Sustainability Victoria - Purpose of the supporting evidence ... · Web viewThe average distance for a collection vehicle truck to travel between households differs between councils

A submission to Sustainability Victoria 16th August 2017

Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis

Mike Ritchie & Associates Pty Ltd trading as MRA Consulting Group (MRA)ABN 13 143 273 812Suite 409 Henry Lawson Building19 Roseby Street, Drummoyne NSW 2047AUSTRALIAP +61 2 8541 6169E [email protected]

Document

Author David Cocks, James Moverley

Checker Dimitris Dimoliatis, Virginia Brunton

Approver David Cocks

Document history

Title Version no. Status Date

Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis

1 Draft 06/07/2017

2 Draft 02/08/2017

3 Final 16/08/2017

DisclaimerThis report has been prepared by Mike Ritchie and Associates Pty Ltd (trading as MRA Consulting Group (MRA)) for Sustainability Victoria. MRA (ABN 13 143 273 812) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this document by any third party.

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis iii

AcknowledgementsThe input, advice and time given to support the development of this report from the following organisations are gratefully acknowledged:

Bayside City Council; City of Wodonga; Local Government Victoria; Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group; Polytrade Recycling; SKM Recycling; Sustainability Victoria; Veolia; and Visy Recycling.

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis iv

Executive SummaryThis report provides the key supporting evidence and analysis to validate the benefits described in Sustainability Victoria’s (SV) Optimising Kerbside Collection System (OKCS) – A Framework for Greater Consistency in Kerbside Recycling in Victoria. OKCS sets out preferred service standards for consideration by councils and provides recycling guidelines to help bring about consistency in recycling services and reduce householder confusion.

Roles of stakeholdersA number of barriers are hindering improved resource recovery from kerbside services, including:

Inadequate recycling labelling (e.g. on packaging) causing confusion at many households; Inconsistent and complex sets of materials being collected by councils leading to:

o Complex and confusing information regarding kerbside recycling practices for households; and

o Non-recyclable product packaging being misplaced and thus contaminating recycling bins. Lack of recycling services for organic waste reducing the potential resource recovery rate e.g.

source separated Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) collection; Inconsistent bin infrastructure and lack of compliance with established Australian Standard bin lid

colours (AS 4123.7-2006 Mobile Waste Containers – Colours, markings and designation requirements); and

Lack of benchmark performance standards and/or codes of practice for the kerbside collection and recycling/processing.

Addressing these barriers, to fully realise the potential benefits of providing greater consistency in recycling, relies upon active participation of each stakeholder in the production, use, collection and recovery of materials and products. These stakeholders can be grouped as:

Brands, retailers and manufacturers; Households; Councils; and Waste and resource recovery industry (including collection contractors, Material Recovery Facilities

(MRFs) and reprocessors).

By working together, all stakeholders stand to benefit from consistent and reliable household recycling. To achieve the full benefits from greater consistency and the preferred service standards, five key critical success factors are identified:

Stakeholder Success Factor

Brands, retails and manufacturers

Packaging that is suitable for recycling – industry develops and uses product packaging that is suitable for recycling and clearly labelled as to how it is to be recycled or disposed of.

Households Households collect the right materials for recycling – households are provided with clear and consistent messaging to enable confident and consistent separation of the core set of common recyclable materials.

Councils Preferred service standards for kerbside collection – councils provide cost effective kerbside collection services with adequate bin capacity, consistent bin lid colours that conform to AS 4123.7 2006 and recycling services that support a core set of recyclable materials.

Councils Higher quality materials are collected and sorted for recycling – councils present a higher quality and consistent/core stream of materials to Victoria’s resource recovery industry to

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis v

Stakeholder Success Factor

support high order reprocessing and end use. Waste and resource recovery industry

Promote and share innovation in kerbside recycling – developments in approaches to kerbside recycling are continuously shared to ensure that good practice and innovation in kerbside recycling is transferred across the entire supply chain.

Greater consistencyGreater consistency in kerbside recycling relies on:

Providing clear and consistent messaging to households to recycle the same core set of materials; Consistent bin configurations; Consistent bin lid colours; and Standardised performance criteria.

Community engagement and education are essential to support changes in household recycling practices. Focusing recycling messaging on a core set of materials would help reduce confusion, and enable householders to recycle more of the right materials and reduce contamination. Analysis of bin composition audit data, of Victorian councils, identified that nine common material types form approximately 70% of waste (residual and recyclables) collected from households, as detailed in Appendix B. These core material types were consistent across all jurisdictions.

Material Type

Plastic bottles

Plastic packaging – pots, tubs and trays

Metal packaging – cans, aerosols and aluminium foil

Glass – jars, bottles and containers

Paper

Card

Food and beverage cartons

Food Organics (FO)

Garden Organics (GO)

Adopting consistent bin configuration and Australian Standard bin lid colours AS 4123.7-2006 has the potential to further simplify engagement and education across the state with respect what can be recycled. Compliance with AS 4123.7 2006 is shown to contribute to higher recycling yields, reduced contamination and a better-quality recycling stream, examples are provided in Appendix A

It was established that the preferred service standards, detailed in OKCS, provide bin volumes and collection frequencies (bin capacity) which adequately support the waste generation of an average single dwelling Victorian household. Given the variability in requirements between councils, the preferred service standards can be tailored to their individual needs. The frequency of waste collections and bin sizes will depend upon individual council circumstances and housing types. For example, households with special needs could be offered flexible bin size and frequency options, where viable to council (e.g. households with infants, special medical needs, the elderly or a large number of occupants). Evidence is presented that demonstrates smaller garbage bin capacities support improved recycling rates, however it is recognised

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis vi

that if the garbage bin capacity is too small there is a risk of increased contamination of the recycling stream from the garbage bin.

Benefits of greater consistencyTwo distinct methodologies were used to identify and assess the key benefits of greater consistency and the preferred service standards:

Quantitative assessment of the following environmental and economic benefits utilising MRA Consulting Group’s (MRA’s) bespoke Consolidated Cost Model (CCM);

o Cost ($/household and Net Present Value (NPV));o Resource recovery rate (%); o Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2-e); and

Qualitative assessment ofo Material quality;o Customer engagement/satisfaction; ando Broader economic benefit.

The analysis identified that state-wide implementation of the preferred service standards, which consists a garbage bin, recycling bin and FOGO bin (3-bin FOGO service), would yield potential benefits and opportunities that include:

Over 500,000 tonnes of additional material collected for resource recovery each year comprising:o Over 300,000 tonnes of food organics and over 30,000 of comingled recyclable materials

diverted and recovered from the residual bin;o An additional 200,000 new tonnes of recoverable material added to the kerbside system

(mainly garden organics); A 20% increase to the state-wide average household recycling rate; Improved environmental outcomes by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 320,000

tonnes of CO2-e per annum; Over two million households provided with a new food organics collection service through the roll

out of combined collection of FOGO material; The delivery of higher quality materials for recycling due to less contamination in the recycling and

organics stream and more effective sorting; The potential for Victorian reprocessors to yield up to $12 million per year more from avoided

disposal costs and the increased quality and value of recycled materials and products; and Reduced costs to councils and increased revenue for reprocessors due to households putting out

for collection cleaner recyclables/FOGO streams.

On average a council that adopts the preferred service standards for a 3-bin FOGO service may achieve additional benefits which include:

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis vii

Metropolitan council

(approx. 55,000 hhld*’s)

Non-metropolitan council

(approx. 14,000 hhld’s)

Current service 3-bin GO 2 bin 3-bin GO

Costs and benefits of moving to a 3-bin FOGO service

Change in cost per household -$2/hhld/annum +$33/hhld/annum +$5/hhld/annum

Change (improvement) in resource recovery rate

Up to 15% Up to 38% Up to 14%

CO2-e avoided through diversion of material from landfill

7.5 kt/annum 1.9 kt/annum 1.4 kt/annum

Additional FO recovered 25 kt/annum 5.6 kt/annum 3.8 kt/annum

*households

Performance standardsTo realise the benefits of implementing preferred service standards there are several key performance requirements that relate to the yield of recyclables, recycling rates and contamination levels that need to be achieved, refer to Section 3.5. These include:

Stream Net yield per household (kg/hhld/week) Contaminated bins

Household capture rate

Contamination rate

Comingled recycling≥ 5.0kg - Metropolitan

≥ 4.0kg Non-Metropolitan

≤ 5% ≥ 75% ≤ 15%

GO≥ 6.0kg - Metropolitan


≤ 3% ≥ 90% ≤ 1.5%

FOGO≥ 9.0kg - Metropolitan


≤ 3% ≥ 50% - FO

≥ 90% - GO

≤ 3%

These performance benchmarks reflect standards which are being achieved by Victorian councils implementing services aligned with the preferred service standards. Some councils have achieved higher performance standards and they may reasonably expect to realise greater benefits than have been previously stated. Acknowledging the variability between councils, this report provides evidence and analysis that will assist councils to fully assess the benefits of greater consistency in kerbside recycling and preferred service standards detailed in OKCS.

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis viii

GlossaryTerminology Description

AD Anaerobic Digestion

APCO Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation

ARL Australian Recycling Label

AS Australian Standard

AS 4123.7 AS 4123.7-2006 (R2017) Mobile waste containers colours, marking and designation requirements

BAU Business as Usual

CBSM Community Based Social Marketing

CCM Consolidated Cost Model

CO2-e Carbon dioxide equivalent

CPI Consumer Price Index

CoGD City of Greater Dandenong

EfW Energy from Waste

FO Food Organics

FOGO Food Organics and Garden Organics

fn Fortnightly

FTE Full-Time Employment

GO Garden Organics

hhld Household

LGA Local Government Area

LGV Local Government Victoria

MAF Mixed Aerated Floor

MRA MRA Consulting Group

MRF Material Recovery Facility

MWRRG Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group

NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting

NPK Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

NPV Net Present Value

OKCS Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems – A Framework for Greater Consistency in Kerbside Recycling in Victoria

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis ix

Terminology Description

PREP Packaging Recyclability Evaluation Portal

RWRRIP Regional waste and resource recovery implementation plan

SA South Australia

Single dwelling Dwelling with its own parcel of land and access to their own individual bins

SV Sustainability Victoria

SWRRIP Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan

VLGAWS Victorian Local Government Annual Waste Survey

VLGPRF Victorian Local Government Performance Reporting Framework

VORRS Victorian Organics Resource Recovery Strategy

VRIAS Victorian Recycling Industries Annual Survey

Wodonga City of Wodonga

WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme

WRRG Waste and resource recovery group

wk Weekly

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis x

Contents

List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................xiiList of Figures.................................................................................................................................................xiii1 Purpose of the supporting evidence and analysis report.............................................................................1

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................................12 Context for greater consistency...................................................................................................................2

2.1 Consistent approach............................................................................................................................22.2 Roles of stakeholders in supporting greater consistency.....................................................................2

2.2.1 Brands, retailers and manufacturers..........................................................................................22.2.2 Households.................................................................................................................................32.2.3 Councils.......................................................................................................................................32.2.4 Waste and resource recovery industry.......................................................................................3

2.3 What greater consistency looks like.....................................................................................................42.3.1 Households collect the right materials for recycling...................................................................42.3.2 Bin capacity (bin size & collection frequency).............................................................................62.3.3 Bin lid colours.............................................................................................................................7

3 Key benefits of greater consistency.............................................................................................................93.1 Scenario modelling...............................................................................................................................9

3.1.1 Caveat: Dwelling type...............................................................................................................103.2 Quantitative analysis..........................................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Cost...........................................................................................................................................103.2.2 Resource recovery rate.............................................................................................................133.2.3 Greenhouse gas emissions........................................................................................................14

3.3 Key quantitative benefits...................................................................................................................153.4 Qualitative analysis............................................................................................................................16

3.4.1 Material quality.........................................................................................................................163.4.2 Customer engagement/satisfaction..........................................................................................163.4.3 Broader economic benefits.......................................................................................................17

3.5 Standardisation of performance criteria............................................................................................174 Conclusions and recommendations...........................................................................................................19

4.1 Roles of stakeholders.........................................................................................................................194.2 Greater consistency...........................................................................................................................204.3 Benefits..............................................................................................................................................204.4 MRA recommendations for supporting the implementation of preferred service standards............21

Appendix A Examples of preferred service standard and supporting evidence.......................................22

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis xi

Appendix B Analysis framework/scenario modelling..............................................................................26Appendix C Infrastructure considerations...............................................................................................38Appendix D FOGO bin configurations......................................................................................................40

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis xii

List of TablesTable 1 Core set of material types and example household items for comingled recycling and organics........5Table 2 Current and recommended Victorian waste service bin capacity system............................................6Table 3 Summary of analysis methods.............................................................................................................9Table 4 Waste system and bin configuration assessed...................................................................................10Table 5 Standardisation of performance criteria............................................................................................18Table 6 Critical success factors.......................................................................................................................19Table 7 Cost and benefits to councils.............................................................................................................21Table 8 Average weekly household FO yield by different infrastructure........................................................23Table 9 Wodonga kerbside service.................................................................................................................24Table 10 Waste system and bin configuration assessed.................................................................................26Table 11 Industry average combined collection and disposal rates...............................................................33Table 12 Median haulage assumptions for each stream................................................................................36Table 13 Overview of bin configuration systems used by selected councils operating FOGO services..........40

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis xiii

List of FiguresFigure 1 Garbage bin size versus recycling rates (ref: VLGAWS).......................................................................7Figure 2 Cost per household, metropolitan council........................................................................................11Figure 3 Cost per household, non-metropolitan council................................................................................12Figure 4 Net present value of each option (10-year period), metropolitan council.......................................12Figure 5 Net present value of each option (10-year period), non-metropolitan council................................13Figure 6 Resource recovery rate, metropolitan council..................................................................................13Figure 7 Resource recovery rate, non-metropolitan council..........................................................................14Figure 8 Total emissions, metropolitan council..............................................................................................15Figure 9 Total emissions, non-metropolitan council.......................................................................................15Figure 10 Proximity of metropolitan Melbourne to MRFs (30km boundary).................................................28Figure 11 Cost per tonne for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils...................................................28Figure 12 Cost per service for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils.................................................29Figure 13 Waste generation per household for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils......................29Figure 14 Average residual bin composition of non-metropolitan councils being serviced by 2-bin kerbside collection system............................................................................................................................................30Figure 15 Average residual bin composition of metropolitan (left) and non-metropolitan (right) councils being serviced by 3-bin GO kerbside collection system..................................................................................31Figure 16 Average comingled recycling bin composition of metropolitan (left) and non- metropolitan (right) councils...........................................................................................................................................................32Figure 17 Average garden organics bin composition of metropolitan (left) and non-metropolitan (Right) councils being serviced by 3-bin kerbside collection system..........................................................................32

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis xiv

1 Purpose of the supporting evidence and analysis reportThis report provides the key supporting evidence and analysis to validate the benefits described in Sustainability Victoria’s (SV) Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems (OKCS) – A Framework for Greater Consistency in Kerbside Recycling in Victoria. OKCS sets out preferred service standards for consideration by councils and provides recycling guidelines to help bring about consistency in recycling services and reduce householder confusion.

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the analysis that demonstrate the significant benefits that greater consistency in kerbside recycling can deliver through increased recycling rates, improved quality of recycled materials and reduced contamination.

The benefits of delivering the preferred service standards, as described in OKCS, have been assessed through quantitative and qualitative analysis of:

Cost of service provision; Contribution to increased diversion from landfill; Environmental benefits; Reduced contamination and improved quality of materials collected for reprocessing; Increased participation in recycling by householders; and Reduced confusion about what can be recycled.

1.1 BackgroundMRA Consulting Group (MRA) identified key barriers that are currently hindering improved resource recovery from kerbside services:

Inadequate recycling labelling/information (e.g. on packaging) causing confusion to households; An inconsistent and complex set of materials being collected by councils leading to:

o Complex and confusing information regarding kerbside recycling practices for households; and

o Non-recyclable product packaging contaminating recycling bins. Lack of recycling services for organic waste e.g. source separated Food Organics and Garden

Organics (FOGO) collection; Inconsistent bin infrastructure and lack of compliance with established Australian Standards (AS);

and Lack of benchmark performance standards and/or codes of practice for the kerbside collection and

recycling/processing.

OKCS offers guidance to increase service consistency between and within Victorian councils to overcome the above barriers and deliver additional benefits to councils, the waste and resource recovery industry and other stakeholders.

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems - Supporting Evidence and Analysis 1

2 Context for greater consistency

2.1 Consistent approachMost householders are recycling high levels of many easily identified recyclable materials, such as paper, cardboard and glass. However, SV’s research has determined that only 65% of households think they are recycling to their full potential1. This indicates that significant improvements can be made to the kerbside recycling system.

60% of respondents to SV’s research, in metropolitan Melbourne, who were unsure whether or not something could be recycled sometimes discarded the item in the rubbish bin, while 39% reported they sometimes put it in the recycling bin. By addressing this confusion, greater consistency provides an opportunity to improve resource recovery rates1.

The following three factors are identified in OKCS as the main reasons why households are not recycling to their full potential:

Confusing and inconsistent messaging; Inconsistent bin configurations; and Lack of standardisation of bin lid colours.

This report provides evidence as to the benefits of addressing each of these.

The adoption by all Victorian councils of a consistent set of materials that households are able to recycle via kerbside services will assist in reducing confusion and support more consistent messaging. Reduced confusion will enable householders to better recycle more materials and reduce the amount of contamination in recycling. Consistent messaging provides the opportunity for harmonised recycling education across the state and supports harmonised regional and state-wide programs.

2.2 Roles of stakeholders in supporting greater consistencyFully realising the potential benefits of providing greater consistency and optimising kerbside collection services relies upon active participation of each stakeholder in the production, use, processing and recovery of materials and products. These stakeholders can be grouped into:

Brands, retailers and manufacturers; Households; Councils; and Waste and resource recovery industry (including collection contractors, Material Recovery Facilities

(MRFs), reprocessors).

2.2.1 Brands, retailers and manufacturersBrands, retailers and manufacturers have a responsibility to ensure packaging is designed to be both practical and environmentally friendly, preferably recyclable. This needs to be communicated to households through clear labelling indicating whether it can or cannot be recycled.

1 SV, Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne; Social Research Summary Report, accessed 1/8/2017: http://getitrightbinnight.vic.gov.au/images/uploads/env058_improving_kerbside_recycling_web.pdf


Planet Ark, together with the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), has developed an Australian Recycling Label (ARL). The purpose of the ARL is to provide easy to understand recycling information to assist customers to dispose of products correctly and efficiently2.

Brands, retailers and manufacturers have begun to improve consistency by adopting and/or demanding that their suppliers adopt and use the ARL on all products.

The Packaging Recyclability Evaluation Portal (PREP) is another example of a program designed to support industry to address this issue and is based on the premise that Australians are confused about the recyclability of common packaging item. This stems from unclear labelling, changes in recycling systems over time, differences between collection services and reprocessing technologies. PREP is a joint program originally scoped and commissioned by the APCO, and jointly developed, managed and owned by Planet Ark and GreenChip.

2.2.2 HouseholdsHouseholders generate waste and recyclables. Councils and recyclers rely on householders to consistently separate and place waste and recyclable materials into the correct kerbside bin. However, complex and different messaging undermines this consistency, increasing confusion and the risk of contamination and reduced quality of recyclable material collected through kerbside system.

To achieve greater consistency in correct recycling behaviour, householders require consistent labelling on products (through ARL), adequate kerbside services, customer support, education and resources to be provided by councils.

2.2.3 CouncilsCouncils have a key responsibility to provide waste and recycling kerbside collection services that offer adequate bin size and collection frequency (bin capacity). Councils also have a critical role in ensuring households are supported to correctly use kerbside collection services so that high-quality recyclables are collected for reprocessing.

The adoption of standard bins is expected to aid in this direction. AS 4123.7-2006 (R2017) was created to provide bin lid colour uniformity, maintain consistency across councils nationally, and support the separate collection of a core set of materials and specific household items (hereafter, AS 4123.7-2006 (R2017) is referred to as AS 4123.7).

It is recognised that where changes to a councils kerbside collection system would result in transition and additional ongoing costs, councils may be restricted with respect to the elements of the preferred service standards they are able to implement.

2.2.4 Waste and resource recovery industryA critical element in efforts to close the resource recovery loop is the participation of the waste and resource recovery industry, including collection contractors, MRFs and reprocessing facilities.

The industry is responsible for ensuring that the core set of materials are collected, sorted and recovered effectively and efficiently. In addition to stakeholder expectations, the key driving force for maximising recycling is the increased financial benefits resulting from:

The incoming materials having low contamination levels; and 2 Planet Ark website, accessed 28/07/2017: http://planetark.org/recyclinglabel/


The sorters and reprocessors infrastructure achieving high rates of recovery.

These factors contribute to the recovery of quality recyclables and provide incentives for reprocessors to get involved and support greater consistency across the board.

2.3 What greater consistency looks likeGreater consistency in kerbside collection services across Victorian councils, consists of four key elements:


2.3.1 Households collect the right materials for recyclingEffective communication and community engagement are key to supporting kerbside waste services, and supporting households’ transition to a new kerbside waste service.

To ensure communication and community engagement is effective, the behaviours of an individual community need to be fully understood and incorporated into engagement and education campaigns. SV recommends structured methodologies, such as Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM). Once the service is implemented, ongoing support is required to maintain and encourage correct use.

2.3.1.1 Core recoverable materialsSV conducted a social study into the drivers behind how Melbourne households recycle 3.This study involved focus groups, in-home interviews and a telephone survey with randomly selected Melbourne households.

From the research, 97% of Melbournian residents know at least fairly well what product groups can go in the recycling bin and 96% know at least fairly well what can go in the organic bin. However, when respondents were queried on individual items, not all were aware of what can or cannot be recycled. This implies that confusion regarding particular items is still a significant issue.

Focussing on a commonly recycled core set of materials simplifies the kerbside system for households and allows for consistent messaging to help overcome this.

Analysis of bin composition audit data of Victorian councils identified that at least 70% of the waste collected from Victorian households (residual and recyclables) is identified as a material listed in Table 1. Most of these materials are collected for recycling by councils throughout Victoria and with processing technologies already in place, these materials have been identified as the core set of materials to target for recycling.

3 SV, Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne; Social Research Summary Report, accessed 1/8/2017: http://getitrightbinnight.vic.gov.au/images/uploads/env058_improving_kerbside_recycling_web.pdf


Table 1 Core set of material types and example household items for comingled recycling and organics

Comingled recycling core materials Example household items

Plastic bottles Detergent and soap bottles. Carbonated and non-carbonated drinks and water bottles. Milk and juice bottles.

Plastic packaging Pots, tubs and containers (e.g. yogurt, soup, margarine and butter, ice cream, etc.).

Chocolate and biscuit containers and trays (hard/rigid plastic). Takeaway food and other plastic packaging.

Metal packaging (tin, steel, aluminium)

Drinks cans. Food tins and cans (e.g. soup cans, canned vegetables, vegetable stock

tins). Aerosol cans (e.g. deodorant and anti-perspirant, hairspray and insect

spray).

Glass packaging (jars, bottles and containers)

Alcohol bottles of any colour (e.g. wine, beer, spirits). Jars and bottles (e.g. sauces, jams and spreads, pastes, baby food). Non-food jars, bottles and containers (e.g. perfume, aftershave, face

creams).

Paper Newspapers and supplements, magazines, brochures and catalogues. Advertising material (e.g. brochures, leaflets, flyers, junk mail). Office paper (e.g. computer paper, letters).

Card Cardboard boxes (e.g. cereal boxes, dishwasher tablet boxes, washing powder boxes, tissue boxes).

Corrugated cardboard (e.g. moving boxes, storage boxes, TV boxes). Online delivery boxes and parcels and cardboard envelopes.

Food and beverage cartons

Drinks cartons (e.g. juices). Fresh milk cartons. Food cartons (e.g. soups, stock).

FOGO core materials Example household items

Food Organics (FO) All uneaten food and plate scrapings. Tea leaves and coffee grounds. Out of date or mouldy food.

Garden Organics (GO) Grass clippings. Leaves. Weeds.

Some councils accept additional materials through their kerbside recycling bin in an attempt to achieve a higher diversion rate from landfill. Adding materials, in addition to the core materials above increases the complexity of the system potentially adding to household confusion. The different messaging provided by some councils on individual items (e.g. soft plastics) increases the risk of contamination and reduces the


quality of recyclable material collected through kerbside system. MRA, ascertained that some MRFs accept materials, outside of the core set, without necessarily having the capacity to efficiently recover them and/or having secured markets for the recycled commodity. Consequently, the collection of additional materials, outside of the core materials, potentially increases the cost of operation of MRFs.

2.3.2 Bin capacity (bin size & collection frequency)Bin size and collection frequency are intrinsically linked. When considered together, as bin capacity, the minimum or maximum capacity for households can be identified separately from the bin size and/or collection frequency. Table 2 details recommended bin capacity for each kerbside service and the systems that have been widely accepted by Victorian councils as a standard practice.

Table 2 Current and recommended Victorian waste service bin capacity system

Service Highest performing configurations (recommended)

Most common configuration (currently)

Residual 80L per week 120L bin collected weekly

Comingled recycling 120L per week or 240l per fortnight (minimum)

240L bin collected fortnightly

FOGO 120L per week or 240l per fortnight (minimum)

240L bin collected fortnightly

Not all Victorian councils utilise the most common configuration, permutations include:

Different size bins;

Different collection frequency; or

No organics service (FOGO or GO).

If less than the minimum recycling and organics capacities are offered to households, analysis of SV’s Victorian Local Government Annual Waste Services (VLGAWS), suggest recycling yield decreases. A review of the bin size and diversion rates indicates that adopting the minimum capacity for residual waste promotes an increase in recycling rates.

As people recycle more, they require lower residual waste capacity. Where residual waste capacity is restricted, SV’s VLGAWS shows there is an increase in recycling rate e.g. by 7.2±2.9% when the weekly


containment capacity for residual waste

is 120 litres compared to 240 litres. Figure 1 displays the relationship between household waste generation, recycling rate and garbage bin capacity.

Figure 1 Garbage bin size versus recycling rates (ref: VLGAWS)

A key consideration for any council contemplating a new waste collection system that includes food organics, is providing adequate containment capacity to accommodate the increased volume required in the organics bin while ensuring public health and amenity concerns are addressed and provided for.

For example, Nillumbik, Wangaratta and Wodonga offer a 3-bin FOGO service and have changed the frequency of collection for the FOGO bin to weekly and the garbage bin to a fortnightly. The kerbside collection systems offered by these councils provides more than the minimum preferred service standard organics containment capacity and offers less than 80 litres per week of residual containment capacity (refer to Appendix A for more detailed regarding Wodonga).

Any changes to the kerbside bin capacity must ensure that households retain adequate capacity to dispose of unrecoverable waste. To account for households with special needs (e.g. households with infants, special medical needs, the elderly or a large number of occupants) flexible bin size and frequency options should


be considered, where viable. Otherwise, if the residual bin capacity is too small, increased contamination of the recycling stream from the residual bin is likely to occur.

2.3.3 Bin lid colours

In Victoria, bin lid colours are not currently uniform. For example, MWRRG 4 found that only 9 out of 31 metropolitan councils are fully compliant with AS 4123.7, while 13 metropolitan councils are partially-compliant with the AS and 9 metropolitan councils were assessed as having a system that did not comply with AS 4123.7.

The use of consistent colours for specific waste streams is a key step in improving public engagement and the correct use of resource recovery services by households and supports consistent state based and national recycling engagement programs. Non-compliant bin colours (bodies and/or lids) can lead to residents unintentionally contaminating bins when away from home.

Recently, the City of Greater Dandenong aligned their bin lid colours with AS 4123.7 and achieved a 5% reduction of waste to landfill, saving over $100,000 per year. For more information regarding this program, please refer to Appendix A.

4 MWRRG, Bin Standardisation Guide (February 2017), accessed 1/08/2017: https://www.mwrrg.vic.gov.au/assets/resource-files/Bin-Standardisation-Guide.pdf


3 Key benefits of greater consistencyTwo distinct methodologies were used to identify and assess the key benefits of greater consistency:

Quantitative assessment of the environmental and economic benefits utilising MRA’s bespoke Consolidated Cost Model (CCM); and

Qualitative assessment of other benefits of greater consistency.

The key benefits and their respective analysis method are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Summary of analysis methods

Quantity of material available for recycling

Costs Environment (Diversion and CO2-e reduction)

Material quality Customer engagement/ satisfaction

Broader economic benefits

Quantified Quantified Quantified Assessed Assessed Assessed

MRA’s CCM was used to model each kerbside collection system and quantify the economic and environmental factors. The CCM does not depend on industry average cost data but models the real system costs based on actual expenditure of Victorian councils. This input data was acquired from:

1. Detailed review of compositional audit data;2. VLGAWS (number of services, households, tonnes and cost per service); 3. Victorian Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (VLGPRF) (verification of VLGAWS

data); and 4. Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group (MWRRG) (guidance on disposal, recycling and

organics contracts and rates).

The quantification of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with each kerbside system included utilisation of National Greenhouse Account Factors.

Some benefits associated with the preferred service standard are unquantifiable, therefore, a qualitative assessment of these benefits was performed. This assessment considered:

Material quality, the impact of reduced contamination and improved quality of materials collected for reprocessing;

Customer engagement/satisfaction, the ease of use and convenience for households and the integration with existing kerbside services; and

Broader economic benefits, the number of jobs created in the waste and resource recovery industry.

A detailed analysis framework and the key evidence that informed this analysis is listed in Appendix B.

3.1 Scenario modellingThrough consultation with SV, the kerbside collection service options presented in Table 4 were identified for CCM modelling. The CCM ensures adequate containment capacity is available for all services.

Business as Usual (BAU) options were created to model the current situation in Victoria. For metropolitan councils, BAU is a fortnightly GO system consisting of a weekly residual service and fortnightly comingled recycling and GO services. However, for non-metropolitan councils, a 2-bin system, consisting of a weekly


residual service and fortnightly comingled recycling, is still common, therefore, this system has also been modelled (BAU*).

Table 4 Waste system and bin configuration assessed

Option Waste system Bin configuration

BAU*(Non-metropolitan only)

2-bin Weekly 80L residual; and Fortnightly 240L recycling.

BAU3-bin fortnightly GO Weekly 80L residual;

Fortnightly 240L recycling; andFortnightly 240L GO.

Option 23-bin fortnightly FOGO Weekly 80L residual;

Fortnightly 240L recycling; andFortnightly 240L FOGO.

Option 33-bin weekly FOGO Fortnightly 120L residual;

Fortnightly 240L recycling; andWeekly 240L FOGO.

3.1.1 Caveat: Dwelling typeHigh density multi-unit dwellings, prevalent in metropolitan Melbourne often require specialised waste services. Therefore, they are not considered during this study.

High density multi-unit dwellings may present an opportunity for dedicated FO collections and a range of alternate organic processing options. SV has completed work on best practice for multi-unit dwellings to support the Victorian Government ‘Better Apartment Design Standards’. In addition, the MWRRG has separately developed preferred service standards and guidance on best practice for high density multi–unit dwellings.

3.2 Quantitative analysis The quantitative analysis was conducted on a hypothetical representative metropolitan council of 55,000 households and a representative non-metropolitan council of 14,000 households. When applying the analysis results to actual councils, results should be scaled to reflect a larger or smaller number of households. Councils should also take into consideration how their unique situation differs from the representative model councils and make appropriate allowances. These are described in more detail in Appendix B.

Throughout the modelling, the cost of new infrastructure, engagement and costs associated with changes to services (e.g. altering collection frequency) were included and detailed as Miscellaneous Costs. The extent of current services was considered before assuming any miscellaneous costs. All options which include a FOGO service include the costs for new bins, kitchen caddies and liners.

For all services, consistent with BAU options, no new infrastructure is required and minimal engagement activities, other than the annual distribution of information collaterals, were assumed.


3.2.1 CostTotal system costs are mainly driven by facility gate fees and kerbside collection lift rates. The cost outputs calculated through the CCM, include:

Cost per household; and Net Present Value (NPV) over a 10-year period.

The cost per household is the annual cost attributable to each household that fully covers the cost of the system over the 10-year period. All the one-off costs associated with implementing a new system and usually incurred in Year 1, such as new bin infrastructure were amortised across the 10-year period.

3.2.1.1 Cost per householdThe annual cost per household describes the portion of the system cost attributable to each household. For metropolitan councils, the total cost per household is consistent across the three modelled options, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Cost per household, metropolitan council

Similarly, for non-metropolitan councils, the total annual cost per household for councils offering three kerbside services, only varies moderately for different service configurations, as shown in Figure 3. The exception being when a council is adding third bin to a 2-bin system; in which case the cost per household increases approximately by $35 per annum.


Figure 3 Cost per household, non-metropolitan council

3.2.1.2 NPVFor metropolitan councils, due to the relative higher cost of landfill disposal compared with comingled recycling and organics reprocessing, the NPV decreases as landfill diversion increases. Where diversion is maximised (weekly FOGO), the NPV is lowest as shown in Figure 4.

Metropolitan councils with over 55,000 households should expect NPV’s of a higher value, whereas councils with less households should expect a lower NPV. Similarly, councils that require extra infrastructure (i.e. new residual/recycling bins or a change in bin colour lids) should expect a higher NPV.

Figure 4 Net present value of each option (10-year period), metropolitan council

For non-metropolitan councils, the NPV increases as more services and infrastructure are added to waste management options (Figure 5). This is primarily due to increased bin lift rates across all bin services experienced by regional councils and increased cost associated with transport of recyclables over longer distances to MRFs.

As with metropolitan councils, non-metropolitan councils with over 14,000 households should expect NPV’s of a higher value, whereas councils with fewer households should expect a lower NPV. Again, councils that


require extra infrastructure (i.e. new residual/recycling bins or a change in bin colour lids) should expect a higher NPV.

Figure 5 Net present value of each option (10-year period), non-metropolitan council

3.2.2 Resource recovery rateThe resource recovery rate considers the recovery of recyclable kerbside streams (comingled recyclables and organics) as a proportion of the total kerbside material collected.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 display the increase in resource recovery rates applicable to the different waste management options that were modelled. Option 3 (Weekly FOGO) offered the highest resource recovery rate for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils.

There is a slight difference between the maximum recovery rate, in Option 3, in metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils, displayed below. This stems from the different waste composition for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils (discussed in Appendix B).

Figure 6 Resource recovery rate, metropolitan council


Figure 7 Resource recovery rate, non-metropolitan council

3.2.2.1 State-wide benefitIf the preferred service standards were implemented across the whole state, a 20% increase in the state-wide household recycling rate would be expected. This would take the resource recovery rate for Victorian kerbside collection systems from the current 44% to over 65% by 2027.

Further state-wide benefits, related to the resource recovery rate include:

Over 300,000 tonnes of food organics and over 30,000 tonnes of comingled recyclables to be diverted and recovered from the residual bin;

Over 200,000 new tonnes of recoverable material added to the kerbside system (mainly garden organics);

Approximately 336,000 tonnes of compost created from the additional FOGO material recovered; and

The potential to provide organic fertiliser for up to 33,600 hectares of agricultural land per annum.

3.2.3 Greenhouse gas emissionsThe greenhouse gas emissions for each option were calculated, considering: collection, processing, transfer and landfill emissions.

As shown by Figure 8 and Figure 9, at least 80% of the emissions in each profile originates from organic material sent to landfill, therefore, where this tonnage is reduced, emissions decrease. Thus, the lowest emissions profile was always offered by the weekly FOGO option.

Councils who have a different number of households, can predict the total emissions to increase or decrease in a linear fashion, dependant on the number of households.


Figure 8 Total emissions, metropolitan council

Figure 9 Total emissions, non-metropolitan council

3.2.3.1 State-wide benefitBy extrapolation, if the preferred service standard was adopted by the whole state, greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by more than 320,000 tonnes of CO2-e per annum.

3.3 Key quantitative benefitsThe key benefits of state-wide implementation of the preferred kerbside service standard, as described in OKCS, include:


diverted and recovered from the residual bin;


o An additional 200,000 new tonnes of recoverable material added to the kerbside system (mainly garden organics);

A 20% increase to the state-wide average household recycling rate; Improved environmental outcomes by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 320,000





for collection cleaner recyclables/FOGO streams.

3.4 Qualitative analysisThere are benefits and impacts from each service option that cannot be quantified but whose consideration would assist a decision-making process as to which kerbside system best suits the needs and priorities of a council. These factors and their qualitative assessment are discussed below.

3.4.1 Material qualityQuality is one of the most important considerations for realising a high market value for recycled commodities. Contamination (by non-target materials) is a key influencing factor for reprocessors when selling their products in domestic and overseas markets. Thus, the reduction of contamination and the consequential increase in quality of material is expected to ensure more opportunities are available for materials to be sold for a greater value. This financial benefit shall be attainable by councils through higher rebates from MRFs or lower gate fees from organics reprocessors.

The amount of material sent to landfill by MRFs is currently approximately 10-15%, by weight, of material that enters the facility5. If councils can reduce the amount of contamination presented by households, the amount of material sent to landfill will decrease, and hence disposal costs from these facilities will decrease. With a reduction in dry recyclables contamination, by wet/organic material, the quality of the compliant materials also increases. Consequently, the higher quality MRF outputs can demand an increased price on the commodity market. Ultimately, the economic benefits of reduced contamination and increased quality would filter back to council.

3.4.1.1 State-wide benefitFrom a combination of avoided landfill costs, additional material and a higher quality of material, MRFs could realise a $12 million net benefit each year6 from the implementation of preferred service standards.

3.4.2 Customer engagement/satisfaction3.4.2.1 Ease of use and household satisfactionTo operate successfully, services are reliant on community effort and effective engagement by council.

5 This percentage was acquired from consultation with Victorian MRF operators.6 These values are estimations based on industry average landfill disposal cost and a weighted average of base commodity values, as advised by MRF operators. These prices, particularly the commodity price assumption, are prone to fluctuations.


The ease of use of the preferred service standard relies on four components:

1. Implementation of FOGO service (with caddies and liners): the ease of use of the service is maximised using caddies;

2. Core set of materials: simplified, consistent messaging can be adopted by all stakeholders to ensure core set of materials are recovered;

3. Uniform bin lid colours: householders are able to easily identify the appropriate bin to use for each material, regardless of their location; and

4. Adequate bin capacity: resource recovery rates are maximised with households able to dispose of all materials in correct bin.

The adoption by all Victorian councils of a consistent set of materials that households can recycle via kerbside services will enable householders to recycle more materials and reduce the amount of contamination. Consistent messaging provides the opportunity for uniform recycling education across the state and enables regional and state-wide campaigns.

3.4.2.2 Integration with existing services and/or infrastructureA well-functioning waste management system requires a range of individual services and processes working in a complementary manner. Each council’s waste management system will have established collection cycles, routes and supporting infrastructure. Compatibility with the current waste management system would be a key consideration for most councils prior to the implementation of any significant changes.

For example, a new service may require the construction of infrastructure to consolidate additional materials collected, the deployment of new bin colours, new bins or a change in collection frequency. The additional resources required to integrate these changes to the current waste management system requires consideration. (Note: the costs of providing FOGO bins to each household are already accounted for in Section 3.2.1).

Some councils may have other assets that may be impacted by changes to kerbside service. For example, where a council owns and operates a landfill, the impact the preferred service standard will have on scheduled capital works and the life/longevity of the current landfill must be considered.

3.4.3 Broader economic benefitsThe optimisation of kerbside services gives councils further opportunity for economic benefit through the creation of additional Full-Time Employment (FTE). The estimated direct FTE employment for the management of 10,000 tonnes of waste is 9.2 for recycling and 2.8 for landfill 7. On this basis the additional recovery of over 500,000 tonne per annum of material provides as an opportunity to approximately 400 FTE jobs, taking into account the effect of a contraction in amount landfilled.

3.5 Standardisation of performance criteriaTo realise the benefits of implementing preferred service standards there are several key performance requirements that relate to yield of recyclables, recycling rates and contamination levels that need to be achieved. Table 5 details the minimum performance benchmarks, which are based on performance characteristics that are currently being achieved by Victorian councils implementing services aligned with the preferred service standards ascertained through review of existing council services detailed in AppendixB. 7 Access Economics, Employment in waste management and recycling, (2009), accessed 1/06/2017: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/5cc6a848-a93e-4b3f-abf7-fc8891d21405/files/waste-and-recycling-employment.pdf


In Victoria, councils have achieved higher than the minimum performance benchmarks. For example, Victorian council kerbside audits have demonstrated that a comingled recycling household capture rate of greater than 90% has been achieved, further case studies are provided in Appendix A. Councils that achieve performance outcomes at levels higher than the minimum performance benchmarks may reasonably expect to realise greater benefits than have been stated in Section 3.2.

Table 5 Standardisation of performance criteria

Stream Net yield per household (kg/hhld/week) Contaminated bins

Household capture rate

Contamination rate

Comingled recycling≥ 5.0kg Metropolitan

≥ 4.0kg Non-metropolitan

≤ 5% ≥ 75% ≤ 15%

GO≥ 6.0kg Metropolitan

≥ 5.5kg Non-metropolitan≤ 3% ≥ 90% ≤ 1.5%

FOGO≥ 9.0kg Metropolitan

≥ 8.0kg Non-metropolitan≤ 3% ≥ 50% - FO

≥ 90% - GO

≤ 3%

Councils that implement monitoring and evaluation programs such as audits, visual bin inspection programs and/or require service providers to frequently report the service performance parameters are in a better position to improve system performance. The monitoring and evaluation of feedback can be used to design targeted, effective community engagement programs.


4 Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Roles of stakeholdersBy working together, all stakeholders stand to benefit from consistent and reliable household recycling. To realise the full potential benefits from the preferred service standards, detailed in OKCS, five key critical success factors have been identified, as listed in Table 6.

Table 6 Critical success factors

Stakeholder Success factor Notes

Brands, retails and manufacturers

Packaging that is suitable for recycling:industry develops and uses product packaging that is suitable for recycling and clearly labelled as to how it is to be recycled or disposed of.

Planet Ark’s Australian Recycling Label and the PREP are examples of programs designed to support industry address this issue.

Households Households collect the right materials for recycling: households are provided with clear and consistent messaging to enable confident and consistent separation of the core set of common recyclable materials.

To do this, households need to be confident that materials are recyclable through the kerbside system and the system must be easy to use and convenient.

Councils Preferred service standards for kerbside collection: councils to provide cost effective kerbside collection services with adequate bin capacity, consistent bin lid colours that conform to AS 4123.7 and recycling services that support a core set of recyclable materials.

Councils have a critical role to provide households with an easy to use and convenient kerbside collection service.

Councils Higher quality materials are collected and sorted for recycling: councils present a higher quality and consistent/core set of materials to Victoria’s resource recovery industry to support high order reprocessing and end use

Councils have a critical role to engage with households ensuring confusion is reduced and that households are confident in using the services correctly i.e. yielding recyclable materials low in contamination and higher in quality.

Waste and resource recovery industry

Promote and share innovation in kerbside recycling: developments in approaches to kerbside recycling are continuously shared to ensure that good practice and innovation in kerbside recycling is transferred across the entire supply chain.

Engagement with industry has confirmed there is a willingness to support this initiative.


4.2 Greater consistencyGreater consistency in kerbside recycling relies on:


To support clear and consistent messaging, the analysis of council waste compositions identified nine common material types that were found to comprise around 70% of waste (residual and recyclables) collected from households. Focusing recycling messaging on this core set of materials will help reduce confusion, and enable householders to recycle more of the right materials and reduce contamination.

The preferred service standards provide bin volumes and collection frequencies (bin capacity) which adequately support the waste generation of an average single dwelling household in Victoria. Given the variability in requirements between councils the preferred service standard can be tailored to their individual situations.

Consistent bin configuration and the adoption of Australian Standard bin lid colours (AS 4123.7 2006) support clear and consistent messaging for recycling across the state. Bin colour standardisation has been shown to reduce contamination and improve kerbside recycling performance.

The minimum performance benchmarks for kerbside collection services, that underpin achieving the stated benefits of the preferred service standards, were identified.

4.3 BenefitsThe analysis of the preferred service standards established that state-wide implementation of a universal 3-bin FOGO service would yield potential benefits and opportunities that include:


diverted and recovered from the residual bin;o An additional 200,000 new tonnes of recoverable material added to the kerbside system

(mainly garden organics); A 20% increase to the state-wide average household recycling rate; Improved environmental outcomes by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 320,000





for collection less contaminated recyclables and FOGO streams.


On average councils that change to a 3-bin FOGO service, using the preferred service standards, can expect additional benefits which are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Cost and benefits to councils

Metropolitan council


Non-metropolitan council


Current service 3-bin GO 2 bin 3-bin GO

Costs and benefits of moving to a 3-bin FOGO service

Change in cost per household -$2/hhld +$33/hhld +$5/hhld

Change (improvement) in resource recovery rate

Up to 15% Up to 38% Up to 14%

CO2-e avoided through diversion of material from landfill

7.5 kt/annum 1.9 kt/annum 1.4 kt/annum

Additional FO recovered 25 kt/annum 5.6 kt/annum 3.8 kt/annum

4.4 MRA recommendations for supporting the implementation of preferred service standards

MRA’s review of council performance data from the voluntary VLGAWS and mandatory reporting under the VLGPRF identified significant anomalies and discrepancies, including inconsistencies between the VLGAWS and VLGPRF data.

MRA recommends that to accurately monitor and evaluate the benefits of implementing optimised kerbside collection services, councils require greater guidance and support for the reporting of waste management performance data.

Recommended actions, for consideration by SV, that would support the implementation of preferred service standards include:

Development of standardised audit guidelines and a core set of material types for Victoria; Detailed methodologies for both physical and visual audits that assist councils monitor and

evaluate the performance of the kerbside services; Provide guidance and support for councils to ensure consistent reporting of waste service data to

Local Government Victoria (LGV) and SV; Lead and help industry to adopt national recycling labels that support household use kerbside

systems; Lead and help industry to provide clear and consistent messaging on recyclable materials; Lead and assist all organics processors to allow compostable bags to ensure maximum yield of FO; Lead and assist the industry to perform further research into dedicated FO only collections from

high density multi-unit dwellings; and Lead and help the waste and resource recovery industry develop codes of practice for MRF’s that

align with the requirements of the preferred service standards.


Appendix A Examples of preferred service standard and supporting evidence

Case study: Standardise bin configurations and bin lid colours- City of Greater Dandenong bin swap 8

The City of Greater Dandenong (CoGD) undertook a project to replace all kerbside residual, recycling and GO bins with new bins that conformed with AS 4123.7. This project aimed to provide a consistent, improved waste service to all residents and promote waste reduction, greater recycling and the correct use of kerbside services. Some of the key benefits experienced as a result of this project are summarised below.

Background: Many households in the CoGD were using bins that were 10-15 years old and often damaged. Therefore, the CoGD were expending resources to repair or replace these bins each year.

CoGD used this as an opportunity to offer households the preferred service standard. AS 4123.7 made it easy for the CoGD to review the size, range and selection of kerbside bins and ensure all households were catered for.

Key outcomes: All households have bins that are the same age and conform with AS 4123.7.

Bin replacement costs have reduced. CoGD has defined the number of serviced properties and ensured all

households that receive a service, are paying for it. Without providing a new service, residual waste to landfill has declined by

approximately 5% by weight per household, saving ratepayers over $100,000 per year.

The quantity of recyclables increased slightly. The contamination present in the GO stream has decreased slightly. Relationship between CoGD, customers and customer stakeholders has

improved.

Case study: Kitchen caddies

When introducing a FO or FOGO collection service, the supply of a bench-top kitchen caddy and annual supply of compostable liners, has been found to makes it easier for households and encourages the collection of food waste.

With the use of a kitchen caddy, residents can place food waste directly into the kitchen caddy, separating it from other waste placed in the residual bin.

Some councils have implemented a kerbside FO service, without supplying each household with a kitchen caddy or have supplied a caddy without a supply of liners.

As detailed in Table 8, case studies9 highlight that providing a kitchen caddy and liners significantly increased the yield of FO. It also shows the slight increase in yield when residual is changed to fortnightly and FOGO to weekly collections.

8 MWRRG website, CoGD Bin Swap, accessed 1/08/2017: https://www.mwrrg.vic.gov.au/assets/resource-files/Metro-Fund-CGD-Bin-Swap.pdf9 Government of South Australia, Zero Waste SA, Business Case for Councils to Undertake Co-Collection of Food Waste with Garden Organics, accessed 28/07/2017: http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/food-waste/food_waste_collection_business_case_2.pdf


https://www.mwrrg.vic.gov.au/assets/resource-files/Metro-Fund-CGD-Bin-Swap.pdf

Table 8 Average weekly household FO yield by different infrastructure

Food capture system adopted Average FO yield (kg/hhld/week)

Ventilated Kitchen Caddy with Compostable Bags (in conjunction with fortnightly residual collection)

1.8kg

Ventilated Kitchen Caddy with Compostable Bags (in conjunction with weekly residual collection)

1.3kg

Unlined Kitchen Caddy 0.38kg

For further information regarding Victorian examples of FOGO implementation, refer to Appendix D.Caveat: Processing technology unable to process AS compliant compostable bags

Councils need to be aware that some processing technologies are unable to break down compostable bags during the required residence time inside the vessel. MRA found that some organics processing service providers consider compostable liners as contaminants, even if compliant with Australian Standard AS4736-2006 Biodegradable Plastic-Biodegradable Plastics Suitable for Composting and other Microbial Treatment. This is an issue that requires resolution.

Case study: FOGO implementation – City of Wodonga FOGO Implementation10

Research undertaken by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP)11 in the UK demonstrated that people generally want to do the correct thing and that lack of clarity is the main reason for contamination in recycling bins. These challenges are exacerbated when new services are introduced and when householders travel away from home. City of Wodonga (Wodonga) implemented a kerbside FOGO collection system in 2015 and overcame the challenges of introducing a new service to achieved high resource recovery rates and very low contamination rates.

In 2012, Wodonga and Indigo Shire in Victoria and Albury City and Corowa in New South Wales decided to implement a 3-bin kerbside collection system, including FOGO collection, as part of a regional strategy. In July 2015 the new service was provided to Wodonga’s 16,000 households.

Audits and trials conducted prior to the implementation of the service identified that potentially 46-52% of food organic and garden organic materials could be diverted from the residual bin. Wodonga has subsequently achieved a 46% reduction in the amount of waste sent to. Wodonga has observed a 7-10% increase in recyclables yield and achieved contamination rate in the FOGO bin of <2% (1.1% in 2015/16).

Bin infrastructure

The configuration of the 3-bin FOGO service is shown in Table 9.

10 SV, Educating on Kerbside Waste and Recycling, accessed 28/07/2017: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/services-and-advice/local-government/improving-kerbside-waste-and-recycling/educating-on-kerbside-waste-and-recycling11 WRAP website, accessed 28/07/2017: http://static.wrap.org.uk/consistancy/Learn_more_about_the_evidence.pdf


Table 9 Wodonga kerbside service

Waste stream Bin size Collection frequency

FOGO* 240L Weekly

Residual 140L Fortnightly

Comingled recycling 240L Fortnightly

*Caddies and liners provided free to households

Larger residual bins are offered to households with special needs. However, only a small number of households have upgraded to a larger 240L residual service.

Larger recycling bins (360L) are offered as an option to all household but at an increased service charge.

Education

Prior to implementation, Wodonga and other participating councils used Doug McKenzie-Mohr’s five-step CBSM12 process to design and implement an appropriate education program. The five steps to CBSM are:

1. Selecting behaviours. 2. Identifying barriers and benefits.3. Developing strategies.4. Piloting. 5. Broad-scale implementation.

Significant investment was made into the development and trial of the program in the two and a half years leading up to the new service introduction. It is estimated that the cost of developing and implementing the FOGO service was equal to $10.40 per household across all the participating councils (excluding the cost of the bins)13.

Wodonga continues to collaborate with neighbouring councils through participation in the Halve Waste education program. Halve Waste is an initiative of the group (Albury, Wodonga, Greater Hume, Corowa, Indigo, Federation and Towong Councils) to halve their total waste to landfill by 2020. The annual investment by Wodonga in delivering the education programs across all kerbside service comprises two components:

1. An education contribution, equal to $2.50 per tonne, for any material from Wodonga disposed at Albury landfill; and

2. A $2 per household per annum education charge for each of the 16,000 households.

Compliance

A three strikes rule is applied to households presenting gross contamination of the recycling and /or FOGO bin. Following a third reported occurrence of gross contamination the service is removed from the household. Households are required to sign a waiver to get the service reinstated.

Household service cost and transition

12 CBSM, Preface, accessed 1/08/2017: http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/preface/13 SV, Changing behaviours to improve the rollout of a new kerbside organics collection service, accessed 28/07/2017: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/services-and-advice/local-government/improving-kerbside-waste-and-recycling/educating-on-kerbside-waste-and-recycling/wodonga-and-indigo-shire-councils


At the time of transition to the new service, Wodonga had implemented an optional GO service which had been adopted by 47% of its households. Households taking part in the optional GO service were provided cost savings after the implementation of the new combined 3-bin FOGO service. The remaining households received the service at an increased cost of less than $0.50 per week. Wodonga proposes that having an existing optional or universal GO service supports a smoother transition to a FOGO service.

Customer service

The collection service provider is responsible for managing all customer service enquiries on behalf of Wodonga as well as the distribution of caddies and liners for the duration of the collection service contract.

Organics processing

FOGO that is collected from Wodonga residents is first consolidated at Albury landfill. Large obvious contaminants are picked from the material prior to it being loaded onto bulk haul vehicles for transport to a composting facility.

Other remarks

Wodonga customer complaints are now lower than they had been under previous systems. The community has adapted well to and is successfully using the new service. The satisfaction of Wodonga residents with the new service is supported by the satisfaction levels on Know Your Council. The number of kerbside bin collection requests per 1,000 households has decreased to 30.88. In comparison, similar councils in Victoria report approximately 110 bin collection requests per 1,000 households14.

Wodonga were able to hold waste service fees to householders constant for a second year following introduction, primarily due to savings from reduced landfill disposal costs.

14 Know Your Council website, Wodonga, accessed 2/08/2017: https://knowyourcouncil.vic.gov.au/councils/wodonga/reports/summary


Appendix B Analysis framework/scenario modellingAs outlined in Section 3, different methodologies were used to understand different benefits associated with the preferred service standard. This appendix demonstrates the framework and methodology used to understand these benefits.

Quantitative analysis method

MRA’s bespoke CCM was used to model kerbside collection systems and quantify the following economic and environmental factors:

1. Total cost ($/household and NPV);2. Diversion from landfill (%); and3. Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2-e).

The CCM does not depend on industry average cost data but models the real system costs based on actual expenditure and unique waste management services. This input data was acquired from review of audit reports and stakeholder research, throughout Victoria.

Through consultation with SV, the kerbside collection service options presented in Table 10 were identified for CCM modelling. The CCM ensures adequate capacity is available for all services.

BAU options were created to model the current situation in Victoria.

Table 10 Waste system and bin configuration assessed

Option Waste system Bin configuration

BAU*(Non-metropolitan only)

2-bin Weekly 120L residual; and Fortnightly 240L recycling.

BAU3-bin fortnightly GO Weekly 80L residual;

Fortnightly 240L recycling; andFortnightly 240L GO.

Option 23-bin fortnightly FOGO Weekly 80L residual;

Fortnightly 240L recycling; andFortnightly 240L FOGO.

Option 33-bin weekly FOGO Fortnightly 120L residual;

Fortnightly 240L recycling; andWeekly 240L FOGO.

BAU configurations were developed, utilising an analysis Victorian council service data. All other options were modelled from the BAU options. Initially, the tonnages of material diverted to recovery kerbside services (e.g. comingled recycling and organics streams) were calculated using average diversion rates experienced by councils that have already implemented the service.

Following that mass balance calculation, all options were modelled and the impacts on the kerbside system were calculated. The cost to provide kerbside services was calculated using actual lift rates, gate fees and industry average costs for miscellaneous items (e.g. new mobile garbage bins or kitchen caddies).


The environmental factors calculated were resource recovery rate and greenhouse gas emissions. The resource recovery rate considered the impact of both the bin infrastructure and education delivered to households.

The greenhouse gas emissions considered emissions arising from landfill, processing, transfer and collection. In all cases, the large majority (>80%) of emissions arise from landfilled material, particularly organic material that is landfilled. National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) factors for all materials were used to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions arising from landfill.

Input data

As detailed in Section 3, the data analysed and used in the modelling was acquired from a combination of:

1. Detailed review of compositional audit data;2. VLGAWS (number of services, households, tonnes and cost per service); 3. VLGPRF (confirmation of VLGAWS data); and 4. MWRRG (guidance on disposal, recycling and organics gate fees).

To identify the impacts of implementing differing kerbside collection systems across Victoria a range of assumptions were considered in the analysis which included, but was not limited to, the changes in recovery of each core material category, system costs, types and sizes of vehicles used, disposal and reprocessing locations for each material stream collected.

The characteristics used to describe the representative councils as well as the assumptions used in modelling the impact of different service configurations are detailed in the following sections.

When reviewing these assumptions, a council will identify differences between the modelled scenarios and their specific situation. The impact of these differences is discussed to enable councils to understand how the benefits and impacts might differ in their situation.Metropolitan versus non-metropolitan

Key service performance indicators were reviewed to verify whether the analysis method adequately considered differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils. A clear difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils was identified for cost per tonne and cost per service (or household). These differences were linked to:

Proximity to recycling facilities (e.g. MRFs) (see Figure 10); Applicable landfill levy and gate fees; and Waste generation.


Figure 10 Proximity of metropolitan Melbourne to MRFs (30km boundary)

The figures below (Figure 11, Figure 12 and ) show the service costs for metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions.

The results distinguish between kerbside collection systems: 2 bin; 3-bin universal and 3-bin optional. Universal services describe services that are compulsory for all households, whereas, optional describes a service where households can opt in or opt out of collections e.g. optional organics collection.

Figure 11 Cost per tonne for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils


Figure 12 Cost per service for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils

Figure 13 Waste generation per household for metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils

Single dwellings vs Multi-unit dwellings

The analysis considers single dwellings and low density multi-unit dwellings where each dwelling or unit has its own parcel of land and access to its own dedicated kerbside bins. High density multi-unit dwellings and residential flat buildings, prevalent in metropolitan Melbourne, are not considered in this analysis as they


require specialised services such as larger communal bins or compactors, detailed site signage and access by front lift or hook lift collection vehicles.

The performance of household waste management systems in multi-unit dwellings is impacted by a range of factors which are different from single dwellings. These include different waste generation profiles, infrastructure limitations and a requirement for different disposal/recycling practices by residents. Material composition

MRA reviewed audit data from a range of councils and regional groups to identify the average waste composition for each kerbside bin system. These compositions were validated through stakeholder engagement and research with Victorian recycling facilities to understand the composition and contamination they experience on a day to day basis.

The residual bin composition of 3-bin services in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan zones were found to be very similar with approximately 36% FO, 7% GO and 16% comingled recyclables. The amount of GO in the residual bin composition for a 2-bin service in the non-metropolitan zone increases to approximately 20%.

There was also a slight difference between the proportion of paper/cardboard and glass between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils, with non-metropolitan councils averaging a higher proportion of glass recyclables. However, MRF operators have identified that these differences are unobservable on a day-to-day basis and do not impact the operation of larger MRFs.

To ensure all material flow balanced throughout the analysis, the 2-bin composition was used for business as usual (BAU) in non-metropolitan zones (Option BAU*). Non-metropolitan zone also has a 3-bin GO option which is considered as a BAU option. In metropolitan zones, the 3-bin GO composition was used for BAU.

Residual bin composition – two bin kerbside system

Figure 14 displays the average composition of a residual bin from a 2-bin kerbside collection system from a non-metropolitan council.

Figure 14 Average residual bin composition of non-metropolitan councils being serviced by 2-bin kerbside collection system

Residual bin composition – three bin kerbside system


Figure 15 displays the average composition of a residual bin from a 3-bin kerbside collection system from both a metropolitan and a non-metropolitan council.

Figure 15 Average residual bin composition of metropolitan (left) and non-metropolitan (right) councils being serviced by 3-bin GO kerbside collection system

Comingled recycling bin composition

Figure 16 displays the average composition of a comingled recycling bin from a kerbside collection system from both a metropolitan and a non-metropolitan council.

Approximately 10% of a metropolitan comingled recycling bin is classified as contamination. This value increases to approximately 16% for non-metropolitan councils. The cause for the difference is unknown, possible explanations for this increase in contamination and could include differing education resources for non-metropolitan councils, different audit methodology used or other factors.

Contamination limits the recovery of materials. The difference in contamination between regions is masked in MRFs that accept materials from both metropolitan and non-metropolitan sources.

Councils with a higher percentage of the core set of materials could achieve higher resource recovery rates than those modelled.


Figure 16 Average comingled recycling bin composition of metropolitan (left) and non- metropolitan (right) councils

GO bin composition

Figure 17 displays the average composition of a GO bin from a universal 3-bin kerbside collection system from both a metropolitan and a non-metropolitan council. Similarly, to the comingled bin, metropolitan councils present less contamination in their GO bin. This composition is consistent for all options (metropolitan, non-metropolitan, 2 bin and 3-bin).

Approximately 1.2% of a metropolitan GO bin is classified as contamination. This value increases to approximately 3.8% for non-metropolitan councils.

Figure 17 Average garden organics bin composition of metropolitan (left) and non-metropolitan (Right) councils being serviced by 3-bin kerbside collection system


Costs

Table 11 shows household service cost for each waste stream in metropolitan and non-metropolitan zones (i.e. the sum of the collection rate and disposal or processing rate). As the yield of material and collection frequency for each waste stream impact the service cost, a range of rates apply dependant on the differing service options. This range is illustrated as an upper and lower cost, in Table 11, and the corresponding service option is detailed.

Table 11 Industry average combined collection and disposal rates

Zone Waste stream Household service cost (collection and disposal) ($/hhld/yr)

Upper Cost Lower Cost

Metropolitan

Residual $93.00 (BAU) $54.00 (3-bin weekly FOGO)

Comingled recycling $12.40 (BAU) $11.60 (3-bin weekly FOGO)

GO $47.80 (BAU)

FOGO $84.00 (3-bin weekly FOGO) $63.00 (3-bin fortnightly FOGO)

Non-metropolitan

Residual $108.00 (BAU) $54.80 (3-bin weekly FOGO)

Comingled recycling $26.09 (BAU) $26.03 (3-bin weekly FOGO)

GO $36.40 (BAU)

FOGO $78.34 (3-bin weekly FOGO) $53.23 (3-bin fortnightly FOGO)

Throughout the modelling, the cost of new bin infrastructure, engagement and costs associated with changes to services (e.g. altering collection frequency) were included and detailed separately as Miscellaneous Costs. The extent of current services was considered before determining any additional miscellaneous costs.Diversion rates

The implementation of a FOGO service has been observed to have a knock-on effect and contribute to a slight increase in the recycling rate of comingled recyclables because of the community education and engagement programs required to make FOGO a success. This slight increase in comingled recycling rate has been accounted for throughout the modelling.

When introducing a new kerbside system, councils may experience lower diversion rates at the beginning of their service, and exceed the modelled level of diversion towards the end of the service, however, the modelled level of diversion accounts for all these factors and is an average anticipated over a 10-year period of implementation.Facility types

Landfills

The only facility type currently available in Victoria for the disposal of municipal residual waste is landfill. Metropolitan councils dispose of their residual waste at metropolitan landfills. Non-metropolitan councils are more likely to utilise regional landfills.


The majority of CO2-e emissions resulting from the kerbside collection system, arise from decomposition of organic material in landfill and fugitive methane emissions. NGER factors were assumed for all materials and gas capture rates were estimated based upon experience of Victorian landfills.

Disposal costs in Victoria have increased significantly in the past 10 years, both due to increased levy rates and increased operational costs. The landfill levy at metropolitan landfills is approximately twice as high as the non-metropolitan landfill levy. The non-levy component of the gate fees for all landfills have also increased in recent years as a result of increased operating costs (e.g. labour and fuel) and significant increased capital costs to provide an environmentally compliant landfill.

Throughout the modelling, future disposal costs and levies are assumed to continue to rise with Consumer Price Index (CPI). An exception to this rule, considered within the analysis, is a likely one off gate fee increase when the current contract period for the joint metropolitan council landfill disposal contract comes to an end (2021/22).

MRA anticipate that the reduced competition in the disposal market, stemming from recent closures of landfills particularly in South East Melbourne, may cause an increase to the landfill gate fees for metropolitan Melbourne councils in excess of CPI. MRA estimate, that in the absence of increased competition, the upper bound of this increase would be 20%, as this would align municipal disposal gate fees with gate fees for high volume commercial and industrial disposal. The change moderately alters the total cost for waste services for metropolitan councils and provides a greater financial incentive for metropolitan councils to consider alternatives to landfill disposal and to increase resource recovery rates.

MRFs

All comingled recycling collected through local government kerbside collections, is received and sorted by a MRF. The main MRFs servicing the market include the three major operators (Polytrade, SKM and Visy) located in metropolitan Melbourne and in Geelong. These MRFs process most of the comingled recycling material generated in Victoria. There are still a small number of regional MRFs operating. However, the financial constraints, namely operational and transport costs, of operating a smaller regional MRF are becoming tighter and the trend continues towards greater consolidation and processing in Melbourne.

For the modelling, it is assumed that all comingled recycling is processed by a MRF in metropolitan Melbourne.

A MRF resource recovery rate of 95% for core materials was assumed for all options.

MRA’s analysis supports the SV economic analysis performed to establish the market value of recycled commodities. However, it must be noted that these prices are prone to fluctuation in the international commodity markets. Commodity price fluctuations can impact the recycling sector as can changes in operating costs (e.g. price of energy, fuels, labour, consumables).

Further risk associated with trading recyclables in the international commodity markets is through the opportunity for countries to implement regulations or rules preventing the import of materials (e.g. mixed plastics). This impacts the market opportunities for materials, and thus, the market price.

The gate fee used for MRF’s was validated from multiple sources, metropolitan and regional contracts and engagement with regional councils.

Organics reprocessors

Organic material, either GO or FOGO, is processed through a composting facility. However, there are different processing methods available to councils, such as: open windrow, Mixed Aerated Floor (MAF) or enclosed composting.


The model assumes that all GO is processed by open windrow composting facilities and FOGO processed by enclosed composting facilities. Windrow composting technology produce a higher proportion of emissions per tonne of feed compared with enclosed systems.

It is recognised that some councils currently utilise enclosed composting systems to process GO. These councils are likely to achieve higher CO2-e savings than those calculated in this report.

Similarly, aerated windrow or even open windrow composting facilities are currently used by some councils to process FOGO material. In these instances, the net CO2-e savings will be reduced but only slightly, as approximately 80% of CO2-e emission reductions are associated with avoided landfill emissions.

A resource recovery rate of 95% for core materials was assumed for all options.

SV’s economic analysis identified the compost value to be $0 per tonne, however, MRA would expect a compost certified compliant with the Australian Standard to command a market value of between $8-$10 per tonne. This value aligns the macro-nutrients Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) or NPK. NPK value and cost to apply a tonne of compost in agricultural markets as compared with using and applying the traditional chemical fertiliser to achieve the same NPK application rates.

The assumed gate fee for both GO and FOGO facilities were validated from multiple sources, metropolitan and regional contracts and engagement with regional councils.

Vehicle distances travelled

Distance between premises

The average distance for a collection vehicle truck to travel between households differs between councils. After discussion with councils and collection companies, and considering rural and urban property densities throughout Victoria, 50m between premises was selected as an appropriate distance.

Distance to facilities

All material collected throughout Victoria travels a different distance to disposal/processing facilities whether it is residual waste, comingled recycling or organics. To perform state-wide modelling, the distances travelled for each waste stream were determined considering an average of the estimated distance to the main disposal locations and typical distances referred to in standard collection contracts. These distances are summarised in Table 12.


Table 12 Median haulage assumptions for each stream

Zone Waste stream Journey start Journey end Distance (km)

Metropolitan

Residual Collection route Landfill 50 km

Comingled recycling Collection route MRF 30 km

GO Collection route GO facility 75 km

FOGO Collection route FOGO facility 50 km

Non-metropolitan

Residual Collection route Landfill 50 km

Comingled recyclingCollection route TS 20 km

TS MRF (Melbourne) 200 km

GO Collection route GO facility 50 km

FOGO Collection route FOGO facility 100 km

Each council will have a unique distance to travel to disposal/reprocessing facilities. Some councils consolidate their material before transportation and regional councils may utilise metropolitan facilities. Therefore, these median distances in Table 12 do not apply directly to any council. The implications for an individual council of each of these considerations are discussed below.Distance to disposal location

Table 12 details the distance for material to travel to disposal locations. Councils with shorter travel distances can expect reduced vehicle CO2-e emissions, than the modelled options. Shorter travel distances are likely to improve the utilisation of collection vehicles, thus lift rates could decrease.

Vice versa, if the distance between premises is greater than those modelled, councils can expect the transport CO2-e emissions to be higher than the modelled options. However, as shown in Section 3.2.3, over 80% of emissions arise from landfilled material, therefore, the increase in collection or transfer emissions is not overly significant. However, the associated cost for these councils may increase as the utilisation of collection vehicles is likely to decrease. Consolidation at transfer stations

Some councils choose to consolidate their kerbside material at transfer stations and utilise a larger capacity vehicle (e.g. B-Double) to transport the material to the appropriate waste facility. With the recent closure of landfills and the replacement transfer station in South-East Melbourne, this will become more common in metropolitan Victoria.

In general, the consolidation of material reduces the total vehicle kilometres travelled and decreases the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced per tonne of material transported. Moreover, when compared with kerbside collection vehicle travelling the entire distances to facilities, overall transport costs are also reduced.

Additional benefits of consolidating material at transfer stations, not quantifiable through the model, include reduced number of collection trucks on the road and the opportunity to transport material at quieter times (e.g. at night) and reduce queuing times at disposal/processing facilities.Comingled recyclables - MRF location


Non-metropolitan councils that currently use a regional MRF for processing of their comingled recyclables, can expect both significantly decreased travel distance and reduced transportation costs and CO 2-e emissions.

However, as the industry trend is toward closure of smaller regional MRF and consolidation at larger MRF’s in Melbourne or Geelong, councils currently using a regional MRF should consider the increased vehicle kilometres travelled and associated greenhouse gas emissions related with transporting their recyclables a greater distance for processing. Organics - Organics reprocessors location

Organics reprocessing facilities are more distributed across the state as compared with MRF’s. The average distances in Table 12 are based on the known location of existing facilities and future facilities planned to service South East Melbourne and East Melbourne catchments.

However, councils should consider the location of the facility most likely to be used. For example, the difference in travel distances for SE Melbourne councils may be significant should they choose to consolidate and transported the collected organic material to Gippsland for processing.Transport and lift rates

Extensive review of specific council rates and consideration of MRA’s industrial knowledge were used to identify appropriate bin lift rates for all services. This review indicated that lift rates were specified by kerbside material and/or regionality.

Generally, the distance between bin lifts in regional areas is larger than metropolitan equivalents, therefore, the lift rates are slightly higher. Additionally, the lift rate for recyclables is usually higher than for other waste streams because the same level of compaction cannot be achieved limiting the number of lifts per collection vehicle load.


Appendix C Infrastructure considerationsComingled recycling industryMRFs

Based on a review of audit data, the contamination identified in non-metropolitan comingled recycling bins is slightly higher than metropolitan comingled recycling bins. For a MRF operation, contamination is a combination of materials that residents wrongly believe are compliant or materials that overflow from residual bin and in some cases materials that some councils classify as compliant despite the processor being unable to effectively recover them (e.g. soft plastics).

The opportunity for a MRF Code of Practice presents itself as a solution to this issue. With input from MRF operators throughout Victoria, an industry Code of Practice could ensure that all facilities have the same core set of materials that are compliant. Comingled recycling reprocessors

Comingled recycling reprocessors, who receive their feedstock from MRFs, are reliant on the supply of clean, sorted, single stream material with no or low contamination. With the current high levels of contamination present in the MRF feed, a portion of this contamination remains following the MRF sorting process, and therefore, is included in the feed to comingled recycling reprocessors.

Greater consistency by households, councils and sorters shall ensure that less contamination is presented to comingled recycling reprocessors. This will allow reprocessors to recover more recyclable material, to a higher quality, therefore increasing the opportunity for sale of the recovered recyclables.Organics processing

As with comingled recyclables at a MRF, contamination effects organic processing as items, such as plastic packaging and bags, can reduce the quality of the final product.

Organics processors throughout Australia are currently encouraged to produce their compost in compliance with the AS 4454-2012, requiring quality assurance procedures, increasing the quality and demand for the final product.Anaerobic digestion

An emerging option for the processing of food organics in Victoria is Anaerobic Digestion (AD). AD facilities can generate renewable energy, using the biogas produced during the process.

AD has not been considered as a processing option for FOGO material in MRA’s analysis due to the unsuitability of the feedstock, lack of existing infrastructure and the considerable technical risk to be mitigated, particularly for a mixed municipal feedstock. However, if a FO only stream was generated, for example by multi-unit dwellings, AD would present itself as a future viable option.

In Victoria, AD has been established to process pre-consumer post-manufacturing FO and other industrial or agricultural sourced homogenous organic feedstocks. AD is suited to processing FO however the processes are generally susceptible to contamination, and would require pre-processing of FO materials sourced from kerbside collections.

There are only small number of AD facilities that accept materials from municipal sources currently operating in Australia15. In the Australian context, AD facilities that have been designed to service mixed

15 Further information on examples of current AD facilities operating in Australia available from: Yarra Valley Water, Victoria and Richgro, Perth


http://wastemanagementreview.com.au/richgro-bioenergy-plant-jandakot-western-australia/

https://www.yvw.com.au/about-us/major-projects/waste-energy-facility

municipal waste have suffered mechanical, operational or financial problems in their start up or ongoing operations. Advanced waste treatment

Whilst not considered within MRA’s analysis, it is anticipated that advanced waste treatment facilities will form part of future mix of infrastructure servicing Victoria. The three-bin system, successfully implemented by many councils in Australia, prepares residual waste (residual bin) material for thermal combustion processes which produce Energy from Waste (EfW).

The preferred service standard, 3-bin FOGO, would support implementation of EfW. As the increased source separation of organic material prepares the residual bin composition to more favourably suit recovery of energy (i.e. the composition of the bin has a higher calorific value).


Appendix D FOGO bin configurationsTable 13 Overview of bin configuration systems used by selected councils operating FOGO services

Council Residual Recycling FOGO

Bin sizeWK vs FN

Bin size WK vs FN Bin size

WK vs FN

Kitchen Caddies?

Compostable Bags?

80l

120l

140l

240l

120l

240l

360l

80l

120l

140l

240l

Benalla Y Y Y FN Y Y Y FN Y Y Y WK Y Y

Colac Otway Y WK Y FN * Y FN Y Not accepted

Corangamite Y WK Y FN Y FN - Y

Indigo Y * FN Y * FN Y WK Y Y

Moira Y WK Y FN Y FN Y Y

Moyne Y WK Y FN Y FN N -

Nillumbik Y FN Y FN Y WK - Not accepted

Greater Shepparton

Y Y Y WK * Y FN * Y FN Y Y

Strathbogie * Y FN Y * FN Y * WK Y Y

Wodonga Y FN Y FN Y WK Y Y

Most common NSW council

Y * FN Y * FN Y WK Y Y

Most common SA council

Y WK Y FN Y FN Y Y

*Bin size available

Sustainability Victoria – Optimising Kerbside Collection Systems Supporting Evidence and Analysis 40

Documents

Sustainability Victoria - Purpose of the supporting evidence ... · Web viewThe average distance for a collection vehicle truck to travel between households differs between councils