Waste Management Strategy€¦ · 4.3.1 Waste Quantity Trends and Recovery from Landfill The figures below are based on weighbridge data for the years 2000/2001 to 2008/2009. In 2008/2009

ShellharbourCITY COUNCIL

Waste Management Strategy

ShellharbourCITY COUNCIL

“A community that generates minimal waste and considers the waste that is produced as a valuable resource to be managed sustainably”

Document History

Version Number Date Final (Version 1) July 1994 Final (Version 2) August 1996 Final (Version 3) 2002 Extensive Review: Draft Document - Public Exhibition 22 April 2010 Final Draft for Adoption 1 June 2010 Final (Version 4) 2 June 2010

This document was developed with assistance from GHD Pty Ltd

Council would like to acknowledge Zero Waste SA for the provision of some of the photographs contained in this document.

ContentsContents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 71.1 Why a Waste Strategy? 71.2 Structure of the Waste Management Strategy 8

2 Framework for Waste Management 102.1 National Framework 102.2 State Framework 142.3 Regional Framework 182.4 Local Framework 20

3 Vision, Objectives and Targets 223.1 Vision 223.2 Objectives 223.3 Recovery Targets 22

4 The Current Position 254.1 Shellharbour Profile 254.2 Council’s Existing Approach to Waste Management 324.3 Current Data Trends 46

5 Key Considerations for Moving Forward 675.1 Council's Sphere of Influence and Priority Waste Sectors 675.2 Municipal Waste Stream 685.3 Commercial and Industrial Waste Stream 695.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Stream 695.5 Waste Education 705.6 Cost Effectiveness and Equity 715.7 Population Growth and Changes to Population and Housing

Characteristics 725.8 Council Leading by Example 73

6 Strategies, Actions and Implementation 756.1 Implementation Plan 75

7 References 77

Appendices 1. Implementation Plan 84 2. Options Report for the Future Management of Waste within

Shellharbour City: Proposed Waste Services 2008 - 2015 87 3. Best Practice Waste Management for Local Government 113 4. Glossary of Terms 135 5. List of Acronyms 138

Table Index Table 1-1 Strategy content 8Table 2-1 State legislation, plans and strategies, and

guidelines 14Table 2-2 Broad targets for each outcome area in the WARR

Strategy 2007 16Table 4-1 Estimated Growth by Dwelling Type by Suburb

2006-2021 2828Table 4-2 Estimated Proportion of Dwellings by Type 2006

and 2021 2929Table 4-3 Projected Changes in Number of Dwellings 31Table 4-4 Source of Waste Landfilled at the Dunmore

Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot in 2008/2009 46Table 4-5 Source of Resource Recovery 2008/2009 48Table 4-6 Waste Amounts per Person – 2000/2001-

2008/2009 51Table A-1 Good practice performance measures for kerbside

recycling systems in New South Wales 112Table A-2 Summary of National Packaging Covenant

guidelines for Local Government Best Practice 116Table A-3 Comparison with NSW DECC good practice

performance measures 117Table A-4 Comparison with NSW Preferred kerbside

collection standards 119Table A-5 Best practice elements for kerbside recycling

contract 121Table A-6 Issues to consider in assessing public place bin

infrastructure 124Table A-7 The five main illegal dumping prevention

mechanisms 125 Table A-8 Issues to be addressed by education programs 130

80

86

112134137

Figure Index Figure 4-1 Shellharbour City locality 25Figure 4-2 Shellharbour Local Government Area 26Figure 4-3 Projected Population and Dwellings 27Figure 4-4 Illegal dumping 37Figure 4-5 Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot 39Figure 4-6 Garden organics being delivered to the Dunmore

Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot 41Figure 4-7 Composition of the Waste Stream Landfilled at

Dunmore 47Figure 4-8 Composition of the waste stream recovered at

Dunmore 48Figure 4-9 Projected Municipal Waste Quantities to 2020/2021 50Figure 4-10 C&I Waste Quantities 52Figure 4-11 Projected C&I Waste Quantities to 2020/2021 53Figure 4-12 C&D Waste Quantities 54Figure 4-13 Projected C&D Waste Quantities to 2020/2021 55Figure 4-14 Composition of the Kerbside Garbage Stream 56Figure 4-15 Composition of the Kerbside Recycling Stream

2008 57Figure 4-16 Kerbside Recovery Rates by Material - 2008/2009 58Figure 4-17 Actual and Potential Kerbside Recovery Rates 59Figure 4-18 Composition of the Municipal Stream Landfilled at

Dunmore 60Figure 4-19 Composition of the Municipal Stream Recovered at

Dunmore 61Figure 4-20 Composition of the C&I Stream Landfilled at

Dunmore 62Figure 4-21 Composition of the C&I Stream Recovered at

Dunmore 63Figure 4-22 Composition of the C&D Stream Landfilled at

Dunmore 64Figure 4-23 Composition of the C&D Stream Recovered at

Dunmore 65Figure A-7-1 Determining factors of consumption behaviour 128

Executive Summary

Shellharbour City Council | Waste Management Strategy | 1

Executive Summary

OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT Shellharbour, like many other communities across Australia, is facing major challenges with the collection and disposal of solid wastes. Landfills are fast running out of space and there is growing community concern that councils need to take a more sustainable approach to the way waste is managed. To help address these issues, a waste strategy was developed by Shellharbour City Council in 1994 and updated in 1996 and 2002.

Since that time, Council has made a number of strategic changes in response to community expectations and internal and external drivers, such as diminishing landfill capacity and evolving State and Federal policy on waste management.

This document has been developed to reflect these changes and identify further opportunities for improvement.

This revised strategy sets a vision for the future of waste management in Shellharbour. It identifies strategic gaps between the current and desired position and details the best way of moving forward.

THE VISION The ultimate vision for waste management in Shellharbour is:

‘A community that generates minimal waste and considers the waste that is produced as a valuable resource to be managed sustainably.’

The following objectives have been identified to help us more towards this vision:

1. Avoid the generation of waste

2. Increase the reuse and recovery of materials from the following waste streams:

– Municipal– recovery target 66% – Commercial & Industrial – Construction & Demolition

3. Minimise adverse impacts of waste operations on public and environmental health and safety

4. Ensure the provision of Council’s waste services is cost effective and equitable

The implementation of strategies to achieve these objectives has been spread across three broad planning horizons:

Horizon 1 – This horizon covers the next five years.

Horizon 2 – This horizon covers the period from 2015 to 2025.

Horizon 3 – This horizon starts at 2025 and extends out to the closure of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.


THE CURRENT POSITION

Current approach to waste management

Council recognises that most of the waste produced by residents is recoverable and has adopted an approach to waste management with a focus on provision of systems and services to recover recyclables (including both dry recyclables and food and garden organics) prior to landfill disposal.

On 1 July 2008 Council rolled-out a three-bin system – the first phase of a two stage plan to recover food and garden organics for processing. Currently Council provides fortnightly kerbside collection of garbage for all households in either 240 L or 140 L mobile bins, fortnightly kerbside collection of recyclables in 240 L mobile bins and fortnightly garden organics kerbside collection in 240 L mobile bins. The second stage is planned to commence once a food and garden organics processing facility is operational and a weekly collection of food and garden organics using the current 240 L green-top bin would replace the fortnightly garden organics collection.

In addition to kerbside collection services, Council owns and operates a recycling and waste disposal depot which accepts waste from all waste streams.

The current approach to waste education focuses on encouraging residents to view waste as a resource and providing them with the knowledge and skills required to participate effectively in waste avoidance and resource recovery. Key initiatives include a waste services website, earthworks classes, campaignsin local newspapers, school visits, and displays and promotions for various events throughout the year.

Resource Recovery Performance

In 2008/2009 Council's waste management system handled 90,472.44t of waste. The municipal sector provided the greatest contribution of 46,715.59t, followed by Construction and Demolition (C&D) (32,325.19t) and Commercial and Industrial (C&I) (11,431.66t).

Municipal

In 2008/2009, 25,556.73t of material was collected through the kerbside system. Of this, 12,313.15t was landfilled (red lidded bin), 6,726.28t of greenwaste was reprocessed into mulch (green lidded bin) and 6,514.3t of recyclables were also reprocessed (yellow lidded bin). Therefore, the overall recovery rate of the kerbside system is 51.8%.

Overall recovery from the municipal sector, including material collected through the kerbside system and material delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot by small vehicles, is 45.7%

This falls short of the State Government target for municipal waste recovery of 66% by 2014.

Audit data reveals that while the proportion of recyclable material in the garbage bin is fairly typical for a community such as Shellharbour, there is a strong opportunity to divert this material from landfill. For example, 19% of a typical Shellharbour garbage bin consists of paper and containers that could be recycled, while almost half consists of food waste that could be composted.

Commercial & Industrial

In 2008/09 9,855 tonnes of C&I waste was landfilled and 1,563 tonnes was recovered at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. The current (2008/09) recovery rate for the C&I sector is 13.7%.


Construction & Demolition

In 2008/09, 5,618 tonnes of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste was landfilled and 8,900 tonnes was recovered at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Another 17,808 tonnes was used for operational purposes such as landfill cover and in sand mining operations. The current (2008/09) recovery rate for the C&D sector, excluding the recovery of soil and virgin extracted natural material (VENM) is 61.3%. The current recovery rate including the recovery of soil and virgin excavated natural material (VENM) for operational purposes is 82.6%. This compares well with the State Government target of 76% recovery of C&D waste by 2014.

Cost and Equity

There are many costs associated with the provision of waste management services including:

Up-front costs – initial investments and expenses necessary to implement waste management services such as community engagement and education, land acquisition, planning and construction;

Operating costs – ongoing expense including operations and maintenance, capital costs, debt service and statutory costs. For example, the Section 88 (s88) Waste and Environment Levy (which since its introduction has seen Council required to pay over $10 million for accepting waste at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot – all of which was passed on to landfill users in higher gate fees); and

Back-end costs – costs associated with closure, rehabilitation and aftercare of landfills and other facilities at the end of their useful lives. Some key future costs that Council will be required to meet include liabilities associated with the proposed CPRS, building/equipment decommissioning and landfill closure and ongoing aftercare and monitoring.

Council currently sources funding to recover these costs from a combination of:

The Domestic Waste Management Charge (part of the annual Council rates); and

Fees charged at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.

To ensure funds are available to meet future back-end costs, and ensure fair and equitable cost sharing across generations, Council endeavours to charge appropriate fees and charges and places some of the funds generated into reserve.

There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the true extent of future costs and whether current fees and charges and reserves are adequate to cover these liabilities when they arise.


STRATEGIC GAPS AND KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED The following strategic gaps and key issues have been identified:

Actions to improve performance of the municipal sector should be given higher priority than the C&I and C&D sectors, at least in the short-term (Horizon 1);

Priority should also be given to ‘big-ticket’ items – actions that have potential to make significant improvements to performance;

Small improvements in recovery from the municipal sector may be achieved through education and changes in household behaviour, but in order to meet the 66% recovery target by 2014 and significantly increase kerbside performance, recovery of food organics would be required. The only viable way to achieve this would be to treat food waste at a processing facility. Therefore, actions to increase recovery of food from the waste stream should be prioritised.

Not only would the recovery of food organics improve kerbside performance and assist in meeting the recovery targets, it would also assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from landfill and potential liabilities under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

Similarly, in the C&I sector, waste processing would be effective (along with price mechanisms and education) in improving performance. Given the limited funding and resourcing availability, and prioritisation of improvements to the municipal sector performance, actions should be developed to investigate feasibility of introducing processing systems for C&I waste in the later strategy horizons (Horizons 2 or 3).

In the shorter-term, the community waste education campaign could be supplemented with business/commercial education to improve resource recovery in the C&I sector. In addition, implementation of pricing structures to encourage source separation of C&I waste delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot would also achieve some improvements without diverting resource away from priority actions (in the municipal sector).

Pricing and education provide the best driver for resource recovery in the C&D sector in the shorter term. Mechanical separation systems would also be effective. However, given the limited funding and resourcing availability, and prioritisation of improvements to the municipal sector performance, actions should be developed to investigate feasibility of introducing mechanical separation systems in the later strategy horizons (Horizons 2 or 3).

A full cost accounting (whole of life cost assessment) of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot should be undertaken to determine if current fees and charges and restrictions are adequate to meet future costs associated with the management of the waste being deposited.

To improve cost effectiveness and maximise resource recovery, actions should include investigations to identify opportunities to optimise the layout and operations of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.

The proposed CPRS could have significant cost implications for the management of the community's waste. As a means of reducing potential liabilities, methods of limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emitted from the landfill should be investigated, such as the installation of gas capture infrastructure.

The existing transfer station at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot should be relocated to within the resource recovery section of the site. This will allow for greater efficiencies in managing the waste levy on recyclable materials. This will also create an opportunity to improve the layout and usability of this facility.


To address population growth and changes in population and housing characteristics, the next collection contract should be flexible to allow suitable strategies to be enacted to deal with these changes.

Targeted education campaigns should be developed in the medium to longer term (Horizons 2-3) as population and housing characteristics change to address these issues; and

Council can encourage the community towards its vision by leading by example.

STRATEGIES, ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Strategies and specific actions that have been developed to assist Council in meeting the objectives are presented in the Shellharbour Waste Management Strategy Implementation Plan (Appendix 1). These strategies and actions will be implemented and completed within the three broad planning horizons. The actions have been prioritised according to a combination of their level of impact and easy of implementation.

This plan will be reviewed and updated annually in line with Council's strategic reporting requirements.

Introduction 1


1 Introduction

1.1 Why a Waste Strategy? Shellharbour, like many other communities across Australia, is facing major challenges with the management of solid wastes. Landfills are fast running out of space and increases to the State Government Waste Levy, along with the projected costs from a future National Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, will soon culminate in a sharp increase in disposal costs. At the same time, a growing population is resulting in increasing levels of waste generation.

This strategy has been prepared to provided a coordinated approach to these issues. While there are many ‘good ideas’ in waste management, Shellharbour City Council has a duty to its rate-payers to ensure any funds or staff time are well directed. This strategy will help Council to concentrate its efforts on the issues that hold the greatest potential to provide benefits for the city.

The strategy sets a vision for the future of waste management in Shellharbour. It identifies strategic gaps between the current and desired position and details the best way of moving forward.

The document will be used by Shellharbour City Council as:

a guide for waste management;

a tool for communicating with our community; and

a basis for implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation.


1.2 Structure of the Waste Management Strategy The structure and contents of this Waste Management Strategy are summarised in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Strategy content

Chapter Description

1 Introduction Purpose and structure of the Strategy.

2 Framework for Waste Management Overview of the statutory and administrative frameworks for waste management at National, State, Regional and Local levels.

3 Vision, Objectives An overall vision for waste management in Shellharbour, targets for recovery and objectives identified to achieve the vision.

4 The Current Position This section provides an overview of our city's geographic and demographic profile and looks at current performance in the context of current waste management systems.

5 Key Considerations for Moving Forward This section identifies key issues that need to be addressed as we work towards the vision.

6 Strategies, Actions and Implementation This section outlines strategies and actions that will be implemented to meet the key strategy objectives.

7 References List of references used in the preparation of the Strategy.

Appendix A - Best Practice Waste Management for Local Government

This section provides an overview of best practice waste management for local government and provides a comparison with Shellharbour City Council's approach and systems.

Framework forWaste Management2


2 Framework for Waste Management

This section outlines the statutory and administrative framework for waste management, based on National, State and Local legislation, planning strategies and relevant guidance documents.

2.1 National Framework

2.1.1 Overview

The Commonwealth Government has limited constitutional powers to engage directly in domestic waste management issues; responsibility rests largely with state and territory governments, and local governments. The role of the Commonwealth Government has evolved in recent years, however, and it now has taken on a strategic involvement in waste policy development (and has recently released the National Waste Policy, as discussed below). The Commonwealth Government also has a particular focus on developing consistent national approaches for key product sectors. The Commonwealth also has the leading role in waste policy where it relates to Australia's international commitments for the movement of hazardous waste.

The primary forum for interaction between the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions on waste matters is the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC). In addition, the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) is responsible for overseeing national programs.

National programs relevant to waste management include the National Packaging Covenant (the Covenant), a co-regulatory agreement for the management of packaging waste in Australia. The Covenant is administered by the National Packaging Covenant Council (NPCC), which consists of representatives from government, environmental agencies, industry groups, and local government.

DEWHA also administers a product stewardship program for oil recycling, under which the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council (OSAC) provides advice to the Government on general operation of the stewardship arrangements and possible future directions.

Specific waste management legislation in place at the National level is limited to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1989 which aims to regulate the export, import and transit of hazardous waste both within and outside Australia and the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000.

2.1.2 National Waste Policy

As mentioned above, a recent initiative of the Commonwealth Government has been the development of a National Waste Policy. Adopted on 5 November 2009, the policy builds on the 1992 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and attempts to reduce the impact to the environment from waste disposal. It also seeks to enhance, build on or complement existing policy and actions at all levels of government. This policy sets the direction for Australia over the next 10 years to produce less waste for disposal and manage waste as a resource to deliver economic, environmental and social benefits. The policy establishes a comprehensive program for national co-ordinated action on waste across six key areas:

Provide a coherent, comprehensive national framework for waste management, resource recovery and the avoidance of waste over the next decade;


Enable Australia to meet its international obligations in regards to the management of hazardous wastes and substances and persistent organic pollutants into the future and reduce the risk and legacy for future generations;

Address market impediments and streamline the regulatory frameworks so that national companies and small businesses can operate effectively and efficiently and manage products and materials responsibly during and at end of life;

Provide national leadership on waste and resource recovery where it is needed and facilitate collaboration between the states on national issues;

Contribute to climate change, sustainability, innovation and employment opportunities, and

Be high impact and cost effective by setting clear national directions and through collaborative, carefully targeted action that incrementally builds on the existing efforts of governments over a ten year period.

The overall objectives of implementing the National Waste Policy are that all wastes, including hazardous wastes, are managed consistent with Australia’s international obligations, and for the protection of human health and the environment. The policy also seeks to ensure that the risks associated with waste are understood and managed in the future to minimise intergenerational legacy issues.

2.1.3 Proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

The Federal Government is proposing a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) as a key driver for business to respond to climate change. The Federal Government has committed to a minimum target of five per cent greenhouse gas emissions reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. This target could rise to 15 per cent if all developed nations take on comparable reductions to those in Australia.

The waste sector accounts for around 3 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Around 80 per cent of waste sector emissions are from solid waste, with the remainder from waste water, and solvent and clinical waste incineration. Emissions from landfill consist mainly of the uncontrolled release of methane from decomposing organic material, such as food, paper, garden organics and wood.

When and if the CPRS is legislated, waste operators will have a direct liability for fugitive emissions from waste disposed from the date of commencement of the CPRS. They will be required to purchase and acquit permits. The proposed general CPRS threshold for landfill emissions is 25,000 tonnes of CO2-e a year. To prevent the risk of displacement, a lower threshold of 10,000 tonnes CO2-e a year will be applied to landfills within proximity to another site. Liability for emissions from past waste streams (legacy waste) will be excluded from the Scheme, but will need to be reported and counted towards a facility’sScheme participation threshold.

In its CPRS White Paper, the Commonwealth Government initially set an emissions price cap at $40 per tonne in 2010/11 which would rise by five per cent above CPI each year for the first five years thereafter. In the context of negotiations with the Coalition, the Commonwealth Government proposed a range of changes to the CPRS legislation on 24 November 2009. These changes now form part of the Commonwealth Government’s policy on climate change action. Changes requiring legislative amendments were incorporated into the revised CPRS bills introduced into the Parliament on 2 February 2010. The changes also included new measures announced on 4 May 2009.

The 2 February 2010 bills stipulate that a one year fixed price period will be introduced. Permits will cost $10 per tonne of carbon in 2011-12, with the transition to full market trading from 1 July 2012. The first


year of the flexible price phase of the CPRS, 2012-13, will commence with a price cap that will be based on the original White Paper figure of $40 in 2010-11, with 5 per real growth per annum calculated using actual CPI growth over 2010-11 and 2011-12. Treasury modelling for the White Paper projected that the cost of carbon permits would be $23 per tonne in 2010/11. During the first year of flexible price phase of the revised CPRS (2012/13), carbon permits may be of this order as well – however it is difficult to predict. Particularly as global influences on the price of carbon are growing and are expected to continue to grow over time.

2.1.4 National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act 2007The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act 2007 provides a national framework for corporations to report information related to greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and energy production. The NGER Act underpins the proposed CPRS, providing the primary source of emissions and energy data on which obligations under the CPRS will be based.

The NGER Act requires companies to report on their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The threshold is currently 25,000 tonnes per year of CO2-e and or 125,000 tonnes per year of CO2-e across the company as a whole. These thresholds are scheduled to reduce over time to increase the NGER Act coverage.

2.1.5 National Greenhouse and Energy Report (Measurement) Determination Act 2008The National Greenhouse and Energy Report (Measurement) Determination Act 2008 (Measurement Determination Act) provides three methods for determining obligations under the NGER Act and the emissions of methane in landfill gas generated from a landfill facility.

Method 1 provides an estimation of emissions which is based on the Tier 2 First Order Decay (FOD) model described in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006). Methods 2 and 3 are similar to Method 1 except that they allow for calculation of facility specific methane generation constant (k value) and remove the gas capture efficiency limit of 75% under Method 1. Ongoing direct measurement research (Method 4) is being monitored by the Department of Climate Change.

2.1.6 Direct implications for Shellharbour Council

National Waste Policy Council is encouraged to align its policy direction and strategies for the management of waste in its local government area with the objectives of the National Waste Policy.

The National Packaging Covenant Shellharbour Council is not a signatory to the National Packaging Covenant (the Covenant), and is therefore not obligated to act in accordance with the Covenant principles and requirements for local government signatories. However, the obligations for local government have been provided below for reference:

Applying the principles of the Covenant to their own operations, for example in the purchase of packaged goods and paper, disposal of used packaging and paper, and recycling and purchasing of recycled materials;


Working co-operatively to develop best practice systems, including co-operation with industry, and provision of community education;

Establishing good communications and data collection framework to facilitate information collation and dissemination to the community, including collection of reliable data for disposal and kerbside recycling systems dealing with used packaging and paper;

Implementing preferred practice kerbside collection principles;

Ensuring that financial aspects associated with waste disposal and kerbside collection systems are transparent to households and the general community; and

As appropriate, applying variable rate charging to domestic waste collection, with users charged by volume or weight.

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Based on current emissions estimates, under the proposed CPRS, Council would be liable for emissions from the landfill at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. That is, Council would be required to purchase and acquit permits to cover some of its emissions from the landfill.

Waste recovery (in particular, reduction in acceptance of food and or garden and other organic waste at the landfill) and improved landfill gas management are cost-effective options to reduce CPRS liability and passthrough costs. These approaches can also lead to other benefits such as improved productivity, safety and reduced odour emissions.

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act 2007 Council’s total emissions are currently below the 125,000 tonne reporting threshold under the NGER Acthowever, emissions from the landfill currently exceed the 25,000 tonne threshold, and hence reporting is required.

As discussed above, a lower threshold of 10,000 tonnes CO2-e per year is proposed for application to landfills within a certain, as yet undisclosed, proximity to another site (but likely to be 82 km from another landfill). At this time, it is likely that Council would be liable under the CPRS because the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot landfill exceeds the 10,000 tonnes CO2-e per year threshold and is within proximity to another covered landfill, namely Whytes Gully Landfill in Wollongong.


2.2 State Framework

2.2.1 Overview

The New South Wales State Framework consists of legislation, development plans and strategies, and guidelines, as summarised in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 State legislation, plans and strategies, and guidelines

Legislation Plans and Strategies Guidelines

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001

Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Amendment (Residue Wastes) Regulation 2005

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007

Extended Producer Responsibility Priority Statement 2007

Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy (WRAPP)

Crackdown on Illegal Dumping: Handbook for Local Government

Waste Classification Guidelines

Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills

Draft Environmental Guidelines for Industrial Waste Landfilling

Environmental Guidelines: Composting and related organics processing facilities

Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2007

Reducing Contamination of Dry Recyclables and Garden Organics at the Kerbside

Preferred Resource Recovery Practices by Local Councils

Getting More from Our Recycling Systems Good Practice Performance Measures for Kerbside Recycling Systems

The State environmental legislation listed in Table 2-1, is administered by the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). The regulatory framework for waste in New South Wales in administered under the principal legislation of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) and the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001.

2.2.2 Underlying Principles and Objectives

The POEO Act aims to reduce risks to human health and prevent the degradation of the environment by the use of mechanisms that promote pollution prevention, the elimination of harmful wastes, the reduction in the use of materials, and the re-use, recovery or recycling of materials. Regulatory mechanisms such as the waste and environment levy help drive waste avoidance and resource recovery by providing an economic incentive to reduce waste disposal and stimulate alternative waste technologies.


The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007 (WARR Strategy) is designed to provide a continuing framework that will guide actions to achieve the NSW Government’s policy objectives of minimising environmental harm from waste generation through to disposal, and conserving and maximising resource use.

Further underlying the objectives of State legislation, plans and strategies is the need to continue to develop and expand economic growth in the region whilst simultaneously achieving economic, social, and environmental goals. This requires development of sustainable waste management practices and planning for future waste recycling, reprocessing, and disposal facilities to ensure the future needs of the State can be met at the least cost to the environment and the community.

The WARR Strategy 2007 continues to recognise the importance of the waste hierarchy to guide effective resource management. It acknowledges, however, that different materials require different approaches. The choice of approach, including re-use, recycling and energy from waste, will depend on a balance of factors including economic and environmental considerations. Other factors that will influence the approach adopted for specific materials include: availability of supply, markets for recyclate, economic, environmental and social impacts, community responses to different collection, reprocessing and disposal options, and emergence of new technologies. All other principles identified in the previous Waste Strategy 2003 remain important and will continue to underpin NSW policy and actions to conserve resources and reduce waste. These principles include a commitment to ecologically sustainable development as well as other principles set out in NSW legislation and international instruments.

In summary these principles are:

the precautionary principle – lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage;

inter-generational equity – the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

polluter pays – those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement;

full life cycle costing – users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste;

market incentives – environmental goals should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems;

shared responsibility – industry should share (with the community) the responsibility for reducing and dealing with waste system integration – waste and resource management planning, programs and service delivery need to be integrated on a State-wide basis;

sustainable production and consumption – environmentally sound waste management must go beyond the mere safe disposal or recovery of wastes that are generated, and should seek to address the root cause of the problem by attempting to change unsustainable patterns of production and consumption;


public involvement in decision-making – environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, who should have full opportunity to participate in decision making processes, including appropriate access to all relevant information on the environment held by public authorities;

economic development – environmental protection should constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it;

continuous improvement – policy and actions should support and seek to deliver continuous improvement in the frameworks, infrastructure and systems established to support waste reduction and resource recovery;

contribute to other environmental sustainability issues - policy and actions on waste should support and identify their contribution to other key environmental issues such as greenhouse gas abatement and reduction in energy and water use.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A) 1979 is the principal statutory NSW State Government act that covers environmental planning and assessment. Planning and assessment for new waste infrastructure projects and developments is governed by this Act.

2.2.3 Direct implications for Shellharbour Council

The NSW WARR Strategy targets are shown in Table 2-2, and of particular interest is the target to increase recovery and use of materials from the municipal sector to 66% by 2014.

Table 2-2 Broad targets for each outcome area in the WARR Strategy 2007

Outcome area Target

Preventing and avoiding waste To hold level the total waste generated for the next 5 years

Increasing recovery and use of secondary resources

By 2014, to:

Increase recovery and use of materials from municipal sector from the current 26% to 66%

Increase recovery and use of materials from the commercial & industrial sector from the current 28% to 63%

Increase recovery and use of materials from the construction & demolition sector from the current 65% to 76%.

Reducing toxic substances in products and materials

By 2014 or earlier:

To phase out priority substances in identified products as a first choice or if not possible to achieve maximum recovery for re-use and;

Where identified products containing these priority substances require disposal as a last resort, the permitted ‘leachability’ of the substances will be reduced to the levels that are permitted for inert waste.

Reducing litter and illegal dumping Reduce total volume and tonnages of litter reported annually.

Reduce the total tonnages of illegally dumped material reported by regulatory agencies and RID squads annually.


Of particular relevance to Council is the target for increasing recovery and use of materials from municipal sector to 66% by 2014. In accordance with the State policy, Council should also strive to influence the community where possible to prevent and avoid waste generation, reduce litter and illegal dumping. Council can also assist in increasing resource recovery and use of materials from the C&I and C&D sectors where possible.

2.2.4 Section 88 Levy

Under Section 88 of the POEO Act, all scheduled waste facilities are required to pay a levy on each tonne of waste received at the facility. A ‘scheduled waste facility’ is a waste facility that is required to be licensed under Schedule 1 of the POEO Act 1997.

The levy is designed to encourage resource recovery and recycling of waste. It is generally added to the disposal charges set by landfills and provides businesses, councils and individuals with an incentive to reduce the amount of waste they generate and encourages them to seek legitimate alternatives to landfill disposal.

The waste levy applies to all waste generated in or sourced from the Sydney metropolitan area (SMA), the extended regulated area (ERA: the Hunter and Illawarra regions) or the regional regulated area (RRA: outer Sydney and north east coast of NSW) and received at a scheduled waste facility anywhere in NSW. The waste levy must also be paid on any waste generated or sourced from outside the SMA, ERA and RRA but disposed of at a scheduled waste facility in the SMA, ERA or RRA.

Waste facilities that are used solely for the purposes of reusing, recycling, processing or recovering waste are not required to pay the levy. Waste facilities used solely for the purposes of disposing of coal washery rejects, slags or virgin excavated natural material are also not required to pay the levy.

Clause 5 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 sets out how the waste and environment levy is determined. The amount of levy due to be paid by a facility is calculated yearly and is based on a combination of where the waste was generated or originally sourced from (SMA, ERA or RRA) and where it was received (SMA, ERA or RRA). The Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is subject to the levy. The facility falls within the ERA. Current levy rates (2009-2010) are as follows:

SMA - $58.80

ERA - $52.40

RRA - $10.00 per tonne (flat rate)

The levy is calculated based on incoming waste that is weighed on the weighbridge, as well as estimates of small vehicle waste using vehicle weight conversion factors set out in the DECCW (2009) Waste and Environment Levy Operational Guidance Notes.

Currently, the Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) program is funded from the levy and directs $256 million over seven years to eligible councils to invest in actions and on programs to improve waste avoidance, resource recovery, the use of secondary resources and waste management outcomes. However, this is a small fraction of the funds generated from the levy, and the remainder is directed back into NSW Government consolidated revenue.


Levy Exemptions Facility occupiers are not required to pay the levy when they are occupiers of scheduled waste facilities that are used only:

For reusing, recycling, processing or recovering waste; or

For disposing of slags or virgin excavated natural material; or

As a waste storage facility, transfer facility or waste treatment facility (that is, not an incinerator).

It is also noted that certain wastes may be exempted from calculation of the levy under clause 10 of the Regulation:

Dredging spoil – spoil from dredging activities (the excavation of natural material to provide and/or increase the dimensions of a waterway, or ensure that existing channels, berths or harbour works are maintained according to their design specifications);

Waste collected as part of a community service – groups performing a community service that involves the collection or receipt of waste for which they would not ordinarily be responsible (i.e. waste they did not generate) may be able to claim an exemption (through application to DECCW);

Waste from a natural disaster or biological outbreak – waste collected as a result of a natural disaster or biological outbreak, where the person or group collecting the waste would not ordinarily be responsible for that waste may be able to be claimed as an exemption (through application to DECCW).

Certain wastes may be deducted under clause 11A of the Regulation (transported waste, waste used for an approved operational purpose, and waste used for land application).

2.3 Regional Framework

2.3.1 Overview

Shellharbour is located within the Illawarra region, a region comprising the local government areas of Kiama, Shellharbour and Wollongong. In addition, Council is a member of the Southern Councils Group – a voluntary association of seven councils extending from Helensburgh to the Victorian border. The following sections describe the framework for waste management at a regional (Illawarra and Southern Councils Group) level.

2.3.2 Illawarra Regional Strategy

The Illawarra Regional Strategy 2006-31 applies to the local government areas of Kiama, Shellharbour and Wollongong and is one of a number of regional strategies that have been prepared by the Department of Planning for high growth areas in NSW. It incorporates specific regional infrastructure requirements identified in the State Government’s infrastructure strategy and is intended to inform infrastructure investments in the region. Waste Management is a key consideration of this strategy.


2.3.3 Southern Councils Group

As described in section 2.3.1, Council is a member of the Southern Councils Group. This group was established to progress regional collaborative initiatives and comprises:

Bega Valley Shire Council;

Eurobodalla Shire Council;

Kiama Municipal Council;

Shellharbour City Council;

Shoalhaven City Council;

Wingecarribee Shire Council; and

Wollongong City Council.

The member councils have been working together on waste management planning for a number of years and have developed the following shared values / guiding principles:

Greenhouse Gas Minimisation - Waste collection and processing / disposal systems should minimise greenhouse gas emissions;

Waste Generators Responsibilities - Waste generators should accept a responsibility for resource recovery through individual premises processing actions or source separation of products;

Landfill Avoidance - Resources in the collected waste streams should not be landfilled if cost effective mechanisms are available for resource recovery;

Highest Value Beneficial Products - The highest value beneficial products should be produced from any resource recovery activities;

Compost Products Standards and Use - Compost products from organics processing should meet the standards for local residential, commercial and agricultural application;

Local Solutions Preferable - Local cost effective processing solutions should be developed where ever possible to minimise waste and resource transport; and

Community Support Essential - General community support for the Councils’ values, and waste collection and processing initiatives, is essential.

2.3.4 Illawarra Sustainability Roadmap

The Illawarra Sustainability Roadmap is a joint initiative of Kiama, Shellharbour and Wollongong Councils and provides a co-ordinated framework for addressing sustainability issues in the Illawarra Region.

With regard to waste, the Roadmap aims to improve resource recovery across municipal, C&I, and C&D sectors as per the targets set out in the WARR Strategy 2007.

The Roadmap contains specific actions to improve sustainability through improvements to waste management in the local government areas including those relating to:

Waste education programs

Waste Reduction Policy

Waste DCPs

Sustainable Purchasing policy

The Roadmap also includes sustainability indicators that are relevant to waste management including emissions associated with landfilling and collection of waste, resource recovery.


2.4 Local Framework

2.4.1 Local Government Act 1993 The Local Government Act 1993 requires all councils in NSW to provide a residential waste collection service. In addition, councils also promote a more responsible, sustainable and integrated approach to waste management including the provision of education to residents, businesses and developers, other waste management services, waste and related policy and law enforcement. Shellharbour City Council also provides litter bins and collection services along its foreshores, streets and public parks and sporting venues, removal of illegally dumped waste and special event waste and recycling collection services.Council also owns and operates a recycling facility and putrescible waste landfill at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. To this end, Council must also meet the legislative requirements and responsibilities under the POEO Act in operating this facility.

2.4.2 Responsibility of Local Government in NSW

Some councils, including Shellharbour, provide waste services to some small businesses in addition to the residential service. Others operate fully competitive commercial waste collection business units.

Despite this, local government’s responsibilities in Australia generally extend no further than municipal waste, that is waste generated from residential dwellings and from councils’ own activities. Local government has little or no regulatory control over waste generated from C&I sources. Councils cannot compel businesses to recycle or direct them to take their waste to a particular location or dispose of it in a particular way. Businesses are not required to report any waste information to governments at any level.

This makes if difficult for councils to influence commercial waste generation and reduction or to even collect information about waste generation from the commercial sector. In Shellharbour’s case, even though Council operates its own landfill, not all waste generated from the commercial sector in Shellharbour is disposed there and most recycling collected from commercial premises does not pass through Council’s waste system at any stage. Having said that, a clear C&I price signal at the landfill will have the effect of improving recycling rates and diverting material from landfill. This applies equally to the C&D sector which is particularly sensitive to landfill price signals.

3Vision, Objectives and Targets


3 Vision, Objectives and Targets

This section describes the future vision for waste management in Shellharbour. It also outlines the key objectives, targets and timeframes that will form the focus of our efforts as we work towards achieving the vision.

3.1 Vision The ultimate vision for waste management in Shellharbour is:

‘A community that generates minimal waste and considers the waste that is produced as a valuable resource to be managed sustainably.’

This vision incorporates the principles of sustainable waste management and is the ultimate goal of the initiatives outlined in this strategy.

3.2 Objectives The following objectives have been identified to help us more towards this vision:

1. Avoid the generation of waste;

2. Increase the reuse and recovery of materials from the following waste streams:

– Municipal– recovery target 66%; – Commercial & Industrial; – Construction & Demolition;

3. Minimise adverse impacts of waste operations on public and environmental health and safety; and

4. Ensure the provision of Council’s waste services is cost effective and equitable.

3.3 Recovery Targets Recovery targets for each of the key waste streams are discussed in the following sections. The division of waste into streams (municipal, C&I and C&D) is important when considering targets as each of the waste streams has different characteristics and sources. Each waste stream therefore requires different strategies for addressing and measuring performance/improvement. The waste stream categories selected also align with the NSW Government’s classifications and Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy targets.

3.3.1 Municipal

Municipal waste includes kerbside collected domestic waste(garbage, recycling and garden organics), waste from Council operations, waste from street litter bins and material dropped off by residents at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.

The State Government has set a target for resource recovery in this sector of 66% recovery by 2014. Council recognises the need to achieve this target and will use it as a basis for the selection of actions identified in this strategy.


3.3.2 Commercial and Industrial (C&I)

C&I waste is material generated from manufacturers, shops and businesses of all sizes and varieties.

Local government has limited control over the way C&I waste is managed. The target identified in the State Government's WARR Strategy applies at the state level and is not the responsibility of councils to achieve alone.

Current C&I recovery in Shellharbour is 13.7%, and is based only on the commercial waste that passes through Council’s facilities. What proportion this represents of all the C&I waste generated in Shellharbour is not known as much of this waste does not pass through Council’s control.

Therefore, a target for C&I recovery has not been set at this stage, but may be considered in the future.

3.3.3 Construction and Demolition (C&D)

C&D waste is material generated through activities such as housing and commercial developments, renovations, civil engineering works and other building activity.

Current C&D recovery is 82.6%, and is based only on the construction waste that passes through Council’s facilities. What proportion this represents of all the C&D waste generated in Shellharbour is not known as much of this waste does not pass through Council’s control.

Therefore, a target for C&D recovery has not been set at this stage, but may be considered in the future.

4The Current Position


4 The Current Position

This section provides an overview of Shellharbour’s geographic and demographic profile. It also projects changes to the profile to 2021 based on available demographic data. This section then details Council’s existing approach to waste management and current waste statistics and trends.

4.1 Shellharbour Profile

4.1.1 Geographic Profile

Shellharbour City is located in the Illawarra Region of New South Wales, about 100 kilometres south of Sydney (Figure 4-1). As shown on Figure 4-2, Shellharbour City is bounded by Wollongong City in the north, the Tasman Sea in the east, the Municipality of Kiama in the south and Wingecarribee Shire in the west.

Shellharbour City includes the suburbs and rural localities of Albion Park, Albion Park Rail, Barrack Heights, Barrack Point, Blackbutt, Calderwood, Croom, Dunmore, Flinders, Lake Illawarra, Macquarie Pass, Mount Warrigal, North Macquarie, Oak Flats, Shell Cove, Shellharbour, Shellharbour City Centre, Tongarra, Tullimbar, Warilla and Yellow Rock.

Shellharbour local government area

Figure 4-1 Shellharbour City locality (Adapted from Shellharbour City Demographics Online)


Figure 4-2 Shellharbour Local Government Area

4.1.2 Existing Demographics In 2008 SGS Economics and Planning delivered to Council its report Shellharbour LGA Small Area Household and Demographic Projection. This report quoted the population of Shellharbour as 63,409 in 2006, the time of the most recent Census. The most populous single suburb was Albion Park with 10,879 residents. Another 30,235 people lived along the southern shore of Lake Illawarra in the suburbs of Albion Park Rail, Lake Illawarra, Mount Warrigal, Oak Flats and Warilla while another 18,090 lived along the coast strip in the suburbs of Barrack Heights, Barrack Point, Blackbutt, Flinders and Shellharbour. In summary, 76% of Shellharbour’s population lives in the top north east corner of the council area.

The largest age group in Shellharbour is 35-59 at 34% while 30% of the population is under 19. This indicates a significant population of families with children. The proportion of those aged 20-34 is 18% while only 17% are over 60 years of age.

In 2006 most people in Shellharbour lived in low density dwellings, free standing houses.

4.1.3 Projected Changes in Demographics

SGS Economics and Planning (2008) has projected the population of Shellharbour and the number of separate and multi-unit dwellings out to 2021. This is shown in Figure 4-3 below.


Projected Population and Dwellings

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2000

/2001

2001

/2002

2002

/2003

2003

/2004

2004

/2005

2005

/2006

2006

/2007

2007

/2008

2008

/2009

2009

/2010

2010

/2011

2011

/2012

2012

/2013

2013

/2014

2014

/2015

2015

/2016

2016

/2017

2017

/2018

2018

/2019

2019

/2020

2020

/2021

Year

Shellharbour PopulationKiama PopulationSeparate Dwellings/Terraces/Semis/TownhousesMulti-Unit Dwellings

Figure 4-3 Projected Population and Dwellings

This chart also shows the population of Kiama Council, Shellharbour’s immediate neighbour to the south. Since 2006, Shellharbour has been accepting Kiama’s waste at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. As a result increases in Kiama’s waste due to increases in population are also relevant.

The chart shows that the population of Shellharbour is expected to exceed 70,000 within ten years. By 2021 the combined Kiama-Shellharbour population will be approaching 100,000.1

According to SGS Economics and Planning (2008), the areas of greatest population growth over the last 15 years are Albion Park, Flinders, Shell Cove, Croom and Dunmore. In general the closest waste facility to these areas is the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot, less than 13 km away. There is a small area of Albion Park that is slightly closer to Wollongong Council’s Whytes Gully facility, about 11 km away.

Changes in Age Groups Over the last 15 years, the population increase in almost all areas has mainly been in the over 60 year age group, although an increase in the 35-59 age group was also seen in Albion Park. The exception was Shell Cove, Croom and Dunmore where the greatest population growth has been experienced in the 0-19 years age group with the 35-59 group experiencing the next largest growth. If these trends continue, the distinct differences in age groups may result in different waste generation activities which will in turn require different approaches to waste education.

Overall, Shellharbour’s population is aging with the proportion of those over 60 years of age estimated to increase from 17% in 2006 to 19% in 2021 and those aged 35-59 increasing from 34% in 2006 to 36% in 1 Shellharbour – 71,040 + Kiama – 24,003 = Total - 95,043


2021. The proportion of those aged under 19 is estimated to remain steady at 29% in 2021 compared to 30% in 2006 while the proportion of those aged 20-34 is estimated to decrease from 18% in 2006 to 15% in 2021.

Changes in Housing Type The main growth in housing type in all areas has been in semi-detached houses. The only exception has been Albion Park where the growth in the proportion of flats has been greatest. These trends will impact on waste generation and education. Different waste generation characteristics and behaviour are typically found in different dwelling types and this often requires different collection and education strategies.

Table 4-1 below shows the estimated growth in dwelling types by suburb in Shellharbour between 2006 and 2021.

Table 4-1 Estimated Growth by Dwelling Type by Suburb 2006-20212

2006 2021 2006 2021

Low density (Separate Houses)

Medium density(Semi Detached, Flats and others)



Total Total

Albion Park 3,669 412 4,139 472 4,081 4,611

Albion Park Rail 2,251 482 2,417 484 2,733 2,901

Barrack Heights 2,225 278 2,233 303 2,503 2,536

Barrack Point 161 105 199 118 266 317

Blackbutt 828 380 1,131 412 1,208 1,543

Flinders 1,059 471 1,555 515 1,530 2,070

Lake Illawarra 850 657 851 677 1,507 1,528

Mount Warrigal 2,014 24 2,027 25 2,038 2,052

Oak Flats 2,277 314 2,280 605 ,2591 2,885

Shell Cove 924 51 1,731 1,152 975 2,883

Shellharbour 1,004 273 1,034 338 1,277 1,372

Shellharbour City Centre 0 19 0 266 19 266

Tullimbar 8 0 872 864 8 1736

Warilla 1,858 612 1,861 863 2,470 2,724

Dunmore/Croom 402 0 402 0 402 402

Total 19,530 4,078 2,2732 7,094 23,608 29,826

2 SGS Economics and Planning (2008)


The table shows that estimated growth in separate dwellings to 2021 is predicted to be roughly equal to the number of medium density dwellings, about 3,000. The growth in medium density dwellings however, will represent a much greater proportion of the total number of this dwelling type, 43% compared to just 17% for separate dwellings.

Another characteristic of the growth is that it is far from uniform across the Council area. Table 4-2 below shows the proportions in each case.

Table 4-2 Estimated Proportion of Dwellings by Type 2006 and 20213

2006 2021





Albion Park 89.9% 10.1% 89.8% 10.2%

Albion Park Rail 82.4% 17.6% 83.3% 16.7%

Barrack Heights 88.9% 11.1% 88.1% 11.9%

Barrack Point 60.5% 39.5% 62.8% 37.2%

Blackbutt 68.5% 31.5% 73.3% 26.7%

Flinders 69.2% 30.8% 75.1% 24.9%

Lake Illawarra 56.4% 43.6% 55.7% 44.3%

Mount Warrigal 98.8% 1.2% 98.8% 1.2%

Oak Flats 87.9% 12.1% 79.0% 21.0%

Shell Cove 94.8% 5.2% 60.0% 40.0%

Shellharbour 78.6% 21.4% 75.4% 24.6%

Shellharbour City Centre 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Tullimbar 100.0% 0.0% 50.2% 49.8%

Warilla 75.2% 24.8% 68.3% 31.7%

Dunmore/Croom 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Total 82.7% 17.3% 76.2% 23.8%

The table shows that overall, the proportion of medium density dwellings will rise from 17.3% in 2006 to 23.8% but growth will be much greater in some areas. The greatest number of new dwellings is planned for Shell Cove and Tullimbar with almost 2,000 each. Shell Cove will go from just 5.2% medium density to 40% and Tullimbar will go from 0% medium density to almost 50%.

In other locations the differences between the number of new medium density and separate dwellings is also quite pronounced. In Albion Park Rail, Albion Park, Blackbutt and Flinders, 1,435 medium density dwellings are planned, 44.7% of all the medium density dwellings in the whole Council area, and only 3 SGS Economics and Planning (2008)


139 separate dwellings. In Oak Flats and Warilla, 540 separate dwellings are planned compared to only six medium density dwellings.

In 2006, Shellharbour had two areas with between 300 and 400 medium density dwellings, three with between 400 and 600 and only one with more than 600. There were none with more then 700. In 2021 there will be two areas with between 300 and 400 medium density dwellings, four areas with between 400 and 600 and four with more than 600 including two with more than 800 and one with more than 1100.

Projected Changes in Number of Dwellings are provided in Table 4-3.


Tabl

e 4-

3 Pr

ojec

ted

Cha

nges

in N

umbe

r of D

wel

lings

Year

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

2013/2014

2014/2015

2015/2016

2016/2017

2017/2018

2018/2019

2019/2020

2020/2021

Perc

ent C

hang

e in

N

umbe

r of D

wellin

gs

2.

1%

2.0%

2.

0%

2.0%

1.

9%

1.6%

1.

6%

1.5%

1.

5%

1.5%

1.

2%

1.2%

1.

1%

1.1%

1.

1%

Sepa

rate

Dwe

llings

/ Te

rrace

s/Se

mis

/ To

wnho

uses

22

,139

22

,374

22

,609

22

,844

23

,079

23

,314

23

,661

24

,008

24

,356

24

,703

25

,050

25

,323

25

,595

25

,868

26

,140

26

,413

Mul

ti-U

nit D

wellin

gs

1,30

5 1,

566

1,82

7 2,

087

2,34

8 2,

609

2,66

9 2,

730

2,79

0 2,

851

2,91

1 2,

963

3,01

5 3,

066

3,11

8 3,

170

Tota

l inc

ludi

ng

'Oth

er'

23,7

82

24,2

79

24,7

76

25,2

72

25,7

69

26,2

66

26,6

82

27,0

97

27,5

13

27,9

28

28,3

44

28,6

76

29,0

08

29,3

39

29,6

71

30,0

03


4.2 Council’s Existing Approach to Waste ManagementThe following sections describe Council's current approach to waste management, which is underpinned by the Shellharbour City Council Environmental Policy.

A review of best practice waste management for local government and a comparison with Council’s approach and performance is provided in Appendix 3.

4.2.1 Municipal Kerbside Collection Services

Much of the waste produced by residents is recyclable and doesn’t need to go to landfill. Therefore, Council's approach to waste management focuses on the provision of systems that allow residents to separate these recyclable materials from other waste so that they can be recovered.

On 1 July 2008, Council introduced a new three-bin municipal kerbside collection system (see table below).

Belinda: could we replace this box with a table including the same content and layout as the poster you did for the Level 1 reception?

Fortnightly Garbage Collections Council currently provides fortnightly kerbside collection of garbage for all households in either 240 L or 140 L mobile bins. This service was standardised on 1 July 2008 and replaced an optional weekly or fortnightly garbage collection service that was in place prior to this.

Kerbside Recycling Collections A kerbside commingled recycling collection service is currently provided for residents on a fortnightly basis. Prior to 2006 the recycling was collected in split 240 L mobile bins – the front section of the bin held clean paper and cardboard, the back section mixed recyclables including glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles, aluminium and steel cans and milk and juice cartons. In 2006 the divider was removed and the commingled service commenced. Recyclable material is taken by the contractor (Thiess Services) to its materials recovery facility (MRF) at Kembla Grange.

Garden Organics Collections Since 1 July 2008, Council has provided fortnightly kerbside garden organics collection in 240 L mobile bins. Prior to this time, kerbside services for garden organics were less frequent (thirteen times per year).

Council also offers a pay-on-demand irregular collection service for all of the above. This is designed to assist during periods when waste exceeds the normal fortnightly amount.

This system represents the first stage in a two-stage strategy aimed at recovering all recyclables (both dry and organic) prior to landfilling. The second stage involves the co-collection of food and garden organics in the green-top bin and increasing the collection frequency of this bin to weekly. It is expected that this will free up capacity in the garbage bin, so the size of the standard garbage bin could be reduced to 140L.

The second stage is reliant on the establishment of a processing facility capable of processing food organics. Council is currently working with Kiama and Wollongong Council's to develop a business case for such a facility. The business case will look at all available processing options and whether there are benefits in a shared facility.


This approach was developed through research into available options and consultation with residents, and is recognised as "best practice" by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. A summary of the research conducted is provided in Appendix 2.

Understanding and Support for the New Waste Service and Underlying Strategy A citywide survey was undertaken in 2009 to obtain community feedback on the new waste service and determine the level of awareness and understanding of the strategy underpinning it. The survey was undertaken through distribution of an information brochure and reply-paid survey form to all residents, as well as a telephone survey of randomly selected households. It found that 58.2% of households that were aware of the strategy indicated that they understood it, and there was generally a high level of recall about the key messages of the strategy.

It also found that three quarters of households supported the strategy (77.7%), while 5.7% opposed it. The main reason for opposition was a combination of declining size of bins and reduced frequency of collection (19.5%). Some households were also concerned that the new service would increase the costs of either waste disposal or their rates (16%).

A significant proportion, 58.4%, of households surveyed agreed that the strategy addresses the most important waste management issues facing Shellharbour and a lack of information was the main reason for disagreement (15.1%).

4.2.2 Other Municipal Waste Services

On-Call Kerbside Clean Up Service Council provides on-call subsidised kerbside clean up for bulky household items, garden organics and whitegoods.

Household Chemical Clean Out Free household chemical drop-off days are run each year in conjunction with DECCW. The events provide an opportunity for residents to safely dispose of paint, oil, gas cylinders and general household chemicals.

Needle Collection Service Council provides a free needle disposal service at four local pharmacies.

MobileMuster MobileMuster collection boxes for the collection and recycling of mobile phones are provided at Council’s office in Lamerton Crescent, Shellharbour City Centre and at participating local mobile phone retailers.

Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot

Council also provides drop-off facilities at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot (see section 4.2.7 for further details).


4.2.3 Policy

Shellharbour City Council Environmental Policy Council's Environmental Policy states its commitment to the environment and the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development. It provides guidelines for activities undertaken by Council and provides a co-ordinated framework to assist Council work towards achievement of its vision of becoming a sustainable city.

Specific to waste management is the Environment Policy goal to ensure waste is avoided through education and effective resource recovery and that waste management is conducted in an environmentally safe manner. Through adoption of this goal Shellharbour City Council is committed to:

Managing waste and ensuring that the environmental impacts of waste disposal are minimised;

Reducing the impact of hazardous waste through avoidance and appropriate disposal;

Ensuring waste considered to be a resource is effectively recovered and reused;

Encouraging and undertaking activities that avoid waste;

Encouraging and regulating appropriate waste disposal by the community to avoid illegal waste dumping and litter;

Encouraging and undertaking the clean-up of areas affected by litter and waste dumping;

Educating, informing and involving the community in waste avoidance and appropriate waste disposal; and

Monitoring the impacts of waste disposal on the environment.

Waste Minimisation and Management Development Control Plan (Amendment 1) Council's Waste Minimisation and Management Development Control Plan (Amendment 1) (DCP) documents the requirements for development applications to meet Council’s waste minimisation and management objectives. It requires all applications for development (including demolition, subdivision, vegetation removal, excavation, construction and the ongoing use of a site/premise) to include a Solid Waste Minimisation and Management Plan (SWMMP) along with clear illustrations of waste management facilities proposed as part of the development on the plans.

The DCP also provides advice for applicants on how to minimise, reuse and recycle waste from developments, and provides guidance in regards to space, storage, amenity and management of waste management facilities.

Provision of Weekly Garbage Service on Compassionate Grounds The Provision of Weekly Garbage Services on Compassionate Grounds policy was adopted in May 2008 and aims to provide a consistent and equitable approach to the provision of subsidised weekly garbage collection services to households on compassionate grounds.

The policy allows for applications for a special weekly garbage collection from householders who have medical conditions or disabilities that result in the generation of higher than normal quantities of waste.

Fee Reduction Policy – Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot The Fee Reduction Policy – Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot was adopted in August 2007 to provide policy and guidelines for award of a fee reduction or exemption in tipping fees for charities and


assistance with tipping fees and supply and delivery of shredded garden organics and sand and soil products for single specific projects.

Waste Avoidance and Management Policy for Special Events in Public Places

Council's Waste Avoidance and Management Policy for Special Events in Public Places has been in place since 2005 and requires that all events on public grounds project a positive environmental message via the implementation of responsible waste avoidance and resource recovery strategies.

The policy seeks to ensure that:

Waste avoidance and resource recovery strategies are incorporated as an integral part of special events core planning processes.

A completed Waste Management Plan is submitted for all events that require permission from Council to be held on public land.

The amount of waste generated by an event is reduced or recovered as recyclable materials.

Event organisers and their stakeholders are required to implement responsible purchasing and waste avoidance strategies.

Event vendors and caterers are required to use appropriate environmentally friendly packaging without compromising public health and safe food handling regulations.

Effective utilisation of resource recovery systems (bin stations) are implemented at all events within the LGA.

Environmentally Sustainable Building Design for Council Buildings These guidelines provide a list of design requirements for new Council buildings. Specific to waste management is the goal to ensure that the development’s design, construction and operation maximise the use of recycled materials and minimise waste generation. This is in addition to the requirements to:

Ensure that the development complies with the provisions of Council's Waste Minimisation and Management Development Control Plan; and

Provide composting and mulching facilities to enable the reuse of all garden organics on-site.

4.2.4 Litter Collection and Management

General There are approximately three hundred 240 L (mobile bin style) litter bins distributed throughout the city. These bins are serviced by Thiess Services (the waste collection contractor) generally two or three days per week (depending on bin location) during the cooler months and three or four days per week (again, depending on bin location) during the warmer months.


A large number of metal ‘barrel bins’ have also been placed in parks and reserves throughout the city. These bins are serviced by Council Parks and Gardens staff and manually emptied into a Council ute and transported to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot for disposal. These barrel bins are generally located in areas where truck access is restricted or where other factors make it difficult for the contractor to access the bins.

A number of sporting fields are serviced by three cubic metre front-lift bins. The bins are locked and sporting clubs who use the fields are provided with keys. Clubs are also provided with metal barrel bins, which they place out around the ground during sporting events. The barrel bins are then emptied into the front-lift bins at the end of the event before being packed away (generally in an amenities building at the sports field). The front-lift bins are also serviced by Thiess Services under a separate contract to the kerbside collection and MRF contract.

The Shellharbour City Council (2009) State of the Environment Comprehensive Report 0809 states that there were 26 litter/dumping complaints received by Council during the 2008/2009 financial year, which represented an increase over the previous year when 15 litter/dumping complaints were received.

There is currently no pubic place infrastructure for the recovery of recyclables (other than at special events). The focus to date has been on the management of litter rather than on resource recovery. There may be opportunity for a co-ordinated approach to public place recycling in the future.

Clean Up Australia Council regularly assists with the co-ordination of clean up efforts associated with Clean Up Australia Day.

Surveillance and Enforcement Council’s Compliance Rangers investigate complaints relating to littering. Where the offender is identified, an on the spot fine may be issued.

Gross Pollutant Traps A number of litter traps have been installed throughout the city’s stormwater network to help prevent litter from entering waterways. This is recognised to be an end of pipe measure.

Annual Lake Foreshore Clean Up Council supports the annual Lake Illawarra Foreshore Clean Up (most recently 1 November 2009) by assisting with co-ordination, publicising and providing volunteers. The Lake Illawarra Clean Up is a joint initiative between Shellharbour Council City, Wollongong City Council and the Lake Illawarra Authority.

4.2.5 Illegal Dumping Management Practices

Council’s Compliance Rangers investigate complaints relating to illegal dumping and abandoned vehicles. Where the offender is identified, an on the spot fine may be issued. Additionally, the offender is required to remove the refuse or this is done by Council at the offender’s expense.

The Shellharbour City Council (2009) State of the Environment Comprehensive Report 0809 states that there were 109 abandoned vehicles during the 2008/2009 financial year, which represented an increase over the previous year when 91 vehicles were abandoned. In addition, Council was aware of four illegal fill incidents in 2008/2009, which is the same as the previous year.


Illegal Dumping at Charity Bins and Stores There has been a problem with illegal dumping at charity bins and charity stores. To address the issue new criteria have been developed for the management of charity bins. This has resulted in bins being moved to locations where there is generally more control/surveillance of the site.

The problem continues at a number of charity stores where people dump material after dark. Council’s fee reduction policy (Fee Reduction Policy – Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot) provides a limited exemption on tipping fees for charities that clean up the material themselves.

Figure 4-4 Illegal dumping

4.2.6 Services to the Commercial and Industrial Sector

Council offers local businesses the same kerbside waste and recycling collection services that it provides to residents. Those businesses that choose to take up a Council service are charged in a similar manner to households (through a waste management charge on their rates). Currently 411 out of approximately 2913 businesses4 within the local government area use a Council provided waste and recycling collection service (14%).

4.2.7 Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot Management and Operations

The Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is located at Buckley Road, Dunmore and is owned and operated by Council. The site covers an area of approximately 60 ha.

The Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot contains a Resource Recovery Centre (RRC), a site office and public weighbridge, a transfer station, processing areas for virgin excavated natural materials (VENM) and garden and demolition wastes, a Class 1 solid waste landfill, stormwater and leachate management ponds and a sand dredging and washing operation. The locations of these facilities can be seen in Figure 4-5. 4 Australian Bureau of Statistics


The facility currently operates under two separate Environment Protection Licences – one for landfilling and one for resource recovery (Licences 5984 and Licence 12903).


Leac

hate

pon

ds

Wei

ghbr

idge

and

O

ffice

Res

ourc

e R

ecov

ery

Cen

tre

Site

Ent

ranc

e

Gar

den

was

te

stoc

kpile

s

Tran

sfer

Sta

tion

Cur

rent

land

fillin

g

C&D

mat

eria

l sto

ckpi

ling

and

proc

essi

ng

Sand

or s

oil

stoc

kpili

ng a

nd

proc

essi

ng

Sand

ext

ract

ion

Reha

bilit

ated

la

ndfil

l

Stor

mw

ater

re

tent

ion

pond

s

Stor

mw

ater

re

tent

ion

pond

Lice

nce

1290

3 Ar

ea

Lice

nce

5984

Are

a

Figu

re 4

-5

Dun

mor

e R

ecyc

ling

and

Was

te D

ispo

sal D

epot


Resource Recovery Centre Construction of a Resource Recovery Centre was completed at the site in September 1997. It comprises two buildings with a total enclosed space of 297 m2, as well as external areas used for the collection and storage of various materials.

The Resource Recovery Centre is operated under contract by Warrigal Employment (a business unit of the Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation) and offers free drop-off of:

Glass;

Paper;

Cardboard;

Liquid paperboard;

Aluminium and steel cans;

HDPE bottles;

PET bottles;

Plastic (other recyclable);

Ferrous metals;

Non-ferrous metals;

Whitegoods;

Timber;

Pallets;

Crates;

Pressure vessels (gas bottles);

Oil (motor);

Oil (cooking);

Hot water units;

Lead sulphate batteries; and

Saleable goods.

Residents entering the site are directed through a circular path past a series of collection bays used to hold reusable and recyclable materials such as glass, aluminium and steel, precious metals, whitegoods, paper and cardboard.

Second-hand goods, including building materials, household furniture and appliances, sporting equipment, books and toys are also sold at the Resource Recovery Centre. Many of these items are recovered from mixed waste sorted at the householder transfer station.

The Resource Recovery Centre operates reasonably well and has community support. However, it cannot accommodate the volume of visitors during busy periods and has inadequate car parking which results in conflicts between those accessing the Resource Recovery Centre and those accessing the transfer station and landfill.

Small Vehicle Transfer Station After passing through the Resource Recovery Centre, small vehicle customers are directed to a transfer station. The transfer station consists of a vertical drop wall approximately 65 m in length with a horizontal removable chain attached to posts for safety. Vehicle sizes to the transfer station are limited to 2 tonnes.

Customers are required to separate mixed loads into another series of collection bays for garden organics, clean fill, steel, timber, bricks and concrete, cardboard, mattresses and mixed waste. Dedicated areas are also set aside for other wastes including white goods, oils and batteries. Those materials are then stockpiled and reprocessed/reused on-site, resold at the Resource Recovery Centre or sent offsite for further processing.

The Transfer Station is also operated under contract by Warrigal Employment. Staff regularly transfer materials to the Resource Recovery Centre.

Construction and Demolition Waste Construction and demolition waste is received at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Differential charging encourages source separation of concrete, brick and tile. Crushing of these materials is undertaken intermittently by external contactors when stockpiles reach a sufficient size.


Reprocessed (crushed) concrete, brick and tile is sold and used for sub-grade preparation for road and building projects. VENM is either is resold or used onsite for operational purposes such as landfill cell construction and backfilling of the excavations created by the sand mining operation.

Garden Organics A dedicated area is set aside for the receival of garden organics. Garden organics are mulched, and stockpiled where rudimentary composting occurs. The composted material is sold for use in rehabilitation works and landscaping and is also made available free of charge to residents (a small charge applies if assistance is required with loading).

Figure 4-6 Garden organics being delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot

There is presently a limited demand for this product and stockpiles are steadily increasing.

Landfill and Sand Extraction Sand is extracted in cells in advance of the landfilling operations. As the groundwater level is approximately 1 m below the surface, large ponds are created by the operation. These are backfilled with VENM prior to landfill construction.

Landfill construction consists of placement of an engineered leachate barrier and collection system. Waste is then placed and compacted in lifts of up to two metres in thickness and covered at the end of each day. Once each cell has been filled, it is capped and rehabilitated.

Large trucks carrying mixed and non-recoverable wastes are directed via the weighbridge to the landfill tipping face.

Landfill operators remove some of the recyclable materials delivered to the tipping face, but this is generally limited to metals. Resource Recovery Centre staff collect this recovered material and transfer it back to the Centre.

The estimated remaining life of the landfill is in the order of 15 years.


4.2.8 Data Collection and Management

Data collection is important to inform Council about its performance and track trends over time. It also provides a basis for targeting certain areas for improvement and enables Council to determine how much improvement is possible.

Waste Quantities A weighbridge is in operation at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Council has data on quantities of waste crossing the weighbridge at Dunmore, including materials collected at kerbside, going back to at least 2000. Council’s collection contractor also collects data on deliveries to the Materials Recover Facility.

Waste Composition Waste is classified as it enters the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Customers and vehicles are classified as either municipal, commercial and industrial or construction and demolition. Each load is then classified into sub-categories. These subcategories cover:

Municipal Waste

Shellharbour kerbside garbage;

Shellharbour kerbside mixed clean up waste, white goods and vegetation;

Shellharbour City Council mixed waste and vegetation

Vegetation and mixed waste delivered by small vehicles

Kiama kerbside garbage

VENM – rock and clean fill

Steel

Shellharbour City Council vegetation

Bricks and concrete

Mattresses

Commercial and Industrial

Mixed waste weighed

Tyres

Animals

Mixed waste delivered by small vehicles

Waste delivered by charities

Glass

Asbestos

Steel and non-ferrous metals

Oil

Vegetation of different sizes

Construction and Demolition

Wood

Mixed waste weighed

VENM – Rock and clean fill

Soil other than VENM

Bricks and concrete

Tiles and ceramics

Aggregate


Council has, therefore, weight data for these kinds of categories going back to 2000.

Data on kerbside collected recyclables is also provided by Council’s collection contractor, Thiess Services.

The first known waste audit to determine the composition of the municipal steam was conducted in Shellharbour in 1997 (APrince Consulting 1997). No more are known to have been conducted until 2008 when EC Sustainable was commissioned to perform an audit according to the NSW DECCW methodologies5. EC Sustainable completed a similar audit using the same method in 2009.

4.2.9 Waste Education

Council’s approach to community waste education is set out in Council’s (2008) Shellharbour Community Waste Education Strategy. The strategy aims to:

Ensure Shellharbour residents take ownership and personal responsibility for waste;

Ensure Shellharbour residents view waste and a resource;

Ensure Shellharbour residents have a sound understanding of the services Council provides (i.e. the physical services and the environmental benefits); and

Ensure Shellharbour residents are equipped with the knowledge and skills required to actively participate in waste avoidance, reduction, reuse and recycling.

Some of the key initiatives currently being implemented under this strategy are outlined below.

Waste Services Website Council’s contractor manages an interactive waste services website to provide information about domestic waste management and recycling services and additional educational information. The site is accessible as a link from the Council website (www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au).

Earthworks Classes Council offers free Earthworks courses to residents throughout the year. These courses combine information with practical hands-on components and cover topics such as recycling, composting, worm farming and other waste reduction techniques. Courses are generally run one to two times per month.

Earthworks Courses are also available for groups (childcare/preschool, educational facilities, service and community groups).

Other Activities Other waste education and related activities undertaken include:

Campaigns in local newspapers;

School visits;

Displays and promotions for National Recycling Week;

World Environment Day activities;

Co-ordination of Clean Up Australia Day and Clean Up the Lake Day.

5 Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2007


4.2.10 Pricing and Forward Financial Planning

Costs Associated with the Management of Waste There are numerous costs associated with managing waste and these can be considered in three broad categories:

Up-front costs – initial investments and expenses necessary to implement waste management services such as community engagement and education, land acquisition, planning and construction;

Operating costs – ongoing expense including operations and maintenance, capital costs, debt service and unexpected costs; and

Back-end costs – costs associated with closure, rehabilitation and aftercare of landfills and other facilities at the end of their useful lives.

Some of the key current operating costs associated with provision of waste management services and operation of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot include:

Collection costs (including Contractor and MRF delivery fees, Council operated bulky waste collection vehicle operation and maintenance costs and day labour costs);

Waste education;

Operating costs for the Resource Recovery Centre, transfer station and landfill (including plant replacement, staff salaries, contract fees, materials and supplies, environmental monitoring and reporting, fuel and maintenance of plant and equipment etc);

Administration and project management costs; and

The s88 Waste and Environmental Levy.

Some of the key future (or back-end) costs that Council will be required to meet include:

Proposed CPRS liabilities (cost of permits to cover emissions from landfill);

Ongoing aftercare and monitoring costs; and

Building/equipment decommissioning and landfill closure and rehabilitation.

Current Cost Recovery and Forward Financial Planning Arrangements The above section shows that while some of the costs are incurred immediately, other costs will be incurred in the future or are incurred over a longer period of time and will continue to be incurred long after the landfill and other facilities are closed.

Council must recover the past (up-front), current operating and future back-end costs of providing waste management services and infrastructure to its community. Council currently sources funding to recover the waste management costs from a combination of sources:

The Domestic Waste Management Charge (part of the annual Council rates);

Revenue from the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot (tipping fees); and

General Revenue (the basic fund for Council’s budget expenditure).

In order to provide for future back-end costs and ensure funds are available for these costs, Council can place funds in restriction.


Council internally restricts 50% of profits from the sale of sand and placement of approved fill below the water table at the Depot. This internal restricted asset is used to contribute towards future development works and equipment purchases necessary for operation of the Depot. Sand reserves at the Depot are expected to be exhausted within two to three years. Contributions to this restriction would cease at that time.

The Local Government Act 1993 requires all Council’s to levy a fee to residents to meet the costs of kerbside collection and waste management services. This fee is known as the Domestic Waste Management Charge. It is levied to properties each year and it includes a surcharge for future costs. The funds raised through this surcharge are placed in reserve. The landfill tipping fee also includes an allowance for future costs.

It is noted that revenue from the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is currently directed to general revenue – the basic fund for Council’s budget expenditure. Consequently, necessary capital works at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is considered in conjunction with all other proposed works and not directly funded from the tipping fees. The proportion of funds which may be allocated from the Domestic Waste Management Charge is relative to the percentage of domestic waste compared with the total waste accepted at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. The remaining proportion of the cost is funded from general revenue.


4.3 Current Data Trends This section provides details of Shellharbour City’s waste quantities and recovery statistics and trends and the results of projected waste quantities and recovery for each of the municipal, C&I and C&D sectors up to 2021. It also shows the City’s waste stream characteristics and highlights potential recovery both at kerbside and at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Finally, household behaviours and attitudes from the recent (Iris Research 2009) survey are also presented.

4.3.1 Waste Quantity Trends and Recovery from Landfill

The figures below are based on weighbridge data for the years 2000/2001 to 2008/2009.

In 2008/2009 a total of 90,472 tonnes of waste entered Council’s waste management system (including material collected from the kerbside, material managed at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot and material recycled at Council’s collection contractor’s MRF). Of this total, 43,062 tonnes was landfilled (48%) and 47,410 (52%) was recovered.

Total Landfilled Waste In 2008/2009, 43,062 tonnes of waste from Shellharbour City Council area went to landfill at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. The source of this waste is shown in Table 4-4 below.

Table 4-4 Source of Waste Landfilled at Dunmore in 2008/2009

Source Quantity (t) Percent

Municipal 25,357 58.9%

Kerbside Garbage 12,313

Kerbside Garbage (Kiama) 4,882

Self-hauled Mixed Waste 8,162

Commercial and Industrial 9,897 23.0%

Construction and Demolition 7,808 18.1%

Total 43,062 100%

This is shown in Figure 4-7.


Figure 4-7 - Composition of the Waste Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Landfilled Municipal Waste Of the quantity of municipal waste landfilled, most (12,313 t or about 49%) was kerbside residential garbage from Shellharbour.6 This equates to approximately 194kg of waste generated per person per year, based on kerbside garbage figures alone. Another 4,882 t, (about 19%) was Kiama’s kerbside garbage. Another 6,919t (about 27%) was delivered directly to the landfill by small vehicles. The balance was mixed Council waste and some mixed clean-up waste.

Landfilled C&I Waste The C&I waste landfilled was made up of more than half (5,677 t or 58%) mixed waste delivered by commercial operators. Another 4,067 t (41%) was glass7. The balance included tyres, animals, self-hauled small vehicle waste and waste from charities.

Landfilled C&D Waste 7,808t of C&D waste landfilled was mixed waste. This typically consists of unsorted building waste delivered to the facility in skip bins.

6 Council reported in its Yearly Local Government Waste and Resource Recovery Data return that 11,664.85 t of domestic waste

was collected at kerbside for disposal to landfill in 2008-2009. 7 This was residual glass fines from the Thiess Services MRF at Whytes Gully. This glass waste resulted from all materials processed through the MRF, not just that delivered by Shellharbour. The MRF operator, Thiess Services, has begun diverting this material for reprocessing, resulting in a significant reduction in quantities in 2009.

Composition of the Waste Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Commercial & Industrial 23%

Municipal Other19%

Municipal Kerbside40%

Construction & Demolition

18%


Total Resource Recovery In 2008/2009, 30,469 tonnes of waste from Shellharbour City Council was recovered. The sources of this waste are shown in Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5 Source of Resource Recovery 2008/2009

Source Quantity (t)

Municipal 20,006

Kerbside Recycling 6,514

Kerbside Garden Organics 6,726

Self-hauled Recycling 2,453

Self-hauled Garden Organics 4,313

Commercial and Industrial 1,563

Construction and Demolition 8,900

Total 30,469

Figure 4-8 - Composition of the waste stream recovered at Dunmore

Composition of Waste Stream Recovered

Construction & Demolition, 29.2%

Commercial & Industrial, 5.1%

Municipal Other, 22.2%

Municipal Kerbside, 43.5%


Recovered Municipal Waste The bulk of the recovered municipal material is that collected at the kerbside with 6,514t of recyclables (32.5%) and 6,726 t of garden organics (33.6%). Another 4,313t (21.5%) is garden organics deposited by small vehicles and Council vehicles at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Another 2,453t (12.2%) is recyclable material, including household recyclables as well as bulky recyclables such as cardboard, steel, mattresses, whitegoods and small quantities of brick and tile delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.

Recovered C&I Waste Vegetation makes up the bulk of the recovered C&I waste. Of the 1,563 t recovered, 1,306 t (84%) is garden organics and another 224 t (14%) is metals. The balance is a small amount of oil.

Recovered C&D Waste Most of the C&D waste recovered consists of VENM (rock and clean fill), 15,474 t (58%) and concrete, 6,666 t (25%). Soil (not VENM) with 2,334 t (9%) and brick with 1,780 t (7%) are the next most recovered materials. The balance is tiles and ceramics.


Municipal Waste Trends

Projected Municipal Waste Quantities

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

2000

/2001

2001

/2002

2002

/2003

2003

/2004

2004

/2005

2005

/2006

2006

/2007

2007

/2008

2008

/2009

2009

/2010

2010

/2011

2011

/2012

2012

/2013

2013

/2014

2014

/2015

2015

/2016

2016

/2017

2017

/2018

2018

/2019

2019

/2020

2020

/2021

Year

Tonn

es

Landfill KerbsideLandfill Other MunicipalResource RecoveryKerbside Recycling

Figure 4-9 Projected Municipal Waste Quantities to 2020/2021

Figure 4-9 above shows actual municipal waste quantities recorded between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009 and quantities projected to 2021. The projections are based on the average amounts generated per person in Shellharbour. These are shown in Table 4-6 below.

The figures for landfilled waste are based on an average of 0.44 tonnes per person per year, the average amount of landfilled waste generated per person between 2004/2005 and 2008/2009.

To arrive at the figures in Figure 4-, the average per person in each case was multiplied by the projected population each year into the future. Under this scenario, the amount of all material landfilled will rise steadily, exceeding 31,000 tonnes by 2018/2019.

Kerbside and self hauled waste tonnages will be directly influenced by population. That is, as the population increases, the quantities of kerbside and self hauled material will increase. There is a lack of composition data on self hauled material; therefore it is not possible to know exactly what this wastesource is made up of. However, it can be assumed that municipal waste disposed of by this method would most likely be material that exceeds the capacity provided in the kerbside bin or too bulky to fit in.


Table 4-6 Waste Amounts per Person – 2000/2001-2008/2009

Mun

icip

al

Was

te

2000

/200

1

2001

/200

2

2002

/200

3

2003

/200

4

2004

/200

5

2005

/200

6

2006

/200

7

2007

/200

8

2008

/200

9

Ave

rage

20

00/2

001-

2008

/200

9

Aver

age

2004

/200

5-20

08/2

009

Kerbside Landfill 0.33 0.33 0.38 0.37 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.39 0.40 0.44

Other Municipal Landfill 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.15

Resource Recovery 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.16 0.16

Kerbside Recycling 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09


C&I Waste Trends Figure 4-10 below show C&I waste quantities for each year between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009.

C&I Waste Quantities

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Year

Tonn

es

LandfillResource Recovery

Figure 4-10 C&I Waste Quantities

The quantity of material received at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot has decreased since 2002/2003. This could be attributed to increases in the NSW Waste and Environment Levy. As a result landfill fees have increased, and C&I operators may be looking for alternate disposal options prior to landfilling.


Projected C&I Waste Quantities

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2000

/2001

2001

/2002

2002

/2003

2003

/2004

2004

/2005

2005

/2006

2006

/2007

2007

/2008

2008

/2009

2009

/2010

2010

/2011

2011

/2012

2012

/2013

2013

/2014

2014

/2015

2015

/2016

2016

/2017

2017

/2018

2018

/2019

2019

/2020

2020

/2021

Year

Tonn

es


Figure 4-11 Projected C&I Waste Quantities to 2020/2021

Figure 4-1 above shows actual C&I waste quantities recorded between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009 and quantities projected to 2021. Council’s projections show no increase in waste generation after 2009 and it’s possible they may even fall due to the affect of the NSW Waste and Environment Levy and because a number of other disposal sites in the region compete for C&I waste. Because it is thought so little C&I waste passes though Council’s system, reliably estimating C&I waste generation in the region is difficult and unreliable.


C&D Waste Trends Figure 4-2 below shows C&D waste quantities for each year between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009.

C&D Waste Quantities

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009Year

Tonn

es


Figure 4-12 C&D Waste Quantities

Annual variations in C&D waste received and reprocessed are largely attributed to the timing of major works conducted throughout the region and the demand for materials used in onsite operations.

Both landfilled and recovered materials show slight downward trends since 2004/2005. This may be due to a combination of effects not the least of which would be increases in landfill fees to due the NSW Waste and Environment Levy and competition from other inert landfills which have been accepting non-putrescible waste as fill material at a lower fee than that charged at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.


Projected C&D Waste Quantities

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

2000

/2001

2001

/2002

2002

/2003

2003

/2004

2004

/2005

2005

/2006

2006

/2007

2007

/2008

2008

/2009

2009

/2010

2010

/2011

2011

/2012

2012

/2013

2013

/2014

2014

/2015

2015

/2016

2016

/2017

2017

/2018

2018

/2019

2019

/2020

2020

/2021

Year

Tonn

es


Figure 4-13 Projected C&D Waste Quantities to 2020/2021

Figure 4-3 above shows actual C&D waste quantities recorded between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009 and quantities projected to 2021. Quantities recovered for operational purposes (VENM and other materials) are not included. The projections for are based the average amounts generated between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009 and increased each year after 2008/2009 by the projected increases in the number of dwellings in Shellharbour. This assumes that C&D waste generation is a function of residential building activity, changes in which can be measured by changes in the number of dwellings. The projected percent changes in the number of dwellings each year are shown in Table 4-3.

There has been considerable variation in the amounts of both landfilled and recovered C&D waste each year and this makes accurate prediction of amounts into the future difficult. In general it is clear that the amounts recovered will exceed those landfilled and that both amounts are likely to increased. The amounts generated in 2008/2009 are low compared to previous years and this may be due to the other facilities accepting non-putrescible waste as fill material at a lower fee than changed at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. The life of the filling at these facilities are limited and acceptance of waste there is expected to end in the near future. However, other operators are expected to open inert landfills in the future and this makes it difficult to predict quantities likely to be delivered to Dunmore.


4.3.2 Waste Stream Characteristics and Contamination

Kerbside Waste Stream Recent audits of Shellharbour’s kerbside waste by EC Sustainable in 2008 and 2009 have provided up-to-date data on the composition of the kerbside garbage and recycling streams. These results are covered in detail in EC Sustainable’s reports but some are shown here .The audits included both the garbage and recycling streams in 2008 but only the garbage stream in 2009 after the introduction of a kerbside bin service for garden organics. In the following section therefore, figures for garbage are those for 2009 while figures for recyclables are for 2008.

Figure 4-74 Composition of the Kerbside Garbage Stream

Figure 4-74 shows the composition of the average kerbside garbage bin in Shellharbour in 2009 by weight (per household per week) and percent. The average Shellharbour garbage bin contains 10.17kg per week. The detailed composition has been aggregated into some key categories. The most obvious feature is the proportion of food, at 40% (4.08 kg per household per week). The proportion of materials that could be recovered through the existing system in Shellharbour is 22% (2.28 kg per household per week).

The issue of the amount of food in the garbage stream is important. If 40% of the kerbside garbage from Shellharbour and Kiama disposed of at the landfill is food, this is about 6,900 t per year. Diverting this material from landfill would reduce Shellharbour’s liability under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

Composition of the Garbage Streamper Household per Week by Weight and Percentage

0.76

1.25

3.81

40%4.08

3%0.27

7%

12%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Garbage (2009) Garbage (2009)

OtherRecoverable ContainersRecoverable paperGreen organicsFood

Kilograms Percentage

Percentage


Figure 4-85 Composition of the Kerbside Recycling Stream 2008

Figure 4-85 shows the composition of the kerbside recycling stream in Shellharbour in 2008 by weight (per household per week) and percent. The average Shellharbour recycling bin contains 5.2kg per week. The detailed composition has been aggregated into some key categories. Most of the recycling is paper at 53% (2.19 kg per household per week). There is a small proportion of contamination, a total of 5% (190 g per household per week).

Data collected in the two audits for both the garbage and recycling streams allows some key performance indicators to be calculated.

Composition of the Recycling Streamper Household per Week by Weight and Percentage

2.75

2.19

0.19

1.2%0.06 0%0.01

42%

53%

1.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Recycling (2008) Recycling (2008)

Percentage OtherRecoverable ContainersRecoverable paperGreen organicsFood

Kilograms Percentage


Kerbside Recycling Recovery Rates by Material2008/2009

52.3

%

81.4

%

50.5

%

85.4

%

75.5

%

56.0

%

69.9

%

71.4

%

57.5

%

23.4

% 29.8

%

29.2

%

22.7

%

76.8

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aluminiu

m

Glass Con

taine

rsStee

lPap

er

Cardbo

ard

Liquid

pape

rboard

PET (1)

HDPE (2)

PVC (3)

LDPE (4

)PP (5

)PS (6

)

Other Plas

tics (7

)

Overal

l Rec

overy

Material

Figure 4-96 Kerbside Recovery Rates by Material - 2008/2009

Figure 4-96 shows the recovery rate for a range of recyclable materials collected at the kerbside in Shellharbour. The figures do not include garden organics as, although a service is provided by Council, it was not included in the audit. The best recovered materials are paper (85.4%) and glass containers (81.4%) with cardboard (75.5%), HDPE (71.4%) and PET (69.9%) at or above 70%. Poorly recovered materials include polypropylene (29.8%), polystyrene (29.2%), LDPE (23.4%) and other plastics (22.7%). Overall recovery is 76.8% in 2008/2009.


Actual and Potential Kerbside Diversion Rates2008/2009

49.1%

9.8%

1.3%

19.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

If all food waste divertedIf all green waste divertedIf all recyclables divertedActual diversion

Figure 4-107 Actual and Potential Kerbside Recovery Rates

Figure 4-107 shows actual and potential kerbside recovery rates in 2008/2009. Actual kerbside recoveryin 2008/2009 was 49.1% and includes garden organics. Potential recovery for recyclables is 9.8% while for garden organics it is 1.3%. This means that an additional 11.2% recovery is achievable if residents properly separated all their dry recyclables and green waste. A further 19.9% could be achieved if all food waste was separated and collected for processing.


Waste Delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot Shellharbour City Council records the amounts of a range of waste materials delivered to its Dunmore Landfill and its broad source stream. The following charts show the composition of these source streams.

Composition of the Municipal Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Shellharbour Kerbside Garbage, 46.8%

Kerbside Clean up - Mixed, 0.3%Council - Mixed, 9.2%

Small Vehicles - Mixed, 24.6%

Kiama Kerbside Garbage, 19.2%

Figure 4-118 Composition of the Municipal Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Figure 4-118 shows the composition of the municipal stream landfilled at Dunmore. Almost half of this stream is kerbside waste collected in Shellharbour. About a quarter is delivered by small vehicles. Some recovery of materials may occur when mixed waste delivered by small vehicles is tipped at the transfer station. Recovery of any of this material will require it to be separated in some way into its components.


Composition of the Municipal Stream Recovered at Dunmore

Small vehicles - steel, 10.7%

Clean up - whitegoods, 4.7%

Kerbside - Vegetation, 22.2%

Council - Vegetation, 10.1%

Small vehicles - Vegetation, 39.3%

Bricks & concrete, 12.8%Mattresses, 0.2%

Clean up - Vegetation, 0.04%

Figure 4-19 Composition of the Municipal Stream Recovered at Dunmore

Figure 4-11 shows the average composition of the municipal stream recovered at the Dunmore facility between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009. The largest proportion is garden organics delivered by small vehicles. Vegetation collected by one means or another, forms a total of 71.6% of all the material recovered at Dunmore.


Composition of the C&I Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Weighed mixed waste, 73.4%

Animals, 0.1%Other (rejects), 0.5%

Small vehicles - Mixed, 1.8%Charity, 0.4%

MRF glass, 23.6%

Figure 4-120 Composition of the C&I Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Figure 4-120 shows the composition of material classified as commercial waste and landfilled at Dunmore. This is the average proportion of materials between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009. The largest proportion by far is weighed mixed waste. It is likely that this stream contains recoverable materials and some form of separation will be required if this material is to be recovered. The high proportion of glass is residual material from the Whytes Gully MRF. Quantities of this material have been significantly reduced in 2009 after MRF operator, Thiess Services, began diverting it for reprocessing.


Composition of the C&I Stream Recovered at Dunmore

Steel, 39.3%

Non-Ferrous, 5.4%Oil, 0.2%

Vegetation less than 150mm, 47.5%

Wood - Vegetation greater than 150mm, 2.6%

Small vehicles - Vegetation, 5.1%

Figure 4-131 Composition of the C&I Stream Recovered at Dunmore

Figure 4-131 shows the average composition of the commercial stream recovered at the Dunmore facility between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009. The largest proportion is garden organics less than 150 mm in size with steel also forming a significant proportion. Only two materials, vegetation and metals, form almost 100% of this stream.


Composition of the C&D Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Weighed mixed waste, 99.9%

Wood - Vegetation greater than 150mm, 0.1%

Figure 4-142 Composition of the C&D Stream Landfilled at Dunmore

Figure 4-142 shows the average composition of the C&D material landfilled at Dunmore between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009. This stream is almost entirely weighed mixed waste. The composition of this waste is largely unknown.


Composition of the C&D Stream Recovered at Dunmore

Venm - Rock, 21.2%

Venm - Cleanfill, 44.4%

Soil (not VENM), 7.0%

Brick, 7.2%

Concrete, 11.9%

Concrete (Hardfill), 7.4%Tile/ceramics, 0.6%

Aggregate, 0.1%Small vehicles - Concrete, 0.2%

Figure 4-153 Composition of the C&D Stream Recovered at Dunmore

Figure 4-153 shows the composition of C&D waste recovered at the Dunmore facility. VENM (virgin excavated natural material) as either rock or clean fill, makes up the bulk of this stream. This material is used for operational purposes on-site such as daily cover at the landfill and rehabilitation of the sand mining operations. Other significant materials include concrete (11.9%), concrete hardfill8 (7.4%) and brick (7.2%).

8 A hard to separate mixture of concrete, brick, tile, rock and earth. This materials is also generally used on-site for working surfaces.

Key Considerationsfor Moving Forward5


5 Key Considerations for Moving Forward

This section discusses the key issues identified and highlights priority areas for consideration in developing actions and initiatives to improve waste management in the City and work towards Council’s vision for the community.

5.1 Council's Sphere of Influence and Priority Waste Sectors Some councils, including Shellharbour, provide waste services to some small businesses as part of the residential service. Others operate fully competitive commercial waste collection business units.

Despite this local government’s responsibilities in Australia generally extend no further than municipal waste, that is waste generated from residential dwellings and from councils’ own activities. Local Government has little or no regulatory control over waste generated from commercial and industrial sources. Councils cannot require businesses to recycle or direct them to take their waste to a particular location or dispose of it in a particular way. A large proportion of C&I waste is managed by operators other than Council. Further, businesses are not required to report any waste information to governments at any level.

This makes it difficult for councils to influence commercial waste generation and reduction or to even collect information about waste generation from the commercial sector.

Similarly, some councils (including Shellharbour) own and operate recycling and/or waste depots that accept construction and demolition waste. However Council has little influence over the practices of the construction and demolition sector. Although Shellharbour City Council offers disposal and recycling services for materials from the construction and demolition sector, only a portion of waste generated from this sector is handled at Council's facility.

Overall, the majority of waste recycled or disposed of at Council's Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is from municipal sources. Given these factors and the fact that Council has only a minor influence over the commercial and industrial and construction and demolition sectors, it would be prudent for Council to focus its efforts on improving performance in the municipal sector in the short-term (Horizon 1).

Furthermore, to maximise the efficiency of available resources it would make sense to focus time and funds towards actions that would have the most significant benefits. By targeting the ‘low hanging fruit’, Council can get the most out of its funds in the short-term and then undertake other beneficial actions in the longer-term.

Actions to improve performance of the municipal sector should be given higher priority than the commercial and industrial and construction and demolition sectors, at least in the short-term (Horizon 1).

Priority should also be given to ‘big-ticket’ items – actions that have potential to make significant improvements to performance.


5.2 Municipal Waste Stream As previously discussed, Council's have the greatest influence over municipal waste, as it is Council's responsibility to provide waste services to its residents.

Of the 40,830t of material landfilled at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot during 2008/2009, 25,357t was received from municipal sources, which equates to 62% of the total material landfilled. Due to this sector being the largest contributor to landfill, it is the area for greatest gains in relation to resource recovery.

Current municipal recovery rates are 53.8%, which is below the WARR target of 66% by 2014.

Of the 25,357t of material from municipal sources, 12,313t was collected through the kerbside garbage bin. An audit of the kerbside garbage bin conducted in 2009 indicated that 40% of the material in the garbage bin was food waste. The removal of this food waste and the processing of it through an AWT would reduce the amount of kerbside material landfilled annually by approximately 4,925t. Small improvements to recovery levels can be made through education. For example, the kerbside audit conducted in 2009 indicated that 19% of the garbage bin was made up of recoverable paper and containers. Strategies to improve and encourage separation should be developed. However, the only realistic way of achieving the WARR target of 66% by 2014 is through food processing.

The importance of this has already been identified by Council and progress has already been made in this area. Following consultation with the community, a three-bin system was implemented on 1 July 2008 for municipal kerbside collection.

The current three-bin system is the first phase of a two stage approach. The second phase would involve conversion to weekly collection of food and garden organics using the current 240L green-top bin. This stage will commence once the processing facility is operational. Following the recovery of food waste, further improvements to recovery levels could be achieved by processing the residual component. Treating this component of the waste stream is more complex (than organics) and should be investigated in the later planning horizons (Horizon 2-3).

Not only will the recovery of food waste from landfill greatly assist our city in reaching the WARR target of 66%, it will also reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from the landfill and hence, the community's liability under a future CPRS. As previously discussed, the proposed CPRS will be a key driver for businesses to respond to climate change and organisations that meet the threshold will be required to purchase carbon permits, which would result in another levy charged to residents on the disposal of waste to landfill. Organic material in landfill biodegrades anaerobically and as a result produces methane and carbon dioxide (landfill gas). Methane is considered a highly potent greenhouse gas, and would therefore contribute significantly to the overall emissions generated from the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. The recovery of food waste from landfill will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and may even result in Shellharbour falling outside of the CPRS threshold.

Small improvements in recovery from the municipal sector may be achieved through education and changes in household behaviour, but in order to meet the 66% recovery target by 2014 and significantly increase kerbside performance, recovery of food organics would be required. The only viable way to achieve this would be to treat food waste at a processing facility.

Therefore, actions to increase recovery of food from the waste stream should be prioritised.


5.3 Commercial and Industrial Waste Stream As previously discussed, council's have limited influence over C&I waste. This is also the case for material entering the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. The quantity of material that reaches the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is not considered to be a true reflection of the total amount of C&I waste generated in the area, as it is thought that a large proportion of the recoverable material is diverted to other locations prior to reaching the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot for disposal. Therefore, the majority of C&I waste received is landfilled, which accounts for the low recovery rates we are currently achieving.

Although the overall amount of C&I waste landfilled at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot in 2008/2009 was 9,855 tonnes out of a total of 40,830 tonnes across all three sectors, it still contributes to the diminishing landfill capacity, and therefore should not be ignored.

The composition of the mixed C&I waste that is landfilled at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot is currently unknown. Determining the composition of this material would greatly assist in the development of appropriate actions and infrastructure to improve resource recovery in this sector.

An opportunity exists to recover food waste from this sector via the processing facility to be established for municipal organics. The increasing cost of landfilling associated with NSW Waste and Environment Levy should be a strong incentive for many C&I generators to separate their organic material once the facility is available. In this respect, allowing additional capacity to accommodate C&I waste should be a key consideration in planning for this facility.

Immediate improvements to recovery could be made through increased education to ensure that C&I operators are aware of the resource recovery opportunities available to them at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. As well as through the continuation of pricing structures that encourage source separation.

Immediate improvements to recovery can be made in this sector through increased education and further pricing structures that encourage source separation (Horizon 1). A mechanical separation system would also increase recovery in this sector. The feasibility of introducing such a system may be considered in the later planning horizons (Horizons 2 and 3).

5.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Stream Due to the nature of the material in this stream, we are performing well in terms of resource recovery. In 2008/2009 a total 32,326 tonnes of C&D material was delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Of this, 26,708 tonnes was recovered, resulting in a recovery rate of 82.6%.This has largely been due to fee structures that provide incentives for the separation of easily recyclable components (eg concrete and VENM). Despite this, it is recognised that further improvements can be made.

Immediate improvements to recovery can be made through increased education to ensure that C&D operators are aware of the resource recovery opportunities available to them at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. As well through the continuation of pricing structures that encourage source separation.


A mechanical separation system would also increase recovery in this sector. However, due to funding and resourcing availability, and prioritisation to improvements of the municipal sector, the feasibility of introducing such a system may be considered in the later planning horizons (Horizons 2 and 3).

It is thought that mixed C&D waste contains recoverable material, however, the composition of this waste stream is not known due to the nature in which the material is delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Audits conducted on this material would be beneficial and would inform further improvements to resource recovery rates.

Pricing and education provide the best driver for resource recovery in the C&D sector in the shorter term. Mechanical separation systems would also be effective. However, given the limited funding and resourcing availability, and prioritisation of improvements to the municipal sector performance, actions should be developed to investigate feasibility of introducing mechanical separation systems in the later strategy horizons (Horizons 2 or 3).

5.5 Waste Education Current waste education practices focus on encouraging residents to take ownership and personal responsibility for waste, view waste as a resource, have a sound understanding of the services Council's provides and are equipped with the knowledge and skills required to actively participate in waste avoidance, reduction, reuse and recycling.

Despite this focus, there is a gap between the distribution of information and residents of rental properties. A of Council's waste collection brochure and collection calendar is delivered with all new services. However, this does not occur when new tenants move into a property as bins are usually already onsite. Therefore, there is no certainty that these residents are provided with the information necessary to participate in the correct use of the three bin system.

As previously discussed, Council has recently surveyed the community to gauge levels of support for its approach to waste management, and to determine waste management practices and behaviours. Waste audits undertaken in 2008 and 2009 highlighted a number of issues in relation to the disposal of material in incorrect locations. Therefore, it is imperative that all waste education strategies reflect the outcomes of survey and audits results. For example, the 2009 telephone survey found most residents agree that separating waste is not an inconvenience, yet the 2009 audit of the kerbside garbage bin indicated that 19% of the bins composition was recoverable containers and paper. This represents a critical gap that could be addressed through a targeted education campaign.

Due to the considerable change in kerbside services, it is imperative that strategies are developed to assist the community with the transition and offering assistance and solutions to those that may find it difficult to adjust.

Population and housing characteristics are predicted to change significantly in the near future, in particular, an increase in multiunit dwellings. Therefore, strategies need to be developed to encompass these changes.

In the short-term (Horizon 1), education strategies should reflect the results of recent surveys and audits, as well as assisting residents with the changes in collection services. Strategies also need to be developed to encompass future changes in population and housing characteristics.


5.6 Cost Effectiveness and Equity

5.6.1 Cost equity

As previously discussed, there are numerous costs associated with the management of waste. Some of these are current costs and others are future costs. To ensure equity between generations, it is important that the fees charged for waste management services properly reflect these costs.

Many of these costs are known, such as the collection of waste from the kerbside. However others, are unknown, such as the costs associated with a future CPRS and the long term management of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot once it is closed. A whole of life cost assessment for the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot has not been undertaken. Therefore it is difficult to know whether the fees and charges currently being set cover all of these costs.

A full cost accounting (whole of life cost assessment) of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot should be undertaken to determine if current fees and charges and restrictions are adequate to meet future cost.

5.6.2 Cost effectiveness

Kerbside waste and recycling cost indicators suggest the kerbside service provided to residents is already quite cost-effective, as they are on par with best practice.

The full cost accounting assessment recommended above will be beneficial in determining the cost effectiveness of operations at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Preparation of a business plan for the facility should also be progressed.

To ensure services continue to be cost-effective, it is important that sound business planning be undertaken for all major future initiatives.

To improve cost effectiveness and maximise resource recovery, actions should include investigations to identify opportunities to optimise the layout and efficiency of operations at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.

To ensure services continue to be cost-effective, sound business planning should be undertaken for all major future initiatives.

5.6.3 Section 88 Waste and Environment Levy and Charges at Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot

The Section 88 Waste and Environment Levy is a critical driver for waste management in NSW. Since its introduction in November 1996, Council has been required to pay over $10 million for accepting waste at the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot - all of which was passed onto landfill users in the form of higher gate fees. As described in section 2.2.4, the levy is scheduled to increase in the future. Therefore, opportunities to reduce levy liabilities are important areas to address in order to minimise costs to the Shellharbour community.

Council undertook an Infrastructure and Operations Improvement Study for the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot, including an investigation into the implications of the Section 88 Waste and Environment Levy. This study identified that it would be possible to redefine the licence area of the


landfill and define a separate area for processing/resource recovery. Material delivered to this separate area (recycled/recovered material) would be exempt from the levy.

In response to this, Council has separated the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot into two licensed areas – one for landfilling and one for resource recovery – under two separate licences. However, further work is still required to fully separate the activities, including relocation of the transfer station to the resource recovery area. Doing so would help address a current issue that exists with over estimation of the weight of incoming material (volume estimation for small vehicles that do not go across the weighbridge) and therefore Council incurring waste levy fees higher than is actually required.

The waste strategy should incorporate strategies and actions to progress the redefinition of licence areas and relocation of the transfer station to the resource recovery area.

5.6.4 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)

As previously discussed, the proposed CPRS could have significant cost implications for management of the community's waste. As a means of reducing these potential costs, methods of limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emitted from the landfill should be investigated.

Restricting the amount of degradable organic waste disposed to the landfill (eg food, garden waste, timber, paper and cardboard) should be given priority as this will reduce the amount of gas generated.

The feasibility of capturing and treating the gas that is generated should also be investigated.

As organic waste may release greenhouse gases for many years after it is disposed, the costs created by a CPRS also raise questions of intergenerational equity. To limit any inequities, the long-term liability created by a particular waste type should be considered when setting disposal fees.

The disposal of organic waste to landfill should be avoided and the feasibility of capturing and treating landfill gases should be investigated.

5.7 Population Growth and Changes to Population and Housing Characteristics Changes in population growth and population and housing characteristics have consequences for the management of waste. As previously discussed, the population in Shellharbour is expected to increase, and changes to population and housing characteristics are also expected to occur.

One of the major changes to be experienced will be the increase in multiunit dwellings across the city. Research shows that multiunit dwellings have lower waste generation rates, but overall poorer waste performance and higher rates of contamination, and lower recovery and recovery. This performance could be attributed to a lack of information provided to tenants on the correct use of the waste systems in place. Education strategies to ensure the provision of relevant information to all residents need to be implemented.

The establishment of a processing facility will ensure that multiunit dwellings will be able to recover food waste, as composting can be difficult in these situations.

All strategies developed need to be flexible enough to accommodate future changes in population growth and population and housing characteristics.

Targeted education campaigns should developed in the short term (Horizons 1) as population and housing characteristics change to address these issues.


5.8 Council Leading by Example Council’s vision for the Shellharbour community is underpinned by a drive for sustainability. It is essential that in encouraging the community to participate in sustainable waste management that Council leads by example. Council can do this by developing and implementing initiatives to improve Council's own corporate waste and sustainability performance. This would allow Council to demonstrate that it ‘walks the talk’ and is on the same sustainability journey as the community.

Council can encourage the community to minimise waste and value waste as a resource to be managed sustainable by leading by example.

Strategies, Actionsand Implementation6


6 Strategies, Actions and Implementation

6.1 Implementation Plan Strategies and specific actions that have been developed to assist Council in meeting the objectives are presented in the Shellharbour Waste Management Strategy Implementation Plan (Appendix 1). These strategies and actions will be implemented and completed within the three broad planning horizons. The actions have been prioritised according to a combination of their level of impact and easy of implementation.

This plan will be reviewed and updated annually in line with Council's strategic reporting requirements.

References 7


7 References

APrince Consulting. 1997, National Recycling Audit and Garbage Bin Analysis, Beverage Industry Environment Council

Aquatech. 1999, Variable Rate Charges for Domestic Waste Collection: Phase 1: Investigation and Review, prepared for Hunter Waste Planning and Management Board on behalf of the NSW Regional Waste Boards

Barr, Stewart; Gilg, Andrew W. and Ford, Nicholas J. 2001, Differences Between Household Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Behaviour: a Study of Reported Behaviours, Intentions and Explanatory Variables Environmental & Waste Management 4(2)

Cameron. L. 2002, Waste Minimisation Behaviour: Social Influences, Intervention Design and Evaluation Strategies Dpt. of Psychology, University of Auckland, NZ.

Communitychange, 2003, Victorian Litter Monitoring Protocol, Pilot Test and Benchmarks Using the Clean Communities Assessment Tool. Submitted to Eco Recycle Victoria, Melbourne.

DEC. 2004, Getting more from our recycling systems – Good practice performance measures for kerbside recycling systems, Sydney.

DEC. 2006, Preferred Resource Recovery Practices by Local Councils, Department of Environment and Conservation

DECC. 2008, Crackdown on Illegal Dumping: Handbook for Local Government, Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, Sydney

Derksen, L. and Gartell, J. 1993, The social context of recycling American Sociological Review 58 (3): 434-442

EC Sustainable. 2008, Domestic Kerbside Waste and Recycling Stream Audit 2008 for Shellharbour City Council

EC Sustainable. 2009, Domestic Kerbside Waste Stream Audit 2009 for Shellharbour City Council

Ellen, Pam Scholder. 1994, Do We Know What We Need to Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects on Pro-Ecological Behaviors Journal of Business Research 30: 43-52

Iris Research. October 2009, Shellharbour City Council Waste Survey 2009

McKenzie Mohr. D. 2001, Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing (2nd Ed.). New Society, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada

Nolan-ITU. 2004, Getting More from Our Recycling Systems, Assessment of Domestic Waste and Recycling Systems - Final Report, Published by Sustainability Programs Division Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)

Quadro Australia. 2007, Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot: Infrastructure and Operations Improvement Study

Resource NSW. 2002, Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-Unit Dwellings, Sydney

SGS Economics & Planning. 2008, Shellharbour LGA Small Area Household & Demographic Projections


Shellharbour City Demographics Online – Community Profile – Introduction and Summary (Map and Key Statistics), [online, URL: http://profile.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=285&pg=101&gid=10&type=enum] accessed 21 January 2010

Shellharbour City Council. 2009, Annual Report: Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot 2008/2009

Shellharbour City Council. 2009, State of the Environment Comprehensive Report 0809

Shellharbour City Council. 2002, Shellharbour City Council Integrated Waste Management Strategy 2002

Southern Councils Group. June 2009, SCG Regional Resource Recovery Project Update Report June 2009

Shellharbour City Council and Thiess Services, July 2008, Shellharbour Community Waste Education Strategy July 2008

Appendix 1Implementation Plan

Shellharbour City Council | Waste Management Strategy | Appendix 1 | 80

SHEL

LHAR

BO

UR

WAS

TE M

ANAG

EMEN

T ST

RAT

EGY

- IM

PLEM

ENTA

TIO

N P

LAN

The

ultim

ate

visio

n fo

r was

te m

anag

emen

t in

Shel

lhar

bour

is:

‘A c

omm

unity

that

gen

erat

es m

inim

al w

aste

and

con

side

rs th

e w

aste

that

is p

rodu

ced

as a

val

uabl

e re

sour

ce to

be

man

aged

su

stai

nabl

y.’

The

follo

wing

obj

ectiv

es h

ave

been

iden

tifie

d to

ass

ist u

s in

mov

ing

towa

rds

this

visio

n:

1.

Avoi

d th

e ge

nera

tion

of w

aste

2.

In

crea

se th

e re

use

and

reco

very

of m

ater

ials

from

the

follo

wing

was

te s

tream

s:

– M

unic

ipal

– di

vers

ion

targ

et 6

6%

– C

omm

erci

al &

Indu

stria

l

– C

onst

ruct

ion

& D

emol

ition

3.

M

inim

ise

adve

rse

impa

cts

of w

aste

ope

ratio

ns o

n pu

blic

and

env

ironm

enta

l hea

lth a

nd s

afet

y 4.

En

sure

the

prov

isio

n of

Cou

ncil’s

was

te s

ervic

es is

cos

t effe

ctive

and

equ

itabl

e.

This

pla

n ou

tlines

key

stra

tegi

es a

nd a

ctio

ns th

at w

ill he

lp to

mee

t the

se o

bjec

tives

. The

stra

tegi

es h

ave

been

divi

ded

into

six

broa

d ca

tego

ries:

Pric

ing

Po

licy

In

frast

ruct

ure

and

Serv

ices

Educ

atio

n

Le

adin

g by

exa

mpl

e

Gov

erna

nce

Thes

e st

rate

gies

will

be im

plem

ente

d an

d co

mpl

eted

with

in th

ree

broa

d pl

anni

ng h

orizo

ns:

H

orizo

n 1:

201

0 - 2

015

H

orizo

n 2:

201

5 - 2

025

H

orizo

n 3:

202

5 - c

losu

re o

f the

Dun

mor

e R

ecyc

ling

and

Was

te D

ispo

sal D

epot

Actio

ns h

ave

been

prio

ritis

ed u

nder

thes

e ho

rizon

s ac

cord

ing

to a

com

bina

tion

of th

eir l

evel

of i

mpa

ct a

nd e

asy

of im

plem

enta

tion.


STR

ATEG

Y AC

TIO

N H

OR

IZO

N/

TIM

EFR

AME

OBJ

ECTI

VE

Pric

ing

Polic

y

Infr

astr

uctu

re &

Ser

vice

s


Educ

atio

n


Lead

ing

by E

xam

ple

Gov

erna

nce


Appendix 2Options Reportfor the FutureManagement of Wastewithin Shellharbour City-Proposed WasteServices 2008/2015


Options Report for the future Management of Wastes within the

Shellharbour City Council

February 2007


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 The Need for Change

3.0 Underlying Principles

4.0 Waste Diversion Targets

5.0 Current Performance

5.1 Municipal Wastes

5.2 Commercial and Industrial Wastes

5.3 Construction and Demolition Wastes

6.0 Disposal and Processing Facilities

8.0 Options for Key Focus Areas

9.0 A Comparison of the Options

10.0 Factors of Consideration for Options

10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social

11.0 Case Study Examples

11.1 Coffs Harbour City Council

11.2 Port Macquarie Hastings Council

Impact Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd

PO Box 5057

PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444

www.impactenviro.com.au

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057




88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057



1.0 Introduction

This report outlines the options that should be considered by the Shellharbour City Council (SCC) to achieve an improvement in the environmental, economic and social aspects of how solid wastes are managed within the City in the future. The report addresses issues relating to the collection, treatment and disposal of wastes and will form the basis of information for a Community Consultation process to be undertaken by Council during early 2007.

Each of the key waste streams are addressed in this Options Report, these being:

Putrescible Wastes

Dry Recyclables material

Garden/green/organics material

Hard Waste from Cleanup Services

In investigating these waste streams, the report contains information on;

Advantages and Disadvantages of each option

Risks associated with each option

Comparative evaluation with each option

To also assist in understanding which priority areas to persue, previous relevant reports are referenced. A detailed matrix of the Options has been developed and is located as Appendix 1 to this Report.

This Options Report develops different possible approaches (aggressive, conservative and passive ) for Council to consider in an effort to tackle the long term goals, in particular the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Targets.

2.0 The Need for Change Communities across Australia are facing challenges with the collection and disposal of solid wastes. Landfills are running out of space and there is a growing community concern that Councils need to recover and recycle, reuse or reprocess more waste.

The need for change has been brought about by an increasing awareness to the environmental problems caused by landfilling and the benefits from using our natural resources in a more responsible way. We all need to play a part in this change. As individuals we can change our buying and consumption habits. As Councils we need to provide infrastructure, services and education that encourage waste avoidance and resource recovery, with landfill as a last resort.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057



The need for change is a driver for new opportunities in our Shellharbour community for the better management of wastes, for current and future generations.

3.0 Underlying Principles It is important to view waste as a resource rather than a useless by-product and to see waste in the context of lifecycle management. This lifecycle includes extraction, manufacturing, distribution, consumption and recovery for reprocessing or disposal.

SCC has the community responsibility to act in such a way as to maximise resource recovery (by aiming to meet the WARR targets) and to minimise the amount of material being disposed of to landfill. This is also consistent with an ESD approach.

The main ‘spheres of influence’ Council has in the lifecycle are the recovery and disposal of wastes. This is where most of Councils resources are allocated. However, through education, and at times enforcement, Council may be able to influence other parts of the lifecycle.

The options detailed in this report focus on improved infrastructure and services, with supporting but lesser focus on education. This will change in time as the infrastructure and services are developed, then education becomes a higher resourced priority.

4.0 Waste Diversion Targets The NSW Government has set targets for the reduction of waste going to landfill. These are contained in a strategic document, the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy (revised 2006), which was developed by the Department of Environment and Conservation under Section 12 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (2001). These targets are shown below:

Aims to hold current waste generation levels till 2008

Increase municipal sector recovery to 66% by 2014

Increase Commercial sector recovery to 63% by 2014

Increase Construction sector recovery to 76% by 2014

Source – NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy (2006)

It is difficult for Local Government to affect the waste generation levels, other than through education as this is a matter being addressed by State and Commonwealth Governments. However Councils can directly affect the achievement of the other three targets through a mixture of pricing, policy, services and facilities that are available to their local communities.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057





The sources of these wastes are from Council generated activities, including the collection of domestic putrescible waste, street cleaning, council construction and various other activities.

SCC has achieved an estimated 30% resource recovery level in 2004/05 which is still 36% less than the 2014 target of 66%. This level attained is an estimated 4% above the NSW State average.

There have been variations over the last 5 years or so in the recovery of municipal wastes which has largely been a result of fluctuation in construction and demolition wastes

The 240 litre MGB fortnightly recycling service is responsible for the majority of the diversion away from landfill achieved at Shellharbour. Most services of this type will divert between 20-25%, depending upon local contamination levels.

SCC also operates a weekly or fortnightly domestic putrescible waste collection service. Although this fortnightly collection service is an excellent means by which to encourage waste reduction at source it is difficult to know what effect is has on waste diversion.

Council operates a gardenwaste collection service with13 kerbside garden waste collections per year. There is no provision for a garden waste MGB in the current contract. Residents are required to present their garden waste in specified bundles or in polywoven bags that are supplied by Council at a minimum cost. Bags are reusable. This service has contributed an estimated 5% of the resource recovery achieved in the municipal waste sector.

Council also offers a subsidised “On Call Clean Up Collection” for excess household waste, green/garden waste and white goods.

In respect of Multi-Unit Dwellings, Council has no special provisions. For new MUD’s Council ensures that the developer provides infrastructure for the collection and disposal of waste, recycling and greenwaste wholly within the site. Council also allows for a private collection service if the property frontage is insufficient to present MGB’s as required by the development.


The estimated recovery levels (2004/05) for Commercial and Industrial Wastes for SCC was 37%, which is 26% below the 2014 WARR target of a 63% diversion. It should be noted that since October 2004, there are nearly 500 C&I premises that were paying for a recycling service but whose tonnage may have been credited to the Municipal sector.

This C& I sector is clearly an area that requires financial and/or policy changes if the WARR targets are going to be achieved. Some ideas on this are canvassed in this paper. Increased education on waste avoidance will also be required so as to reduce waste at the source and promote more commercial recycling. It is also difficult to gain accurate figures on C& I recycling as much of it is done through private contractors. Audits of these premises would need to be carried out to gain a clearer picture of the resource recovery rates for this sector.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057




SCC is currently achieving an estimated 73% recovery (2004/05) of C&D wastes that are delivered to the Dunmore Waste Management Centre. This is only 3% below the WARR target of 76% recovery by 2014. In 2003/04 SCC achieved a massive 88% diversion of C&D materials so the systems and infrastructure appear in place to achieve this target at this depot. Of course it is difficult to track all C&D wastes generated in the City as this is more of a regional issue.


SCC’s current Waste Management Facility is located at Buckley Road, Dunmore, which is around 5 – 6km from Council’s administration building.

The Cost of landfill disposal of mixed wastes is:

$72.50/tonne for 05/06 financial year

$88.00/tonne for 06/07 financial year

The Annual tonnage brought into this site is 103,258 tonnes ( 04/05) and this landfill has an estimated life of 15 years remaining.

The recyclables material that is collected in the domestic service is taken to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) operated by Thiess Environmental Services, located at Wytes Gully Kembla Grange, about 20km from the Council Administrative Building. The amount of material recycled is:

Net tonnage for 04/05 financial year 4154.05 tonnes

Gross tonnage for 04/05 financial year 4958.28 tonnes

Residual material from the MRF is disposed of at the Dunmore Landfill and the current estimated level of residuals is 8-9%.

Gardenwaste that is collected from residential premises or dropped off at the Dunmore Facility is shredded and stockpiled, then screened into a course mulch. The Contract Price for shredding is $7.25 per cubic metre plus an additional $2.00 per cubic metre for the removal of contamination. The annual tonnage was:

8272.79 tonnes in 04/05 financial year

The processed mulch is given away free of charge to residents who collect a load themselves. Otherwise it is used in tip operations and in Council works – parks/gardens.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057



7.0 Regional Priorities

A report was produced by GHD in June 2006 entitled “Regional Waste and Recycling Background Report and Opportunities Paper.” The top two priorities identified in this report, in order to achieve the WARR targets are:

The establishment of an Organics Processing Facility, possibly in one or two regions, using an enclosed composting plant

A residuals processing (AWT) facility

These priorities obviously have an impact or present an opportunity for SCC in the deliberations on how to handle the long term processing of organic wastes. With the third largest population in the Region, behind Wollongong and Shoalhaven, and being geographically well located near Wollongong and Kiama, Shellharbour is ideally placed to view an Organics Processing Facility as a key infrastructure component in meeting the WARR targets.

The GHD Report also recognized several regional opportunities in the collection of materials, standardization of policies and education, adoption of best practice and other minor issues. Those factors that SCC should consider seriously in a sub-regional context are:

Collection of domestic waste, recyclables and organics

Collection of bulky and hazardous wastes

Standardised approaches for MUD’s

Commercial Foodwaste collection and processing

Better recycling services for small businesses

Establishing Revolve type Centres at Landfills

Of the above suggestions, many relate to improved efficiencies, however the collection and processing of foodwastes have the most potential to seriously influence the WAAR diversion targets.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057



8.0 Options for Key Focus Areas A comprehensive ‘Options Table’ which compares the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with each of the Options can be found in Appendix 1. In an effort to summarise the main options available in the context of meeting the WARR Targets and comparing economic, social and political factors , the below Table has been developed. The definitions are:

Aggressive – Best chance to meet WARR Targets, best practice

Conservative – Little Chance to meet WARR Targets

Basic – No chance to meet WARR Targets (similar to current)

Collection Service Options

Aggressive Option Conservative Option

Basic

Option

Putrescible (Mixed solid) Wastes

Fortnightly 80/120 litre MGB collection service of residuals without organics

Weekly 80/120 litre MGB collection service of residuals without organics

Fortnightly 240 litre MGB of residuals with organics in

Dry Recyclables Fortnightly 240 litre MGB fully co-mingled

Fortnightly 240 litre MGB fully co-mingled

Fortnightly 240 litre MGB fully co-mingled

Garden & Food Organics

Weekly 240 litre MGB of combined garden and food organics with kitchen tidy supplied to residents

Fortnightly 240 litre MGB collection for Gardenwaste only – no foodwaste service

Monthly Bulky or on-call collection of gardenwaste either bundled or in 240 litre MGB’s

On Call Collection Services

No kerbside Bulky Waste Collection but subsidy/voucher system for this waste delivered at Landfill

2 Bulky Waste Cleanups per year (no Gardenwaste Cleanups)

Monthly Bulky Waste Cleanups (some Gardenwaste included)


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057



Disposal & Recovery Options

Aggressive Option Conservative Option

Basic

Option

Putrescible (Mixed solid) Wastes

Participate in or lead a Regional AWT process to treat Putrescible Wastes

Extract Green Organics from Putrescible wastes prior to landfilling

Landfill all Putrescible waste with garden and Food Organics

Dry Recyclables Process at High Tech MRF (max optical sorting)

Process at Medium / High Tech MRF

Process at MediumTech MRF (mostly labour)

Garden & Food Organics

Process Garden and Food Organics in an enclosed composting system

Treat Garden Organics in an external composting process

Mulch Garden Organics

On Call Collection Services

Full separation and Recovery of Bulky Wastes

Recovery of Metals and timber from Bulky Wastes

Little or no recovery of Bulky Wastes

Landfill Policy Complete Ban of Organics to Landfill

Ban Gardenwastes from Landfill

No specific Landfill Bans

Pricing Policy

(note – based on 2006-07 prices and inclusive of S88 Levy)

In excess of $120 per tonne for disposal of Mixed Wastes with signifigant discount (eg $50) for separated materials

Approx $100 per tonne for disposal of Mixed Wastes with reasonable discount (eg $40) for separated materials

Approx $80 per tonne for disposal of Mixed Wastes with average discount (eg $30) for separated materials

Community Education

High Resourcing Priority, in the order of 2 staff and $200,000 annual budget

Medium Resourcing Priority, in the order of 2 staff and $100,000 annual budget

Low Resourcing Priority, in the order of 1 staff and $50,000 annual budget


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057



9.0 A Comparison of the Options The three options listed above are all achievable in practice, but of course will have different community impacts in terms of cost, risks, social and political effects.

Option 1 is named the aggressive option as it would quickly achieve the WARR targets on residential resource recovery and also improve the C&I sector reuse and recovery. Under this option, food and garden organics would be collected from residential premises (and possibly some commercial premises) on a weekly basis in an MGB. The recycling service would essentially remain unchanged, however the ‘residual’ wastes would be collected on a fortnightly basis, most likely in a smaller MGB. A new Organics Resource Recovery Facility would need to be provided (probably at Dunmore Waste Management Facility) and there would be serious planning for a Regional Alternative Waste Technology (AWT) Facility. The cost of landfilling , as well as the Domestic Waste Charges would need to increase and community education programs would have to be better resourced. This Option has higher cost risks (which can be managed through good information campaign) but lower political and environmental risks.

This Option would place SCC at or above the level of ‘best practice’ in Regional NSW, which is currently shared by the Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour City Councils.

Option 2 is named the ‘conservative option’ as it would place SCC on the pathway to reaching the WARR goals, but not reach them. The main difference is that under this Option, food organics (which comprise an estimated 40% of residential putrescible waste) are not extracted and treated but will remain destined to landfill. A new kerbside Garden Organics service is proposed under this option which may require a more controlled form of open windrow mulching and/or composting.

There would be a slight increase in charges (catering mainly for new garden organics services) . This option would place SCC at the level of the reasonably progressive Regional Councils (eg Wagga, Dubbo, Lismore). There would be environmental risks in that the long term life of Dunmore would not be guaranteed and some environmental risks exist with basic composting (eg weed seeds). There may be political risks that not enough was being done to recover valuable resources.

Option 3 is essentially a summary of what happens today at SCC. As Council is already quite innovative in terms of having fortnightly collection of putrescibles as well as a kerbside recycling service, this Option is at about the level of many Regional Councils, except perhaps in the lack of a kerbside garden organics service. Option 3 is low risk in terms of cost but will become higher political and environmental risk over time as landfill space diminishes and community awareness to alternatives grows.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057




It would be appropriate to take a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach when considering how the SCC should approach the options under consideration for future waste management.

10.1 Economic

There are two main areas of consideration here;

the fees and charges, primarily the fees applied at the Dunmore Waste Facility

the Domestic & Non Domestic Waste Charge levied to premises

SCC would be considering what would be affordable for residents and businesses in this regard. As a guide, and based on the experience of Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie Hastings Councils, mixed waste disposal fees heading over $100 per tonne and DWM charges of $250-$300 per premises would be the scale of what is needed to fund an ‘aggressive approach to meeting the WARR targets.

10.2 Environmental

The urgency of thinking should reflect the fact that securing a long term landfill beyond the life of Dunmore will be extremely difficult and expensive. Dunmore is an asset who’s life should be stretched as long as possible. In addition, putting more organic waste into Dunmore is adding to the greenhouse gas and leachate problems. Therefore, from an ESD principle, SCC should find a local solution to the wastes it generates where possible and accept that resource recovery is a higher priority than landfilling.

10.3 Social

What would the SCC community want and expect in considering these options? A most likely answer would be an affordable solution that delivers the best environmental outcome! The options under consideration rely on the community in the sense of actively participating in upgraded services and the experience in other areas is that waste management is one area the community loves to be involved in…particularly recycling and garden organics.


88

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction












10.1 Economic

10.2 Environmental

10.3 Social





PO Box 5057





Coffs Harbour City Council (CHCC) identified a lack of long term landfill space as a key driver for change in the late 1990’s. Their Englands Road Landfill was filling at a rapid rate so Council adopted a strategic goal to cease landfiiling putrescible waste by 2010.

CHH has aggressively pursued this target by joining with the neighbouring Nambucca and Bellingen Councils to undertake collective tendering for collection and disposal services in 2004.

The result is a kerbside service where food organics are added to garden organics (commencing March 2007) and collected on weekly basis, with the fortnightly collection of residual wastes and recyclables.

CHCC has constructed, under a 20-year contract, a new Alternative Waste Technology (AWT) facility as well as a composting facility that combines kerbside collected organics with biosolids.

Council’s landfill fees have risen to around $100 per tonne and there are plans for a large Resource Recovery (Buyback) Centre, also at the Englands Road site.

The efforts of CHCC will see the WARR residential resource recovery targets reached.


The Port Macquarie Hastings Council (PMHC) has progressively pursued a source –separated solution for the recovery of residential wastes since 1998.

Like Coffs Harbour, the driver was securing long term landfilling, as PMHC had constructed a new landfill in 2004 with a similar goal to cease landfilling putrescible wastes by 2010.

The PMHC has a proven Organic Resource Recovery Facility (ORRF) which has been processing garden organics and biosolids in tunnel composting since 2004. Council has recently added the collection of kitchen food organics, facilitating this with an offer to residents of a kitchen tidy and corn starch bags, of which 5000 have been taken up.

PMHC have constructed a new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which sources recyclables from the Kempsey and PMHC areas.

Council has a basic AWT process (aerated static pile) for mixed solid wastes that stabilises and reduces waste volumes prior to landfilling but Council has not been satisfied with the results and plans to conduct more trials for the future.

A high price differential at the landfill (about $40 per tonne) between sorted and unsorted wastes has been a driver for a successful commercial recycling and C&D materials recovery process to emerge in the PMHC area.

Waste Service(Collection and Processing)Options for ShellharbourCity Council


Col

lect

ion

Serv

ice

Opt

ions

Putre

scib

le W

aste

s Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Wee

kly

240

litre

MG

B Pl

enty

of C

apac

ity

Popu

lar w

ith R

esid

ents

Goo

d fo

r Hol

iday

Mak

ers

who

di

spos

e of

hig

h or

gani

c co

nten

t was

te (e

g ta

ke a

way

)

Dis

cour

ages

was

te

min

imis

atio

n

Can

adv

erse

ly a

ffect

R

ecyc

ling

Volu

mes

Incr

ease

d w

aste

to L

andf

ill

Mor

e ex

pens

ive

Sign

ifica

nt R

isk

to re

duci

ng

Land

fill l

ife

Ris

k to

via

bilit

y of

Rec

yclin

g Se

rvic

e

Ris

k to

via

bilit

y of

Org

anic

s R

ecov

ery

May

not

impr

ove

perfo

rman

ce

agai

nst W

ARR

targ

ets.

This

ser

vice

has

beco

me

less

pop

ular

as

Rec

yclin

g an

d O

rgan

ics

serv

ices

ha

ve b

een

intro

duce

d

14.7

% c

urre

ntly

use

this

se

rvic

e

This

Opt

ion

shou

ld n

ot b

e se

en in

isol

atio

n if

Org

anic

s in

trodu

ced.

Wee

kly

80 o

r 120

litre

M

GB

Enco

urag

es W

aste

M

inim

isat

ion

Forc

es b

ette

r Rec

yclin

g an

d O

rgan

ics

Rec

over

y

Slow

s Fi

lling

of L

andf

ill

Min

or p

oten

tial f

or in

crea

sed

was

te d

umpi

ng

Can

be

diffi

cult

for l

arge

fa

milie

s

MG

B’s

less

sta

ble

Not

idea

l for

Hol

iday

Mak

ers

who

dis

pose

of h

igh

orga

nic

cont

ent w

aste

(eg

take

aw

ay)

May

be

shor

t ter

m in

crea

se in

w

aste

dum

ping

, par

ticul

arly

ar

ound

uni

ts

Pote

ntia

l Neg

ativ

e Fe

edba

ck

from

larg

e fa

milie

s

This

ser

vice

work

ed b

est

whe

n th

ere

is a

Reg

ular

R

ecyc

ling

and

Org

anic

s C

olle

ctio

n Se

rvic

e

5% c

urre

ntly

use

this

se

rvic

e

By li

mitin

g ex

tra b

ins

for

spec

ial c

ircum

stan

ces

the

pote

ntia

l neg

ativ

e im

pact

fro

m la

rge

fam

ilies

may

be

over

com

e)


Putre

scib

le W

aste

s Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Wee

kly

240

litre

spl

it M

GB

Enco

urag

es W

aste

M

inim

isat

ion

Forc

es b

ette

r Rec

yclin

g an

d O

rgan

ics

Rec

over

y

Slow

s Fi

lling

of L

andf

ill

Con

veni

ent s

tora

ge

Not

man

y C

ontra

ctor

s wi

lling

to n

ow u

se th

is s

yste

m

Incr

ease

d litt

er d

urin

g co

llect

ion

The

grea

test

risk

is fi

ndin

g a

Con

tract

or (a

nd p

ayin

g hi

gher

m

arke

t pric

e) w

illing

to

unde

rtake

this

ser

vice

This

sys

tem

has

falle

n ou

t of

favo

ur a

cros

s Au

stra

lia

due

mai

nly

to h

igh

cont

amin

atio

n le

vels

in th

e R

ecyc

ling

com

partm

ent

F/N

ight

240

litre

MG

B

Enco

urag

es W

aste

M

inim

isat

ion

Forc

es b

ette

r Rec

yclin

g an

d O

rgan

ics

Rec

over

y

Slow

s Fi

lling

of L

andf

ill

Che

ap C

olle

ctio

n C

osts

Pote

ntia

l for

was

te to

rot a

nd

smel

l

Min

or p

oten

tial f

or in

crea

sed

was

te d

umpi

ng

Can

be

diffi

cult

for l

arge

fa

milie

s

Diff

icul

t to

intro

duce

and

ch

ange

hab

its

Pote

ntia

l Neg

ativ

e Fe

edba

ck

from

larg

e fa

milie

s

Pote

ntia

l neg

ativ

e co

mm

unity

fe

edba

ck w

hen

intro

duce

d

This

is a

che

ap a

nd

effe

ctive

sys

tem

that

en

cour

ages

was

te

min

imis

atio

n. W

ould

be

enha

nced

by

effic

ient

R

ecyc

ling

and

Org

anic

s C

olle

ctio

n Se

rvic

es

79%

of r

esid

ents

cur

rent

ly us

e th

is

SCC

bel

ieve

s th

at w

aste

du

mpi

ng n

ot a

cur

rent

pr

oble

m.

F/N

ight

80

or 1

20 li

tre

MG

B W

ould

be

grea

t for

was

te

min

imis

atio

n

Wou

ld b

e ch

eape

st c

olle

ctio

n an

d di

spos

al c

osts

Slow

est f

or la

ndfil

ling

Wou

ld n

ot b

e to

lera

ted

by

resi

dent

s un

less

ver

y ag

gres

sive

recy

clin

g an

d al

l of

Org

anic

s ex

tract

ed

Hig

h lik

elih

ood

of N

egat

ive

Feed

back

from

larg

e fa

milie

s

Hig

h Li

kelih

ood

of n

egat

ive

com

mun

ity fe

edba

ck w

hen

intro

duce

d

This

wou

ld b

e an

idea

l sy

stem

but

wou

ld re

quire

w

eekl

y O

rgan

ics

serv

ice

and

Fortn

ight

ly R

ecyc

ling

to w

ork

prop

erly


Dry

Rec

ycla

bles

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Sepa

rate

Pap

er a

nd C

o-M

ingl

es in

two

sepa

rate

12

0 Li

tre M

GB’

s

Fortn

ight

ly

Cle

aner

pap

er a

nd c

ardb

oard

sh

ould

mea

n be

tter p

rices

Rec

omm

ende

d by

DEC

as

best

pra

ctic

e

Mor

e ex

pens

ive

to c

olle

ct 2

M

GB’

s

Gre

ater

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s fro

m c

olle

ctio

n

May

be

no a

dvan

tage

at M

RF

Mor

e st

orag

e sp

ace

need

ed

by R

esid

ents

Adva

ntag

es in

pur

e co

llect

ion

may

be

lost

in a

co

-min

gled

MR

F

Pote

ntia

l res

iden

t bac

klas

h to

num

erou

s M

GB’

s an

d co

st

Alth

ough

this

sys

tem

is

reco

mm

ende

d by

DEC

it h

as

only

bee

n in

trodu

ced

in a

ha

ndfu

l of C

ounc

ils d

ue

mai

nly

to h

ighe

r col

lect

ion

cost

s an

d st

orag

e co

ncer

ns

Exis

ting

MR

F ha

s be

en

desi

gned

to s

epar

ate

pape

r

Com

bine

d Pa

per a

nd C

o-M

ingl

es in

one

240

Litr

e M

GB

Fortn

ight

ly

Easy

for h

ouse

hold

er

Che

aper

Col

lect

ion

Cos

ts

than

2 b

in

Syst

em u

sed

by m

ost

Cou

ncils

No

chan

ge to

cur

rent

ser

vice

Can

attr

act m

ore

cont

amin

atio

n if

smal

ler M

GB

used

for p

utre

scib

le w

aste

&

may

nee

d to

be

acco

mpa

nied

by

bet

ter p

olic

ing.

Con

tam

inat

ion

leve

ls re

ach

up

to 1

0%

Cap

acity

may

not

be

enou

gh

as m

ore

pack

agin

g be

com

es

recy

clab

le

The

fortn

ight

ly c

olle

ctio

n m

ay n

ot b

e en

ough

with

ca

paci

ty in

the

futu

re a

s m

ore

pack

agin

g be

com

es

recy

clab

le

This

is th

e m

ost c

omm

on

syst

em u

sed

for t

he

colle

ctio

n of

Rec

ycla

bles

ac

ross

Aus

tralia

Exis

ting

serv

ice

prov

ided

by

Cou

ncil


Dry

Rec

ycla

bles

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Com

bine

d Pa

per a

nd C

o-M

ingl

es in

Spl

it 24

0 Li

tre

MG

B fo

rtnig

htly

Che

apes

t col

lect

ion

serv

ice

for R

ecyc

labl

es

Will

have

hig

h co

ntam

inat

ion

leve

ls, e

spec

ially

if n

o O

rgan

ics

Serv

ice

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

som

e re

cycl

able

s (e

g ca

rdbo

ard

carto

ns)

Not

favo

ured

by

colle

ctio

n co

ntra

ctor

s

Con

tam

inat

ion

leve

ls re

ach

up

to 4

0%

Ris

ks in

rece

ivin

g en

ough

te

nder

s fro

m c

olle

ctio

n co

ntra

ctor

s

Ris

ks in

hig

hly

cont

amin

ated

load

s be

ing

reje

cted

by

MR

F’s

This

sys

tem

has

falle

n ou

t of

favo

ur a

cros

s Au

stra

lia d

ue

mai

nly

to h

igh

cont

amin

atio

n le

vels

in th

e R

ecyc

labl

es


Gar

den

& Fo

od O

rgan

ics

Adva

ntag

es

Dis

adva

ntag

es

Ris

ks

Com

men

ts

Fortn

ight

ly C

olle

ctio

n of

G

arde

n O

rgan

ics

in 2

40

litre

MG

B

Keep

s ga

rden

org

anic

s ou

t of

land

fill

Popu

lar w

ith re

side

nts

– hi

gh

parti

cipa

tion

rate

s

Rel

ativ

ely

low

con

tam

inat

ion

leve

ls

Ove

rcom

e O

HS

issu

es o

f a

bagg

ed c

olle

ctio

n

An a

dditi

onal

exp

ense

than

just

us

ual p

utre

scib

le g

arba

ge a

nd

recy

clin

g co

llect

ion

Not

sui

ted

to m

ost r

esid

entia

l un

its

3rd M

GB

pres

ents

som

e st

orag

e is

sues

The

grea

test

risk

in in

trodu

cing

th

is s

ervi

ce is

that

it a

ttrac

ts

addi

tiona

l org

anic

s th

at m

ay

have

bee

n tre

ated

pre

viou

sly

at h

omes

This

ser

vice

has

beco

me

the

stan

dard

for t

he c

olle

ctio

n of

G

arde

n O

rgan

ics

acro

ss

Aust

ralia

May

be

poss

ible

to c

onsi

der

wee

kly

frequ

ency

Bund

led

Col

lect

ion

of

Org

anic

s on

mon

thly

or

sim

ilar f

requ

ency

Keep

s ga

rden

org

anic

s ou

t of

land

fill

Very

cle

an p

rodu

ct

Allo

ws la

rger

bra

nche

s et

c to

be

col

lect

ed th

an th

e M

GB

Lowe

r par

ticip

atio

n ra

tes

Som

e O

HS

issu

es re

gard

ing

man

ual h

andl

ing

Sign

ifica

nt e

ffici

ency

and

OH

S ris

ks

This

ser

vice

is n

ot w

ides

prea

d an

d ap

pear

s to

sui

t inn

er c

ity

area

s m

ainl

y

Man

y m

ovin

g to

war

ds a

n M

GB

base

d co

llect

ion

Wee

kly

Col

lect

ion

of

Gar

den

and

Food

O

rgan

ics

in 2

40 li

tre M

GB

Keep

s m

ost o

rgan

ics

out o

f la

ndfil

ls

Prod

uces

hig

her q

ualit

y co

mpo

st

Assi

sts

reac

hing

WAR

R

dive

rsio

n ta

rget

s

Reg

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

and

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

Con

tam

inat

ion

leve

ls p

oten

tially

hi

gh

Req

uire

d m

ore

adva

nced

pr

oces

sing

(eg

tunn

el

com

post

ing)

Gre

ater

Com

mun

ity E

duca

tion

cost

s an

d bi

n m

onito

ring

is

requ

ired.

Pote

ntia

l Con

tam

inat

ion

Ris

ks

affe

ct p

rodu

ct q

ualit

y

Ris

k of

Com

mun

ity n

egat

ivity

in

rate

incr

ease

s

Serv

ice

still

not w

idel

y us

ed in

Au

stra

lia

Appe

ars

to b

e th

e ne

xt le

vel

requ

ired

to re

ach

WAR

R

targ

ets

in N

SW


On

Cal

l Col

lect

ion

Serv

ices

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Very

Fre

quen

t Col

lect

ion

of

Bulk

y W

aste

s/G

arde

n O

rgan

ics

Popu

lar w

ith R

esid

ents

Keep

resi

dent

ial p

rem

ises

cl

ean

Doe

s no

t enc

oura

ge w

aste

m

inim

isat

ion

Sign

ifiga

nt e

nviro

nmen

tal

impa

ct fr

om n

umer

ous

colle

ctio

ns

Cos

t ris

ks a

s di

fficu

lt to

re

cove

r ful

l cos

ts o

f ser

vice

Ris

ks to

ach

ievi

ng w

aste

di

vers

ion

targ

ets

unle

ss

colle

cted

mat

eria

l is

reco

vere

d

Ofte

n O

HS

risks

Mos

t Cou

ncils

now

col

lect

ing

gard

enwa

stes

in re

gula

r MG

B se

rvic

es ra

ther

than

this

type

of

ser

vice

Lim

ited

Col

lect

ion

of B

ulky

W

aste

/Gar

denw

aste

s R

easo

nabl

y po

pula

r with

re

side

nts

Con

side

red

chea

per a

nd

mor

e ef

fect

ive th

an ‘z

one-

base

d’ s

yste

m

Bette

r for

was

te m

inim

isat

ion

than

ver

y fre

quen

t ser

vice

s

Doe

s no

t enc

oura

ge w

aste

m

inim

isat

ion

Gar

denw

aste

s pr

obab

ly be

tter

colle

cted

in re

gula

r MG

B se

rvic

e

Ris

ks to

ach

ievi

ng w

aste

di

vers

ion

targ

ets

unle

ss

colle

cted

mat

eria

l is

reco

vere

d

Ofte

n O

HS

risks

Mos

t Cou

ncils

aro

und

Aust

ralia

hav

e be

twee

n 2-

4 Bu

lky

Was

te C

lean

ups

per

year

.

Best

to g

et g

arde

n or

gani

cs

out o

f Cle

anup

s if

poss

ible

Best

to h

ave

sepa

ratio

n of

m

etal

s an

d re

usab

les


On

Cal

l Col

lect

ion

Serv

ices

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

No

Bulk

y W

aste

Col

lect

ions

G

reat

for w

aste

min

imis

atio

n

May

enc

oura

ge g

reat

er

tradi

ng o

f 2nd

han

d m

ater

ials

Diff

icul

t to

achi

eve

polit

ical

ly as

see

n as

som

e as

a b

asic

se

rvic

e

May

dis

adva

ntag

e el

derly

(no

vehi

cles

)

Pote

ntia

l for

bui

ldup

of r

efus

e on

pro

perti

es

Com

mun

ity b

ackl

ash

risks

for

not p

rovi

ding

wha

t is

perc

eive

d as

ess

entia

l se

rvic

e

Idea

l fro

m w

aste

min

imis

atio

n pe

rspe

ctiv

e bu

t pro

babl

y un

real

istic

Opt

ions

for t

his

are:

su

bsid

ised

on

call

serv

ice

unlim

ited,

non

-sub

sidi

sed

on

call s

ervic

e, s

ubsi

dise

d on

ca

ll ser

vice

limite

d, fr

ee ti

p vo

uche

rs


Proc

essi

ng a

nd D

ispo

sal O

ptio

ns

Putre

scib

le W

aste

s Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Land

fill D

ispo

sal (

Loca

l) R

elat

ivel

y in

expe

nsiv

e

Mai

ntai

n co

ntro

l ove

r ow

n w

aste

dis

posa

l

Mos

t org

anic

s st

ill be

ing

land

fille

d

Fallin

g ou

t of f

avou

r as

long

te

rm s

olut

ion

Onl

y ar

ound

15

year

s lif

e re

mai

ning

Sec

tion

88 L

evy

still

appl

ies

Unl

ikel

y to

sec

ure

new

site

w

ithin

Cou

ncil

area

Dun

mor

e is

fille

d qu

ickl

y w

ithou

t oth

er o

ptio

ns

Envir

onm

enta

l Ris

ks w

ith

land

fillin

g

The

loca

l lan

dfill

at D

unm

ore

shou

ld b

e se

en a

s a

valu

able

as

set a

nd e

xten

ding

its

life

is

a pr

iorit

y

Impr

ovem

ents

on

this

site

will

occu

r as

a se

para

te

cons

ider

atio

n.

Land

fill D

ispo

sal

(Reg

iona

l) Lo

ng te

rm w

aste

dis

posa

l se

curit

y

Som

e co

st b

enef

its li

kely

with

in

crea

sed

scal

e

Unk

nown

cos

ts

Incr

ease

d tra

nspo

rt co

sts

likel

y

Sect

ion

88 L

evy

still

appl

ies

Gai

ning

App

rova

l for

an

appr

opria

te s

ite is

maj

or ri

sk

This

opt

ion

has

not b

een

reco

gnis

ed in

the

2006

GH

D

repo

rt as

a p

riorit

y

Alte

rnat

ive

Was

te D

ispo

sal

Secu

res

long

term

dis

posa

l ce

rtain

ty

Bette

r env

ironm

enta

l opt

ion

than

land

fillin

g

Savin

gs o

n Se

ctio

n 88

levy

May

requ

ire w

aste

from

oth

er

Cou

ncils

to b

e vi

able

Still

requ

ires

a la

ndfil

l for

re

sidu

al m

ater

ial

Gai

ning

requ

ired

supp

ort

Gre

ater

like

ly sh

ort t

erm

cos

ts

Tech

nolo

gy o

bsol

esce

nce

This

AW

T op

tion

has

bee

n re

cogn

ised

in th

e 20

06 G

HD

re

port

as a

top

prio

rity

This

is b

eing

pur

sued

on

a re

gion

al b

asis


Dry

Rec

ycla

bles

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Loca

l MR

F fo

r Sh

ellh

arbo

ur

Less

trav

el d

ista

nce

for

colle

ctio

n ve

hicl

es

Cos

ts lik

ely

to b

e gr

eate

r due

to

low

volu

mes

Dom

inan

t mar

ket p

laye

rs m

ay

not b

e in

tere

sted

Con

tam

inat

ion

may

be

an

issu

e as

mor

e ob

viou

s

Cos

t im

plic

atio

ns

This

is n

ot p

ract

ical

or

affo

rdab

le d

ue to

low

loca

l vo

lum

es

Reg

iona

l MR

F Lo

wer l

ikel

y ga

te fe

es

Wid

e va

riety

of m

ater

ial t

hat

coul

d be

recy

cled

Cur

rent

ly o

ne d

omin

ant p

laye

r (T

hies

s)

If lo

ng te

rm c

ontra

ct n

ot

offe

red

then

oth

er M

RF

oper

ator

s m

ay n

ot b

e in

tere

sted

Tim

ing

in te

nder

ing

impo

rtant

if

com

petit

ion

in M

RF

oper

atio

n is

to b

e en

cour

aged

This

is b

eing

pur

sued

on

a re

gion

al b

asis

Loca

l MR

F fo

r Sh

ellh

arbo

ur

Less

trav

el d

ista

nce

for

colle

ctio

n ve

hicl

es

Cos

ts lik

ely

to b

e gr

eate

r due

to

low

volu

mes

Dom

inan

t mar

ket p

laye

rs m

ay

not b

e in

tere

sted

Con

tam

inat

ion

may

be

an

issu

e as

mor

e ob

viou

s

Cos

t im

plic

atio

ns

This

is n

ot p

ract

ical

or

affo

rdab

le d

ue to

low

loca

l vo

lum

es


Dry

Rec

ycla

bles

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Reg

iona

l MR

F Lo

wer l

ikel

y ga

te fe

es

Wid

e va

riety

of m

ater

ial t

hat

coul

d be

recy

cled

Cur

rent

ly o

ne d

omin

ant p

laye

r (T

hies

s)

If lo

ng te

rm c

ontra

ct n

ot

offe

red

then

oth

er M

RF

oper

ator

s m

ay n

ot b

e in

tere

sted

Tim

ing

in te

nder

ing

impo

rtant

if

com

petit

ion

in M

RF

oper

atio

n is

to b

e en

cour

aged

This

is b

eing

pur

sued

on

a re

gion

al b

asis


Gar

den

& Fo

od O

rgan

ics

Adva

ntag

es

Dis

adva

ntag

es

Ris

ks

Com

men

ts

Gar

den

Org

anic

s M

ulch

ing

Inex

pens

ive

basi

c tre

atm

ent

Com

petit

ive

mar

ketp

lace

Like

ly en

d pr

oduc

t mar

ketin

g di

fficu

lty

Not

val

ue-a

ddin

g

Wee

d se

ed e

tc s

prea

d as

th

ere

is n

o th

erm

al tr

eatm

ent

Mar

ket s

atur

atio

n

Issu

es o

f nox

ious

wee

ds a

nd

not m

eetin

g Au

stra

lian

stan

dard

s

This

opt

ion

used

by

man

y C

ounc

ils b

ut ri

sks

in

spre

adin

g w

eeds

etc

and

not

be

st u

se o

f org

anic

s

Best

sui

ted

as s

hort

term

so

lutio

n fo

r low

vol

umes

Gar

den

Org

anic

s C

ompo

stin

g Be

tter q

ualit

y pr

oduc

ts w

ith

co-c

ompo

stin

g

Basi

c Pr

oven

Tec

hnol

ogy

Mor

e co

mpl

ex a

ppro

val

proc

ess

and

likel

y hi

gher

co

sts

Doe

sn’t

addr

ess

mai

n la

ndfil

ling

prob

lem

of f

ood

orga

nics

Appr

oval

and

site

sui

tabi

lity

Best

sui

ted

as m

ediu

m te

rm

solu

tion

for m

ediu

m v

olum

es

Doe

sn’t

addr

ess

mai

n la

ndfil

ling

prob

lem

of f

ood

orga

nics

This

wou

ld b

e id

eal w

ith th

e in

trodu

ctio

n of

gre

en w

aste

bi

n

Gar

den

and

Food

Org

anic

s C

ompo

stin

g H

ighe

st v

alue

trea

tmen

t

Like

ly to

ach

ieve

WAR

R

targ

ets

Hig

her v

alue

pro

duct

s sh

ould

ha

ve m

arke

ts

Impa

ct o

n Se

ctio

n 88

levy

Cou

ld h

ave

sign

ifica

nt

cont

amin

atio

n

Site

loca

tion

and

appr

oval

s di

fficu

lt

Plen

ty o

f tec

hnol

ogie

s bu

t not

a

lot o

f pro

ven

play

ers

Appr

oval

and

site

sui

tabi

lity

Ris

ks o

n so

me

tech

nolo

gy

perfo

rman

ce (e

g W

ytes

Gul

ly AW

T fa

cilit

y)

Best

sui

ted

as lo

ng te

rm

solu

tion

for g

reat

er v

olum

es

Supp

orte

d by

DEC


On

Cal

l Col

lect

ion

Serv

ices

Ad

vant

ages

D

isad

vant

ages

R

isks

C

omm

ents

Land

fill o

f Mat

eria

l R

elat

ivel

y in

expe

nsiv

e in

the

shor

t ter

m

Easy

to c

olle

ct a

nd ti

p

Less

col

lect

ion

Cos

ts

Sign

ifica

nt w

eigh

ts g

oing

to

land

fill

Diff

icul

t to

com

pact

in la

ndfil

ls

Dan

ger t

o W

ARR

targ

ets

Use

up

land

fill s

pace

qui

ckly

Cos

tly s

ervi

ce fo

r litt

le o

r no

envi

ronm

enta

l ben

efit

This

is n

ot s

usta

inab

le in

the

long

term

Tren

ds to

war

ds fe

wer

cl

eanu

ps w

ith g

reat

er

reco

very

Rec

over

y of

Mat

eria

l Sa

ves

wast

e to

land

fill

Can

cre

ate

new

busi

ness

es

and

inco

me

May

be

com

bine

d w

ith

Res

ourc

e R

ecov

ery

(Tip

Sh

op) o

pera

tions

Expe

nsiv

e in

itial

ly in

in

frast

ruct

ure

set-u

p

Sepa

ratio

n at

ker

bsid

e m

eans

m

ore

expe

nsive

col

lect

ion

Mar

kets

for p

rodu

cts

may

flu

ctua

te (e

g m

etal

s)

Mor

e ex

pens

ive

to c

olle

ct b

ut

with

hig

h m

etal

pric

es e

tc is

be

com

ing

mor

e po

pula

r

Appendix 3Best PracticeWaste Management for Local Government


A. Best Practice Waste Management for Local Government

This Appendix provides a review of best practice kerbside collection systems, waste and recyclables collection contracts, illegal dumping prevention, and public place litter management.

A.1 Collection of Garbage and Recycling

A.1.1 Collection of domestic waste

New South Wales service standard for domestic recycling The NSW Department of Environment Conservation (now DECCW) initiated a research project in 2004 to establish ‘good practice’ performance measures for key elements of kerbside recycling systems in order to assist Councils to deliver more effective and efficient systems.

Based on the 21 responses to a voluntary survey of metropolitan Councils in Sydney, the project derived ‘good practice’ measures, which are shown in the table below.

Table A-1 Good practice performance measures for kerbside recycling systems in New South Wales

Potential good practice measure

Performance Measure Description

Baseline (minimum)

Target

Household net yield (kg/hh/wk)

Total kerbside recyclables collected per household, excluding gross contamination.

≥4.0 ≥5.5 1

Per capita net yield (kg/person/wk)

Quantity of kerbside recyclables collected per person, excluding gross contamination.

≥1.5 ≥2.1

2 Net recovery rate (%) Total proportion of domestic waste diverted to the recycling stream

≥19 ≥29

3 Contamination rate (%)

Contaminants placed in recycling bins by householders

N/A ≤3.5

4 Service cost per household ($/hh/year)

Annual cost of collection and MRF acceptance of kerbside recyclables per household.*

Target range = $24 to $49

5 Tonnage cost ($/tonne)

Cost per net tonne of kerbside recyclables collected and accepted at MRF.*

Target range = $143 to $225

* Excludes Council administration costs Source: DEC (2004) Getting more from our recycling systems – Good practice performance measures for kerbside recycling systems, p4.

The report also found that those Councils most likely to be achieving a better recycling result have the following service attributes (DEC 2004, p7):


120-litre receptacle per dwelling for garbage and 240-litre split or commingled mobile bin per dwelling for recyclables; or a ‘three bin’ system (garbage, mixed containers, paper);

Fortnightly recycling collections;

Collection of PET, HDPE, steel, aluminium, glass, paper cardboard and liquidpaperboard; and

An established community education strategy.

The DECC has established preferred resource recovery practices by local councils based on the finding from the 2004 study discussed above, as well as additional studies on garden organics collection systems and the benefits of recycling.

The relevant preferred service standards in New South Wales include:

1. Collection systems for dry recyclables:

– Preference 1: 2 x 120L mobile bins for paper/cardboard and containers, collected on alternative weeks

– Preference 2: 1 x 240L mobile bin, commingled dry recyclables, collected fortnightly – Plus provision of collection services, where feasible, to non rateable properties and SMEs

2. Collection systems for garden organics:

– Councils with high volumes of garden organics (generation rate of 175 kg or more per household per year): 1 x 240L mobile bin collected fortnightly

– Councils with low volumes of garden organics (generation rate of less than 175 kg per household per year): tied and bundled collection, three to four times per year

– Further option: include food organics in conjunction with mobile bin based garden organics, where feasible, and where appropriate arrangements are in place with suitably licensed processing facilities.

3. Collection system for residual waste (garbage):

– Standard mobile bin size of 80, 120 or 140L – Variable charges, or other appropriate incentive schemes for residual waste collection services,

based on volume of bin – Also consider the introduction of treatment technology to process residual mixed wastes, with

landfill being retained only as a disposal option for final residue or where volumes and distances make reprocessing impractical.

4. Standard range of dry recyclables:

– Where feasible, and in conjunction with collectors and recycling reprocessors, new contracts for collection and reprocessing include the following standard range of dry recyclables:

o Recyclable paper and cardboard, including newspapers, magazines, phone books, cardboard packaging and liquidpaperboard

o Glass bottles and jars

o Steel cans and aerosols

o Aluminium rigid and semi-rigid packaging

o All plastic containers


– Further option: councils should also explore the merits of collecting flexible plastics and expanded polystyrene, in consultation with collectors and recycling reprocessors.

5. Mobile bins:

– mobile bins in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4123 Mobile Waste Containers. Including:

o Dark green or black body

o Red lids for domestic residual waste (garbage)

o Yellow lids for domestic dry recyclables (fully commingled or containers only)

o Blue lids for domestic paper

o Bright green/lime lids for garden organics and combined garden and food organics

– Further options: mobile bins should contain a minimum of 30% Australian post consumer recycled content and where feasible, reuse or recycling options for mobile bins be adopted for end of life management of bin stocks.

6. Universal performance measure: Recovery Rate should be adopted by Councils as the universal performance measure for service capture efficiency.

7. Frequency of kerbside audits:

– Kerbside audits recommended to be undertaken at least every two years at about the same time of the year. The kerbside audit should be undertaken at a time considered to be representative. School holidays, special events and holiday seasons should be avoided.

– To measure the effectiveness of changes to collections systems, it is recommended that kerbside audits be undertaken approximately six months prior to the collection service change and six months after implementation of the new service.

New South Wales service standard for commercial recycling Resource NSW (now part of DECCW) conducted a survey of councils in NSW that offered a commercial recycling service (Resource NSW, 2003). Resource NSW found that of those councils that provide a commercial waste service (64% of Councils), only 55% of the councils offered a recycling service as part of the commercial waste service.

The major findings of the survey are summarised below:

Councils may use the vehicles retained to provide the domestic service to also collect material from commercial customers;

Councils need to be able to separately account for the costs associated with each service (commercial and domestic), for the purposes of reconciling the Domestic Waste Management Charge (a charge levied by NSW Councils under the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

Councils must not use its regulatory powers to provide a commercial advantage nor direct businesses to use the Council service in preference to any private contractor;

Commercial recycling typically contains high levels of contamination which increases processing and disposal costs;

Barriers to commercial recycling services include:


– space constraints in commercial premises; – theft of bins; – lack of interest and motivation by business management; – high staff turnover rates in commercial operations; – customer reluctance due to previous unsatisfactory experience; – contamination management; – visual amenity; and – lack of education provided by collectors.

Generating revenue for Council should not be the main basis for a decision by Councils to enter the commercial waste or recycling service. A commercial waste service may help to reduce costs in other ways such as:

– reducing dumping of rubbish; – maintaining control of waste collection in busy CBD areas; – reducing the misuse of public bins; and – allows more efficient use of infrastructure.

Other benefits of providing a commercial service are:

– service is provided to small businesses neglected by larger commercial operators; and – increased recovery rates within the Council area.

Price is not the main driver for a customer to select Council’s service over a private collector. Flexibility, ease of use and convenience were the reasons given;

It is important that high and low level corruption does not become part of the service. Low level corruption is best eliminated by management tools such as transponders and electronic lift monitoring, while high level corruption is being combated by codes of conduct, fitness tests and open tendering.

Based on the NSW service standards for commercial waste collection, ‘best practice’ commercial waste collection would have the following attributes:

the ability to separately account for the amount of waste collected from commercial customers and the amount of waste collected from residential customers;

the ability to separately account for the cost of operation and disposal of waste collected from residential and commercial customers;

the commercial waste service should seek to complement the residential waste service in terms of efficient use of resources (equipment and staff);

the service must be flexible, easy to use and reliable; and

management of corruption, both high and low level, must be undertaken.

Environmental Evaluation of Kerbside Collection Systems A recent evaluation of the environmental impacts of different domestic waste and recycling systems in NSW (Nolan-ITU, 2004) found that the environmental benefits of kerbside recycling clearly outweigh the net financial costs of providing the service. A three-bin collection system (separate bins for garbage,


containers and paper) was found to have the greatest environmental benefit compared to other recycling systems assuming that the residual waste was sent to landfill.

The evaluation took into consideration potential contamination of recyclables and the level of recovery typically achieved from different recycling services. The difference in contamination and yields led to the environmental benefit of split bin systems being found to be comparatively low. Crate based systems (separate crates for paper and containers) were assessed as having high greater environmental benefit compared to split bin systems due to lower contamination (despite also having a lower yield).

Best practice principles for kerbside recycling based on National Packaging Covenant guidelines Schedule 2 of the National Packaging Covenant outlines the objectives, principles, and preferred practice for kerbside recycling systems to be implemented by Local Government. In general the principles underlying the preferred standards relate to sharing the costs of kerbside recycling, optimizing the amount, quality, and value of materials collected from the household waste stream, and ensuring pricing mechanisms provide incentive to achieve the aims and objectives of the kerbside recycling service.

Guidelines are provided for three stages of kerbside collection services:

Pre-contract considerations;

Contract provisions; and

Ongoing considerations.

A summary of these guidelines is provided in Table A-2.

Table A-2 Summary of National Packaging Covenant guidelines for Local Government Best Practice

Element of kerbside collection system Best practice guidelines for kerbside recycling

Precontract considerations

Community consultation

Role of kerbside recycling in overall waste minimization plan

Should reflect federal, state, regional, and local strategies and policies

Regional approaches should be encouraged where they offer improved economies of scale

Waste stream analysis to ensure service is targeted towards appropriate materials in a way which is efficient and effective

Size of container and incentive to optimize householder participation and resource recovery

Use of separate contracts for material collection, transport, and recovery

Triple bottom line performance measures and accounting

Contract provisions Materials to be collected should include some or all of: paper (white office), cardboard and paper (mixed colour), glass, aluminum, PET, HDPE, PVC, liquid paper board, and steel

Contract should specify who owns the materials

Contract should provide incentives for increased participation rate and material yield

Construction of container to be cost-effective and capable of performing required tasks


Element of kerbside collection system Best practice guidelines for kerbside recycling

Contract duration to consider long-term planning, capital investment, standard of service

Commitment to OH&S, industrial relations, control of contamination, high rate of recovery, reliability of service, physical and financial credibility of the service provider, and end use of recovered material

Regular audit requirements for contractor

Contractor should support and participate in local, regional, and state education and public awareness initiatives

Ongoing considerations Regular education and promotion

Commitment to on-going evaluation of waste minimization including data collection and system monitoring program with performance indicators

Regular feedback on system performance to local community and consultation on ways of improving this performance

7.1.1 Comparison with Shellharbour City Council’s system

A comparison of Council’s kerbside recyclables collection service with the attributes of best practice is provided below:

Table A-3 Comparison with NSW DECC good practice performance measures

Potential good practice measure Performance

Measure Description Baseline

(minimum) Target

Shellharbour City Council Performance

Household net yield (kg/hh/wk)

Total kerbside recyclables collected per household, excluding gross contamination.

≥4.0 ≥5.5 5.21 1

Per capita net yield (kg/person/wk)

Quantity of kerbside recyclables collected per person, excluding gross contamination.

≥1.5 ≥2.1 1.82

2 Net recovery rate (%)

Total proportion of domestic waste diverted to the recycling stream

≥19 ≥29 32.9%

3 Contamination rate (%)

Contaminants placed in recycling bins by householders N/A ≤3.5 4.91%9

4 Service cost per household ($/hh/year)

Annual cost of collection and MRF acceptance of kerbside recyclables per household.

Target range = $24 to $49 $37.29

5 Tonnage cost ($/tonne)

Cost per net tonne of kerbside recyclables collected and accepted at MRF.

Target range = $143 to $225 $141.01

9 EC Sustainable (2009) Domestic Kerbside Waste Stream Audit 2009 for Shellharbour City Council


The method and figures used for calculating each figure is explained below.

Household net yield - Council reported 6,514 t of kerbside recyclables were collected in 2008/2009. The EC Sustainable 2009 waste audit reported 4.91% contamination in the recycling stream. Applied to the amount of kerbside recyclables, this equals 320 t, leaving a total of 6194 t of uncontaminated recyclable materials. When divided by the estimated number of dwellings, 22,844, this produces 0.271 t of recyclables per dwelling per year, or 271 kg. Divided by 52 weeks this produces 5.21 kg per household per week.

Per capita net yield - Council reported that 6514 t of kerbside recyclables were collected in 2008/2009. The EC Sustainable 2009 waste audit reported 4.91% contamination in the recycling stream. Applied to the amount of kerbside recyclables collected, this equals 320 t, leaving a total of 6194 t of uncontaminated recyclable materials recovered. When divided by the estimated population of 65,332, this produces 0.095 t of recyclables per person per year, or 95 kg. Divided by 52 weeks this produces 1.82 kg per person per week.

Net recovery rate - Council reported that 6514 t of kerbside recyclables were collected in 2008/2009. The EC Sustainable 2009 waste audit reported 4.91% contamination in the recycling stream. Applied to the amount of kerbside recyclables collected, this equals 320 t, leaving a total of 6194 t of uncontaminated recyclable materials recovered. Council reported that 12,313 t of garbage were collected at kerbside in 2008/2009. This is a total of 18,827 t of garbage, recyclables and contamination collected at kerbside. To calculate the recovery rate, the amount of recovered recyclables (the contents of the recycling bin less contamination) is divided by the total amount of garbage and recyclables collected. This produces a recovery rate of 32.9%.

Contamination rate – This figure is quotes directly from EC Sustainable’s waste audit report.10

Service cost per household - Council reports that the recycling budget for 2010/2011 is $869,478, which includes collection and processing costs. This was divided by the number of households estimated for this year (23,314) to arrive at $37.29 per household.

Tonnage cost - Council reports that the recycling budget for 2010/2011 is $869,478, which includes collection and processing costs. This was divided by the total number of tonnes estimated to be delivered to the MRF for this year (6,166 t) including contamination, to arrive at $141.01 per tonne.

Shellharbour’s yield of recyclables at 1.82 kg per person per week is 0.3 kg above the DECC baseline and 0.3 kg below the target placing it is right in the middle of the DECC range. When measured by household however, Shellharbour’s 5.21 kg per week is closer to the target, just 0.3 kg below, than the baseline, which it is 1.2 kg above.

Shellharbour’s recovery rate at 32.9% is above the DECC target of 29%.

The costs per household, at 37.29, are also in the middle of the DECC range, $13.39 above the lower limit and $11.71 below the upper limit. Per tonne however, Shellharbour’s $141.01 per tonne is below DECC’s lower limit of $143.

A comparison of Council’s kerbside collection service with the NSW preferred standard is provided below:

10 EC Sustainable (2009) Domestic Kerbside Waste Stream Audit 2009 for Shellharbour City Council


Table A-4 Comparison with NSW Preferred kerbside collection standards

NSW Preferred Standard Shellharbour City Council

Collection systems for dry recyclables:

Preference 1: 2 x 120L mobile bins for paper/cardboard and containers, collected on alternative weeks

Preference 2: 1 x 240L mobile bin, commingled dry recyclables, collected fortnightly

1 x 240 L mobile bin, commingled dry recyclables, collected fortnightly

Plus provision of collection services, where feasible, to non rateable properties and SMEs

Service offered to business

Collection systems for garden organics:

Councils with high volumes of garden organics (generation rate of 175 kg or more per household per year): 1 x 240L mobile bin collected fortnightly

Councils with low volumes of garden organics (generation rate of less than 175 kg per household per year): tied and bundled collection, three to four times per year

1 x 240 L mobile bin collected fortnightly

Further option: include food organics in conjunction with mobile bin based garden organics, where feasible, and where appropriate arrangements are in place with suitably licensed processing facilities.

Currently working with neighbouring councils to consider processing options.

Collection system for residual waste (garbage):

Standard mobile bin size of 80, 120 or 140L 240 L standard (fortnightly collection) with 140 L optional11. When food organics can be diverted to the green lidded bin, it is planned that 140 L bins will become standard.

Variable charges, or other appropriate incentive schemes for residual waste collection services, based on volume of bin

Different charges for different bin sizes and a charge for one-off additional collections.

Also consider the introduction of treatment technology to process residual mixed wastes, with landfill being retained only as a disposal option for final residue or where volumes and distances make reprocessing impractical.

The life of Council’s landfill is such that there has not been, until recently, a pressing need to consider residual treatment technologies. This issue is also being investigated at a regional level.

Standard range of dry recyclables:

Where feasible, and in conjunction with collectors and recycling reprocessors, new contracts for collection and reprocessing include the following standard range of dry recyclables:

Recyclable paper and cardboard, including newspapers, magazines, phone books, cardboard packaging and liquid paperboard

Glass bottles and jars

Steel cans and aerosols

Shellharbour collects the materials below through its kerbside system:

Paper and cardboard including gable-topped liquidpaperboard containers but not long life containers;

Steel and aerosol cans;

Aluminium cans, trays and clean foil;

Rigid plastic containers, including lids; and

11 Before 2008 Council provided 120 litre bins as the optional smaller bin but this was changed to 140 litres at that time. There are

however, only about 1200 120/140 litre bins in use compared to over 22.000 240 litre bins.


NSW Preferred Standard Shellharbour City Council

Aluminium rigid and semi-rigid packaging

All plastic containers

Glass bottles and jars.

Further option: councils should also explore the merits of collecting flexible plastics and expanded polystyrene, in consultation with collectors and recycling reprocessors.

Council does not accept plastic bags, plastic wrap or expanded polystyrene

Mobile bins:

mobile bins in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4123 Mobile Waste Containers. Including:

Dark green or black body

Red lids for domestic residual waste (garbage)

Yellow lids for domestic dry recyclables (fully commingled or containers only)

Blue lids for domestic paper

Bright green/lime lids for garden organics and combined garden and food organics

Meets Australian Standard

Further options: mobile bins should contain a minimum of 30% Australian post consumer recycled content and where feasible, reuse or recycling options for mobile bins be adopted for end of life management of bin stocks.

Not known.

Universal performance measure:

Recovery Rate should be adopted by Councils as the universal performance measure for service capture efficiency.

Council’s State of the Environment Report mentions both recovery and diversion as measures of waste performance. Both are calculated for Council’s Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot. Recovery rate has not been adopted as the universal kerbside performance measure.

Frequency of kerbside audits:

Kerbside audits recommended to be undertaken at least every two years at about the same time of the year. The kerbside audit should be undertaken at a time considered to be representative. School holidays, special events and holiday seasons should be avoided.

Kerbside audits were conducted by EC Sustainable in May 2008 and June 2009. The previous known audits were conducted in 1997 as part of the Beverage Industry Environment Council’s National Recycling Audit and Garbage Bin Analysis.

To measure the effectiveness of changes to collections systems, it is recommended that kerbside audits be undertaken approximately six months prior to the collection service change and six months after implementation of the new service.

No regular audits are conducted.

A pre new service (1 July 2008) audit was conducted in May 2008 – two months prior to the new service commencing. An audit was conducted in June 2009 – one year after implementation of the new service.

Shellharbour City Council largely complies with DECC’s kerbside collection standards. Variations occur in only small areas, for example:

Council does not collect all liquidpaperboard containers;


Council provides complying 140 litre bins for garbage only as an option. The standard bin is 240 litres. However, this is collected fortnightly which means that residents have 120 litres per week capacity. DECC’s standards do not mention a standard collection frequency;

Council has not formally adopted a recovery rate as a standard measure;

Its bins probably do not have 30% recycled content; and

No regular audits are conducted.

A.2 Best Practice Waste Contracts

A.2.1 Kerbside recycling contracts

The NSW DECCW has model contracts for waste and recycling collection. Sustainability Victoria has also developed model kerbside recycling contracts for collection and for acceptance and sorting. Guidelines for contract provisions are also provided in the National Packaging Covenant, as summarised in Table A-2.

The key elements of the Sustainability Victoria and NSW DECCW model kerbside recyclables collection contract provisions and the Covenant’s contract guidelines are summarised in Table A-5. This table also compares the key elements of the model guidelines with the existing kerbside collection contract in place in Shellharbour.

Table A-5 Best practice elements for kerbside recycling contract

Best practice elements Source Covered in

existing Shellharbour

contract Comment

Collection and sorting is split into a collection service contract and an acceptance and sorting contract, to allow for more competition for the collection service, and the development of more efficient sub-regional sorting facilities

1 Yes When the current Contract was tendered, it was split into two separate components (Part A - Collection and Part B - Processing of Dry Recyclables). Tenderers were encouraged to tender for either component or both components. Thiess Services tendered for both and won both.

Payment arrangements for the collection service contract are calculated on a per tenement basis, with safety net arrangements to ensure collected product yields remain at acceptable benchmark levels

1 Yes Payment arrangements for the collection service are calculated on a per tenement basis.

The acceptance and sorting contract allows for the ‘no risk’ option and a risk sharing option that accommodates commodity price fluctuations if the ‘no risk’ option is not available

1 Yes The processing contract has a 'no risk' option only. Fluctuations in commodity prices are ‘worn’ by the Contractor.




contract Comment

The sorting contract payments are based upon the mass of material received only, and hence are not subject to variations in product composition over time, with allowance for adjustments to be made for contamination and glass breakage

1 Yes Processing fees are based on the mass of material received only, and does not vary with the level of contamination.

Price only varies as a result of rise & fall.

Commitment to OH&S, industrial relations, control of contamination, high rate of recovery, reliability of service, physical and financial credibility of the service provider, and end use of recovered material

3 Yes Contractor required to submit OH&S & Management Plan, Emergency Plan, and an Environmental Management Plan on an annual basis.

At the commencement of the Contract a contamination management plan was provided. Contractor required to implement at all times.

Compaction rates stipulated in recycling vehicles to reduce the amount of ‘wastage’.

Monthly operational meeting conducted. Quarterly performance meetings conducted that discuss KPI's stipulated in contract that focus on mobile bins, Collection Service, Contamination Management, Plant, OH&S, Employees, Reporting and Call Centre Operations.

Financial evaluation done on Contractor prior to awarding tender. They are now required to submit a statement saying they have met all the financial obligations with every payment request they lodge.

Materials to be collected should include some or all of: paper (white office), cardboard and paper (mixed colour), glass, aluminum, PET, HDPE, PVC, liquid paper board, and steel

3 Yes The following materials are to be collected as a minimum under the Contract: - Newsprint & magazines, - Cardboard, - Paper & Paper products, - Glass - Plastics numbered 1-6 (at a minimum) - Aluminium - Steel & aerosol cans, and - Liquid paper board.

Council’s contract also required glass fines to be recovered and processed for further use.

Contract should specify who owns the materials

2,3 Yes Once placed on kerbside material becomes property of Council.

Clause B5.0 of the Contract stipulates that all material delivered to the Processing Contractor, will become the property of the Processing Contractor upon delivery to the MRF.

Contract should provide incentives 2,3 No




contract Comment

for increased participation rate and material yield

Construction of container to be cost-effective and capable of performing required tasks

3 Yes All new mobile bins supplied under the Contract must comply with AS4123 and have a 10 year manufacturer's warranty.

Contract duration to consider long-term planning, capital investment, standard of service

3 Yes The Contract term is for an initial Term of 4 years, with two possible 1 year extensions.

The Contract Term was developed to ensure that the conclusion of our Contract will align with neighbouring Councils to assist in the implementation of an AWT. We wanted it to be short in that regard, but not so short that it would discourage other companies from tendering.

Regular audit requirements for contractor

2,3 Yes Annual independent safety audits are required.

Contractor should support and participate in local, regional, and state education and public awareness initiatives

3 Yes A component of our Contract includes the employment of an Education Officer that is focused on education within the local government area.

Source 1: Sustainability Victoria model kerbside recycling contracts Source 2: DECC model waste and recycling contracts Source 3: National Packaging Covenant, Schedule 2

The comparison of the existing collection contracts with the best practice elements shows that Council is already meeting many of the elements of what is considered best practice. However the contract does not currently provide incentives for increased participation rates and material yield.

A.3 Public Place Litter Management The costs of litter infrastructure and management are considerable in most council waste management budgets. Sustainability Victoria estimated that litter costs are between 7% - 31% of a council’s overall waste management costs. Best practice management of litter starts with the development and implementation of a Litter Management Plan. According to Sustainability Victoria, a litter management plan should include the following:

A Litter Prevention Taskforce – to plan a litter management program. The taskforce should comprise of representatives of local government, waste and cleaning contractors, community groups and local businesses;

Education and communication – is an essential ingredient for any program that aims to change behaviour. Stories and displays, which feature the work of local councils and groups working on litter prevention, creates a strong message and increases receptiveness to change;


Regulation - reinforces to all those responsibly dealing with their waste, that litter is an important social and environmental issue and is treated seriously;

Incentives - Providing financial and infrastructure incentives helps enlist support and assistance from community and businesses. Successful incentives have included providing funds to assist with cleanups and education, competitions, awards.

Other essential principles in managing litter are (Communitychange, 2003):

Cleanliness – Clean environments lead to less lettering and more binning. People in areas that are kept clean are less likely to litter;

Accessibility to infrastructure – Any implemented system or infrastructure to manage litter must be accessible as this will encourage the use of facilities and influence disposal behaviour;

Consistency – All strategies and programs must reinforce similar expectations in all situations;

Involvement – Involving the community widely creates a sense of ownership which impacts positively on disposal behaviour;

Integration – Strategies need to be linked and connected to all stakeholders; and

Demonstrate commitment – Leadership needs to be shown and must be sustained and promote a long-term vision.

Issues to be considered in the assessing the placement of bin infrastructure are listed in Table A-6. These issues are based on the Bin Infrastructure Systems (BinS) Litter Management Training Packagedeveloped by the Beverage Industry Environment Council, 2003.

Table A-6 Issues to consider in assessing public place bin infrastructure

Issue Items for consideration

Problematic areas Areas identified as having litter problems, and ranking of these areas to determine priority areas to address.

Litter containment How easy it is for litter to leave a problematic site, and how to address movement of litter and potential environmental safeguards such as bin placement, used of litter fences, etc.

Management and Monitoring Ongoing litter management at the site and systems in place for monitoring effectiveness of Council services.

Bin Access Ease of access to bins in a particular site.

Bin capacity Is capacity of bin suited for the purpose?

Bin ergonomics Functional operation of the bin and servicing requirements considering OH&S issues, difficult access for servicing, etc.

Presence and position Optimising bin placements for maximum effect.

Comparison with Shellharbour City Council’s Litter Management Council does not currently have a litter management plan or dedicated litter ‘taskforce’ in place.


A.4 Illegal Dumping Illegal dumping is a constant and highly visible problem in NSW, particularly in local government areas with a high population density. Businesses and individuals illegally dump to avoid either disposal fees or the time and effort required for proper disposal. Illegal dumping in Shellharbour is not considered to be a major problem, however Council will need to monitor the situation particularly as the number of medium density dwellings in some parts of the local government area increases over the next ten years.

The New South Wales DECC (2008) developed Crackdown on Illegal Dumping: Handbook for Local Government to assist local government in managing and preventing illegal dumping in their local areas. The handbook suggests well-designed and well-focused methods that reduce opportunities for illegal dumping by modifying the environment, improving regulatory action, focusing education messages and improving services.

Table A-7 outlines the five main illegal dumping prevention mechanisms described in the handbook.

Table A-7 The five main illegal dumping prevention mechanisms

1. Increase the effort: make access difficult

Make access difficult to hot spots using structural approaches, such as:

o lighting

o landscaping, revegetation or beautification

o barriers, such as fences and locked gates, concrete blocks, logs and boulders and earth mounds.

2. Increase the risk of getting caught

Strengthen surveillance:

o use surveillance cameras and signs to indicate the area is being watched

o increase patrols in hot spots

o assist community surveillance and reporting of suspect activities

o use aerial surveillance in rural and remote areas.

Carry out periodic, high-profile compliance campaigns.

Use partnerships with other councils, agencies and stakeholders.

Publicise successes as widely as possible.

3. Reduce the rewards: deny financial benefits

Provide and/or promote free or subsidised waste services.

Issue fines to offenders.

Require offenders to clean up.

4. Reduce provocations: don’t give them a reason to dump

Provide efficient and well communicated waste services.

Ensure reasonable waste service costs where possible.

Foster community pride by enhancing the area’s aesthetic appeal.

Keep areas free of illegally dumped material.


5. Remove excuses: educate and inform the community

Publicise waste services.

Carry out education programs outlining responsibilities.

Keep areas free of illegally dumped material.

Install signs at hot spots with illegal dumping prevention messages.

It is crucial to alter the perceived as well as the actual degree of effort, risk and reward involved.

Illegal dumping at charity stores or charity collection bins is a common problem. Some people believe what they are disposing of will be useful to the charity, others do it on purpose to avoid landfill tipping fees.

The Local Government Association of South Australia recommends fencing of the charity shop, installation of signage and surveillance cameras.

Comparison with Shellharbour City Council’s Management Process Council’s Compliance Rangers investigate complaints relating to illegal dumping and abandoned vehicles. Where the offender is identified, an on the spot fine may be issued. Additionally, the offender is required to remove the refuse or this is done by Council at the offender’s expense. Council has in place a waste development control plan (DCP) that specifies a range of waste related issues to be dealt with in new single and multi unit dwelling and mixed use developments. Appropriate planning for multi unit and mixed use developments can help minimise illegal dumping around these kinds of premises.

There is opportunity for Council to further address the issue of illegal dumping. A detailed illegal dumping strategy should be developed focussing on developing a community education-based response to address the problem in the long-term. Items to consider in the development of the strategy are:

Require offenders to clean up – In addition to a fine, Council continue to require the offender pay for the removal / clean up.

Refine hardwaste collection service – given Council's current arrangement for hardwaste collection (on-call services), the following are recommended for most effectiveness:

o Customer service staff inform callers about alternatives for unacceptable materials; and

o Customer service staff can explain why some items are unacceptable.

Improve communication to residents – matters relating to hard waste collection and illegal dumping to be incorporated into an overall comprehensive communication and waste education strategy. Specific education tools relating to illegal dumping are listed in Table 6 of the DECC (2008) Crackdown on Illegal Dumping: Handbook for Local Government.

Co-operation with adjoining councils for Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad system – this has worked well in Sydney Western Suburbs council areas. Some of the Southern Councils Group member councils are already part of the southern areas RID Squad.

CCTV monitoring black spots – for particular consistently bad areas for illegal dumping, consider installing CCTV monitoring as a deterrent and also to assist in identifying offenders.

Dob in a dumper hot line for residents – dedicated hot line for residents to report illegal dumping.


A.5 Waste Education

A.5.1 Community Education and Engagement

There are numerous methods for educating and engaging the general public on environmental issues. This section provides specific information on different methods of behaviour change and links these to the issues identified through the community consultation sessions.

Social change theory has been developed following the introduction of mass media in the 1920’s. As more research has been conducted on how people assimilate messages and relate to the world around them, more understanding has been gained on how to affect behaviours. This section provides details on different community engagement and social change instruments available to Council to influence the behaviour of residents.

Social Change Theory Environmental sustainability (including waste reduction) cannot be achieved without resolving the social, cultural and economic reasons for unsustainable (wasteful) behaviours (McKenzie Mohr 2001). There are many companies currently marketing consumables, which compete against waste minimisation messages. These companies cultivate a ‘buy more, now’ worldview that enhances the purchase of their product.

Australia is increasingly becoming a consumer society - where people do not just use resources/ materials, they often consume the symbolic meanings associated with products. Living in an age of consumerism - where consumption has become an ideology - has meant that consumption is linked to identities, aspirations and leisure activities, resulting in ever-rising per capita consumption (PCE 2004).

Household income is one of the most important indicators of socio-economic status. With other data sources, such as educational qualifications and occupation, household income helps to evaluate the economic opportunities and socio-economic status of an area. Educational programmes developed to inform residents on waste management issues, must be designed to factor in these considerations.

Individual Worldview It is important to acknowledge that learning is a life-long process in which different influences dominate at different times during a person’s life. Learning can take place in both formal and informal settings through which behaviours, skills, knowledge and values are acquired (McKenzie Mohr 2001).

Societal change can happen as a result of an accumulation of learning into everyday actions or regardless the amount of existing knowledge, awareness and conflicting attitudes or values (McKenzie Mohr 2001). For example, a resident may think recycling is very important and a good idea, but frequently forget to do it. Alternatively some residents may be annoyed by the inconvenience of home composting, but do it anyway, because of the principle and personal benefits. People behave in ways that reflect and support their worldview (McKenzie Mohr 2001). A person’s worldview is more than just their attitude to a topic. ‘Attitude change appears to be a necessary, but insufficient condition for behaviour change’ (McKenzie Mohr 2001). When trying to alter the behaviour of adults, the influences on an individual’s entire worldview, not just their awareness, attitudes and values, should be considered.

Changing Behaviour If a person’s worldview, rather than their attitude or economic self-interest, governs their behaviour, it is important to either know how to change someone’s worldview, or to get them to change their behaviour


regardless. Social change techniques can be utilised in influencing behaviours around waste management and the environment in general.

Figure A-7-1 (Cameron. L 2002) shows the complex nature of the factors influencing behaviour change. This model provides insight into why people behave the way they do. Behaviour change is more complex than simply making people environmentally aware by providing them with the information.

Specific attitudes and Beliefs

Institutional Structure & Constraints

Cultural Values

Social Norms

Action Plans

Behaviour

Behavioural commitments &

intentions

Personal Norms, sense of obligation to act

General beliefs and World views

Social Values

Figure A-7-1 Determining factors of consumption behaviour Source: Cameron. L (2002)

Education and Engagement Programmes There have been various ‘education’ models developed over the years to achieve change in social behaviours. The discussion below is derived from Doug McKenzie Mohr’s (2007) work in social change theories and assesses several education and engagement programme options.

Mass Media Campaigns The term ‘mass media’ was first used in the 1920’s with the advent of nationwide radio networks and mass-circulation newspapers. ‘Mass media’ represents a section of the media that is specifically designed to reach a very large proportion of the population or target audience. Mass media generally refers to media sources such as television, radio, national press, magazines, newspapers, as well as outdoor advertising and signage such as that found on billboards, street furniture and vehicles. Campaigns, which use mass media tools, work on the premise that people need to see or hear a message multiple times and form multiple sources in order for the message to be internalised and acted upon.


Environmental Education There are five distinct aims of environmental education.

To enhance awareness;

To increase knowledge and understanding;

To improve skills;

To affect attitudes and values;

To encourage participation and action.

While these are important factors for changing the way in which people think and react to their environment, they may not necessarily translate into behaviour change. Education campaigns that focus on providing information and emphasise enhancing knowledge or altering attitudes frequently have little or no effect upon behaviour 12.

Public Education Campaigns Public education campaigns have been used in an attempt to educate the general public on issues of social concern such as smoking, traffic safety, diet and health. Campaigns have been characterised in the past by the use of entertainment media to depict the dramatic consequences of inaction. To be deemed effective these are generally long-term campaigns that use as many information channels as possible to convey a given message. Education methods have included print, broadcast, public relations, national and local news media, public service announcements, paid advertising, as well as collaboration with retailers, service providers and community leaders and celebrities.

It is now thought that provision of information alone is not enough to change behaviour and many successful public education programmes have leveraged legislative change and additional community engagement.

Social Marketing Social marketing campaigns utilise the tools and techniques of commercial marketing with the aim of creating societal behaviour change rather than to generate profit. The emphasis is in understanding the target audience and identifying their barriers to change and identifying the benefits of engaging in new behaviours. This approach can be a highly effective long-term method of changing behaviour, as it involves a strategic approach, ongoing research and evaluation of progress.

Community-Based Social Marketing Community-based social marketing (CBSM) draws from social psychology research, which indicates that initiatives effective in fostering and maintaining behaviour are often those carried out at the community level, involving direct contact with people. CBSM involves:

Identifying barriers and benefits to waste reduction behaviour within the community, through local research;

Piloting a strategy containing tools such as prompts, incentives, commitments, social norms and effective communication to overcome barriers and emphasise benefits to individuals adopting the desired behaviours;

12 http://www.cbsm.com/Chapters/introduction.lasso (last accessed 8 August 2008)


Evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy making changes as needed to improve the programme; and

Large scale implementation of the strategy.

When used alone, these tools can have a substantial impact on the adoption of sustainable behaviours. Overseas studies have shown that together the CBSM tools are an influential set of instruments that can be used to encourage and maintain behaviour change13. It is crucial that pilots and educational materials are carefully evaluated to determine if they are assisting in behaviour change, rather than just raising awareness.

A.5.2 Waste Education Opportunities in Shellharbour

Based on the educational programme styles described above, it is recommended that Council utilise three different programmes to improve waste minimisation behaviours of residents in Shellharbour.

Table A-8 Issues to be addressed by education programs

Main Topic Issues for Consideration Recommended Actions

Waste Collection Services

Access to services (when to place bins out, how to receive new bin etc).

Materials to be placed in each bin.

Space and storage of bins.

Develop a CBSM programme to inform residents about what items can be placed in each kerbside bin service and how people access these services. The programme should incorporate any current marketing material, such as the recycling collection calendars.

Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUD)

Increased illegal dumping as this dwelling type increases in the local government area.

Difficult to engage with the sector.

Engagement with body corporate and real estate agents.

Develop working relationships with large body corporate organisations and local real estate agents to assist with providing new residents with sufficient information about waste collection services.

Develop prompts and assistance packs for MUDs to use in educating their residents.

Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot

Improve recycling and resource recovery at the Depot.

Establish a waste education centre at the Depot.

Develop a comprehensive integrated education campaign – which could include trials of collection systems with selected customers, purpose-designed labels and signage, brochures, leaflets and information sheets, web pages, operator and staff training and customer information sessions.

13 http://www.cbsm.com (last accessed 8 August 2008)


Main Topic Issues for Consideration Recommended Actions

Organic waste management

Promotion of home composting and worm farming.

Promotion of the garden organics kerbside collection.

Promotion of alternative methods of managing organic wastes.

Develop a CBSM programme to promote and support home composting, worm farming and the Earthworks training.

Consider alternative options for food waste management (Bokashi) and promote as part of the wider CBSM programme.

Packaging waste and plastic bag usage

Council to assist residents in sourcing products with minimal packaging.

Council to consider developing a political position on Extended Producer Responsibility legislation.

Council to consider developing a brief fact sheet about the benefits of packaging and current efforts being made across Australia to reduce the environmental impacts of packaging.

Illegal dumping Develop an illegal dumping prevention campaign.

Increase regulation around dumping.

Develop a comprehensive illegal dumping management programme incorporating all aspects of management (notification, clean up, enforcement, education).

Develop a CBSM campaign to reduce incidents of illegal dumping – link the programme to hard waste collection program.

Chemical Clean Up and other special collections

Notification of special collections. Work with service provider partners to further increase the range of promotional opportunities for the special collection services.

Communication and education

Educate the children of Shellharbour.

Educate the general public of Shellharbour on waste minimisation issues.

Develop a schools education programme which can be rolled out across all schools in Shellharbour.

Update waste education strategy.

Street litter Littering in public places. Develop a CBSM programme to tackle street litter – this may be best served through a regional programme.

A.5.3 Recommended Waste Education and Engagement Actions

Prior to the development of any of these options into a full programme for implementation, it is recommended that Council consult with neighbouring councils to see if there is any ability to jointly implement programmes across a number of Councils to ensure there is a consistent message regarding waste minimisation in the area.

Waste Education and Engagement Strategy Council should consider all of the issues raised by the community to review relevance and prioritise the issues prior to developing programmes to address them.

The waste education strategy should identify the following:


The aim and objective of the waste education strategy – support the Waste Strategy Implementation;

The objectives of the strategy – identify the key issues to be addressed by the education strategy;

The basis of activities – tools to be used to develop programmes, e.g. CBSM informational, etc.

Action Plan – develop an action plan with activities, timeframes, and evaluation plans.

Waste Education and Engagement Actions The Waste Education Strategy should be revised and updated to provide specific direction for the implementation of any education programmes. The following information is provided to assist in the revision of the waste education strategy.

Council can address waste management issues through three different education programme styles:

Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM);

Community Engagement (may develop into a CBSM programme in the future); and

Community Education.

Appendix 4Glossary of Terms


4 Glossary of Terms

Bokashi System: The Bokashi system uses an organic fermentation process to convert kitchen waste into soil conditioner.

Commercial and Industrial Waste Stream: Waste from the commercial and industrial sector such as offices, retail outlets, restaurants, factories and institutions.

Community Based Social Marketing: A concept created by Doug McKenzie Mohr, PhD which aims to market sustainable behaviour at the community level. It includes a general four-step process that usescommercial marketing techniques to encourage people to adopt a new behaviour. The steps include: 1. Identification of barriers to a behaviour, 2. Construction of a programme to overcome these barriers, 3. Implementation of the program across the community, and 4. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme.

Community Engagement: Communication (thinking, talking, listening, relating and acting), for some set of outcomes, in the community. Engagement can take many forms including information, education, consultation, public participation and capacity building.

Community Education: A form of community engagement focussed on distribution and dissemination of information.

Construction and Demolition Waste: Solid and inert waste materials, arising from the demolition, erection, construction, refurbishment and alteration of buildings and the construction, repair and alteration of infrastructure including roads, bridges, dams, tunnel, railways and airports.

Diversion Rate: The proportion of waste materials diverted from landfill to be recycled, composted or re-used as a percentage of total waste generated.

Ecologically Sustainable Development: Using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased.

E-Waste: Old, end-of-life or discarded electronic appliances. This sort of waste includes computers, consumer electronics, fridges etc which have been disposed of by their original users.

Food Organics: The biodegradable fraction of food. Food waste means waste from the manufacture, preparation, sale or consumption of food but does not include grease-trap waste.

Garden Organics: Organic material that consists of branches, grass, leaves, plants, loppings, tree trunks, tree stumps and similar materials, and includes any mixture of those materials.

Hard Waste: Bulky hard waste types such as household appliances and furniture.

Hazardous Waste: Wastes currently defined as ‘hazardous wastes’ in the proposed Regulatory Impact Statement contained in Appendix B of Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills, NSW EPA 1996.

Horizons: Timeframe for strategy actions to be implemented. Horizon 1 covers the next five years, Horizon 2 covers from 2015 to 2025 and Horizon 3 covers from 2025 and beyond closure of the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot.


Household Hazardous Waste: Waste generated by households that may pose a threat to human health or the environment if not properly disposed of. Examples would include paint, cleaning chemicals, used motor oil etc.

Inert Waste: Waste which does not undergo environmentally significant physical, chemical or biological transformations and have no potentially hazardous content once landfilled. This includes such wastes as uncontaminated bricks, plastics, glass etc.

Mixed Waste: A combination of waste types - materials that remain following the removal of recyclable materials or has not undergone any separation. Residual waste or garbage.

Multi Unit Dwelling: An apartment block.

Municipal Waste Stream: Domestic waste (including kerbside collected garbage, bulky clean up waste, garden organics and recyclables), domestic small vehicle waste delivered to the Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot, Council mixed waste and vegetation.

National Packaging Covenant: The National Packaging Covenant is a voluntary agreement with the packaging supply chain to minimise the environmental impacts from the disposal of used packaging through the re-use or recycling of used packaging materials. (from DECC website).

Recovery Rate: The amount of material recovered from a product group as a proportion of overall consumption as represented by the equation: Recovery rate = weight of recyclables in recycling bin/(weight of recyclables in recycling bin + weight of recyclables in garbage bin).

Recyclables Bins: Specially designated waste bins for recyclable materials (often have blue and/or yellow lids in NSW).

Recyclate: Materials collected for recycling.

Residual Mixed Waste: The mixed waste materials which remain following the removal of recyclable materials from household (general) waste.

Special Waste Services: A service provided which accepts many waste streams that require special handling, including asbestos, synthetic mineral fibre and dusty wastes.

Split Bin Systems: A system in which the bin is divided into two sections. Different waste streams are placed into individual sections of the bin.

Three Bin System: A system in which different bins are provided for individual waste streams (e.g. one bin for residual mixed waste, one for garden organics and one for recyclables).

Transponder: A satellite component that receives, modulates, amplifies, and retransmits a signal.

Virgin excavated natural material (VENM): Clean, natural material that is uncontaminated with other waste materials or manufactured chemicals

Waste Wise Events: A Waste Wise Event is an event which is designed so that garbage is minimised and recycling is maximised. It involves planning and implementing waste avoidance strategies that encourage stakeholders and vendors to minimise the use of non-reusable and non-recyclable catering products and packaging. It has a bin system that encourages and makes it easy for attendees and stallholders to recycle and dispose of waste materials responsibly. (from DECC website).

Appendix 5List of Acronyms


5 List of Acronyms

The following is a list of acronyms used in this report

ABD: Australian Bureau of Statistics

AWT: Alternative Waste Technology

CBD: Central Business District

CBSM: Community Based Social Marketing

CPRS: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

DCP: Development Control Plan

DEC: Department of Conservation (Now part of DECCW)

DECC: Department of Environment and Climate Change (Now DECCW)

DECCW: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

DEWHA: Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (commonwealth)

EPHC: Environmental Protection and Heritage Council

EPA: Environment Protection Authority (NSW)14

EPR: Extended Producer Responsibility

HDPE: High Density Polyethylene

LGA: Local Government Area

MGB: Mobile Garbage Bin

MRF: Materials Recovery Facility

MUD: Multi-Unit Dwelling

NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation

NPC: National Packaging Covenant

NSW: New South Wales

OH&S: Occupational Health and Safety

OSAC: Oil Stewardship Advisory Council

PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate

POEO Act: Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride

RID: Regional Illegal Dumping

SCG: Southern Councils Group

SME: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise 14 The EPA is a statutory body with specific powers under environment protection legislation. In September 2003, the EPA became

part of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). DEC is now restructured to be DECCW..

5 List of Acronyms

The following is a list of acronyms used in this report

ABD: Australian Bureau of Statistics

AWT: Alternative Waste Technology

CBD: Central Business District

CBSM: Community Based Social Marketing

CPRS: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

DCP: Development Control Plan

DEC: Department of Conservation (Now part of DECCW)

DECC: Department of Environment and Climate Change (Now DECCW)

DECCW: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

DEWHA: Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (commonwealth)

EPHC: Environmental Protection and Heritage Council

EPA: Environment Protection Authority (NSW)14

EPR: Extended Producer Responsibility

HDPE: High Density Polyethylene

LGA: Local Government Area

MGB: Mobile Garbage Bin

MRF: Materials Recovery Facility

MUD: Multi-Unit Dwelling

NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation

NPC: National Packaging Covenant

NSW: New South Wales

OH&S: Occupational Health and Safety

OSAC: Oil Stewardship Advisory Council

PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate

POEO Act: Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride

RID: Regional Illegal Dumping

SCG: Southern Councils Group

SME: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise 14 The EPA is a statutory body with specific powers under environment protection legislation. In September 2003, the EPA became

part of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). DEC is now restructured to be DECCW..

VENM: Virgin Excavated Natural Material

WARRS: Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007

www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au

POSTAL ADDRESS:PO Box 155Shellharbour City CentreNSW 2529

ADMINISTRATION CENTRE:Lamerton House

Lamerton CrescentShellharbour City Centre

NSW 2529

Documents

Waste Management Strategy€¦ · 4.3.1 Waste Quantity Trends and Recovery from Landfill The figures below are based on weighbridge data for the years 2000/2001 to 2008/2009. In 2008/2009