Waste Sector Modelling and analysis · Web viewNSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy - Targets of 70% recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), 70% recycling of Commercial

WASTE SECTOR MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

Waste Sector Emission Parameters Page 2 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289

/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

Hyder Consulting Pty LtdABN 76 104 485 289Level 5, 141 Walker StreetLocked Bag 6503North Sydney NSW 2060AustraliaTel: +61 2 8907 9000Fax: +61 2 8907 9001www.hyderconsulting.com

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

WASTE SECTOR MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

Waste Sector Emission Parameters

Final Report

Author

Dominic Schliebs, Charlotte Wesley and Sam Withers

Checker Ron Wainberg

Approver Ron Wainberg

Report No AA007082-R01-04

Date 20 August 2014

This report has been prepared for Department of Environment in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis dated 16 May 2014. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 76 104 485 289) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

CONTENTS

1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 31.1 Background.........................................................................................................................................3

1.2 Scope..................................................................................................................................................3

1.3 Modelling Methodology.......................................................................................................................4

2 Solid Waste Emissions................................................................................................................. 52.1 Projection Assumptions.......................................................................................................................5

3 Wastewater Emissions...............................................................................................................223.1 Projection Assumptions.....................................................................................................................22

4 Modelling Projections – SUmmary..............................................................................................254.1 Solid Waste Parameters...................................................................................................................25

4.2 Wastewater Parameters....................................................................................................................28

5 Future Recommendations..........................................................................................................31

6 References................................................................................................................................. 32

1 Solid Waste – Baseline Data......................................................................................................341.1 Baseline data....................................................................................................................................34

2 Wastewater – Baseline Data......................................................................................................442.1 Baseline Data....................................................................................................................................44

APPENDICES

Appendix A Baseline Data Review

Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page i/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

TABLESTable 2-1 Current Waste Policy.................................................................................................................................5

Table 2-2 Australian Capital Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios..........................................................................10

Table 2-3 New South Wales Waste Diversion Scenarios........................................................................................11

Table 2-4 Northern Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios........................................................................................12

Table 2-5 Queensland Waste Diversion Scenarios.................................................................................................12

Table 2-6 South Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios............................................................................................13

Table 2-7 Tasmania Waste Diversion Scenarios.....................................................................................................13

Table 2-8 Victoria Waste Diversion Scenarios........................................................................................................15

Table 2-9 Western Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios........................................................................................16

Table 2-10 External Territories Waste Diversion Scenarios....................................................................................16

Table 3-11 Domestic and commercial wastewater generation – future projection estimates..................................22

Table 3-12 Industrial wastewater generation – future projection estimates.............................................................23

Table 1-13 Australian rates of waste generation, recycling and recovery, by jurisdiction, 2008–09.......................35

Table 1-14 Estimated net landfill emissions and total gross embodied energy to landfill, 2008–09........................35

Table 1-15 WGRRA Waste Generation (tonnes per capita) data summary table (2010/11, excluding flyash).......35

Table 1-16 Landfill methane emissions by jurisdiction, 2009/10.............................................................................36

Table 1-17 Total quantity of raw materials (biodegradable organic materials) received for processing..................36

Table 1-18 Waste Audit Resources.........................................................................................................................37

Table 1-19 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia between 2002 and 2012...........39

Table 1-20 Activity data for waste in Australia.........................................................................................................39

Table 1-21 WMAA National Landfill Survey Results 2008.......................................................................................40

Table 1-22 Methane Capture Calculations – common assumptions.......................................................................42

Table 2-23 Industrial Wastewater Generation.........................................................................................................47

Table 2-24 Domestic & Commercial wastewater methane recovery.......................................................................48

Table 2-25 Industrial wastewater methane recovery – 2013...................................................................................48

FIGURESFigure 2-1 SKM-MMA Forecast LGC prices (2012).................................................................................................20

Figure 2-2 Acil Allen Preliminary LGC price forecasts under various scenarios (2014)..........................................20

Figure 2-3 Historic landfill CH4 recovery based on NGGI data 2001 - 2012............................................................21

Figure 4-4 Projected national waste generation per capita by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate)..........25

Figure 4-5 Projected national diversion rates by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate)..............................25

Figure 4-6 Projected national Municipal waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate)..................................26

Figure 4-7 Projected national C&I waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate)............................................26

Figure 4-8 Projected national C&D waste to landfill by waste mix type...................................................................27

Figure 4-9 Projected national Total waste to landfill by waste mix type..................................................................27

Figure 4-10 Historic and projected landfill CH4 recovery rates by jurisdiction (best estimate).................................27

Figure 4-11 Projected landfill CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)...............................................................28

Figure 4-12 Projected national wastewater generation (m3 per capita) and CH4 recovery (best estimate).............28

Figure 4-13 Projected domestic and commercial CH4 capture rates by jurisdiction (best estimate).......................29

Figure 4-14 Projected D&C CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)..................................................................29

Figure 4-15 Projected Industrial wastewater (tonne COD/tonne production) by industry (best estimate)...............30

Figure 4-16 Projected Industrial wastewater CH4 capture by industry (best estimate)............................................30

Figure 1-17 Department population projections for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.................................37

Waste Sector Emission Parameters Page ii Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289


Figure 1-18 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia.................................................39

Figure 1-19 WMAA National Landfill Survey..........................................................................................................41

Figure 2-20 Domestic Wastewater Generation, Sewered.......................................................................................45

Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page iii/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Environment (the Department) engaged Hyder Consulting (Hyder) to model parameters for waste generation, waste diversion and methane recovery rates as a time series to 2035. The findings of the investigation will be used by the Department to model methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment.

Hyder has developed a model to project future solid waste and wastewater parameters for input in the Department’s waste emissions model. The model considers baseline data sets and is designed to project future parameters under best estimate, high and low emissions scenarios.

Based on the scenario inputs and growth assumptions entered by the user, the model is able to project the following parameters in a time series up to 2034/35:

Solid waste generation;

Solid waste diversion rates;

Methane recovery from landfill sites;

Wastewater generation rates; and

Methane recovery from wastewater

The model also gives the user the opportunity to take into account policy changes and technology developments that may promote methane gas capture or reduce waste generation rates, such as the Renewable Energy Target.

The model contains a number of assumptions; these are based on Hyder’s experience and knowledge of the waste sector, current data sources and recent market trends. These assumptions are outlined in the following tables.

Solid Waste Generation

Waste Generation 2.5% growth per annum 1.7% growth per annum -0.5% growth per annum

Solid Waste DiversionThe model allows the user to enter a target diversion rate for each jurisdiction and waste stream with the three scenarios broadly defined below.

Waste Diversion No change from current BAU

Based on appraisal of policy and market drivers

Diversion targets achieved and/or optimistic improvements on current baseline

Wastewater Generation

Domestic & Commercial Wastewater Generation

0% 0% -2% until 2025

Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 1/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

Industrial Wastewater Generation 0% 0% -5% until 2025

Methane RecoveryThe projection of future methane recovery rates allows the user to take into account a range of factors including:

Impact of current RET policy

Impact of future Direct Action / ERF (currently set to zero as impact is not known)

Impact of new, cheaper technologies; and

For landfills, diversion of organics from landfill

Solid Waste 3.9% additional recovery by 2020

0% 5% additional recovery by 2030

3.9% less recovery by 2025

Wastewater 2% additional recovery by 2020

0% 4% additional recovery by 2025

NA

It was noted during the study that various baseline data sources investigated by Hyder presented conflicting information, were not publically available in raw form, and in some cases were not complete. This may impact the results of projection models in future studies depending on the source and/or completeness of the baseline data. Greater collaboration between the various stakeholders recording information relating to waste sector emissions, or the department aggregating the separate data sources, would assist in ensuring the most up to date and relevant data is available and used in future studies.



1 INTRODUCTIONHyder Consulting (Hyder) has been engaged by the Department of Environment (the Department) to provide consultancy services to support Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions projections for the waste sector.

Accordingly, Hyder has modelled parameters for waste generation, waste diversion and methane recovery rates to the year 2035. These parameters will serve as inputs for the Departmental model of waste emissions, which will contribute to the 2014 update of Australia’s Emissions Projections.

1.1 BACKGROUNDThe Department releases projections of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and reports on abatement estimates where possible. These projections comprise a number of sectors and include:

Energy (including direct combustion, transport and fugitives)

Industrial processes

Agriculture

Waste

Land use, Land-use change and Forestry

This report focuses on the key parameters that determine the emissions from the waste sector (solid waste and wastewater) which contributed around 3% to the nation’s emissions in 2012, mainly due to landfill disposal, composting, wastewater emissions and incineration of wastes. This report, which accompanies a parameter projection model (which the Department uses in an in-house waste emissions model), outlines the methods used to determine waste emission parameter projections, and discusses the issues which arose during the application of the data to the projection model.

1.2 SCOPEBased on current policy settings Hyder was required to project the following parameters as a time series from 2009/10 to 2034/35:

Solid waste generation per capita

Solid waste diversion rates

Methane recovery from landfill sites (including % flared and % captured)

Wastewater generation rates

Methane recovery from wastewater

These parameters were projected for three scenarios; best estimate, high emissions and low emissions. The basis of these projections is presented in the relevant sections of this report.

The modelling involved projecting waste emissions across a number of waste types, industries and jurisdictions, as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. The model was also designed to take into account projections of abatement attributable to particular government policy initiatives such as the Renewable Energy Target and jurisdiction waste management policies.


1.3 MODELLING METHODOLOGYHyder has developed a waste parameter model to project future solid waste and wastewater emission parameters for input to the Department’s own modelling of future emissions from the waste sector. The model considers the baseline data set for each jurisdiction and then calculates future parameters based on a number of growth assumptions that can be entered and adjusted by the user, to describe the impact of various future trends and policies. Different growth assumptions can be entered reflecting the core (best estimate), high and low emissions scenarios.

To establish the baseline data from which to make future projections, Hyder reviewed a number of datasets, both publically available and provided by the Department. Appendix A provides a summary of the datasets considered and discusses some of the inconsistencies encountered. The baseline data that was adopted by Hyder for the modelling is described within the relevant sections of this report.

Based on the scenario inputs and growth rate assumptions entered by the user, the model first calculates the annual growth in key parameters as a time series. The model then projects the waste generation per capita in each waste stream based on the annual growth assumptions defined for each scenario (baseline, high and low emissions).

For solid waste, the model also projects future waste diversion performance in each jurisdiction (by waste stream) and calculates the tonnage of each waste type diverted each year. This allows calculation of a breakdown of the waste to landfill in each jurisdiction.

For methane capture from both landfills and wastewater treatment facilities, the user can input assumptions about key factors that will affect future increases in methane recovery (such as Renewable Energy Target), which informs the calculation of the projected methane recovery time series for each jurisdiction. A specific time series showing the impact of the RET is presented.

The main output of the model is a series of datasheets for each jurisdiction based on a template provided by the Department, which details key solid waste and wastewater parameters. A further datasheet compiles the national dataset, based on population-weighted average values.



2 SOLID WASTE EMISSIONSMethane emissions from landfills depend on a number of factors including waste generation, waste diversion, and methane capture for destruction or energy recovery. Waste generation is typically linked to population growth and consumer behaviour. Waste diversion mostly depends on jurisdictional policy settings and instruments. Methane capture and utilisation is typically affected by regulatory requirements to control emissions and odours, and incentives for renewable energy generation and/or carbon abatement.

2.1 PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONSThis section describes the key assumptions adopted by Hyder in modelling future projections of solid waste emission parameters, including waste generation, waste diversion from landfill and landfill methane recovery rates.

Hyder examined a number of datasets in pursuit of appropriate baseline data from which to make future projections of these parameters. Appendix A provides a summary of this review and the key datasets considered. However, the actual data used as the baseline for projections is described below.

Waste Policy Projections of future waste diversion performance are heavily influenced by the waste policy frameworks in each jurisdiction including regulatory drivers, price signals (e.g. levies), infrastructure development and government support. To a lesser extent, waste generation can also be affected by waste policies.

The following table provides a summary of current waste policy in the Australian states and territories. The policy instruments identified in the table are the key issues likely to affect waste diversion and generation parameters.

Table 2-1 Current Waste Policy

Jurisdiction

Waste Policy Overview

ACT ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025 sets an ambitious target to divert 90% of waste from landfill by 2025 (with interim targets of 80% by 2015 and 85% by 2020). It also identifies clear and realistic action plans to achieve the targets.

NSW NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy - Targets of 70% recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), 70% recycling of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and 80% recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D).

The NSW waste levy which has reached $120 per tonne in the Greater Sydney basin and $64 per tonne in the Regional Regulated area (from July 2014) provides a significant driver for diversion and waste avoidance.

NT The NT does not have an over-arching policy or strategy in place to drive resource recovery, although Hyder understands a waste strategy is currently being drafted.

Qld The state government recently published the Waste – Everyone’s Responsibility: Draft Queensland Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity Strategy (2014-2024) for public consultation. The draft strategy proposes a diversion target for municipal waste of 50% overall based on 55% in metropolitan areas and 45% in regional centres.


Jurisdiction

Waste Policy Overview

SA South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2011-2015 set a target to divert 70% of metropolitan municipal waste by 2015. A revised strategy is due from 2015.

Tas The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2009 provides a high level strategic framework but does not set diversion targets. A very low voluntary landfill levy of $2/tonne has been introduced to fund some programs.

Vic The previous Towards Zero Waste strategy in Victoria set a municipal waste diversion target of 65% by 2014. The new strategy, Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy, sets a 30 year vision for resource recovery in Victoria but does not establish new diversion targets. Victoria has moderate landfill levies with varying rates for rural and metropolitan areas, and municipal and industrial waste.

WA The Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment sets diversion targets for metropolitan Perth region and non-metropolitan regions. In the metro area, the municipal waste diversion targets are 50% by 2015 and 65% by 2020. For regional centres, the targets are 30% by 2015 and 50% by 2020.

A landfill levy is in place and the government recently announced a significant increase in the levy rate for municipal waste to $55 per tonne from January 2015. The levy will continue to rise to $70/tonne by July 2018.

External Territories

Hyder is not aware that waste policy frameworks exist in the External Territories. Recycling options are significantly constrained by the geographical remoteness and high cost of transport and providing services to small populations.

2.1.1 SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL

2012 Baseline DataThe key output from the model is the ‘waste to landfill’ per capita for each jurisdiction, split by waste stream and type. The Department provided Hyder with historic waste to landfill inventory data which is understood to be partially derived from National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System (NGERS) datasets supplemented by jurisdictional reporting on waste volumes and composition (for non-NGERS reporting sites). The dataset shows the tonnage per capita of waste disposed to landfill in each jurisdiction up to and including 2012, split by waste stream and type. The Department specified that the future projections should be consistent with the existing landfill disposal inventory data, to avoid discontinuity in the emissions projections arising from the use of different datasets.

Therefore, the model projects from the 2012 waste to landfill values by allowing for the annual overall growth in waste generation and calculating the additional waste that will be diverted from landfill as a result of improved diversion performance in each jurisdiction by waste stream.

The NGGI data provided by the Department did not provide an indication of historic waste generation or diversion performance. As noted above, the most complete and recent national data set describing solid waste generation and recovery is the Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia (WGRRA) 2010/11 report and accompanying database. The WGRRA database aggregates available data on waste disposal, recycling and energy recovery to develop estimates of waste generation and recovery in each jurisdiction. Where possible, the



WGRRA 2010-11 data has been used as a baseline for projecting future waste generation and diversion performance.

Therefore, the data set used as a baseline in the model is a combination of:

Waste-to-landfill data from the 2011 and 2012 NGGI dataset provided by the Department and

2011 waste generation data from the WGRRA report.

Therefore it was necessary to project the 2011 waste generation data forward to 2012, to provide a common 2012 baseline that was consistent with the NGGI disposal data. Effectively, the 2012 generation data was calculated by applying the generation growth rate to the 2011 recycled component (generation minus landfill disposal, for each waste type) and then adding this to the 2012 NGGI landfill disposal figures.

Given the highly variable nature of waste data from differing sources, this resulted in some conflicts whereby the diversion of some waste types exceeded the calculated generation, and discrepancies whereby the resulting diversion rates were significantly different from 2011 diversion rates and 2012 diversion rates published by some jurisdictions. In those cases, the 2011 waste generation baselines were adjusted by Hyder.

For ACT, NSW, Queensland and Western Australia, it was possible to project the waste generation data from the 2011 WGRRA values. For Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, waste generation was calculated by combining NGGI landfill data with WGRRA recycling tonnages. For South Australia, a review of the 2010-11 data published by Zerowaste SA1 found that the WGRRA database significantly under-estimated the waste generation at 2,364 kg per person. Whereas data published by Zerowaste SA data indicated the waste generation was actually 3,284 kg per person in 2011, and this was figure was used as a baseline.

For the External Territories, in the absence of adequate data and considering the significant constraints on recycling in those regions, Hyder has assumed that the diversion rate was zero. Therefore the 2012 waste generation tonnage was assumed to equal the landfill disposal data provided by the Department.

The calculated 2012 diversion rates will still not exactly match diversion rates published by some jurisdictions, given they are calculated values from inconsistent datasets. However this approach has avoided significant discontinuities between the landfill disposal tonnages from 2011 to 2012 (and future projections), which is the ultimate output of the model.

The WGRRA diversion and generation data was also used as a basis to estimate the baseline split between waste streams (MSW, C&I and C&D) for waste generation. Where insufficient data was available to directly identify the waste generation stream split, it was back calculated from waste diversion data.

Future Growth in Waste Generation Overall waste generation can be directly linked to population, therefore this parameter is represented as waste generation per capita and combined with population forecasts to estimate the total waste generation. However, waste generation is also affected by other factors. For domestic waste, generation growth has often been linked to consumer behaviour and the level of economic activity in a given country. As residents become more affluent and achieve a higher standard of living, they tend to consume more goods and therefore produce more waste. In Australia, growth in consumer activity is best represented by the consumer price index (CPI).

1 http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resource-centre/publications/reuse-recovery-and-recycling/Recycling%20Activity%20in%20South%20Australia%202011-12.pdf Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 7/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

For C&I and C&D waste streams, there may be different factors that affect waste generation, such as the level of building activity, or investment in new manufacturing industries. However, such factors are highly volatile and future trends are very difficult to predict. Ultimately, these factors link back to the level of economic activity in a country and the CPI is again the most reliable indicator of this.

On the other hand, manufacturers and retailers are becoming more aware of packaging waste and taking measures to reduce it. Examples include light-weight packaging and re-usable shopping bags. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence within the recycling industry suggests there has been a significant drop in the generation of paper and cardboard waste. This is linked to a recent downward trend in consumption of paper products, which can mostly be attributed to a decline in sales of print media products (newspapers, magazines and marketing materials) due to substitution with electronic and online alternatives.

It is reasonable then that the best estimate of future waste generation growth should be somewhere below the expected growth in CPI, that is, mostly driven by economic activity and consumer behaviour, but somewhat offset by material efficiencies such as reduced packaging, improved manufacturing practices and reduced paper consumption. While a number of jurisdictions have set targets to reduce waste generation (including ACT and Queensland), there is little historic evidence that these have any significant impact.

The 2011 WGRRA report calculated the compound annual growth rate in national waste generation per capita over the 4 year period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 to be 0.6% per annum. Hyder utilised 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 WGRRA data sets to determine a best estimate growth scenario of 1.7%. The 2006-2007 data was excluded as it was skewed by changes in waste reporting practices of some states. By 2008-2009, waste reporting practices across the majority of states had improved, and in Hyder’s view the more recent nationally aggregated data sets of 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 could be used to prepare a revised estimate of the growth in waste generation.

It is prudent to consider the impact of the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, which resulted in a decline in economic activity across all sectors of the economy. This event explains the variation between the observed waste generation growth rate and the CPI, which is typically used to represent waste generation changes. Hyder acknowledges that this may have resulted in a lower than average waste generation figure for the year of 2008-2009.

While acknowledging that the 2008-09 data may have reflected the impact of the GFC, in Hyder’s view the 1.7% growth rate is a reasonable representation of future trends in Australia. It is not unexpected to have growth rate of 1.7% given that waste generation grows in line with economic growth with a small correction downward to account for reduced packaging, efficiencies, and other waste reduction measures. Therefore in Hyder’s experience, a figure between 1.5% to 2% is a reasonable assumption for waste generation growth in Australia. Given the uncertainties associated with waste generation modelling, it is best practice to consider a range of growth rate estimates and undertake sensitivity analysis. For this reason, this analysis compares high emissions, best estimate and low emissions scenarios for forecasting future waste generation.

As such, in Hyder’s view, longer term historic trends are not a reliable indicator of future waste generation growth given that:

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 had a significant impact on waste generation rates which will skew a projection including this period

The accuracy and completeness of waste data reporting systems have improved dramatically in some jurisdictions in recent years



Waste policies and waste management practices are constantly evolving and improving, which may affect waste generation rates in some jurisdictions.

To project future waste generation rates, Hyder has developed three scenarios as follows:

High emissions – per capita waste generation increases at 2.5% annually across all three sectors, which is approximately aligned with expected future CPI growth. This scenario assumes that generation grows in line with consumer activity with no significant additional efficiency savings (such as packaging efficiencies).

Best estimate – the per capita waste generation will grow at 1.7% per annum, across all three sectors. This is based on observed growth in national waste generation per capita over the two year period from 2008-09 to 2010-11, derived from the most recent aggregated waste data set from the WGRRA report. However it also represents a moderate reduction from the common baseline indicator (CPI) to account for reductions in paper consumption and further improvements in packaging reduction and other waste reduction measures.

Low emissions – the per capita waste generation rate declines very slightly by 0.5% per annum (negative), which would require significant additional reductions in paper consumption, improvements in packaging reduction and other waste reduction measures. For C&D waste, a zero growth rate is assumed as most of the waste reduction trends do not affect this sector to the same extent as MSW and C&I.

Historically, waste generation growth has varied significantly across jurisdictions as shown in the WGRRA report which estimated that the growth in per capita waste generation over the four years to 2011 varied from -14% (Qld) to 18% (ACT). In Hyder’s view, there is no basis to accurately predict how future waste generation growth rates will vary across jurisdictions. Therefore the above assumptions have been applied uniformly across all jurisdictions.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that waste generation will not continue to grow indefinitely. It is difficult to predict when the ‘upper limit’ might be reached and what that value may be. There is a growing awareness in the community and business of the need to minimise waste production and a number of initiatives already implemented or in planning as noted above. Hyder anticipates that this focus on waste reduction will be a slow process, continuing over the coming decade. For the purpose of modelling, Hyder has assumed that the waste generation growth rates above continue until 2025, after which waste generation per capita is assumed to stabilise.

2.1.2 WASTE DIVERSION

To estimate future diversion performance, the model allows the user to enter a future expected diversion rate (‘target’) for each jurisdiction and waste stream, with a corresponding year that the target rate will be achieved (see Hyder assumptions below). In the best estimate scenario, the expected future diversion should be based on known policy frameworks and drivers for diversion, and will not necessarily correlate with diversion targets set by each jurisdiction. The model assumes that the progress towards the target level from the baseline will be linear – therefore it is broken into equal annual steps.

Based on the future diversion assumptions and the defined contributions of each waste type to future diversion (see below), the model calculates the additional tonnage of each waste stream and type, that will be diverted from landfill in each future year (from 2012 baseline). That tonnage is subtracted from the ‘waste to landfill’ tonnage per capita from the previous year (starting from 2012 NGGI data), providing a continuous trend.

The model also calculates the overall diversion by waste type for each jurisdiction, based on the waste to landfill in each stream and the overall generation tonnages per capita.


The diversion parameters used in the modelling by Hyder are based on an appraisal of the waste policies and key drivers for diversion in each jurisdiction. The three scenarios have been broadly defined as follows:

Best estimate – based on realistic appraisal of policy and market drivers for diversion (e.g. levies, landfill bans, infrastructure planning and infrastructure funding).

Low emissions – diversion targets achieved (where applicable) and optimistic improvements on current baseline.

High emissions – no change from current BAU diversion.

The following section describes the background to the diversion assumptions developed by Hyder.

Australian Capital Territory (ACT): The ACT has already achieved high rates of waste diversion (currently around 75% overall). A successful self-haul system for garden organics currently results in around 90% of domestic garden organics being composted.

The Territory’s ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025, sets an ambitious target to divert 90% of waste from landfill by 2025 (with interim targets of 80% by 2015 and 85% by 2020). The targets are supported by realistic action plans, some of which have already commenced implementation. The ACT Government is in a unique position relative to other jurisdictions in that it is responsible for both setting the policy and regulatory framework for waste management, and delivering waste services to households and a large proportion of the commercial generators.

While no specific landfill levy is in place, the Government operates the only landfill in the territory and sets the price of landfill in order to encourage resource recovery. New infrastructure proposed in the strategy includes a commercial Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and a waste-to-energy facility for residual and organic wastes, both of which will play a significant role in achieving the overall diversion targets.

In Hyder’s view, the ACT has a high chance of achieving or getting close to achieving the diversion targets, given the high level of control of the waste system in the Territory. The best case scenario equates to an overall diversion rate of 85% by 2025, while the low emissions scenario assumes that the 90% overall target is achieved by 2025. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:

Table 2-2 Australian Capital Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios

Waste Stream Best Estimate Low Emissions Scenario High Emissions Scenario

MSW 87% diversion of MSW by 2025

90% diversion of MSW by 2025

No change from current

C&I 80% diversion of MSW by 2025



C&D 90% diversion of MSW by 2025



New South Wales (NSW): The 2007 NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy set targets for recycling of waste based on source, by 2014: 66% of municipal waste; 63% of commercial and industrial waste; and 76% of construction and demolition waste. The new strategy, currently in draft form (NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy



2013–21) sets an overall target of 75% of waste diverted from landfill by 2021-22. Source based recycling targets have also been increased to 70% of municipal and C&I waste; and 80% of C&D waste (by 2021-22).

To support achievement of the new targets, the NSW Government is implementing its Waste Less, Recycle More (WLRM) funding program which will provide $467 million in funding over five years for new and improved resource recovery programs and infrastructure. NSW also has the highest landfill levy of any jurisdiction in Australia, which has reached $120 per tonne in the Greater Sydney basin and $64 per tonne in the Regional Regulated area, from July 2014. The levy provides a significant deterrent to the landfilling of waste within these areas of the state. Combined with already high landfill costs in the Sydney area due to lack of capacity, alternative resource recovery approaches are able to be cost-competitive with landfill. A number of energy-from-waste and other advanced waste treatment projects are planned.

In Hyder’s view, there is a good chance that the overall landfill diversion target will be met in some parts of the state, particularly in the Greater Sydney area where the majority of waste arises and the impact of the landfill levy is greatest. However, to achieve the target across the entire state will be challenging, particularly in non-levy regional areas. Hence, Hyder’s best estimate scenario is based on MSW and C&I diversion falling short of the target by 5%, with the C&D target achieved.

Future diversion assumptions are as follows:

Table 2-3 New South Wales Waste Diversion Scenarios











Northern Territory (NT): Current diversion rates in the Northern Territory are very low by national standards (around 17% of municipal waste and 9% overall in 2010-11). Recycling in the NT is significantly constrained by a number of factors including remoteness from processing facilities and end markets resulting in prohibitive transport costs for recovered waste; under-developed resource recovery infrastructure; and the high cost of delivering waste services to a relatively small, dispersed population.

The NT does not have an over-arching policy or strategy in place to drive resource recovery, although Hyder understands a waste strategy is currently being drafted. In January 2012 the NT implemented a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) to reduce beverage container litter and increase resource recovery. In September 2011, a ban on disposal plastic bags was introduced. Programs and infrastructure to divert organic waste from landfill are thought to be limited.

For the best estimate scenario modelling, a slight improvement to the most recent diversion rates is assumed by 2025. For the low emissions scenario, more significant improvements are assumed by 2025, and for the high emissions scenario, no change from current levels is assumed.



Table 2-4 Northern Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios











Queensland (Qld): Current diversion rates in Queensland are around 33% for municipal waste and 45% overall (2012-13 data). The state government recently published the Waste – Everyone’s Responsibility: Draft Queensland Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity Strategy (2014-2024) for public consultation. The draft strategy proposes a diversion target for municipal waste of 50% overall based on 55% in metropolitan areas and 45% in regional centres. There are also targets for C&I waste (55%) and C&D waste (80%).

Recycling in regional parts of Queensland is constrained by high transport costs, cheap and abundant landfill; and under-developed resource recovery infrastructure. Despite the diversion targets proposed in the draft strategy, they are voluntary and there are not yet any action plans that detail how improvements in resource recovery will be achieved; nor are there financial or regulatory drivers in place to encourage resource recovery. Queensland does not have a landfill levy and seems unlikely to introduce one in the short-term, after a levy was introduced in 2011 and then repealed six months later. At the time of writing, there is no state government process for planning or funding new resource recovery infrastructure.

In Hyder’s view, the diversion targets proposed in the draft Queensland strategy are unlikely to be achieved unless supporting policies are introduced to incentivise landfill diversion and support new infrastructure development. As such, the best estimate is based on minor improvements from the current diversion rates by 2024, while the low emission scenario is based on the draft targets being achieved by 2024. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:

Table 2-5 Queensland Waste Diversion Scenarios











South Australia (SA): SA already has very high overall diversion rate at around 77% in 2010-11, with a particularly high C&I diversion rate (88%). This is due to early adoption of progressive waste management policies including a long-standing container deposit scheme, a landfill levy and landfill bans on unprocessed waste. Resource recovery infrastructure in SA is well developed as a result of government and private investment. It is Hyder’s view that recovery



rate will plateau after reaching the current diversion targets in the absence of advanced technologies that can processes residual wastes such as shredder floc and flexible plastics.

South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2011-2015 set a target to divert 70% of metropolitan municipal waste by 2015. A new strategy will be due by 2016, in accordance with regulation requiring a new strategy every five years.

In Hyder’s view, the SA resource recovery industry is quite mature, well developed and has previously been well supported by government. Considering its high current base and in the absence of diversion targets beyond 2015, the best estimate assumes that diversion of organic waste will exceed the 2015 target levels by 5% by 2020 and then stabilise. The low emissions scenario will assume an additional 10% diversion on target levels by 2020 (except C&I).


Table 2-6 South Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios











Tasmania: Tasmania’s diversion rate is around 33% overall and 36% for municipal waste (in 2010-11). The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2009 provides a high level strategic framework but does not set diversion targets.

Recycling in Tasmania is somewhat constrained by difficulties in transporting products to market and under-developed resource recovery infrastructure in some areas. Some infrastructure, including organic composting, is well established in other areas. A very low voluntary landfill levy of $2/tonne has been introduced to fund some programs.

In Hyder’s view, significant future changes in waste diversion are unlikely in Tasmania based on current policies, due to a lack of current policy support for increased recovery and development of new infrastructure. For the best estimate scenario modelling, a slight improvement to the most recent diversion performance is assumed by 2025. For the low emissions scenario a MSW diversion rate of 50% is assumed by 2025, and for the high emissions scenario, no change from current levels is assumed.


Table 2-7 Tasmania Waste Diversion Scenarios















Victoria: The previous Towards Zero Waste strategy in Victoria set a municipal waste diversion target of 65% by 2014, which in Hyder’s understanding is unlikely to have been achieved. The new strategy, Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy, sets a 30 year vision for resource recovery in Victoria but does not establish new diversion targets.

To support the new policy the government has also published the draft Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan (SWRRIP) which aims to guide future investment in resource recovery infrastructure across the state. The state government has also strongly encouraged and facilitated regional groups of councils to work together to develop new resource recovery infrastructure. Victoria has landfill levies with varying rates for rural and metropolitan areas, and municipal and industrial waste. In metropolitan areas, the current levy is $53.20 and is not expected to increase in real terms (indexed annually).

In Hyder’s view, the prospects for Victoria to significantly improve resource recovery are good, given the landfill levy and active government support for new infrastructure development. In the absence of diversion targets, the best estimate scenario assumes that diversion of MSW will reach 65% by 2020. The low emissions scenario assumes this will reach 70% by 2025. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:

Table 2-8 Victoria Waste Diversion Scenarios











Western Australia: The Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment sets diversion targets for metropolitan Perth region and non-metropolitan regions. In the metro area, the municipal waste diversion targets are 50% by 2015 and 65% by 2020. For regional centres, the targets are 30% by 2015 and 50% by 2020.

The state government’s Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning Project (SWIPP) is also working extensively to facilitate planning for significant new resource recovery infrastructure in the Perth area to achieve the targets. A landfill levy is in place and the government recently announced a significant increase in the levy rate for municipal waste to $55 per tonne from January 2015. The levy will continue to rise to $70/tonne by July 2018. A number of energy-from-waste projects have been approved or are in planning phase. The government is also actively supporting councils to implement kerbside organics collections.

In Hyder’s view, WA has a good chance at approaching the ambitious diversion targets. The best estimate scenario is based on falling short of the targets by 5%, while the low emissions scenario assumes the targets are met. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:


Table 2-9 Western Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios











External Territories: Hyder was unable to find data on recycling in the external territories. Recycling is likely to be significantly constrained by geographic remoteness and access to markets. Some opportunities may exist for ‘on-island’ composting and recycling of some materials. Therefore the best case scenario is based on 5% additional diversion of MSW (from zero) by 2025, with no recovery of commercial waste streams. The low emissions scenario assumes 10% diversion of MSW by 2025. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:

Table 2-10 External Territories Waste Diversion Scenarios





C&I No change from current No change from current No change from current

C&D No change from current No change from current No change from current



Waste Type Contribution to DiversionGiven that diversion will not be consistent for all waste types within each stream, the model also defines the contribution that each waste type is likely to make to the future diversion of each waste stream, in each jurisdiction. These values have been defined by Hyder based on current diversion performance and infrastructure in each jurisdiction and knowledge of policies and drivers for future diversion. A brief outline of assumptions on diversion contributions and the key drivers in each jurisdiction follows:

ACT – already very high diversion of garden organics and dry recyclables. The ACT has no plans to pursue separate food organics collections, but is investigating advanced processing options to recover materials and energy from mixed waste streams, which will result in significant diversion of food organics (50% contribution) and minor diversion of other organics (paper, garden and commercial wood).

NSW – has already made good progress in diversion of garden organics and dry recyclables, and the NSW Government is now actively supporting and strongly encouraging councils to establish kerbside collections of food and garden organics to improve diversion of food waste from landfill. Therefore, for MSW, the model assumes that food organics will contribute 60% of future MSW diversion in NSW, while garden organics, paper and wood diversion from MSW will make minor contributions.

Northern Territory – given the remoteness constraints on dry recycling, it is considered that the greatest future opportunities for diversion lie in garden organics (50% contribution) with some paper recycling, and significant inerts (including plastic and metal containers).

Queensland – moderate progress in garden organics recycling with scope to improve (30% contribution). Food organics recovery identified as important but no firm government support (20% contribution). Most future diversion expected to be driven by economic considerations – ie, high value materials (plastics, metals).

South Australia – already very high diversion of garden organics and dry recyclables. Focus on food organics (60% contribution) and ban on unprocessed waste to landfill. Garden, paper and inerts to make minor contributions.

Tasmania – reasonable progress with organics diversion with scope to improve (20% food and 30% garden contributions). Remoteness somewhat limits additional dry recycling recovery.

Victoria – moderate recovery of garden organics with significant support for improvements (30% contribution). Also likely to target food organics (40% contribution) and some known projects targeting wood waste (10% contribution).

Western Australia – Good recovery of dry recyclables and organics through existing AWT facilities. Government support for kerbside garden and food organics collections (30% and 40% contributions respectively). Also a number of energy-from-waste projects which will divert additional paper and plastics.

External Territories – given the constraints on dry recycling, it is considered that the greatest future opportunities for diversion lie in garden organics (50% contribution) with some paper recycling, and significant inerts (including plastic and metal containers).

In all jurisdictions, the diversion of C&I and C&D waste streams is expected to be largely focussed on paper and cardboard and high value or easily recyclable inert materials (plastics, metals, soils and rubble).


2.1.3 LANDFILL METHANE RECOVERY

The other key parameter for modelling waste emissions is the rate of landfill methane capture in each jurisdiction. As noted above, Hyder investigated a number of datasets in order to develop and estimate of the 2013 baseline capture rate. However the publically available data was limited or inconsistent and ultimately the Department requested that future projections be based on the 2012 NGGI data to avoid discontinuity in the data trends.

Hyder compared the NGGI data against data from the LGC register and industry data. As reported in Appendix A in the discussion on available datasets, assumptions as to methane content and engine conversion efficiency were required. Due to the limitations of available data the necessity for assumption uniformity in methane capture calculations, there was variation between the collated datasets. Correlation between data sets was apparent for some facilities but not others.

To project future methane recovery rates, the model allows the user to define up to four different ‘factors’ that will have an impact on the rate of landfill gas capture. These factors must be mutually exclusive so as not to double-count or exaggerate the influence of any one element. For each factor, the user can define the overall impact of the factor (as a % increase in landfill capture rates) and a target year, or as an annual growth rate with an end-point. The four factors defined by Hyder are:

Impact of current RET regime – in the best estimate scenario, 3.9% additional recovery by 2020 is assumed (10% increase on 2012 levels) - see the discussion below.

Impact of the future Direct Action / ERF – this is currently set to zero in all scenarios, given the uncertainty over the implementation and form of this measure. However it can be modified easily by the Department once program details are confirmed and better understood.

Impact of new, cheaper technologies to recover and utilise landfill gas (for example, micro gas turbines) and tighter regulation to control landfill emissions – Hyder estimates that in the best estimate case, this factor will contribute an additional 5% (absolute) recovery by 2030.

Diversion of organics from landfill, which will generally have a negative impact (negative % value), reducing the viability of new LFG capture projects at some landfills or causing the early shut-down of systems at other landfills. This factor is linked to the overall diversion of organics, although not necessarily directly correlated. Hyder’s modelling of organics diversion indicates that nationally, organics diversion will increase by an additional 10% (from 53% to 63%) by 2025. Therefore it is estimated that in the best estimate case, this factor could result in a reduction of 10% from the landfill methane recovery rate (39% in 2012), which equates to 3.9% less recovery by 2025.

In the low emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed that the above growth assumptions will double. For the high emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed no change from current levels of methane recovery.

The model then combines these four factors into a single overall impact factor and applies that growth rate to the annual landfill gas capture rate in each jurisdiction. At the Department’s request, the model also shows the impact of the RET as a separate time series.



Renewable Energy TargetThe Renewable Energy Target (RET) provides an incentive for the implementation of renewable energy projects that would otherwise not be financially viable or cost competitive with fossil fuelled energy generation. Together with the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), the RET has been responsible for an increase in the recovery of methane from landfills and wastewater treatment facilities for energy production.

The operators of landfill gas energy generation projects can earn Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs), which can then be sold into the market, to be purchased by energy retailers to meet their obligation to provide a proportion of renewable energy. However it is difficult to isolate and quantify the historic increase in methane capture that can be specifically attributed the RET, given the range of other highly variable parameters that affect such projects including environmental regulations, technology developments, wholesale power prices, and other schemes such as the CFI and carbon pricing mechanism. According to Landfill Gas Industries, a leading provider of landfill gas energy systems, both LGCs and Australian Carbon Credit Uits (ACCUs, issued under the CFI) are needed to ensure the commercial viability of landfill gas capture projects2.

The RET in its current form sets a target for Australia to generate 41,000 GWh of renewable energy by 2020. The Government has commissioned a review of RET which could have a number of outcomes, including maintaining the RET in its current form, repealing the RET, or re-calculating the baseline of the target to account for recent decreases in overall energy consumption. The modelling undertaken in this project is based on the current form of the RET at the time of writing.

The impact of the RET on methane recovery rates from the waste sector will mostly depend on the future prices that industry expects to receive for any LGCs generated, over the life of the project. Given it is a market-based mechanism, this is difficult to accurately predict. However various parties have modelled future LGC prices under various scenarios. In 2012, the Climate Change Authority undertook a statutory review of the RET and commissioned SKM-MMA to undertake modelling of the impact of the RET and future LGC prices under a number of scenarios3. The results of that modelling under two key scenarios are presented below, including the ‘reference case 1’ scenario (current RET with a price on carbon) and a ‘zero carbon’ (current RET with no price on carbon).

The 2012 modelling shows that in the absence of a price on carbon, the LGC price is expected to peak in 2018 at almost $79 / MWh, and then steadily decline to around $49 / MWh by 2030. Note the volume weighted average market price for an LGC for the 2014 year (at the time of writing) was around $35 / MWh4.

2https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/webform/submissions/20140428_LGI%20Submission_RET%20Review_final.pdf

3 http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/121217%20RET%20Review%20SKM%20MMA%20Report%20Final.pdf

4 http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/For-Industry/Emissions-Intensive-Trade-Exposed/Volume-Weighted-Average-Market-Price/market-priceWaste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 19/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

Figure 2-1 SKM-MMA Forecast LGC prices (2012)

As part of the current review of the RET, Acil Allen has been commissioned to provide updated modelling5. Detailed results of the modelling have not yet been published, but preliminary results of LGC price forecasts are reproduced below. The ‘Reference case’ (black line) represents the current RET scheme. The overall profile of future LGC prices is similar to but slightly less than the zero carbon price scenario modelled by SKM-MMA in 2012. Under this modelling, the price peaks in 2019 at just over $70 / MWh and then slowly declines to around $40 / MWh by 2030.

Figure 2-2 Acil Allen Preliminary LGC price forecasts under various scenarios (2014)

The available modelling indicates that, in the absence of a carbon price, the value of LGCs is expected to approximately double from current levels and therefore the RET can potentially provide a significant source of revenue for new and established methane abatement projects up to and beyond 2020, until at least 2030. This is likely to provide an incentive for new projects up to 2020. However, in Hyder’s view, it is unlikely that the RET will contribute significantly to the implementation of new projects beyond 2020. As the target is met in 2020 and the market value of LGCs starts to decline, proponents of new projects are unlikely to see the RET as a significant financial incentive.

5 https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/papers/preliminary_modelling_results_workshop.pdf



Prior to 2020, it is difficult to forecast the direct and exclusive impact of the RET on methane capture projects. Obviously the RET only has an impact on projects that will generate electricity (rather than flaring only or heat recovery projects). As noted above, some landfill gas project developers feel that the RET alone is not a major driver of new abatement projects and that in recent years, it has been the combination of RET and CFI that has driven new projects. This is possibly evident in the figure below which shows the trend in landfill methane recovery rates since the RET was first introduced in 2001, up to the latest available NGGI data for 2012.

The current 20% target of the RET was introduced in 2009 and there has been an increase in landfill methane recovery since 2010. The sharp rise observed in 2012 is likely attributed to the implementation of the CFI for landfill gas projects. With the carbon price in Australia now repealed, the future value of ACCU’s generated by CFI projects is uncertain but expected to significantly decrease.

Figure 2-3 Historic landfill CH4 recovery based on NGGI data 2001 - 2012

For the purpose of modelling future emissions, Hyder estimates that under the core modelling scenario, the impact of the RET on future landfill methane recovery projects will account for a 10% growth in recovery of landfill methane by 2020 from 2012 levels, which is equivalent to an additional 3.9% recovery (absolute) over this period from the 2012 level (39%).

Given that LGC prices are still increasing, but Hyder is modelling a scenario in the absence of new CFI projects, in Hyder’s view the impact of the RET will continue to increase, but only by a moderate amount. The figure of 10% is based on Hyder’s judgement of the expected impact when considering the variety of parameters which may have an influence, and it is recommended that future trends be monitored to enable the forecast to be updated as policy and economic factors evolve.


3 WASTEWATER EMISSIONSMethane emissions from wastewater treatment depend on a number of factors including the volume of wastewater generated, its carbon content (commonly measured as chemical oxygen demand, COD) and the rate of recovery of methane generated during treatment. Hyder has modelled the following key parameters for wastewater treatment in the domestic and commercial sector, and various industrial sectors:

Domestic and commercial wastewater generation, sewered (m3 per person)

Domestic and commercial methane recovery, sewered (recovery per unit produced)

Industrial wastewater generation (tonnes COD/tonne production)

Industrial wastewater methane recovery (recovery per unit generated)

The baseline data from which future parameters were projected is discussed in Appendix A, including a discussion of the datasets reviewed by Hyder. This section describes the key assumptions and process of modelling future parameters.

3.1 PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONSThis section describes the key assumptions and process of modelling future parameters relating to wastewater emissions.

3.1.1 WASTEWATER GENERATION

During the drought of the 2000s there was an increased focus on water conservation which not only reduced water consumption but also had the impact on reducing wastewater generation. Typical wastewater generation per capita is approximately 133m3 (Metcalf & Eddy 4th Edition, 2003), Figure 2-20 in the Appendix shows that in 2013 all States generated less wastewater per capita than this number, suggesting there is limited scope for wastewater generation to further decrease in the near future. There is the possibility of minor reductions in wastewater generation under the low emissions scenario mainly due the prevalence of water saving appliances in the market currently that will gradually replace older, inefficient systems. This is reflected in the generation growth projection assumptions in Table 3-11 below.

For domestic and commercial wastewater volumes, the model allows the user to enter a single set of growth rates that apply to all jurisdictions as in Hyder’s view, the drivers for this parameter are likely to be generally consistent across all areas.

Table 3-11 Domestic and commercial wastewater generation – future projection estimates

High Emissions 0%

Best Estimate 0%

Low Emissions -2% per annum until 2025

The industrial wastewater generation parameter for the emission projections is reported in tonnes of COD per unit of production. Therefore increasing water efficiency in the production process, which in turn will increase the COD concentration per m3 of wastewater, will have no effect on this value as lower water consumption with higher COD concentration will have the same result as higher water consumption with lower COD concentration. To determine any



change to this parameter consideration was given to whether any changes to the manufacturing processes would reduce the organic content in the wastewater, for example a new material used in pulp and paper or organic chemical production. In Hyder’s view, significant improvements in manufacturing/production processes which will lead to reduced organic content in the effluent are unlikely in the future due to the existing strict discharge limits and trade waste licenses which will have already driven advances in this area. In Hyder’s view these limits and licenses are unlikely to be made more restrictive therefore any improvement is only going to impact the low emissions scenario. In that scenario, it is assumed that more efficient production methods will reduce the loss of organic load to the wastewater stream.

The Department required that industrial wastewater generation (measured as tonnes COD/ per tonne production in each industry) be modelled at a national level only. The model allows the user to enter a single set of growth rates that apply to all industries as in Hyder’s view, the main drivers for this parameter (e.g. operational / manufacturing efficiencies) are likely to be generally consistent across all industries.

Table 3-12 Industrial wastewater generation – future projection estimates

High Emissions 0%

Best Estimate 0%

Low Emissions -5% per annum until 2025

3.1.2 METHANE RECOVERY

There are a number of drivers that may affect methane recovery at wastewater treatment facilities in the future including government policy and regulation, cost effectiveness and the state of technology in the industry itself.

It is reasonable to suggest that government policy is not driving investment in renewable/biogas technology as much as previously, however as the technology becomes more cost effective and industries producing wastewater look to improve operational efficiency, methane recovery is likely to become more widespread in the future.

Wastewater treatment is an energy-intensive process and increasing energy prices are likely to create an incentive for wastewater treatment facilities (both domestic and commercial and industrial) to invest further in methane recovery technology, to offset their own consumption whether that is for heating, power or co-generation. As demonstrated by some large scale domestic and commercial wastewater facilities (e.g. Melbourne Water’s Western Treatment Plant) there are also opportunities to export energy back into the grid. The most recent State of the Water Sector Report (AWA/Deloitte, 2013) highlighted that the second largest issue facing the water sector was improving operational efficiency, and reflects the concerns the industry has about controlling costs. As energy prices continue to rise, utilising biogas as an energy source will become increasingly financially feasible. Industries that produce large volumes of organic rich wastewater are also seeing the benefits of utilising biogas, with a number of food processors and producers adopting the technology to reduce their energy costs. One high profile example is the Nippon Meat Packers’ Oakey abattoir where utilising biogas has the potential to reduce the company’s overall gas bill by 42%6.

The modelling of future methane capture rates follows a similar process to that for landfill methane described above in 2.1.3. Given that the key drivers for increased methane recovery

6 Self-funded Oakey methane project looks to slash millions off energy bill (Beef Central, March 2014)Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 23/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

are considered to be consistent across all wastewater treatment sectors, including domestic and commercial, and all industrial sectors, the same approach and assumptions have been applied by Hyder in modelling future parameters. Although it is noted that the model allows the user to apply different parameters to domestic and commercial methane recovery, versus industrial, should better data become available to support this.

For wastewater methane recovery (all sectors), three key factors have been defined which are:

Impact of current RET policy – for wastewater, it is thought that the RET will have a very minor impact, with rising energy costs and improved technology paying a greater role (below). In the best estimate scenario the RET is assumed to lead to an additional 2% (absolute) recovery by 2020. As discussed in 2.1.3, the RET is not expected to play a significant role beyond 2020.

Impact of the future Direct Action / ERF – this is currently set to zero in all scenarios, given the uncertainty over the implementation and form of this measure. However it can be modified easily by the Department once program details are confirmed and better understood.

Impact of new, cheaper technologies to recover and utilise biogas and rising energy costs – Hyder estimates that this factor will contribute an additional 4% (absolute) recovery by 2025.

In the low emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed that the above growth assumptions will double. For the high emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed no change from current levels of methane recovery.

The model then combines these four factors into a single overall impact factor and applies that growth rate to the annual landfill gas capture rate in each jurisdiction. At the Department’s request, the model also shows the impact of the RET as a separate time series.

It is noted that the methane recovery future projection estimates are lower than previous estimates. This is because, in Hyder’s view, many large methane producers will have already adopted the technology so as to minimise the impact of the Carbon Tax. Therefore the projection estimates take into account smaller producers looking to biogas and other alternative energy sources where the rising cost of energy makes these options financially viable.



4 MODELLING PROJECTIONS – SUMMARYThis section provides a brief summary in graphical form, of the key parameter projections from the model (under the best estimate scenario), based on the assumptions and baseline data as described in this report. Detailed data outputs are available in the model file itself.

4.1 SOLID WASTE PARAMETERS

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0.00000

0.05000

0.10000

0.15000

0.20000

0.25000

0.30000Food

Paper

Garden

Wood

Woodwaste

Textile

Sludge

Nappies

Rubber and Leather

tonn

es p

er ca

pita

per

year

Figure 4-4 Projected national waste generation per capita by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate)

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Food

Paper

Garden

Wood

Woodwaste

Textile

Sludge

Nappies

Rubber and Leather

All organics

dier

sion

rate

from

land

fill (

%)

Figure 4-5 Projected national diversion rates by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate)


20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0.00000

0.02000

0.04000

0.06000

0.08000

0.10000

0.12000Food

Paper

Garden

Wood

Woodwaste

Textile

Sludge

Nappies

Rubber and Leather

Inert

tonn

es p

er ca

pita

per

year

Figure 4-6 Projected national Municipal waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate)

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0.00000

0.02000

0.04000

0.06000

0.08000

0.10000

0.12000

0.14000

0.16000Food

Paper

Garden

Wood

Woodwaste

Textile

Sludge

Nappies

Rubber and Leather

Inert

tonn

es p

er ca

pita

per

year

Figure 4-7 Projected national C&I waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate)



20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0.00000

0.05000

0.10000

0.15000

0.20000

0.25000Food

Paper

Garden

Wood

Woodwaste

Textile

Sludge

Nappies

Rubber and Leather

Inert

tonn

es p

er ca

pita

per

year

Figure 4-8 Projected national C&D waste to landfill by waste mix type

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0.00000

0.02000

0.04000

0.06000

0.08000

0.10000

0.12000

0.14000

0.16000

0.18000Food

Paper

Garden

Wood

Woodwaste

Textile

Sludge

Nappies

Rubber and Leather

tonn

es p

er ca

pita

per

year

Figure 4-9 Projected national Total waste to landfill by waste mix type

19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

20102012

20142016

20182020

20222024

20262028

20302032

2034

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWAExt TNATIONALLa

ndfil

l met

hane

reco

very

rate

Figure 4-10 Historic and projected landfill CH4 recovery rates by jurisdiction (best estimate)


2012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420350%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

NATIONAL Landfill Methane Recovery Rate - RET Impact

Baseline Methane Recovery (2012) Net Methane Recovery increase attributed to Non-RET impacts

Methane Recovery increase attributed to RET impact

Land

fill M

etha

ne R

ecov

ery R

ate

(%)

Figure 4-11 Projected landfill CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)

4.2 WASTEWATER PARAMETERS

20132015

20172019

20212023

20252027

20292031

20332035

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

36.0%

37.0%

38.0%

39.0%

40.0%

41.0%

42.0%

43.0%

44.0%

45.0%

D+C waste-water gener-ation, Sew-ered (m3 per capita)

D+C Methane Recovery, Sewered (per unit gener-ated)m

3 ge

nera

ted

per c

apit

a pe

r yea

r

Met

hane

Cap

ture

rate

Figure 4-12 Projected national wastewater generation (m3 per capita) and CH4 recovery (best estimate)(Although the best estimate assumes zero growth in wastewater generation volume per capita, the varying growth in population across different jurisdictions results in a slight change in the national average per capita rate.)



19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

20102012

20142016

20182020

20222024

20262028

20302032

2034

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWAExt TNATIONAL

Met

hane

Rec

over

y rat

e

Figure 4-13 Projected domestic and commercial CH4 capture rates by jurisdiction (best estimate)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 20350%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

NATIONAL Domestic & Commercial Wastewater - Methane Recovery Rate - RET Impact

Baseline Methane Recovery (2013) Net Methane Recovery increase attributed to Non-RET impacts

Methane Recovery increase attributed to RET impact

Land

fill M

etha

ne R

ecov

ery R

ate

(%)

Figure 4-14 Projected D&C CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)


20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

20252026

20272028

20292030

20312032

20332034

2035

0.00000

0.05000

0.10000

0.15000

0.20000

0.25000Dairy production

Pulp and paper production

Meat and poultry processing

Organic chemicals production

Sugar production

Beer production

Wine production

Fruit processing

Vegetable process-ing

tonn

es C

OD p

er to

nne

prod

uctio

n

Figure 4-15 Projected Industrial wastewater (tonne COD/tonne production) by industry (best estimate)

19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

20102012

20142016

20182020

20222024

20262028

20302032

2034

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Dairy production

Pulp and paper production

Meat and poultry processing

Organic chemicals production

Sugar production

Beer production

Wine production

Fruit processing

Vegetable processing

Met

hane

Cap

ture

rate

Figure 4-16 Projected Industrial wastewater CH4 capture by industry (best estimate)



5 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONSSolid WasteThe absence of a nationally aggregated waste database hampers efforts to characterise the state of waste management in Australia. In addition, independent initiatives such as the National Waste Landfill Survey have not been supported to enable comprehensive updates or data analysis. It is recommended that the Department examine options to improve waste reporting in Australia. Without such data, predictions as to future waste generation are limited.

A greater degree of data integration within government bodies would assist in timely access and assessment of relevant data. For example, data held by the National Pollutant Inventory and the Clean Energy Regulator could be beneficially combined.

The NGGI waste compositional data should be regularly updated to allow the natural fluctuations in waste material generation to be included in the projections. Generalising data trends prevents observation of subtle changes in waste generation and diversion, which are indicative of the efficacy of policy change.

WastewaterThe main difficultly surrounding the wastewater component of the parameters was finding publically available data that was accurate and robust enough to use in the projection model.

Data for domestic and commercial wastewater generation (m3 per capita) was available from reputable sources and the 2012/13 dataset itself was complete enough to be used in projections. However if COD per capita is required in the future, this information generally sits with the water utilities and is not a reporting requirement that is made public. It is noted that the NGER calculator for wastewater emissions requires COD be entered as part of the calculation. It may be possible for the Clean Energy Regulator to provide this information for future studies.

Data on a national level for the nine key industries was also difficult to source as in the majority of cases there was no industry body overseeing the capture of the data. The National Inventory Report data suggests that this data is available and could be provided if raw data is required.

The National Pollutant Inventory seems to be the most appropriate source of information for methane recovery compared with publically available information in annual reports and LGC registry data. For future studies this information should be provided with the projection template and could be used, subject to reasonable assumptions being applied to the data.


6 REFERENCESAuthority, W. W. (2012). Western Australia Waste Strategy: Creating the right environment. Retrieved from

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/publications/western-australian-waste-strategy-creating-the-right-environment

AWA / Deloitte. (2013). State of the Water Sector Report 2013.

Blue Environment. (n.d.). Waste Generation and Resouce Recovery in Australia 2010/11. Retrieved from Department of Environment: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/waste-generation-and-resource-recovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooks

Cook, S. H. (2012). Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia: an update. CSIRO.

Department of Environment. (2014). National Inventory Report 2012.

EHP Qld. (2014). Waste - Everyone's Responsibility: Draft Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity Strategy (2014-2024). Retrieved from http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/~/media/resources/documents/publications%20and%20research/publications/q%20-%20t/publications%20towards%20zero%20waste%20progress%20report%202007-08.pdf

Environment and Sustainable Development. (2011). ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025. Retrieved from http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/576916/EDS_ACT_Waste_Strategy_Policy_23AUG2012_Web.pdf

Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse 4th Ed.

National Water Commission. (2014). National performance report 2012-13 Urban water utilities.

NSW EPA. (2013). Draft NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2013-21. Retrieved from http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/warr/WARRStrategy2013.htm

O'Brien Consulting. (2006). Review of Onsite Industrial Wastewater Treatment.

Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator. (2014). Tasmania Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report.

Sustainability Victoria. (n.d.). Towards Zero Wast Strategy. Retrieved from Sustainability Victoria: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/~/media/resources/documents/publications%20and%20research/publications/q%20-%20t/publications%20towards%20zero%20waste%20progress%20report%202007-08.pdf

Zero Waste South Australia. (2011). South Australia's Waste Strategy 2011-2015. Retrieved from http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-Us/waste-strategy



APPENDIX A

BASELINE DATA REVIEW


1 SOLID WASTE – BASELINE DATAMethane emissions from landfills depend on a number of factors including waste generation, waste recovery (diversion), and methane capture and destruction / energy recovery. Waste generation is typically linked to population growth and consumer behaviour. Waste diversion depends on jurisdictional policy settings and instruments. Methane capture and utilisation is typically affected by regulatory requirements to control emissions and odours, and incentives for renewable energy generation and carbon abatement.

1.1 BASELINE DATAHyder Consulting reviewed a number of publically available information sources in pursuit of baseline waste generation and emissions parameters. Hyder also consulted with industry to appreciate current trends and policy implications. This Section outlines the findings of a literature review and summarises the various datasets that were identified. Not all of the data in this section was ultimately used to as the basis for developing model assumptions. In some cases, Hyder was instructed to use particular datasets by the Department, and other datasets served merely as a quality check. The actual datasets used as baselines for future projections are defined in section 2.

This section highlights some of the issues and inconsistencies with existing waste data sets. Up-to-date data for waste generation is limited as most aggregated data sets are released several years after the collection period. Reporting practices are not standardised across jurisdictions and subsequently there are data gaps or inconsistencies for some Australian states and territories. The availability of recent landfill gas data is also limited. Landfill gas flow and methane destruction data is generally restricted by commercial confidentiality, and publically available renewable energy registers do not fully capture the state of all methane recovery in Australia.

1.1.1 WASTE GENERATION AND DIVERSION

In view of the limitations and variation in reporting standards for waste generation, disposal and recovery across Australia, the Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia (WGRRA) report data was used as the main resource for establishing a baseline of waste management practices in Australia.

Hyder compared the WGRRA data sets for 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 to determine a national average waste generation growth rate. Hyder Consulting utilised these data sets as they represent the most recently aggregated national data sources. Hyder excluded the WGRAA 2006-2007 data set, as it was skewed by changes in waste reporting practices of some states. By 2008-2009, waste reporting practices across the majority of states was improved.

Waste and Recycling in Australia 2011 (2008/09 data)The Waste and Recycling in Australia (WRiA) report provides an estimate of waste generation, disposal and recycling in Australia by jurisdiction for the financial year 2008-09. The report groups state data by waste stream, waste material category and waste type. The report also provides an estimate of net landfill emissions and gross embodied energy to landfill. Key data is summarised below.



Table 1-13 Australian rates of waste generation, recycling and recovery, by jurisdiction, 2008–09

NSW 7,099,714 2,290 940 1,350 59% 10 59%

Vic 5,427,681 1,900 870 1,010 54% 10 54%

Qld 4,406,823 2,100 1,160 930 45% 10 45%

SA 1,622,712 2,050 650 1,340 67% 60 68%

WA 2,236,901 2,670 1,830 830 31% 10 32%

TAS 502,627 1,060 890 150 15% 20 16%

ACT 351,182 2,260 580 1,650 74% 30 74%

NT 224,848 1,690 1,610 70 4% 10 5%

National 21,872,488 2,140 1,030 1,090 51% 20 52%

Table 1-14 Estimated net landfill emissions and total gross embodied energy to landfill, 2008–09Parameter NS

WVic Qld SA WA Tas ACT NT Total

Net landfill emissions (net Mt CO2-e) 3.2 2.3 2.5 0.5 2 0.2 0.1 0.2 11

Gross embodied energy to landfill (Mt CO2-e)

3.1 2.4 2 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 9.8

Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11 is the most recent nationally aggregated data set. The report provides an estimate of disposal, recycling and energy recovery rates by jurisdiction. In the absence of the raw data used in this report, waste generation per capita figures have been used as a basis to forecast future waste generation.

Table 1-15 WGRRA Waste Generation (tonnes per capita) data summary table (2010/11, excluding flyash)7

ACT 2.56 0.54 1.93 0.09 79%

NSW 2.38 0.83 1.49 0.07 65%

NT 1.32 1.20 0.06 0.06 9%

Qld 1.68 0.80 0.80 0.08 52%

SA 2.36 0.54 1.74 0.08 77%

Tas 1.18 0.80 0.31 0.08 33%

Vic 2.18 0.83 1.30 0.05 62%

WA 2.56 1.57 0.92 0.07 39%

Australia 2.17 0.88 1.23 0.07 60%

7 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/waste-generation-and-resource-recovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooksWaste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 35/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

*It should be noted that the ‘recovery’ figures in the WGRRA report include energy recovery, which is primarily derived from an estimated figure reflecting energy recovery from organics in landfill through landfill gas capture systems. Therefore it does not reflect true landfill diversion. Landfill diversion should be calculated from the generation and recycling figures (excluding energy recovery).

Generation of greenhouse gas emissions from landfill was also investigated as part of the Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11 report and results are summarised below.

Table 1-16 Landfill methane emissions by jurisdiction, 2009/10

Total (Mt CO2-e) 4.2 0.1 2.7 0.6 0.2 2.1 1.2

Per capita (t CO2-e) 0.58 0.49 0.61 0.38 0.43 0.38 0.51

Compost Australia ‘Organics Recycling in Australia: Industry Statistics’The Recycled Organics Unit provides an annual report for organics recycling in Australia. Between 2011 and 2012, the total quantity of organic material received for processing decreased in WA, SA, VIC and QLD. The only state which recorded an increase in organic waste processing was NSW. The decline in organic waste processing in WA, SA and VIC was attributed to a general economic downturn as well as regulatory constraints and interventions. The largest decrease in organic waste processing was a response to the repeal of the Queensland Waste Levy. Diversion rates in New South Wales continue to increase as additional infrastructure becomes fully operation and production capacity expands.

Table 1-17 Total quantity of raw materials (biodegradable organic materials) received for processing

State 2011 2012 Net Variation

NSW 1,788,746 1,816,619 +26,873

WA 732,995 698,006 -34,989

SA 637,271 595,320 -41,951

VIC 999,145 962,354 -36,791

QLD 2,172,592 1,443,386 -729,206

Total 6,330,749 5,515,685 -815,064

The variation in the organics recovery market provides insight into drivers for landfill demand. The data provided is indicative of recovery trends but fails to fully capture generation and disposal patterns in Australian states and territories.



Population Growth Historic population figures and forecast population changes are presented in Figure 1-17, for each jurisdiction, based on data provided by the Department. The trends indicate significant growth in most Australian states and territories. Waste generation is directly linked to population (amongst other factors), therefore population growth projections are a critical element of the parameter modelling.

Figure 1-17 Department population projections for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000ACT

NSW

NT

Qld

SA

Tas

Vic

WA

External territories

Waste Composition DataWaste composition is generally location specific and varies according to demographics, season, environmental conditions and waste collection systems. Application of ‘average’ waste composition factors do not fully account for the range of disposal and recycling practices in Australia. However, in the absence of a national waste database, assumptions need to be made as to the composition of the residual waste stream. Methane generation in landfills is a product of the degradable organic carbon (DOC) content of waste materials which is a function of waste composition. Consequently, composition factors need to be applied to waste disposal data to account for the different DOC content of various waste materials.

Table 1-18 below presents some of the key waste composition datasets identified by Hyder.

Table 1-18 Waste Audit Resources

Domestic Kerbside Waste and Recycling in NSW 2011

Domestic Kerbside Waste and Recycling in NSW is the most robust waste audit assessment in Australia due to the number of households audited and range of local government areas investigated. However, this audit data was for the reporting period 2010-2011.

Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11

The WGRRA database consolidates audit data from across Australia and uses it to determine quantity of waste generated by material type.

Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey Sydney 2008

Audit data for the commercial and industrial waste stream is limited. The Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey Sydney 2008 provides insight into typical composition of C&I waste


loads in urban settings. However, this data is dated.

Commercial and Industrial Waste in the Lower Hunter Region 2009

The Lower Hunter Region C&I audit was undertaken over a two day period by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). Although less robust than other data sets, this survey provides a benchmark for C&I waste generation in regional areas.

Report into the Construction and Demolition Waste Stream Audit 200-2005

The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) undertook a composition study of C&D waste disposed to landfill between 2000 and 2005. This investigation was comprehensive due to the lengthy investigation period.

For consistency with methane generation modelling of previous years, the Department advised Hyder to adopt the material composition factors for landfilled waste from the 2012 dataset, as set out in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI). Waste generation compositional data has been derived by combining NGGI landfill data with WGRRA 2011 recycling data where available.

It should be noted that, in Hyder’s understanding, the NGGI dataset is inherently based on assumptions and generalisations regarding waste composition and it is difficult to trace and verify the accuracy of those assumptions. In general, location specific waste audits are often not available or not recent and there is a lag between the period of audit and application of the NGGI composition factors. It is Hyder’s recommendation that the Department undertake or facilitate auditing of the MSW, C&I and C&D waste streams in each state and territory to provide a more up-to-date and jurisdiction-specific estimate of waste type disposal and generation.




National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 8

The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) provides a time series summary of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by sector. The most recent inventory year is 2012 and the earliest recording year is 1990. NGGI data for methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal is presented in Figure 1-18 and Table 1-19.The figure illustrates trends in methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal on land. The NGGI was used to inform the model, but data from this inventory was not directly used.

Section 1.1

Figure 1-18 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia

Table 1-19 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia between 2002 and 2012

Methane Emissions (’000 tonnes)

535 49847

9470 456

469

487 485 49848

3428

The NGGI is based on the Kyoto Protocol Accounting Framework, which compiles activity data by state and sector. The NGGI provides an aggregated data set for solid waste disposal and incineration between 1990 and 2012.

Table 1-20 Activity data for waste in Australia

8 http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 39/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

2002 19,390 0.01

2003 19,818 0.01

2004 20,587 0.01

2005 20,225 0.01

2006 20,396 0.01

2007 21,215 0.01

2008 21,794 0.01

2009 19,999 0.02

2010 19,916 0.01

2011 19,207 0.01

2012 18,547 0.02

Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA) Landfill DatabaseThe Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA) has undertaken a number of landfill surveys to develop an Australia-wide landfill database, with the most recent survey in 2010. However, no further analysis was undertaken on this data set. The aggregated data from the WMAA 2008-2009 survey is presented in Table 1-21 and Figure 1-19. While this data provides insight into general trends in landfill gas collection and electricity generation, it is of limited value as it is outdated and not comprehensive in its coverage of all landfills. Specifically, no data for landfill gas capture data is reported for The Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory.

Table 1-21 WMAA National Landfill Survey Results 2008

Australian Capital Territory 9

New South Wales 12% 8%

Northern Territory

Queensland 6% 5%

South Australia 8% 4%

Tasmania 36% 9%

Victoria 30% 20%

Western Australia 6% 5%

9 ACT landfill gas capture is not included in the WMAA National Landfill Survey Results. There is only one landfill in the ACT and it recovers energy. Therefore, 100% of landfills in the ACT collect gas and generate electricity.



Figure 1-19 WMAA National Landfill Survey

The Department provided Hyder with the results of the 2005, 2008 and 2010 landfill surveys. The databases provided some insight into the number of facilities that were flaring and collecting landfill gas in 2010. However, recent changes in carbon policy mean that the rate of methane destruction in 2010 is unlikely to be relevant to the rate of methane destruction in 2013. The changes are attributable to a number of policy instruments and incentive schemes including demand for Renewable Energy Certificates and Australian Carbon Credit Units under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Accordingly, these datasets were used as a qualitative guide only.

State and Federal landfill gas capture dataState government reporting on landfill gas capture is limited. The primary sources for methane capture and combustion data include Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs) registers, Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCUs) registers and the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI).


Renewable Energy Certificate RegistryThe Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Registry of information provides details of renewable energy generated by projects registered under the Australian Government's Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) are an electronic form of credit created on the REC Registry by eligible projects. One LGC is equivalent to 1 MWh of renewable electricity generated by a project. Properly created LGCs are validated by the Clean Energy Regulator and are able to be transferred and/or sold between generators and liable energy sellers to satisfy their obligation to source a given proportion of renewable energy.

A search of the public register for LGCs for landfill gas in 2013 was undertaken. The number of registered certificates per jurisdiction was recorded and through back calculations, the volume of methane captured was estimated as follows, and using the assumptions below.

MethaneCapture (N m3 )= Renewable EnergyGenerated (MWh )×Conversion Factor(MJ )

Engine ConversionEfficiency (%)×EnergyContent of Methane( MJkg )×Density ( kg

N m3 )Table 1-22

Methane Capture Calculations – common assumptions

Through consultation with industry and investigation into plant specifications, Hyder determined that engine conversion efficiency factors typically range from 30% to 40% depending on the engine type, make and age. As such, Hyder applied the mid-range estimate of 35% to estimate methane capture.

Australian carbon credit unitsAn Australian carbon credit unit (ACCU) is a type of carbon unit that can be traded in the Australian carbon market. The Carbon Farming Initiative allows farmers and other land managers to earn ACCUs by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land.

Each ACCU represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). Abatement from all types of activities, including those that reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions, can be measured in tonnes of CO2-e. ACCUs can be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset their emissions, and do not have an expiry date enabling them to be banked and later sold to cover future requirements.



Assumptions

1 MWh 3600 MJ

Engine Conversion Efficiency 35.0%

Energy Content of Methane 55.66 MJ/kg

Density (assuming T = 25 and P = 1 atm) 0.68 kg/Nm3

Kyoto ACCUs are issued for reduction in emissions associated with waste deposited in landfills. The Kyoto Protocol and other international agreements set out the rules for which emissions should be included in Australian greenhouse accounts, and how they should be measured. Abatement activities of a type that count towards Australia’s national target under the Kyoto Protocol are known as Kyoto projects.

Kyoto ACCUs and non-Kyoto ACCUs were used to estimate methane capture and combustion activities in Australia for the 2013 financial year.

National Pollutant InventoryThe Department of the Environment provided Hyder with a confidential dataset from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). Under current legislation only ‘biogas’ burned is reported under the NPI, which includes landfill gas and wastewater methane, either flared or used in engines. Accordingly, it was necessary to differentiate between landfills that only flare gas and those which combine flaring and energy capture. Using the NPI combusted biogas data for landfills, the avoided methane emissions were back-calculated. This was done by dividing the tonnes of ‘fuel burned’ by a landfill gas density, and then multiplying the result by the assumed methane fraction of landfill gas.


2 WASTEWATER – BASELINE DATATo support the modelling of emissions from the wastewater sectors, Hyder was engaged to provide modelling of the following parameters:

Domestic and commercial wastewater generation, sewered (m3 per person)

Domestic and commercial methane recovery, sewered (recovery per unit produced)

Industrial wastewater generation (tonnes COD/tonne production)

Industrial wastewater methane recovery (recovery per unit generated)

2.1 BASELINE DATAThe initial step in updating the wastewater emission parameters for the Department’s waste emissions model was to review baseline data that had become available since the National Inventory Report 2012 (DoE, 2014).

The National Inventory Report contained data up to and including 2012. The ideal approach would have been for Hyder to identify data for 2013 and use this as the baseline for future projections. Hyder was able to source appropriate data for the domestic and commercial wastewater sector, but unfortunately the requisite data has not been published for industrial wastewater, and so the 2012 dataset was used as this basis.

2.1.1 GENERATION PARAMETERS

Domestic & CommercialWastewater generation data from domestic sources was obtained from the National Water Commission. As part of the National Water Initiative, governments prepare an annual, independent report (National Performance Report) on water utilities to benchmark pricing and service quality. These reports also include data such as the population connected to the sewerage network and the amount of sewage collected. Eighty-three wastewater utilities from across Australia are included in the National Performance Report and using the ‘population connected to sewerage’ and the ‘sewage collected’ datasets, wastewater generation per capita could be calculated for the relevant jurisdictions. Wastewater generation per capita was determined across four years (2010-2013); this allowed for analysis of recent trends and could help inform future projections.

Figure 2-20 shows that wastewater generation per capita has generally decreased, which is to be expected following the national focus on water conservation over the past decade.



Figure 2-20 Domestic Wastewater Generation, Sewered


50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Was

tew

ater

Gen

erati

on p

er c

apita

(m3 )

Year

Domestic Wastewater Generation, Sewered

NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT ACT AUS

It was noted that the Department has undertaken to convert wastewater generation from m3 per capita to COD tonnes per capita after submission of the emissions parameter projections model. This is to ensure compatibility with the Department’s waste emissions model.

IndustrialIndustrial wastewater generation, measured as tonnes chemical oxygen demand (COD) per tonne of production, was required for the following industries:

Dairy Pulp and Paper Meat and Poultry Organic Chemicals Sugar Beer Wine Fruit Vegetables

Determining wastewater generation rates in industry proved more difficult compared to domestic wastewater generation. This is because, in most cases, companies active in these industries are not required to publically report wastewater generation volumes and COD levels, and there is no industry body capturing this information.

As there was no publically available data that would be suitable for use within the projection parameters template, text books and research papers were consulted. Review of Onsite Industrial Wastewater Treatment (O’Brien 2006) provided figures for wastewater generation (m3/t) and a COD generation (kg COD/m3 wastewater), using this information, and by determining the tonnes of each product produced in 2013, industrial wastewater generation (tonnes COD/tonne production) was estimated.

The 2013 production of each product was determined by consulting ABS data. Since suitable ABS data for annual production of pulp and paper, organic chemicals and beer was not available, Hyder has assumed that there was no change between 2012 and 2013 industrial wastewater generation. The industrial wastewater generation parameters for 2013 are detailed in Table 2-23 below.



Table 2-23 Industrial Wastewater Generation

Dairy 0.00513

Pulp and Paper 0.01068

Meat and Poultry 0.08357

Organic Chemicals 0.20100

Sugar 0.00152

Beer 0.03180

Wine 0.03450

Fruit 0.00400

Vegetables 0.00400


Domestic & CommercialIn order to calculate the ratio of methane recovered in 2013 two datasets were required; amount of methane generated and the amount of methane burned (either for energy or flared).

Methane generation was not publically available for each wastewater treatment plant/utility therefore methane generation was assumed based on the following formula derived from Equation 6.1 in the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:

CH 4=U ×T ×EF× P×COD

Where:

U – urbanisation = 0.9210

T – treatment pathway = 0.9511

EF – emissions factor = 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD

P – population connected to sewer = varied depending on jurisdiction

COD – default COD value in Australia = 0.0585 tonnes per capita

To determine the methane recovery at domestic and commercial wastewater treatment facilities, data from organisations generating sewage gas and biomass-based components of sewage REC’s was investigated. However only three organisations, across two States, reported generating REC’s, and this information did not align with Hyder’s industry knowledge or data captured in the National Inventory Report 2012. Upon further investigation into suitable datasets the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) data, supplied by the DoE, was used. Thirty-one domestic wastewater facilities, in six States reported burning methane in 2013. No facilities reported burning methane in the Northern Territory or ACT, however National Inventory Report data suggested that 4% of methane was recovered from domestic and commercial wastewater facilities in the ACT.Table 2-24 shows the methane recovery across each jurisdiction.

Table 2-24 Domestic & Commercial wastewater methane recovery

10 From Table 6.5 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

11 Ibid.,Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 47/tt/file_convert/5f24253ad76c4a148c02b9c1/document.docx

New South Wales 46%

Victoria 38%

Queensland 17%

South Australia 90%

Western Australia 43%

Tasmania 28%12

Northern Territory 0%13

Australian Capital Territory 4%

Industrial As the NPI data did not specifically contain information relating to the nine key industries, further desktop analysis was undertaken to determine methane recovery in industrial wastewater facilities. A direct survey of businesses across each industry to determine if methane was captured and recovered in any capacity is beyond the scope of this project, and so Hyder has, after consultation with the Department, assumed methane recovery in 2013 has increased from 2012 levels as per the methane recovery projection assumptions outlined in Section 3.1.2. Table 2-25 shows the assumed methane recovery rates across the nine key industries for 2013.

Table 2-25 Industrial wastewater methane recovery – 2013

Dairy 33%

Pulp and Paper 65%

Meat and Poultry 7%

Organic Chemicals 2%

Sugar 0%

Beer 19%

Wine 60%

Fruit 24%

Vegetables 5%

12 Based on the most recent NPI data methane recovery and confirmed with the Tasmanian EPA.

13 At the time of writing, no information has been forthcoming from PAWA, and so Hyder has assumed zero recovery.



Documents

Waste Sector Modelling and analysis · Web viewNSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy - Targets of 70% recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), 70% recycling of Commercial