds (< 1%) are generated and form landfill gas. The gradual decay of the carbon stock in a landfill generates emissions even after waste disposal has ceased. This is because the chemical and biochemical reactions take time to progress and only a small amount of the carbon contained in waste is emitted in the year this waste is disposed of. Most is emitted gradually over a period of years. Methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases, whose presence in the atmosphere contribute to global warming and climate change. Methane is a particularly potent GHG, and is considered to have a global warming potential (GWP) at least 21 times that of CO 2 (see Table 5) 1. In terms of reporting landfill emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has set an international convention to not count CO 2 released due to the decomposition or incineration of biogenic sources of carbon (i.e. organic waste) for the waste sector 2. Therefore, only methane emissions from landfill are measured and reported, expressed as tonnes of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 -e) (i.e. 1 tonne of methane is expressed as 21 tonnes of CO 2 -e, as per the current methane GWP adopted for use by the Australian Government). There is currently no accepted method to directly measure the methane emitted from a landfill. Accordingly, methane emissions must be estimated using calculations or mathematical models, which apply various assumptions to simplify the extremely complex landfill environment. Following the Department of Climate Change s Technical Guidelines for National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER ), solid waste emissions have been estimated using a 1 Australia has elected to use a GWP of 21 for methane. 2 It should be noted that this convention is under increasing debate. The argument used by the IPCC is that CO 2 released from biogenic sources is balanced by CO 2 taken up by growing biomass. However, the logic is questionable. 3 NGER Draft Technical Guidelines 2009, Chapter Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

21 carbon mass balance approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 2 first order decay (FOD) model (IPCC 2006). The calculation takes into account the total estimated methane generated by the landfilled waste and methane that may be oxidised to CO 2 through bacterial processes in the landfill cover material. The calculation also takes landfill gas capture into account. Table 5 Global warming potential (GWP) for a given time horizon (Forster et al 2007) Greenhouse gas GWP GWP (IPCC 2007) GWP 20-yr 100-yr 500-yr (kg CO 2 -e) (kg CO 2 -e) (kg CO 2 -e) Carbon dioxide CO Methane CH (previously 21) 7.6 Nitrous oxide N 2 O GHG emissions composting Composting is a common treatment for biodegradable waste. In terms of global warming, composting contributes to emissions as well as to avoided emissions. GHGs are released from composting facilities due to the degradation of organic matter and due to energy consumed by heavy machinery used for turning and managing the waste. The finished product, compost, can be used on land. The benefits of application of compost to land include replacement of inorganic fertiliser and medium to long term binding of carbon in the soil. GHG emissions associated with composting are defined in the following terms (Boldrin et al 2009): Direct emissions (operation), directly linked to activities at the composting site and the degradation of the waste. Indirect emissions or avoided emissions taking place outside the composting site, of which there are two categories (indirect emissions are not part of the present scenario assessment): - Upstream activities such as production of materials and electricity used at the site, the provision of fuels used on the site and the construction of the facilities. Energy issues (electricity and diesel) have a minor relevance in the GHG accounting of composting technologies. - Downstream activities such as avoided emissions when substituting fertiliser or binding of carbon in the soil when compost is applied on land, and landfill disposal of rejected/unsuitable waste materials arriving at the facility. The direct (process-related) emissions include methane, nitrous oxide (N 2 O), ammonia (NH 3 ), as well as carbon dioxide. Methane and N 2 O are the main GHG emissions associated with composting, because biogenic CO 2 is excluded. Methane emissions result from less than perfect management of the process, which permits anaerobic pockets to develop within the compost heap. The main gaseous emission from composting is biogenic CO 2 which in national inventories, is accounted for as part of the natural carbon cycle within land-use change and forestry estimates; thus it is not counted as a waste sector emission. Both CH 4 and N 2 O are particularly potent GHGs, and are currently considered by the IPCC to have GWPs of 25 and 298 times that of CO 2 respectively when a time horizon of 100 years is considered as previously noted, the Australian Government currently uses a lower GWP of 21 for CH 4 and this lower value has been applied in the present report. 4 Gases with lifetimes shorter than CO 2 have GWPs decreasing with time. Methane decreases from a GWP of 72 to 25 as time horizon extends from 20 to 100 years. This effect arises because atmospheric methane is slowly destroyed through chemical reaction. 14 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

22 There is relatively little data available in the literature that provides applicable levels of GHG emissions for composting facilities. This is due to the large range of composting processes employed, the range of organic materials composted, varying management regimes at facilities, climatic variability, etc. The evaluation in the present report relies on recently published results based on scientifically measured emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O from composting systems, which appear to provide the most representative values for GHG emissions (Boldrin et al 2009; Smith et al, 2001; Fisher, 2006; Brinkermann et al, 2004). Boldrin et al (2009) found there is large variability in emissions factors presented by different studies and that generic global warming factors for composting cannot be provided with accuracy. However, for the purposes of this report, these values have been used in preference to the default values indicated in the IPCC guidelines for national GHG inventories (IPCC 2006), and referred to in the NGER Technical Guidelines (2009) for calculating emissions from the biological treatment of organic waste, as the IPCC default values are based on a limited number of out-dated studies. When compost is applied to land emissions will be generated as organic carbon is gradually mineralised to CO 2. Therefore, compost applied to soil has a medium or long-term potential to store carbon, depending on the rate of mineralisation; however, it does not represent a permanent solution for locking-up carbon (Smith et al 2001; Favoino and Hogg, 2008). Quantifying the climate benefit of carbon storage is extremely difficult and will largely depend on land management (cropping, tillage, irrigation, compost application rate, etc), climate, and original carbon content of the compost and soil. Compost applied to land replaces synthetic fertilisers and reduces the need for pesticides, tillage, and irrigation (Favoino and Hogg 2008, Boldrin et al 2009, Smith et al 2001). The manufacture of synthetic fertilisers is energy-intensive (e.g. extraction of phosphate rock). Where compost replaces synthetic fertiliser there will be a GHG benefit due to avoided energy use. Evidently, the indirect GHG emissions and savings associated with compost use are difficult to quantify with accuracy and are beyond the scope of the present study. In general, a positive climate impact is associated with compost use through substitution of synthetic fertilisers, improved soil and crop quality and health, medium to longterm carbon storage, and reduced irrigation needs. GHG emissions transfer of waste The greenhouse gas impacts of transfer trucks have also been estimated for each scenario. This has been done by calculating truck hours for a 20-tonne transfer truck used in collecting hauling wastes from Mt Vincent transfer station to landfills or alternative waste treatment (AWT) facilities, and applying a fuel consumption factor (DCCEE 2009) to the estimated truck hours. The degree of difficulty in calculating transportation emissions depends largely on which gases are included in the analysis. In most cases, CO 2 emissions are relatively straightforward to estimate, since they are primarily dependent on only two factors: the type and quantity of fuel burned. Estimates of emissions from the combustion of fuel are made by multiplying a (physical) quantity of the fuel combusted by a fuel-specific energy content factor and a fuel specific emission factor. This is performed for each relevant greenhouse gas presented in Table 6 (in this case, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) (DCCEE, 2010). For all mobile sources, either a fuel-based or distance-based methodology can be applied to calculate CO 2 emissions. In the fuel-based approach, which is used in the assessment of emissions from kerbside collection vehicles, fuel consumption is multiplied by the CO 2 emission factor for the fuel type, i.e. diesel oil. The fuel (diesel) combustion emission factors outlined in Table 6 were used in this assessment (DCCEE, 2010). 15 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

23 Table 6 Fuel combustion emission factors fuels used for transport energy purposes (DCCEE, 2010) Fuel combusted Energy content factor Emission factor (kg CO 2 -e/gj) (GJ/kL) (relevant oxidation factors incorporated) CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Diesel oil Financial assessment The financial assessment is based on future projections of estimated present-day costs as such, it provides high-level, indicative costs for comparison of options, rather than a detailed cost-benefit analysis (CBA). A CBA is recommended for later stages of development of a preferred scenario, when preliminary business cases are needed to support selection of specific services/infrastructure for procurement. Included in the financial assessment are costs of waste transfer, processing and disposal. The costs associated with a 3 rd bin collection for source-separated household organics have not been included for Scenarios 5, 6, 11 and 12 in the present study. These costs would include kitchen food waste caddies and liners; education and promotion; and ongoing management costs. Revenue from recovered materials is included as a cost benefit considered in the financial analysis. The costs of transfer, processing, disposal and revenue from recovered materials and gate fees from commercial operators were assumed to increase with CPI at a rate of 3.5% p.a. For the financial assessment of transfer of the MSW and C&I streams from the transfer station to landfill or AWT, data was adopted from Hyder s bespoke Waste Management Logistics Model. The model estimates the costs of waste delivery, transfer and processing/disposal for a defined network of waste generation areas and receival/disposal facilities. All financial assumptions were agreed in consultation with Council prior to modelling Social assessment Social criteria were evaluated in a qualitative manner using an assessment matrix (Table 7). Each scenario was appraised against the five criteria. Colour coding and brief explanations were used to indicate whether the scenario had a potentially very negative, slight negative, negligible, slight positive or very positive impact under each criterion. The assessment matrix was applied independently to the 12 scenarios by two senior Hyder staff, with considerable experience in the waste industry. This reduced the subjectivity of the evaluation and stimulated discussion around points of differentiation. 16 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

24 Table 7 Assessment matrix (template) for evaluation of social criteria Scenario Description Equitable and convenient access to waste services Positive behavioural change - encourages sustainable waste practices in the community Nuisance impacts: traffic, noise, odour Flexibility - ability to adapt to needs of future generations Local job creation 1 TS: all MSW to Newcastle LF 2 Sorting facility: residual MSW to Cessnock LF 3 AWT: compost org; residual MSW to Cessnock LF 4 TS: all MSW to SITA AWT Port Stephens 5 6 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW and GW to SITA AWT Port Stephens 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW to SITA AWT Port Stephens, orgs to Lake Macquarie 7 TS: all MSW+C&I to Newcastle LF 8 9 Sorting facility: residual MSW+C&I to Cessnock LF AWT: compost org; residual MSW+C&I to Cessnock LF 10 TS: all MSW+C&I to SITA AWT Port Stephens rd bin orgs; TS: MSW+C&I and GW to SITA AWT Port Stephens 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW+C&I to SITA AWT Port Stephens, orgs to Lake Macquarie very negative impact slight negative impact Negligible or no impact slight positive impact very positive impact 17 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

25 3.3 Assumptions To undertake scenario modelling for the study, a range of assumptions in relation to scenario definition, transfer of waste and treatment technologies were necessary. A draft list of assumptions was prepared by the project team and reviewed by Maitland City Council. The tables below list the final adopted system parameters and associated data values. Table 8 Waste generation and disposal assumptions Assumption Comments / References Mt Vincent landfill gas capture rate 50% 5 Maitland City Council (pers.com. May 2011) Summerhill (Newcastle) landfill gas capture 75% 5 Newcastle City Council (pers.com, May 2011) Cessnock landfill gas capture rate 75% 5 Cessnock City Council (pers.com, May 2011) Waste split MSW:C&I:C&D MSW: 62% C&I: 28% C&D: 10% Maitland City Council (pers.com April 2001) Waste projections Contamination in organics bin 1.8% annual increase in waste arisings. 66,058 tonnes of waste received at the Mt Vincent site in % contamination in household organics bin. Contamination in organic bins will be disposed at Summerhill Landfill in Scenarios 6 and 12 (at commercial rates per tonne). During the evaluation period, annual waste growth across the region is assumed to be 1.8% per year, based on population growth in the Maitland region (Maitland City Council, pers.com May 2011) Based on waste generated in as provided in GHD s Report for Mount Vincent Facility Options Assessment (2009) Highest acceptable contamination rate (Lake Macquarie City Council, per.com. May 2011) A 3 rd bin organics collection service is not costed in the present study. EC Sustainable Environment Consultants conducted a residual waste stream audit of the domestic kerbside garbage bins for Maitland City Council in April-May 2008 (EC Sustainable 2008). The results indicated that the waste stream appears suited to a resource recovery option that can recover compostable materials and commingled recyclables. Hyder based the estimate of material flows on the audit results, as outlined in Table 9 (see Appendix A for detail of waste projections). C&I waste composition data is based on a disposal based waste survey at Summerhill Waste Management Facility in October 2009, and is provided in Appendix B. 5 LFG capture rates are highly disputed 75% is an achievable rate during the active methanogenic phase of the landfill and 50% is a reasonable figure for a retrofitted system. 18 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

26 Table 9 Domestic (MSW) waste composition Domestic (residual) waste stream Composition (%) from EC Sustainable waste audit in 2008 Food organics 25.80% Garden organics 25.50% Other putrescible 3.50% Wood / timber 1.20% Textile / rags 3.00% Leather and rubber 0.40% Oils 0.10% Paper and cardboard 18.50% Plastics 8.40% Glass 5.10% Metals 3.40% Other (non-recyclable inert) 5.10% Diversion rates for food and garden waste and dry recyclables were assumed, based on Australian and international experience. Table 10 below outlines the materials recovery rates which can theoretically be achieved from the dirty MRF and AWT at the Mt Vincent site for Scenarios 2, 3, 8 and 9. Dirty MRFs with best practice systems will typically recover around 30 50% of material entering the facility as dry recyclables and green waste compost (Mechanical Biological Treatment, 2011). Based on analysis of waste flows and conservative, theoretical recovery rates, approximately 30% of the material entering the MRF at Mt Vincent is estimated to be recovered. The performance of existing AWTs in Australia varies considerably. For example, several AWTs in operation in Australia (mechanical biological treatment using aerobic or anaerobic composting of organic residues) have reject rates of approximately 30% - in other words, 30% of input waste is not suitable for the AWT process or recovery and is therefore sent to landfill. UK and European facilities tend to report reject rates of 10 to 20% (Waste Technology UK, 2011). Hyder applied the recovery rates in Table 10 and, based on waste flow analysis, estimated that 24% of the waste arriving at the Mt Vincent AWT would not be suitable for the AWT process. 19 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

27 Table 10 Recovery rates for modelling purposes, Scenarios 2, 3, 8 and 9 Material Scenarios 2 and 8 Scenarios 3 and 9 Food organics 0% 90% Garden organics 50% 90% Other putrescible 0% 90% Textiles 0% 30% Leather 0% 30% Paper and cardboard 40% 90% Plastics 50% 50% Glass 50% 50% Metals 80% 80% Table 11 Item GHG assessment assumptions Assumption and Comments / References Greenhouse gas assessment Landfill emissions All direct process emissions have been considered (i.e. landfill, compost process, transport between transfer station, landfill and AWT) Indirect upstream emissions have not been included (i.e. construction of facilities) Indirect downstream emission have not been included (i.e. carbon benefit of compost use, recycled materials substitution of virgin product) Methane emissions estimated using Hyder s bespoke landfill methane generation calculator, based on the First Order Decay Model. Methane = 21 x global warming potential of CO 2 Emissions from composting processes Aerobic Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) AWT Windrow composting (garden waste): 158 kg CO 2 -eq per tonne waste input. Tunnel composting (food and garden waste): 49 kg CO 2 -eq per tonne waste input kg CO 2 -eq per tonne waste input. The average of the above emissions factors was applied in the assessment: 43 kg CO 2 -eq per tonne waste input. Values taken from Boldrin et al (2009) Values taken from Boldrin et al (2009). The SITA facility has biofilters, which have a removal efficiency of % for CH 4, whereas the removal efficiency for N 2 O varies from 0%-90%. Emissions associated with combustion of diesel are usually in the lower end for enclosed facilities, which the SITA facility is. Emissions associated with electricity consumption are in the higher end due to the extensive use of coal to generate electricity in Australia. 20 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

28 The costs of disposing or processing residuals, processing organics and diverting recyclables have been included in the modelling of each scenario. This has been done by applying a gate fee applicable at each landfill, composting and recovery facility. Gate fees used in the modelling are presented in Table 12. Table 12 Gate fee assumptions Landfill / AWT Gate fee Comments / References Cessnock landfill gate fee $160/tonne (+CPI) Cessnock City Council (pers.com, May 2011) Summerhill (Newcastle) landfill gate fee Lake Macquarie organics facility gate fees SITA Port Stephens AWT gate fee $160/tonne (+CPI) $100/tonne garden waste (+CPI) $150/tonne food and garden waste (+CPI) $120/tonne (residual and separated organics respectively) + 50% of the applicable waste levy and CPI (see Table 14 for annual waste levy charges) Newcastle City Council (pers.com, May 2011) Lake Macquarie City Council (pers.com, May 2011) SITA (pers.com, May 2011) Mt Vincent transfer station $25/tonne (+ CPI) Includes amortisation of capital expenses (land purchase and construction) and ongoing costs (Hyder s bespoke Waste Management Logistics Model) Mt Vincent Green waste mulching and composting cost Mt Vincent dirty MRF ($8/m 3 output) $49/tonne input (+ CPI) $50/tonne of MSW (+ CPI) $60/tonne of C&I (+ CPI) Maitland City Council (pers.com, May 2011) Density of composted garden waste: 326kg/m 3 (Tchobanoglous, 1993). 50% loss of material during process. Inside Waste AWT Product Profile (January 2010). Mt Vincent AWT $160 (+ CPI) Inside Waste AWT Product Profile (January 2010). 21 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

29 Table 13 Waste transfer assumptions Assumption Transfer truck running cost from Mt Vincent to relevant final disposal facility $150/hour (+ CPI) Comments / References Hyder s bespoke Waste Management Logistics Model Capacity of transfer truck hauling waste between facilities Loading/unloading time per load for transfer trucks at delivery points (excluding transport time) Diesel consumption for transfer truck 20 tonnes Hyder s bespoke Waste Management Logistics Model 35 min/load Hyder s bespoke Waste Management Logistics Model 35 L/hour Transfer vehicle - transfer stations to processing facilities - for 20t transfer truck (Hyder s bespoke Waste Management Logistics Model) Approximate transfer times (one way) Maitland Newcastle: 40min Maitland Cessnock: 40min Maitland Port Stephens: 40min Maitland Lake Macquarie: 50min 2011 Google Fuel consumption for transfer truck Diesel combustion emission factor 0.25 L/km tonne delivery type trucks ( ehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2005 /session5/2005_deer_erkkila.pd f) 2.7 kg CO 2 -e/l (NGER, 2009) 22 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

30 Table 14 Financial assumptions Assumptions Revenue of recovered waste materials Revenue from gate fees from commercial operators of arriving C&I waste at Mt Vincent $100/tonne plastics and paper & cardboard (+ CPI) $250/tonne metals (+ CPI) Scenario 7: $207/tonne (+ CPI) Scenario 8: $131/tonne (+ CPI) Scenario 9: $231/tonne (+ CPI) Scenario 10: $206/tonne (+ CPI) Scenario 11: $207/tonne (+ CPI) Scenario 12: $207/tonne (+ CPI) Comments / References Supplementary Report Economic Modelling of Options for Waste Infrastructure in the ACT (URS, 2010) Hyder s understanding of current market prices for recovered metals. Revenue in today s dollars ( ). Includes processing costs for transfer station, dirty MRF or AWT respectively, waste transfer, final disposal of residues, plus a $20 per tonne profit (Maitland City Council, pers.com May 2011). Gate fees in today s dollars ( ). Financial CPI = 3.5% ABS (March 2011) Waste levy Annual waste levy increase: $10 + CPI from 2011/12 to 2015/16. From 2016/17 to 2029/30 the levy increases by CPI only. It is expected that the levy will be reviewed in 2016/17. Office of Environment and Heritage (pers.com. 2011) 23 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

31 3.4 Results The following sections present results of the evaluation of the 12 waste treatment and disposal scenarios Environmental assessment Table 15 and Figure 7, and Table 16 and Figure 8, compare results of the estimates of GHG emissions from landfilling and alternative treatment of residual waste across the 12 scenarios, as well as emissions from composting of the organic waste fraction and transfer of waste, for year 2020 and 2030 respectively. Estimates are of total methane emissions resulting from waste deposited to landfill during the assessment period (2011/12 to 2029/30), and accounting for landfill gas capture at Maitland, Cessnock and Summerhill landfills. Landfill emissions presented for 2020 for Scenarios 3, 4, 5 and 6 and 9, 10, 11 and 12 are comparatively high due to the prolonged generation of methane from waste deposited prior to system changes in 2014 or 2016 (i.e. legacy emissions). Results presented for 2030 are significantly reduced and reflect the gradual tailing off of methane generation from waste deposited pre-2014 or The lowest emissions are estimated for Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 (MSW only) and Scenario 10, 11 and 12 (MSW + C&I), which is due to the higher rates of diversion of organic waste from landfill. Scenarios 1 and 7 all waste to landfill result in the highest emissions since no waste is diverted. In Scenarios 3 and 9, waste continues to be deposited at the Mount Vincent site for an additional two years (until the AWT is operational in 2016). This causes the landfill emissions for these scenarios to appear disproportionate in 2020, but more in-line with the other non-landfill scenarios in Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

32 Table 15 GHG emissions in 2020 for Scenarios 1 to 12 Cost Item Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 Scenario 11 Scenario 12 Landfill emissions in ,263 5,878 4,643 2,042 2,042 2,042 10,561 8,504 6,747 2,967 2,967 2,967 AWT/Composting emissions in ,031 2,031 2,154 2, ,949 2,949 3,071 3,019 Transfer emissions in Total 7,691 7,132 6,775 4,501 4,623 4,594 11,181 9,909 9,882 6,536 6,658 6,640 Table 16 GHG emissions in 2030 for Scenarios 1 to 12 Cost Item Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 Scenario 11 Scenario 12 Landfill emissions in ,754 7,944 1, ,629 11,492 2,674 1,203 1,203 1,203 AWT/Composting emissions in ,139 2,428 2,428 2,574 2,513 1,139 3,524 3,524 3,671 3,609 Transfer emissions in Total 11,265 9,443 4,391 3,768 3,914 3,879 16,371 13,172 6,421 5,469 5,615 5, Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

33 Figure 7 GHG emissions in 2020 for Scenarios 1 to Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

34 Figure 8 GHG emissions in 2030 for Scenarios 1 to Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

35 3.4.2 Financial assessment The overall costs estimated for each scenario in 2020 and 2030 are provided in Figure 9. The costs and benefits (revenue indicated as a negative value) associated with each scenario in year 2020 and 2030 are shown in Figure 10 and Table 17, and Figure 11 and Table 18. Scenarios 1 (only MSW) and 7 (MSW + C&I), all waste to landfill, are the most expensive options (if and when a carbon tax applies to waste processing, they also generate the highest levels of GHG emissions). For MSW only the least expensive option is Scenario 2, although this depends very much on the validity of assumptions regarding dirty MRF reject rates and revenue from recycled materials. For MSW and C&I waste the least expensive option is Scenario 9, largely due to the two additional years of landfilling at Mount Vincent (until 2016), and the assumed ~30% reject rate of incoming C&I waste. If the reject rate were significantly greater, this would increase costs of landfilling material in this scenario. Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 (MSW only) are comparable in cost, as are Scenarios 10, 11 and 12 (MSW and C&I waste). However, it should be emphasised again that Scenarios 5, 6, 11 and 12 do not include the cost of introducing a 3 rd bin collection service. It is worth noting that, based on this high-level evaluation, the costs of sending organic waste for processing at the SITA AWT are comparable to those for the proposed Lake Macquarie facility. Furthermore, the SITA AWT is not currently set-up to accept source-separated organic waste. 28 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

36 Figure 9 Summary of total costs in 2020 and 2030 for Scenarios 1 to Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

37 Figure 10 Costs in 2020 for Scenarios 1 to Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

38 Table 17 Costs in 2020 for Scenarios 1 to 12 Cost Item Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 Scenario 11 Scenario 12 Landfill gate fee costs $12,317,519 $8,669,070 $2,899,544 $17,880,269 $13,018,455 $5,367,981 Council owned transfer station operating costs Council operated AWT/MRF/Garden Waste Compost costs Cost of gate fees at other Councils' AWT/Composting facilities $1,555,114 $1,555,114 $1,555,114 $1,555,114 $2,257,423 $2,257,423 $2,257,423 $2,257,423 $3,499,107 $9,952,728 $5,806,695 $14,447,508 $11,091,580 $11,091,580 $10,368,314 $16,100,680 $16,100,680 $15,586,795 Transfer costs $272,145 $191,536 $64,063 $272,145 $272,145 $266,038 $395,049 $287,631 $118,601 $395,049 $395,049 $395,049 Revenue from recycled materials sold Revenue from gate fees from commercial operators $1,144,564 $684,250 $1,590,506 $967,406 $6,871,987 $4,138,392 $7,671,145 $6,311,494 $6,328,607 $6,328,607 Total $14,144,777 $11,215,149 $12,232,084 $12,918,838 $12,918,838 $12,189,465 $13,660,755 $13,383,883 $11,295,538 $ 12,441,658 $ 12,424,546 $11,910, Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

39 Figure 11 Costs in 2030 for Scenarios 1 to Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

40 Table 18 Costs in 2030 for Scenarios 1 to 12 Cost Item Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 Scenario 11 Scenario 12 Landfill gate fee costs $20,768,470 $14,616,849 $4,888,898 $30,147,779 $21,950,313 $9,050,910 Council owned transfer station operating costs Council operated AWT/MRF/Garden Waste Compost costs Cost of gate fees at other Councils' AWT/Composting facilities $2,622,065 $2,622,065 $2,622,065 $2,622,065 $3,806,223 $2,698,303 $3,806,223 $3,806,223 $5,899,817 $16,781,215 $9,790,622 $24,359,828 $18,701,425 $18,701,425 $17,481,931 $27,147,229 $27,147,229 $26,280,770 Transfer costs $458,861 $322,947 $108,016 $458,861 $458,861 $448,564 $666,089 $484,973 $199,972 $666,089 $666,089 $666,089 Revenue from recycled materials sold Revenue from gate fees from commercial operators $1,929,840 $1,153,709 $2,544,634 $1,156,343 $11,586,802 $6,977,709 $12,934,257 $10,641,760 $10,670,614 $10,670,614 Total $23,849,396 $18,909,773 $20,624,420 $21,782,351 $21,782,351 $20,552,560 $23,033,289 $22,703,565 $19,520,110 $19,869,861 $20,948,928 $20,082, Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

41 3.4.3 Social assessment Results of the assessment of scenarios against social criteria are presented below. All options are considered to have a slight positive impact under the equity and convenience criterion, as they all assume the relevant facility will incorporate self-haul, drop-off, recycling and a reuse store. Conversely, all options are considered to have a slight negative impact according to the nuisance impacts criterion noise, increased traffic, and possibly odour are potential impacts associated with all scenarios. Scenarios 5, 6, 11 and 12 perform very well under the positive behavioural change criterion, as they all require householders to source separate their organic wastes using a three bin system. Conversely, those scenarios which required no change in residents treatment of their household waste performed least well against this criterion. Scenarios 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 scored relatively well according to the flexibility and job criteria as they involve greater recovery from the residual waste stream, which in turn requires additional labour. Conversely, the remaining scenarios represent no change to the status quo. 34 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

42 Table 19 Results of the assessment of scenarios against social criteria Scenario Description Equitable and convenient access to waste services Positive behavioural change - encourages sustainable waste practices in the community Nuisance impacts: traffic, noise, odour Flexibility - ability to adapt to needs of future generations Local job creation 1 TS: all MSW to Newcastle LF assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store no change to current system therefore no reason for behavioural change increase movement of large transfer vehicles effectively no change to current system existing landfill staff can probably be re-trained for TS operation 2 Sorting facility: residual MSW to Cessnock LF assuming facility incorporates self-haul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store possible increase in public awareness of recycling due to facility located in community possible increase noise from sorting machinery front-end sorting capability provides greater flexibility low skill work in sorting facility 3 AWT: compost org; residual MSW to Cessnock LF assuming facility incorporates self-haul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store possible increase in public awareness of recycling due to facility located in community odour issues, especially if compost maturation at Mt Vincent front-end sorting capability provides greater flexibility low skill work in facility 4 TS: all MSW to SITA AWT Port Stephens assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store no change to current system therefore no reason for behavioural change increase movement of large transfer vehicles effectively no change to current system existing landfill staff can probably be re-trained for TS operation 5 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW and GW to SITA AWT Port Stephens assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store source separation of organics increase traffic from additional 3rd bin collection waste management trend is towards separation of organics increase in collection staff 6 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW to SITA AWT Port Stephens, orgs to Lake Macquarie assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store source separation of organics increase traffic from additional 3rd bin collection waste management trend is towards separation of organics increase in collection staff 7 TS: all MSW+C&I to Newcastle LF assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store no change to current system therefore no reason for behavioural change increase movement of large transfer vehicles effectively no change to current system existing landfill staff can probably be re-trained for WTS operation 8 Sorting facility: residual MSW+C&I to Cessnock LF assuming facility incorporates self-haul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store possible increase in public awareness of recycling due to facility located in community possible increase noise from sorting machinery front-end sorting capability provides greater flexibility low skill work in sorting facility 35 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

43 Scenario Description Equitable and convenient access to waste services Positive behavioural change - encourages sustainable waste practices in the community Nuisance impacts: traffic, noise, odour Flexibility - ability to adapt to needs of future generations Local job creation 9 AWT: compost org; residual MSW+C&I to Cessnock LF assuming facility incorporates self-haul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store possible increase in public awareness of recycling due to facility located in community odour issues, especially if compost maturation at Mt Vincent front-end sorting capability provides greater flexibility low skill work in facility 10 TS: all MSW+C&I to SITA AWT Port Stephens assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store no change to current system therefore no reason for behavioural change increase movement of large transfer vehicles effectively no change to current system existing landfill staff can probably be re-trained for WTS operation 11 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW+C&I and GW to SITA AWT Port Stephens assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store source separation of organics increase traffic from additional 3rd bin collection waste management trend is towards separation of organics increase in collection staff 12 3rd bin orgs; TS: MSW+C&I to SITA AWT Port Stephens, orgs to Lake Macquarie assuming WTS incorporates selfhaul drop-off, recycling, and reuse store source separation of organics increase traffic from additional 3rd bin collection waste management trend is towards separation of organics increase in collection staff 36 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

44 3.5 Discussion and Recommendations Clearly, continued reliance on landfilling (Scenarios 1 and 7) presents the least attractive option for Maitland City Council, being expensive, high in GHG emissions, and not resulting in positive social impacts. In contrast, there is no clear winner among the scenarios: Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 (and 10, 11 and 12) perform well in terms of GHG emissions, but present the next most expensive options. Scenarios 5 and 6 (and 11 and 12) have the potential to generate the most positive social impacts. Several key strategic issues require Council s consideration in order to frame the selection of a preferred option, as follows: 1 What is Council s position regarding C&I waste? Is there a desire to attract commercial operators and thereby generate revenue? A comparison of gate fees is provided in Table 20 Estimated gate fees for proposed scenariostable 20 and Table 23. Evidently, the fees estimated for all scenarios barring Scenario 8 are not competitive with commercial rates currently charged at existing facilities. Table 20 Scenario Estimated gate fees for proposed scenarios Gate fee charged at Maitland ($/tonne, in 2011/12 dollars) Scenario 7 $207 Scenario 8 $131 Scenario 9 $231 Scenario 10 $206 Scenario 11 $207 Scenario 12 $207 Table 21 Facility Gate fees at regional facilities Gate fee charged ($/tonne, in 2011/12 dollars) Maitland (modelled facilities) $131- $231 Summerhill landfill $160 Cessnock landfill $160 Lake Macquarie organics facility $100 (garden waste) + $160/tonne of contamination, disposed off at Summerhill SITA AWT $159 $150 (garden + food waste) ) + $160/tonne of contamination, disposed off at Summerhill 2 Does Council wish to invest in waste processing infrastructure (AWT) in Maitland? The current cost estimation assumes that there is an end-user for the composted output from AWT, although no revenue is included. However, if the material required disposal to 37 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

45 landfill if no end-user could be found then Scenarios 3 and 9 become the most expensive (see Figure 12). This is a potential risk for Council. 3 What is Council s position regarding waste diversion? If maximum diversion rates are of key strategic importance, then source separation of organics and use of AWT-type facilities will be essential. In light of these strategic issues, Hyder recommends a presentation of results to Council, and subsequent workshop to facilitate further discussion around preferred options and priorities. 38 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

46 Figure 12 Costs if AWT output (Scenarios 3 and 9) requires landfill disposal 39 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

47 4 MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD BULKY WASTE Appropriate management solutions for domestic bulky waste form a key element of a holistic approach to the sustainable management of MSW. As part of the present study, Council has requested an investigation into bulky waste collection services including a recommendation as to current best practice. To this end, Hyder researched bulky waste practices in neighbouring council areas and Australian and international best practice systems. Bulky waste may also be referred to as hard waste in Australia and overseas, and inorganic waste in New Zealand. Typically, the bulky waste stream includes electrical items such as whitegoods and televisions, furniture, green waste, carpet and other large household items. It can also include smaller items such as scrap metal, scrap timber and smaller electrical goods. Although data is limited, most bulky waste generated and collected in Australia appears to be disposed of to landfill. The majority of collected, recovered bulky waste is recycled that is, collected and reprocessed to make new items (ZWSA, 2007). Reusable bulky wastes are generally items of furniture, some whitegoods, televisions and sports equipment, which are in sufficiently good condition to be used again after collection without needing repair or treatment. Local governments in Australia and overseas approach the management of domestic bulky waste in a variety of ways. Councils may elect to offer residents a collection service, with regular, scheduled and/or on-call collections, often in conjunction with a self-haul drop-off point available to the public (usually for a fee). The service is often contracted to a private operator, and in some instances to a not-for-profit organisation that recovers reusable items of the waste stream for resale in charity shops. Councils may include a recovery target in the contract, which consequently requires the collected material to be processed through some type of sorting facility prior to disposal. Scrap metal recovered through collections can be a major source of revenue for councils or private operators. The nature of the waste stream requires specialised collection equipment and/or considerable manual labour, with associated issues of occupational health and safety. Councils may, however, elect to only offer a drop-off point for bulky waste, which requires the public to self-haul waste and usually pay a fee per load. Drop-off points may be transfer stations, landfills, or facilities more focussed on resource recovery. This eliminates the need for a council to cover the expense of a collection service, but disadvantages members of the community who cannot self-haul material (i.e. due to physical inability, lack of (suitable) vehicle, etc). Although the cost of a collection service would generally be incorporated in rates, there is some correlation between illegal dumping and fees charged at drop-off points in other words, residents perceive a collection service as free, and a drop-off point as a charge to themselves (which can be avoided by simply illegally dumping material). The convenience factor of collection services may also reduce instances of illegal dumping. 4.1 Description of Existing Services Maitland City Council does not currently provide a bulky waste collection service. Residents can self-haul bulky waste to the Mount Vincent landfill site where they are charged per load at standard waste disposal rates (i.e. based on the size of vehicle or trailer), or per item for specific wastes such as mattresses. Green waste is accepted free of charge on the weekend, and e- waste is accepted free of charge at any time. Hunter Resource Recovery (HRR) provides a free drop-off point for e-waste on a quarterly basis while small, reusable domestic items (such as pots, dishes, etc) are also collected free of charge at the same time. Free recycling drop-off days for mattresses have also been trialled recently. 40 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

48 4.2 Review of Bulky Waste Collection Systems Bulky waste is taken to include waste items that are too large to be collected as part of regular kerbside waste and recycling collections, and may include items such as household furniture, carpets, white goods, electrical appliances, tyres and green waste. Bulky waste collection services are not only a valuable community service, but also provide an opportunity for reuse and recycling and to reduce illegal dumping. This section provides a review of bulky waste collection systems used in the neighbouring local government areas of the Lower Hunter Region, other areas of Australia and internationally. The aim is to identify the range of options for bulky waste collection, and variations on each option, and the potential advantages and disadvantages and the issues to be considered in assessing, designing and implementing a successful bulky waste collection system. Although an extensive range of literature was reviewed as part of this study, several major national and internal studies and surveys on bulky waste collection systems provided the foundation of the review. A brief summary of these studies is provided below: In 2007 Zero Waste SA (ZWSA) conducted a desktop investigation of bulky waste systems operating locally, nationally and internationally. The study found that most larger cities in Australia run kerbside collection systems to remove bulky waste that is too large to be collected with the existing kerbside bin system. In areas without a kerbside collection system, residents generally engaged a private contractor or local charity to collect the bulky hard waste for reuse, or self-haul bulky goods to the local transfer station or landfill for recycling or disposal. The City of Melbourne engaged the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) (Carter et al. 2005) to investigate options for Council to better manage hard waste collections. The study also covered the issue of illegal dumping. Sustainability Victoria commissioned a survey of local Victorian councils in 2000/01 regarding the details of their kerbside bulky waste management services (EcoRecycle Victoria 2002). The study found that 28 councils provided a scheduled collection service (16 annually, 10 biannually and two quarterly), while ten councils provided an at-call collection service. The California Integrated Waste Management Board prepared a report in 2002 which provided an overview of hard waste collection strategies employed by local authorities. The report highlights a variety of case studies to encourage other councils to consider and/or adopt these strategies. Two major reports from the United Kingdom: Management of household bulky waste in England (Curran et al. 2007) involved a survey of 1,450 householders in three cities and An evaluation of council bulky waste collection services in England (Curran et al. 2007), which investigated the bulky waste collection services of 354 councils. This report found a myriad of different systems exist, with no two being identical, and that one collection model may not satisfy each individual council with diverse constituents and corporate objectives. 41 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

49 The review included New Zealand, the United States, and Europe. In addition to the literature review, council representatives from Cessnock City Council, Lake Macquarie City Council, Singleton Council and Newcastle Council, were also surveyed in order to collate information regarding neighbouring councils bulky waste collections. The responses to the survey questions are summarised in Appendix A Findings A summary of the literature review and survey findings is presented in Table 22 and Table 23. Detailed information collated from the surveys can be found in Appendix C. Overall the review identified three main bulky waste collection systems: scheduled, at-call and hybrids of these two systems. The range of variations in the ways each system is implemented, examples of where they are operating and the advantages and disadvantages are also presented. In general all three systems of bulky waste collection can be designed so that waste may go directly to landfill or may be sorted for reuse/recycling. Table 22 National and international examples of bulky waste management Region Lower Hunter Region Councils New Zealand Europe United Kingdom Overview The survey found that Lake Macquarie City, Singleton and Newcastle Councils offer a scheduled annual or six-monthly kerbside collection service for residential bulky waste, while Cessnock City Council provides residents with a number of vouchers each year for free self-haul to their waste and recycling centre. All three councils target metal for recycling from the bulky waste stream, with Lake Macquarie City and Singleton Councils also providing for green waste in the bulky waste collection. A review of government and recycling websites indicated a lack of published information on kerbside bulky waste (referred to as hard waste or inorganic waste ) collections. However, it appears that kerbside hard waste collection is not widely practiced by local government in New Zealand, who tend to view inorganic collections as expensive, untidy and creating public health and safety hazards. Provision of dropoff centres and reuse centres for self-haul waste is a more common practice (Auckland Council 2011). Recycling bulky domestic waste in Europe was funded through a European Union project based in east Belgium. Originally scheduled annual collection allowed waste to be left on the kerb for long periods. This encouraged residents from neighbouring countries to transport their bulky waste over the border and dumping onto existing piles to avoid their high, local pickup charges. The service was expensive and showcased a poor diversion rate. (European Communities 2004) and was replaced by an at-call service that contracted a local community organisation, Rcycl, to collect kerbside material and recover reusable and recyclable items. Material collected is brought to a central location for segregation and moved on to reuse organisations for further preparation and/or sale. Partner organisations also employ people with disabilities while Rcycl employs long-term unemployed young people. This project provides both environmental and social outcomes benefiting the local community. Previously, local authorities utilised cheap methods of discarding bulky waste with no regard to diversion goals (Local Authority Support, DEFRA 2006). A DEFRA published a guide (Furniture Reuse Network 2005) to assist local authorities alter the mentality from a bulky waste collection/disposal services to a reuse and recycling bulky waste service. Since this push the level of kerbside collection and reuse/recycling of bulky waste has increased considerably. 42 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

50 Region United States Overview An increase has been seen in the reuse and recycling from the kerbside hard waste stream. Municipal organisations need to improve their understanding on this subject while expanding their local market to absorb the presented bulky waste. One issue of bulky waste was the high volume of couches and mattresses. A strategy for managing this issue was the establishment of a product dismantling business to disassemble and locate recycling markets for each component. Recycling systems were able to divert 25 30% of the used furniture for composting (i.e. cotton, sisal and some wood) and 60% for recycling (i.e. steel, urethane, wood and cotton batting). 43 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

51 Table 23 Summary of literature review and survey findings System General description Advantages Disadvantages Variations Examples where applied Scheduled collection system Zone or special event cleanup system Council schedules a collection date for a designated zone (set of streets or suburbs), with the whole council area covered over an extended period. Residents present their bulky waste for kerbside collection during the scheduled collection time only. Reduces illegal dumping (in many instances this was still prevalent, but less so) Extremely popular with residents (& therefore difficult to terminate the service once established) Encourages bulky waste items to be reused/recycled Visual disamenity Requires an extended timeframe for collection Generates windblown litter Promotes a mixed message in relation to minimising waste (i.e. does not promote waste reduction) Potential liability issues (i.e. OH&S issues for collection staff & the public) Can create scavenging Scavenging particular materials (e.g. metals) can significantly impacts potential income from the service Can encouraged residents from neighbouring councils to transport their bulky waste & dump onto existing piles to avoid their high, local pickup charges. Can be expensive Service may be provided on an annual bi-annual or quarterly basis May include provision of green waste in the bulky waste collection Can include scheduled pickups of specific items (e.g. white goods, tyres) Separation of waste by residents into categories, e.g. A - (recyclable; no weight limit) computer equipment & televisions, large appliances, mattresses & tyres B - (recyclable; size and/or weight limits):scrap metal, yard trimmings (green organics), clean wood & folded cardboard C - (non-recyclable; maximum size and/or weight limits): small electrical appliances, household furniture, carpets & other household goods Lake Macquarie City, Singleton & Newcastle Councils, City of Greater Dandenong Lake Macquarie City & Singleton Councils The City of Oakland (California) At-call collection system By request Residents are allocated an annual collection allowance (e.g. 2 m 3 twice a year). A kerbside collection is booked through Council, and if This system avoids some of the visual disamenity Reduces illegal dumping (in many instances this was still Supplying this service to rural areas is difficult & less efficient Residents may perceive this option as a reduction in Two, three or unlimited collection allowance At-call service supported by a network of resource recovery City of Port Phillip 44 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

52 System General description Advantages Disadvantages Variations Examples where applied the annual collection allowance is not exceeded, they are booked into the next collection window and advised in writing of the collection details. Shortly before the scheduled day, the ratepayer places the waste materials on the kerbside for collection. prevalent, but less so) Encourages bulky waste items to be reused/recycled Residents (City of Port Phillip) preferred as a more flexible & responsive service Collecting smaller volumes & from inside property boundaries reduces scavenging, damage to reusable/recyclable items & potential public liability issues caused by scavengers council s services Council needs to establish systems to organise services (e.g. billing & systems to evaluate residents eligibility to use the service) While using non-compacting vehicles would reduce damage to potentially reusable material it reduces collection efficiencies Requires careful scheduling & design of collection routes to minimise costs, traffic movements & emissions parks Collection from inside property boundary Making collections available on a polluter-pays basis encourage residents to take more responsibility for their waste & consider alternatives. Hybrid collection system Comprises a hybrid of the two systems. For example, ratepayers may have one or two scheduled collections during the year with the option of further collections arranged at-call, which may be on a user-pays basis. Increased flexibility of service for residents Residents may be less inclined to use scheduled services as at-call services are more flexible. Can increase costs System has 2 scheduled collections & 2 at-call collections/ year/ household. Residents are generally pleased with this hybrid model Residents are provided with a number of vouchers each year for free self-haul to waste & recycling centres City of Randwick Council Cessnock City Council 45 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

53 4.2.2 Considerations in designing a bulky waste collection system There are various approaches to bulky waste management applied by local waste management authorities both in Australia and overseas. A key conclusion of the review is that there does not appear to be a notable best practice approach that is applicable to all local government areas. This indicates that one collection model may not satisfy each individual council with diverse constituents and corporate objectives. However, numerous case studies exist of relatively successful systems or elements of systems. The following sections discuss some of the issues to be considered by local government in the assessment, design and implementation of bulky waste collection systems by local authorities. 4 Strategic assessment and planning WRAP (2009) identified the lack of strategic assessment and planning in the establishment of bulky waste services as a key barrier to success. In assessing and designing council systems for kerbside collection of bulky waste the following factors need to be assessed (WRAP 2009 and 2010): Existing waste data. The costs and benefits of different options for managing bulky waste. The logistics of collection (range of materials, vehicle requirements, scheduling, routes, kerbside or collecting items from inside the property, etc). Other available local reuse/recycling pathways. Mechanisms being implemented by other councils and opportunities to amalgamate bulky waste collection services in order to increase value for money and initiate reuse activity. The implications (cost and legal) of existing waste contracts. Opportunities to facilitate partnerships between council and third parties such as charities, re-processors and recycling and reuse organisations. 5 Resident s views, preferences and communications Carter et al. (2005) identified that the design of a bulky waste collection system needs to be tailored to the needs and expectations of residents to ensure effective service provision, quality and appropriateness. For example, Curran et al. 2007) found that low affluence areas were dependent upon the council at-call collection service, due to lower car ownership. Furthermore, an effective communication program is required to promote successful implementation. In considering the introduction, or re-design, of a bulky waste collection system many local government authorities conduct surveys of residents to assess current practices, needs and preferences. This also flags to residents that existing systems are likely to change. 6 Separation of waste for reuse and/or recycling Some local councils have been disinclined to separate items suitable for reuse due to additional handling and the need for suitable vehicles that could retain the condition of the items. However, most of the reports reviewed identified that reuse/recycling should be an integral part of a bulky waste collection systems as it: Reduces the amount of waste going to landfill and promotes a range of sustainability outcomes (e.g. maintains embedded energy in goods). Provides a service in terms of cheap reusable goods for the disadvantaged in the community. For example the ReStore thrift shop chain in the United States and 46 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

54 Canada accepts good condition building material for re-sale to raise funds for Habitat for Humanity, a low cost housing organisation. Can provide a significant source of money to council. For example, all of the three Lower Hunter councils target metals from the bulky waste stream for sale and recycling. Generates a more positive community attitude the management of waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (2002) concluded the following: Reuse and recycling activities should be separated from waste cleanup activities and the existing reuse sector. The addition of reuse centres at critical points such as transfer stations, materials recovery facility or at landfill sites. There are issues that accompany the collection and separation of bulky waste which may affect the ease and cost of handling these items by the reuse organisation.. Many reuse centres reject various electrical items, due to availability of spare parts and cost of repair exceeding market value of the second hand good. There is a problematic issue regarding insurance cover for high risk items, such as electrical heaters and chest freezers. Other issues arise from the handling and disposal of hazardous items. For example, several EU directives control the handling and disposal of items such refrigerators and freezers (ozone depleting substances) and television and computer monitors (heavy metals). In some places foam filled furniture cannot be collected and reused if the fire risk label is removed. The collection method needs to ensure the maximum opportunity for reuse by: Using non-compacting trucks. Supplying plastic sheets to reduce rain damage. Training staff in damage minimisation during handling and transport. 7 Service charges Bulky waste collection services may be provided to residents at: no direct charge, a charge per service or a mixture of the two (e.g. a set number of services per year are free, with additional services being charged). Where a direct charge is not involved the costs associated with bulky collection services are generally covered through councils rates and possibly income generated from resource recovery (e.g. metals). As a result scheduled services are often perceived by residents as being free, as opposed to fees charged at transfer stations or landfills for self-haul loads. Some councils who allocated charges have experienced an increase in illegal dumping. 8 Illegal dumping Illegal dumping is a major issue facing local councils across Australia, and a variety of bulky waste collection systems have been trialled to try and identify a best practice model that addresses illegal dumping. None of the studies reviewed were able to identify a best practice model to manage the issue of illegal dumping. The City of Greater Dandenong uses annual hard rubbish collections to combat illegal dumping; however they are still considering whether an at-call collection service would improve or aggravate illegal dumping. 9 Compliance and enforcement The success of bulky waste collection services to manage illegal dumping can be supported by the complimentary introduction of an effective compliance/enforcement strategy for dumping (Carter et al. 2005). Increased surveillance, encouraging community reporting and the enforcement of fines and penalties for illegal dumping, as well as 47 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

55 increased communication of compliance activities, are effective in deterring people from dumping and encouraging the use of council services Example initiatives Some councils, or groups of councils, have specific collection programs and/or drop-off centres for designated items. For items such as electronic-waste and good quality second-hand furniture, the aim of these centres is often to maximise the reuse and recycling. Also, national extended producer responsibility agreements have created collection systems for some items in the hard waste stream, such as tyres, computers and other electrical items. Reuse and repair centres The Bower Reuse and Repair Centre is a registered environmental charity located in Marrickville, which specialises in recovering items from the bulky waste stream for reuse and resale. The Centre has experienced a significant oversupply of usable products, due to community participation. The surrounding local councils are seeking to develop a reuse referral service to extend the reuse of re-usable goods to the community (Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils 2006). This case study demonstrates the potential for successful integration of council-provided services and a charitable organisation that effectively cherrypicks the bulky waste stream for reusable items. Doncaster Re-Furnish is a pre-owned furniture shop for the communities of South Yorkshire. Doncaster Re-Furnish offers householders a free collection service for bulky furniture and goods, under a contract with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council as part of a partnership with waste management contractor SITA. Since ,000 tonnes of material has been diverted helping 14,000 families. The ZeroWise Bulky Waste Project is a three year project managed by Remade South East and is aimed at reducing the volumes of waste going to landfill by finding recycling, re-use and energy-from-waste solutions for bulky waste streams from public and private sector sources. Funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), the project focuses on developing collection and recycling services for bulky waste items such as furniture, carpets, mattresses, plasterboard and large plastic items. Reuse and swap initiatives Perhaps in response to frustration with council bulky waste services, some grass-roots, community-driven solutions have evolved to promote particularly the reuse of bulky waste items. For example, a web-based swap meet ( has been set up to advertise unwanted goods online for collection. The goods are listed on an electronic noticeboard and are usually passed on without exchange of money. The scheme now operates in many cities around the world and has a strong presence in Australia. California s Local Government Commission help reuse and recycle bulky waste by organising Second Chance Week. Through his initiative communities organise a wide range of events, such as community-wide garage sales, donation drives, kerbside exchanges and office cleanup days. The kerbside exchange permits residents to place reusable goods on the kerb on a scheduled weekend and the general community are free to scavenge through these goods. Goods that were not collected by Sunday evening must be removed from the kerb by the resident. Other projects include trials to establish large scale markets for bulky waste (such as carpets, mattresses, bulky plastic items, treated wood, plasterboard and furniture), while others have explored energy from waste solutions for heavily contaminated items such as carpets, mattresses and soft furnishings. 48 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

56 4.3 Recommendations Based on the research presented above, Hyder recommends that Council consider the following system for bulky waste management: Provision of a self-haul, resource recovery park with differential fees to encourage separation and recycling Implementation of an at-call collection service (the most suitable delivery mechanism must be investigated by Council) Recovery targets built in to the collection contract (if an external provider) A thorough and prolonged public education programme to introduce the new service Support and promotion of reuse initiatives The elements listed above have been addressed in the discussion of Australian and international practice in bulky waste management, with a clear indication of advantages and disadvantages. The suggested system provides a service that is popular with the community, but remains flexible and responsive, thereby alleviating some of the issues arising from regular, scheduled collections. A resource recovery park, and recovery targets in collection contracts, promote material reuse and reduce disposal. The recovery park can also be used to encourage behavioural change and increase public awareness. 49 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

57 5 REFERENCES Auckland Council (2011), Rubbish and Recycling (Appendix A), dminimisationplan.aspx [Accessed on 29 June 2011]. Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Moller, J. & Christensen, T.H. (2009). Composting and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management and Research, 27, Brinkermann, A.F., van Zundert, E. & Saft, R.J. (2004) Revised life cycle analysis for VGFwaste: new LCA calculation of the EIA National Waste Management Plocy Plan. Grontmij/IVAM, De Bilt/Amsterdam, The Netherlands. California Integrated Waste Management Board (2002), Community cleanups: Models for local government recycling and waste reduction. Consultancy report prepared Gary Liss & Associates. Carter J, Hamm H and Ross S (2005), How Can the City of Melbourne Better Manage Hard Rubbish Collections? An investigation into hard waste policy conducted for the City of Melbourne. Cessnock City Council, personal communication, May Curran A, Williams ID and Heaven S (2006), An evaluation of council bulky waste collection services in England. CIWM Scientific and Technical Review, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp Curran A, Williams ID and Heaven S (2007), Management of household bulky waste in England, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 51, Issue 1, July 2007, pp Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, NGER Draft Technical Guidelines 2009, Chapter 5. EcoRecycle Victoria (2002), Municipal Data Collection Kerbside Waste Management Services. European Communities (2004), Life Focus / A Cleaner, Greener Europe: LIFE and the European Union Waste Policy, European Commission. ec.europa.eu/environment/life/infoproducts/lifewaste_en.pdf [Accessed online 01/07/2011]. Fisher, K. (2006) Impact of Energy from Waste and Recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Prepared by Environment resource Management for Department for Enviornment, Food and Rural Affairs, Oxford, UK. Lake Macquarie City Council, personal communication, May Maitland City Council, personal communication, May Muswellbrook Council, personal communication, May Newcastle City Council, personal communication, May Office of Environment (2011), Local council waste and sustainability improvement payments, {Accessed on 30 May 2011]. Port Stephens City Council, personal communication, May Remade South East (2009), Bulky Waste Re-use and Recycling for Local Authorities Presentation, southeast.co.uk/rse/docs/materials/bulky%20waste/bulky%20waste%20presentation%20- %20all%20presentations%20final.pdf [Accessed 29 June 2011]. 50 Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

58 Singleton Council, personal communication, May SITA Environmental Solutions, personal communication, May Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K. & Bates, J. (2001) Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA Technology. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Waste Technology (2011), Dirty MRF, [Accessed 27 June 2011]. Zero Waste SA (2007), Kerbside Hard Waste Collection: Issues and Opportunities, consultancy report prepared by Flinders Bioremediation Pty Ltd, 14 June Review of Maitland City Council Waste Treatment and Disposal Options Final Report

59 APPENDIX A WASTE FLOWS

60 Waste Flows Quantity (tonnes) MSW composition (tonnes) C&I compostion (tonnes) Food organics Garden organics Other putrescible Wood / timber Textile / rags Leather and rubber Paper and cardboard Plastics Glass Metals Other (nonrecyclable inert) Food organics Garden organics Other putrescible Wood / timber Textile / rags Leather and rubber Paper and cardboard Plastics Glass Metals Year MSW C&I Oils Oils ,956 18,496 10,567 10,444 1, , ,577 3,440 2,089 1,393 2,089 5,213 2, , ,679 2, , ,693 18,829 10,757 10,632 1, , ,713 3,502 2,126 1,418 2,126 5,307 2, , ,728 2, , ,444 19,168 10,950 10,823 1, , ,852 3,565 2,165 1,443 2,165 5,402 2, , ,777 2, , ,208 19,513 11,148 11,018 1, , ,993 3,629 2,204 1,469 2,204 5,500 2, , ,827 2, , ,985 19,864 11,348 11,216 1, , ,137 3,695 2,243 1,496 2,243 5,599 3, , ,878 2, , ,777 20,222 11,552 11,418 1, , ,284 3,761 2,284 1,522 2,284 5,699 3, , ,929 2, , ,583 20,586 11,760 11,624 1, , ,433 3,829 2,325 1,550 2,325 5,802 3, , ,982 2, , ,404 20,956 11,972 11,833 1, , ,585 3,898 2,367 1,578 2,367 5,906 3, , ,036 2, , ,239 21,334 12,188 12,046 1, , ,739 3,968 2,409 1,606 2,409 6,013 3, , ,091 2, , ,089 21,718 12,407 12,263 1, , ,896 4,039 2,453 1,635 2,453 6,121 3, ,737 1, ,146 2, , ,955 22,109 12,630 12,483 1, , ,057 4,112 2,497 1,664 2,497 6,231 3, ,768 1, ,203 2, , ,836 22,507 12,858 12,708 1, , ,220 4,186 2,542 1,694 2,542 6,343 3, ,800 1, ,260 2, , ,733 22,912 13,089 12,937 1, , ,386 4,262 2,587 1,725 2,587 6,457 3, ,832 1, ,319 2, , ,646 23,324 13,325 13,170 1, , ,555 4,338 2,634 1,756 2,634 6,574 3, ,865 1, ,379 2, , ,576 23,744 13,565 13,407 1, , ,727 4,416 2,681 1,788 2,681 6,692 3, ,899 1, ,440 2, , ,522 24,171 13,809 13,648 1, , ,902 4,496 2,730 1,820 2,730 6,812 3, ,933 1, ,502 2, , ,486 24,606 14,057 13,894 1, , ,080 4,577 2,779 1,853 2,779 6,935 3, ,968 1, ,565 2, , ,466 25,049 14,310 14,144 1, , ,261 4,659 2,829 1,886 2,829 7,060 3, ,003 1, ,629 2, , ,465 25,500 14,568 14,399 1, , ,446 4,743 2,880 1,920 2,880 7,187 3, ,039 1, ,694 2, ,238 Other (nonrecyclable inert)

61 APPENDIX B C&I WASTE COMPOSITION

62 C&I Waste Composition Waste Material Composition (%) from Waste Audit and Consultancy Services - Disposal Based Survey at Summerhill Waste Management Facility (October 2009) Paper all other 2.97% Paper - all sub total 2.97% Compacted Dry Cardboard 3.95% Compacted Wet Cardboard 1.50% Loose Dry Cardboard 0.38% Loose Wet Cardboard 0.04% Cardboard - all sub total 5.87% Food Loose Other 18.44% Food - Packaged 0.62% Food - Loose Production 1.71% Food - all sub total 20.77% Vegetation branches / grass clips 6.70% Vegetation tree stumps /logs 1.15% Vegetation - all sub total 7.85% Wood - Pallets 1.71% Wood - Furniture 1.65% Wood Fencing / board /pole (treated) 0.53% Wood Fencing / board / pole (untreated) 0.32% Wood MDF/Chipboard 1.66% Wood - Other 1.78% Wood - all sub total 7.65% Textile - Furniture 0.62% Textile Carpet / Underlay 2.06% Textile Mattress 0.11% Textile Cloth 0.38% Textile - Leather 0.01% Textile - Other 0.60% Textile - all sub total 3.78% Rubber - Other 0.07% Rubber - Tyres / Tubes 0.06% Rubber - all sub total 0.14% Glass Containers /Plate 0.54% Glass - Laminated 0.04%

63 Glass - all sub total 0.58% Plastic - Bags & Film 4.33% Plastic Hard 4.15% Plastic - Other 0.11% Polystyrene / foam 0.23% Plastic - all sub total 8.83% Garbage Bags 28.73% Garbage bags sub total 28.73% Metal - Ferrous 1.18% Metal - Non ferrous 0.07% Metal- all sub total 1.25% Soil / Cleanfill 2.05% Rock 0.20% Rubble > 150mm 0.64% Tiles 0.45% Asphalt 1.18% Plasterboard 0.39% Construction/Demolition Material - all sub total 4.91% Hazardous/Special 1.19% Hazardous/Special - all sub total 1.19% Whitegoods - Washing Machine/ Fridges 0.02% Electronics / Electrical Television etc. 0.65% Whitegoods/Electrical - all sub total 0.66% Waxed Cardboard 0.33% Other 4.47% Other - all sub total 4.80%

64 APPENDIX C SURVEY RESULTS FOR LOWER HUNTER REGION COUNCILS

65 Practices in Neighbouring Local Government Areas Question Cessnock City Council Lake Macquarie City Council Singleton Council Newcastle City Council 1 Does Council operate a bulky waste collection service? (if no, go to question 6) No Yes Yes Yes 2 What type of bulky waste collection system does Council operate, i.e. scheduled collection system, at-call collection system, a hybrid of the two systems? Scheduled residential kerbside bulky waste collection service Once a year, Singleton Council provides a Bulk Clean Up service (kerbside) to residents who currently receive a weekly domestic garbage service Scheduled residential kerbside bulky waste collection service 3 If Council operates a scheduled collection, what is the collection frequency? Every 6 months Annual Every 6 months 4 What types of bulky waste materials does Council collect? The bulky waste items must be placed at the kerbside in three separate piles: Bulk household (furniture, mattresses, TVs etc) Green waste Metals Floor coverings Stoves Furniture Small quantities of householder building waste Bundles of tree cuttings General household waste All metal products and general waste must be placed into separate piles. Metal waste that is placed in a separate pile from other waste is recycled. All other bulky waste is taken to landfill. A reasonable quantity of garden refuse will be permitted up to a maximum capacity of up to 2 box trailer loads.

66 Question Cessnock City Council Lake Macquarie City Council Singleton Council Newcastle City Council 5 What types of bulky waste materials does Council specifically not collect? Tree trunks or stumps Items over 100 kg Pesticides, flammable materials, paints, gas cylinders, car bodies, large engine blocks, rubble, and concrete Material cleared from vacant lots Commercial builder s rubble Loose earth, bricks, rubble Mirrors Glass Fridges Vehicle tyres Freezers Excess quantities or items placed out in an unacceptable manner Air conditioning units Unreasonably heavy object or materials (over 100 kg) Car body parts Hazardous solids/liquids Green waste, grass clippings Recyclables Commercial waste Broken or shattered glass Quantities in excess of 2 cubic metres Household refuse Tyres Concrete, rubble, dirt or building construction waste Hazardous / poisonous solid or liquid waste Items over 100kg Glass items, windows or mirrors 6 What is the maximum volume/quantity of bulky waste allowed for collection? Combined total of one box trailer load or 2m3 per household Two trailer loads equivalent One box trailer or two cubic metres of waste material per household. 7 Does Council operate drop-off centres for designated bulky waste items? Council issues 4 waste vouchers /yr to DWMS residents for self haul material Facility Reuse Centre: rec d at the Waste & Reuse Please comment on Centre. number, location, and free e-waste drop off facility materials accepted. located at the Waste & Reuse Centre. This service takes all electronic equipment such as TVs, DVD and CD players, stereos, microwave ovens, computers, printers, mobile phones, fax machines, kitchen appliances and other portable electrical items like For a fee e-waste drop off at Awaba Waste Management Household domestic waste Garden waste Decomposable waste consisting of food Bio-solids Waste consisting of building and demolition waste (bricks, concrete, timber, glass) Asbestos waste (safely secured under the relevant guidelines) Hazardous waste, liquid wastes No

67 Question Cessnock City Council Lake Macquarie City Council Singleton Council Newcastle City Council hair dryers and hand tools. and industrial wastes are not This service compliments the accepted for disposal at the opportunity for residents to Awaba Waste Management drop off waste items such as Facility. building materials, white good, vehicles, wood, lawn clippings, engine oil, metals and dry recyclables at the Reuse Centre. Users of the site are required to pass through a manned screening station. Vehicles directed to the weighbridge have the opportunity to pay a lesser rate when presenting separated concrete (including bricks and tiles), tyres or tree waste for processing. 8 Please comment on other systems for bulky waste collection/disposal (i.e. voucher system, e-waste collection) that Council operates. See above Second hand Saturday periodic ewaste and household goods (3 events per year) Council also offers Annual Box Trailer Vouchers which entitles the voucher recipient to one box trailer load of general waste for disposal at the Singleton Waste Depot. The box trailer voucher is only issued to residential dwellings that are levied an urban garbage charge or a rural garbage charge. 9 What materials are collected for: Reuse? Recycling? Landfilling? Reuse: Reuse Centre operates on-site (contractor) who makes decision about material considered suitable for reuse (sale). Material sourced from self haul customers Green waste separately collected and delivered to Awaba Landfill for mulching. Mattresses separately collected and delivered either directly to Dreamsafe or Awaba Landfill dor subsequent pick-up by Singleton Council, along with Coal & Allied Mt Thorley/Warkworth and Thiess Services, periodically conduct an e-waste collection day. Electronic goods are collected from Singleton Council Car Park and delivered to the recycling facility in North Wyong. Council does not accept large electronic

68 Question Cessnock City Council Lake Macquarie City Council Singleton Council Newcastle City Council Recycling: Kerbside service offered + household recycleables, motor oil, metals, lawn clippings ewaste are rec d at site (via self haul) without charge. Tree waste, B&D etc is differential pricing at site. Landfilling is (one site Old Maitland Rd Cessnock) for mixed waste, commercial, industrial (Licensed Class 1 Site) Dreamsafe for recycling. Metals separately picked up and delivered to Simms metal for recycling. items, such as whitegoods. 10 Where are materials taken to for: Reuse? Recycling? Reuse Centre operates onsite (under contract) open to public. Recycling: Service provided via Solo Resource Recovery Greenwaste Awaba Landfill for Contractor picks up metal from kerbside and processing by Davis Earthmoving also again at tip face Mattresses - Dreamsafe Metals Simms Metal E waste Mai Wel Recycling (via Hunter Resource Recovery) 11 Does Council offer communication programmes/educati on in terms of bulky No waste management? Communication is on flyer Yes see flyer s below delivered 2 weeks before service due date 12 Has Council s bulky waste management system addressed the issue of illegal dumping? Illegal dumping is still prevalent Illegal dumping still occurs. Not in the least Although we have no quantitative evidence we expect dumping to increase if we withdrew this service

69 Question Cessnock City Council Lake Macquarie City Council Singleton Council Newcastle City Council 13 Do partnerships Contracted Reuse Centre between Council and operates on-site reuse organisations and/or reprocessors currently exist? Through Hunter Resource Recovery for e-waste and household goods and Novocastrian Recycling for household goods. No

70 Singleton Council s Bulky Waste Communication Flyer

71