to: ordinary council - monday 14 december 2015 … · acknowledgements: hayley michener, reinier...

Agenda Item 14.4.2

Report No. 171/15cncl

TO: ORDINARY COUNCIL - MONDAY 14 DECEMBER 2015

SUBJECT: ALICE SPRINGS TOWN COUNCIL WASTE AUDIT REPORT

AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - HAYLEY MICHENER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarises the Alice Springs Town Council Waste Audit Report

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Council receive and note the Alice Springs Town Council Waste Audit Report

1. BACKGROUND

Through the NT EPA, a grant was received to conduct a waste audit of Alice Springs household waste.

2. DISCUSSION

The waste audit will enable the Alice Springs Town Council to gain a better understanding of the breakdown of household waste in Alice Springs and will provide an accurate measure of the average weight and composition of garbage, recyclables and green organics in household wheelie bins in Alice Springs. It will give a precise indication of the amount and percentage of waste being thrown into the general waste wheelie bin rather than being recycled through the existing programs.

The audit methodology was largely developed by the consultant, EC Sustainable, but was based on relevant Australian industry guidelines in lieu of guidelines existing for the NT. Waste from 132 randomly selected households in 5 different areas of town was collected over 5 separate days from 2nd-6th November 2016. Waste was sorted at the Regional Waste Management Facility over this period.

The data from the audit was presented in a report (see Attachment). This data will be used in the development of Waste Strategy (2016-2030) in 2016.

A brief summary of findings:• The average weight of bins was 19.98kg (1039kg/year)• Food waste (18.45%), was the single largest category of waste followed by garden

waste (15.74%)• 8.56% of waste was cardboard, however, only 1% was white paper• Unrecovered comingled (mixed) recycling accounted for a total of 34.35% of total bin

weight.• The average bin capacity used was 85%, whereas the median bin capacity used was

100%, meaning that many residents were over-filling their bins.

Report No. 171/15cncl Agenda Item 14.4.2 Page ..../2

3. POLICY IMPACTS

Nil until further direction provided

4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS


5. SOCIAL IMPACTS

Due to the high percentage of food and garden waste, a public awareness campaign would be advisable.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .

The Waste Audit will support the Strategic Plan Outcome 3.3.1 Develop, maintain, and improve Council Regional Waste Management Facility in order to provide efficient waste collection and disposal services and facilities.

7. PUBLIC RELATIONS


8. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Alice Springs Town Council Waste Audit Report

Hayley MichenerENVIRONMENT OFFICER

peg BuxtonRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES

Domestic Kerbside Waste

Audit in November 2015

Report November 2015

EC Sustainable Pty Ltd

ACN: 163 386 061 ABN: 87 163 386 061

VicState Office

Suite 28, 458 St Kilda Road

MELBOURNE, VICTORIA 3004.

Copyright ® EC Sustainable Pty Ltd 2015

"This document is and shall remain the property of

EC Sustainable Pty Ltd

Unauthorised use of this document in any form is prohibited.”

Reference: 2511-15

NSWHead Office

Suites 701-703, 107 Walker Street,

NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060.

Phone (02) 9922 3456, Fax (02) 9929 2252

Email: info(®ecsustainable.com orkevin(5)ecsustainable.com

PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY

Name: EC Sustainable Pty Ltd

Disclaimer: Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in thispublication is made in good faith but on the basis that the authors are not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever, which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking action (as the case may be) in respect to any representation, statement or advice referred to herein.

Acknowledgements: Hayley Michener, Reinier Laan and Amanda Varden (Alice Springs Town Council)for assisting with overall project management, collection and waste and provision of the sorting site.Terry Soukoulis (Transpacific Cleanaway) and the regular Transpacific Cleanaway truck drivers for assisting with the survey route, and facilitating the audit logistics around their regular services.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 ii | P a g e

Table of contents

List of tables ivList of figures.................................................................................................................................. ivList of abbreviations...................................................................................................................... vExecutive summary..............................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................

1.1 Background..............................................................1.2 Objectives.................................................................1.3 Council information..................................................1.4 Document structure.................................................

2 Project methods.............................................................2.1 What is a waste audit?.............................................2.2 Guidelines.................................................................2.3 Sampling....................................................................

2.3.1 Sample size.......................................................2.3.2 Sample site selection.......................................2.3.3 Sample frame...................................................

2.4 Material collection....................................................2.4.1 Visual bin survey...............................................2.4.2 Transportation to the sorting site.....................2.4.3 Managing non-presented bins......................... .2.4.4 Authorisation.......................................................

2.5 Sorting and data collection.......................................2.5.1 Sorting categories.............................................2.5.2 Location..............................................................2.5.3 Staffing...............................................................2.5.4 Material weighing...............................................2.5.5 Scale calibration................................................

2.6 Work health and safety.............................................2.7 Data verification and accuracy.................................2.8 Audit monitoring.........................................................

3 Results............................................................ ............ .....3.1 Presentation rate......................................................3.2 Bin capacity usage....................................................3.3 Generation rate..........................................................3.4 Overall composition..................................................

3.4.1 Summary composition and resource recovery3.4.2 Detailed composition........................................

3.5 Composition and resource recovery by day...........3.5.1 Composition and resource recovery by day....3.5.2 Detailed composition by day............................

4 Audit photos.....................................................................5 Comments and recommendations...............................References...............................................................................Appendix A - Raw data by day............................................

..vi

...1

...1

...1

...2

...2

...3

...3..3..4...4...4...4„5..5..5..5..5..5..5„8..8..8..8..9101011111113131315171718 20 23 26 27

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 iii | P a g e

ec Sustainable

List of tables

Table 1 - Audit sample frame and schedule..................................................................................................4Table 2 - Sorting categories........................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3 - Personal protective equipment (PPE) used....................................................................................9

Table 4 - Presentation rate by percentage (%)............................................................................................11Table 5 - Summary bin percentage full (%).................................................................................................11

Table 6 - Summary bin percentage full by day (%)..................................................................................... 12

Table 7 - Detailed bin percentage full - count and percentage (%)........................................................... 12Table 8 - Generation rate by day and overall (kg/hh/wk)............................................................................ 13

Table 9 - Overall summary composition - weight (kg/hh/wk) and percentage (%)....................................14

Table 10 - Overall detailed composition - weight (kg/hh/wk) and percentage (%)...................................16

Table 11 - Overall summary composition - percentage (%)..................................................................... 17

Table 12- Detailed composition by day - percentage (%)....................................................................... 19

Table 13- Raw data - overall summary composition by day - weight (kg in load)..................................27

Table 14- Raw data - weighbridge record - weight (kg in load).............................................................. 27

Table 15- Raw data - detailed composition by day (kg in load).............................................................. 28

List of figures

Figure 1 -

Figure 2 -

Figure 3 -

Figure 4 -

Photos of unrecovered resources (commingled recycling).......................................................... 20

Photos of unrecovered resources (organics).................................................................................21

Photos of hazardous items............................................................................................................ 21

Photos of other items..................................................................................................................... 22

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 iv | P a g e

List of abbreviations

AWD

AWT

AS

CDS

DECCW

ERA

EPS

FOGO

HAC

HOPE

KG

LDPE or LLDPE

LFHW

LGA

MGB

MRF

MSW

MUD

NSW

NT

OEM

OHSMS

PET

PP

PPE

PS

PVC

RWMF

SUD

SWMS

WEEE

WHS

Australian Waste Database

Alternative Waste Treatment (or Technology)

Australian Standard

Container Deposit Scheme

Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water

Environment Protection Authority

Expanded Polystyrene

Food and Garden Organics

Hazard Assessment Check

High Density Polyethylene

Kilogram

Low Density Polyethylene

Love Food Hate Waste

Local Government Authority

Mobile Garbage Bin

Materials Recovery Facility

Municipal Solid Waste

Multiple Unit Dwelling

New South Wales

Northern Territory

Office of Environment and Heritage

Occupational Health and Safety Management System

Polyethylene Terephthalate

Polypropylene

Personal Protective Equipment

Polystyrene

Polyvinyl Chloride

Regional Waste Management Facility

Single Unit Dwelling

Safe Work Method Statement

Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment

Work Health and Safety

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115

Executive summaryBackground

Alice Springs Town Council (ASTC) engaged EC Sustainable Pty Ltd (EC Sustainable) to conduct a

council-wide audit of the residential kerbside Mobile Garbage Bin (MGB) usage and contents

composition. EC Sustainable was engaged based on experience with conducting residential waste

audits across Australia, using a range of industry guidelines. Council received a grant from the

Northern Territory (NT) Government to complete the audit.

This was the first detailed study on the composition of waste generated from the kerbside MGBs

within ASTC. The audit was completed in the week commencing Monday 2 November 2015,

including 132 households, with approximately 25 households required per day for the five week days.

ASTC households are provided with a general waste bin service, where they entitled to a Council

operated kerbside bin collection service. This audit only focused on households with a kerbside bin

service. Currently, there is no kerbside recycling bin service in ASTC but residents can:

• Voluntarily take recyclables and green waste to the Council owned and operated Regional

Waste Management Facility (RWMF) or to other local recycling businesses.

• Participate in the Container Deposit Scheme (CDS), which provides 10c refunds for eligible

containers in the NT.

The purpose of this audit was to:

1. Provide a snapshot of the state of domestic general waste stream composition in kerbside

MGBs for Spring 2015 (November) through data indicators, including:

a) Generation rate, how much materia! is produced per household.

b) Bin survey data such as:

■ Bin capacity usage, compared to available space.

■ Bin presentation rate, the percentage of bins presented to the kerbside.

c) Unrecovered resources, or resource loss, how much:

■ Material that could be recycled now.

■ Material that could potentially be recycled in future.

d) Hazardous waste

2. Provide data to assist with the reduction of general waste through recycling and minimisation

of unwanted kerbside waste.

3. Assist with the development of a waste strategy, including infrastructure and education.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit„Report_2015_251115 vi | P a g e

Unrecovered organics - garden organicsWeight (kg/hh/wk) 3.14

Percentage (%) 15.74

Unrecovered organics - other (excl. containerisedfood)

Weight (kg/hh/wk) 0.76Percentage (%) 3.83

Unrecovered organics - overallWeight (kg/hh/wk) 7.60Percentage (%) 38.01 A

Hazardous wasteWeight (kg/hh/wk) 0.20Percentage (%) 0.99

* Based on typical kerbside services accepting containers and recyclable paper and cardboard, and including the CDS component shown in the row above.A Rounding of figures may lead to a slight difference to the second decimal place.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 vii | P a g e

ec Sustainable

The data shows the high potential for additional recovery and avoidance, particularly for materials

that can be recycled in typical kerbside bin services, CDS material and organics. If a three bin system

was feasible, approximately 72% of the bin contents could be recovered. Recovering all of these

materials, or avoiding them, would reduce the waste bin weight from approximately 20kg per

household to 5.5kg per household.

Discussion and recommendations

Based on the results of this audit, the following comments and recommendations are made against

each project data indicator in the project objectives. The commentary includes discussion to assist

the waste strategy and infrastructure and education decisions.

Objective 1a - generation rate

• The generation rate of approximately 20kg per household is similar to Councils in Australia before

they had additional kerbside recycling and garden organics bins and a focus on waste

minimisation.

• Council should:

o Consider the costs of acquiring and servicing additional bins, or crates, within the

waste strategy for kerbside recycling and garden organics or food and garden

organics (FOGO). This will need to consider the costs of processing and community

education.

o Consider non-binned kerbside recycling collection services such as organics bundles,

collected in rear loaders or cage trucks.

o Determine whether existing resource recovery technologies and future options, would

have the capacity to recover any additional material collected.

o Consider additional non-binned kerbside recycling services that return the material to

the generator and thus create a direct local market without the need for more waste

processing sites, such as home composters, worm farms, and kerbside chipping of

timber and tree waste to provide material directly back to residents. Council has

recently commenced participation in the Compost Revolution Program which

provides an online, step-by-step guide to composting and a discounted compost bin.

o Consider options to match reusable materials with local businesses for drop-off by

residents, such as shredded paper to local pet shops or large cardboard boxes to

storage businesses.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report„2015_251115 viii | P a g e

o Consider waste minimisation approaches, such as Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW)

and working with local businesses to reduce packaging wastes,

o Conduct additional education on the usage of Councils existing drop-off centres,

o Consult with residents about their satisfaction with Councils drop-off centre services

and locations, and seek to encourage more usage by residents,

o Consider more localised small-scale recovery options like charity bins and reverse

vending machines.

Objective 1b - bin capacity used and presentation

• Approximately 85% of the bin capacity was used as a mean value, with a median value of 100%

and a maximum value of 110%. More than 55% of households used 90% or more of their capacity.

• Approximately 62% of bins were presented. The lower presentation rate in this audit, than in many

surveys, may mean that households do not present their bins until they are full or near full. A

typical presentation rate based on our experience may be approximately 85% to 90% for general

waste as an average in Australia.

• Council should consult with residents about the adequacy of their capacity and consider ways to

reduce the volume (and weight) within the bins system, as outlined in Objective 1a.

• It is recommended that Council reduces the high proportion of households that have used their

full bin capacity.

• It is not advisable within resource recovery or service cost, to consider a Council-wide offer of

bigger general waste bins or more frequent collection. However, some households may require

additional capacity, which could be provided at a fee.

Objective 1c — unrecovered resources

• The unrecovered resources rate of approximately 72% of a bin was similar to Councils in Australia

before they had additional kerbside recycling and garden organics bins and a focus on waste

minimisation.

• Council should consult with residents about their willingness to participate in alternative ways to

reduce the volume (and weight) within the bins system, as outlined in Objective 1a. The

consultation should focus on food waste, garden organics, paper, cardboard, containers CDS and

containers non-CDS.

Alice_Springs_Town_Countil_Residential_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 ix | P a g e

• If a centralised processing systems was viable, the general waste stream material composition

appears suited to an initiative that could recover the compostable material and typical kerbside

recyclable material. This could achieve a maximum reduction of 72.36% of the audited general

waste stream based on 34.35% of the general waste stream being typical kerbside recyclables

and 38.01% of the general waste stream being organics material.

Objective 1d - hazardous waste

• Council should consider more local drop-off solutions for hazardous wastes, particularly

chemicals and e-waste. It is noted that no paint or vehicles batteries were audited in the study.

Five needles were observed during the audit, although medical/clinical waste was not a sorting

category.

In addition, as part of monitoring the effectiveness of its waste strategy, Council should conduct

waste audits annually and in all seasons to build up trend data and also monitor performance of any

waste recycling or avoidance programs implemented.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_ResidentiaI_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 x | P a g e

1 Introduction1.1 Background

Alice Springs Town Council (ASTC) engaged EC Sustainable Pty Ltd (EC Sustainable) to conduct a

council-wide audit of the residential kerbside Mobile Garbage Bin (MGB) usage and contents

composition. EC Sustainable was engaged based on experience with conducting residential waste

audits across Australia, using a ran. e of industry guidelines. Council received a grant from the

Northern Territory (NT) Government to complete the audit.

This was the first detailed study on the composition of waste generated from the kerbside MGBs

within ASTC. The audit was completed in the week of 2 November 2015.

ASTC households are provided with a general waste bin service, where they entitled to a Council

operated kerbside bin collection service. This audit only focused on households with a kerbside bin

service. Currently, there is no kerbside recycling bin service in ASTC but residents can:

• Voluntarily take recyclables and green waste to the Council owned and operated Regional

Waste Management Facility (RWMF) or to other local recycling businesses.

• Participate in the Container Deposit Scheme (CDS), which provides 10c refunds for eligible

containers in the NT.

The project objectives are shown below.

1.2 Objectives

The purpose of this audit was to:

1. Provide a snapshot of the state of domestic general waste stream composition in kerbside

MGBs for Spring 2015 (November) through data indicators, including:

o Generation rate, how much material is produced per household,

o Bin survey data such as:

■ Bin capacity usage, compared to available space.

■ Bin presentation rate, the percentage of bins presented to the kerbside,

o Unrecovered resources, or resource loss, how much:

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 1 | P a g e

■ Material that could be recycled now.

■ Material that could potentially be recycled in future,

o Hazardous waste.

2. Provide data to assist with the reduction of general waste through recycling and minimisation

of unwanted kerbside waste.

3. Assist with the development of a waste strategy, including infrastructure and education.

1.3 Council information

ASTC is located in the centre of Australia, within the North Territory. Alice Springs is classified as a

regional and remote town, acting as the main service centre for all of Central Australia. As such Alice

Springs is also the "waste hub" of Central Australia through the RWMF.

ASTC was responsible for the provision of waste infrastructure and services to its residents. The

Council currently owns and manages the town’s RWMF, Transfer Station, and Rediscovery Centre

(tip shop). ASTC has a target of reducing putrescible waste landfill by 50% in 2030 based on 2011

tonnages.

The Council area has a population of approximately 28,000 people in 2015. In the census of 2011,

there were an average of 2.6 people per household (Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2011). 4.1% of

households are single unit dwellings, 14.2% are medium density dwellings, 16.3% are high density

flats/apartments and 5.0% are other dwelling types.

Council will develop a waste strategy in 2015. Distance to major recycling facilities, small population

size, servicing cost, and the absence of waste levies in the NT are major factors that influence waste

and recycling services.

1.4 Document structure

This report provides the methods used to obtain the data (Section 2), the results of the general waste

audit (Section 3), some key audit photos (Section 4) and comments and recommendations (Section

5).

Alice_Springs_Town_Countil_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 2 | P a g e

ec Sustainable

2 Project methods2.1 What is a waste audit?

A waste audit is an examination of a particular waste stream including the waste materials within

that stream. It includes using classification methods to determine the physical waste stream

composition, measurement of the size of the waste stream and verification of other statistics related

to the waste stream for planning and decision-making purposes.

2.2 Guidelines

There are no specific residential waste auditing guidelines for the Northern Territory. The audit draws

upon relevant aspects of other Australian industry residential waste auditing guidelines such as:

• NSW Guidelines - "NSW EPA (OEH) Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside

Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas"

(2008 and 2010 Addendum).

• Victorian Guidelines - “Sustainability Victoria Guidelines for Auditing Kerbside Waste in

Victoria - Leading Practice for Measuring Kerbside Waste, Recycling and Green Organics"

(2009).

The audit uses tailored approaches to meet the needs of ASTC. For example:

• The material sorting are specifically designed for ASTC around their particular data

requirements, including CDS.

• The sample size of a minimum of 125 households was based on Council requirements.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit„Report_2015_251115 3 | P a g e

2.3 Sampling2.3.1 Sample size

A sample size of 132 households of general waste was surveyed and collected in this audit, to

achieve a minimum of 125 households as agreed with Council.

2.3.2 Sample site selection

The sample of households was chosen from a list of ail dwellings in the ASTC. The streets were

initially sampled using a random number generator in Excel based on a clustered random sampling

method. The cluster type used was streets. This allowed 5-8 streets to be selected for each collection

day to minimise impact on Council’s regular collection systems and maximise the potential to collect

the targeted samples prior to the regular Council collection truck.

2.3.3 Sample frame

The sample frame for the audit is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Audit sample frame and schedule

Suburb Number of streets

Number of households

Collection details Bin size and collection

Day Date frequency

Larapinta, Araluen, The Gap 5 26 Monday 2/11/2015240L

Gillen 5 31 Tuesday 3/11/2015Braitling 5 25 Wednesday 4/11/2015

East Side, Desert Springs 4 25 Thursday 5/11/2015 Weeklycollection

Larapinta Valley 7 25 Friday 6/11/2015Total 26 132 -

Alice_Springs_TownMCouncil_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 4 | P a g e

2.4 Material collection2.4.1 Visual bin survey

A visual bin survey was conducted which included bin percentage full and presentation. The

percentage full of each bin surveyed was assessed in 10% increments. 100% full was deemed to be

the watertight level so the lid could close. Bins can therefore be presented more than 100% full.

Photos were taken when the bins were surveyed and then a sticker was placed on the surveyed bins

so they could be identified by the collection truck driver.

2.4.2 Transportation to the sorting site

The sampling was conducted using the aggregated collection system. An auditor accompanied the

dedicated audit truck to ensure that all stickered samples were collected for the composition auditing.

2.4.3 Managing non-presented bins

Where the target bins were presented at the household, the household was included in the sample.

If bins were not presented then the next household in the same street was collected. Bins that were

non-compliant within the applicable Council’s bin policies were not included.

2.4.4 Authorisation

All audit staff carried a letter of authorisation that could be provided to residents in the event of a

query from the community. A letter was placed into the mail box of every participating household. All

auditors were identifiable by high visibility orange and blue overalls.

2.5 Sorting and data collection2.5.1 Sorting categories

The materials were sorted and classified for analysis using the categories shown in Table 2.


Table 2 - Sorting categories

Summarycategory Sorting categories Components '

RecyclablePaper-white Print/ writing/ office paper.

Compliant paper and cardboard

Glossy paper, magazines, newsprint

Newspaper, magazines/ brochures, glossy printing, advertising material.

Paper - other recyclable * Miscellaneous (paper) packaging, disposable paper product.

Cardboard Corrugated cardboard, cardboard / package board,

Compliant LPB Liquid paperboard - CDS Liquid paperboard containers beverage (marked 10c)containers Liquid paperboard - Non-CDS Liquid paperboard containers non-beverage (not marked 10c)

Glass - CDS A Glass beverage containers (marked 10c) plus wine bottlesCompliant glass

Glass - Non-CDS Glass non-beverage containers / other packaging glass (not marked 10c)

PET1 - CDS PET (1) beverage containers (marked 10c).

HDPE2 - CDS HOPE (2) beverage containers (marked 10c).

PVC3 - CDS PVC (3) beverage containers (marked 10c).

LDPE4 - CDS LDPE (4) beverage containers (marked 10c).s.

PP5 - CDS PP (5) beverage containers (marked 10c).

PS6 - CDS PS (6) beverage containers (marked 10c).

Compliantplastics

P7 - CDS P (7) beverage containers (marked 10c).

PET1 - Non-CDS PET (1) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

HDPE2-Non-CDS HOPE (2) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

PVC3 - Non-CDS PVC (3) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

LDPE4-Non-CDS LDPE (4) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

PP5-Non-CDS PP (5) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c), including plant pots.

PS6-Non-CDS PS (6) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

P7 - Non-CDS P (7) non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

Compliant steelSteel - CDS Steel beverage containers (marked 10c)

Steel-Non-CDS Steel packaging non-beverage containers (not marked 10c)

Compliantaluminium

Aluminium - CDS Aluminium beverage containers (marked 10c)

Aluminium - Non-CDS Aluminium packaging non-beverage containers, aluminium non-packaging foils (not marked 10c)

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 6 ] P a g e

Table 2 (cent.) - Sorting categories

Summarycategory Sorting categories Components

Potentially recyclable

Other aluminium Other aluminium * Aluminium non-packaging (100% aluminium items that are not cans/tins/packaging materials, any other aluminium).

Other steel Other steel * Steel other non-packaging (100% ferrous items that are not cans / tins / or packaging materials, any other steel).

Other glass Glass fines * Glass fines <10mm

Plastic-EPS Expanded polystyrene (EPS) * All EPS

Plastic - other rigid mouldings Plastic - other rigid mouldings *

PP (5) non-packaging (appliance parts, crates and boxes, toys, housewares/ kitchenware, furniture, mouldings, irrigation fittings).

OrganicsFood / kitchen (loose) Food - loose Non-containerised kitchen food products.

Containerisedfood Food - containerised * Containerised kitchen food products (food in unopened

packets).

Garden / vegetation Green waste Loose garden vegetation to agreed size.

Other paper Compostable soiled paper *Compostable paper not suitable for recycling based on typical MRF standards (before being put in the bin), soiled paper and used tissues.

Otherputrescible Other putrescible Animal excrement mixed compostable items, kitty litter

(including soil)

Other material

Nappies * Absorbent hygiene waste.

Textiles Clothing / rags, shoes, leather

Building materials/ hard rubbish (C&D) Asphalt, plasterboard, concrete, asbestos (and note)

Miscellaneous Hazardous - e-waste Light globes, batteries, appliances, e-waste

Hazardous - vehicle batteries All vehicle batteries

Hazardous - paints Paints

Hazardous - chemicals Chemicals, poisons, motor oils

Other waste Everything else

* Additional categories conducted by EC Sustainable, as agreed with Council, which were not included within the original brief.A The glass-CDS category includes wine bottles, which are accepted by Council as CDS material, even though they may not be marked 10c.


A safe sorting site was provided ASTC at the RWMF, Commonage Road in Alice Springs. This site

is a safe under cover facility that provides suitable conditions for separating and weighing bin

contents, such as wind and sun protection. Council was responsible to remove the general waste

and recyclable material once it had been sorted, for disposal or recycling

2.5.3 Staffing

All audit staff members had Work Health and Safety (WHS) white cards, manual handling training

tetanus vaccinations, Hepatitis A and B vaccinations and the audit managers in each team had first

aid training, asbestos awareness training and waste audit competency training.

The waste audit competency training includes WHS awareness relevant to sorting and accurate

identification of material types in each category. No labour hire was used.

2.5.4 Material weighing

The sorted material in each category was weighed on a daily basis, based on the delivered material

for each day in each sample. An accuracy of 1g was used for the weighing using 30kg scales for

weights up to approximately 30kg and to an accuracy of 10g on 150kg capacity scales for weights

over approximately 30kg. Each weight was verified by a second person for accuracy.

2.5.5 Scale calibration

All scales were calibrated by a senior staff member each day before the commencement of the audit

and each time the scale was moved. Three weights (200g, 1kg and 5kg) were used.

If the scales had failed to read within 1% of the dedicated weight (for example, a 1kg weight should

read between 9.990 and 1.010kg), then the scale would have been removed and a conforming

replacement used. Any scales reading outside of the 1% allowable limit for scale calibration would

have been brought to the attention of a senior staff member immediately and the scale taken for

servicing. However, the scales conformed to the requirements for the audit duration.


2.6 Work health and safety

An Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) was developed for the audit to

meet WHS requirements. The system included completing a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS)

and Hazard Assessment Check (HAC) process for both the collection and sorting tasks in the audit.

All staff wore PPE as outlined in the SWMS and shown in Table 3.

Table 3 - Personal protective equipment (PPE) used

PPE required Applicable standard complianceDust mask (Optional, except when advised by a manager)

AS/ NZS 1715: 2009 - Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices.

Gloves Heavy duty rubber or neoprene AS/ NZS 2161: 2000 - Occupational protective gloves.

Gloves Needle proof Turtleskin™ needle proof gloves which withstand 1.1 pounds force against a 28g needle to NIJ99-114 test methods.

Eye protection (optional) Low impact goggles with indirect ventilation (HT or CT with C, D optional)

AS/ NZS 1336:2004 - Recommended practices for occupational eye protection.

Hearing protection Ear plugs or ear muffs AS/NZS 1270: 2002 - Acoustics - hearing protectors

Overalls Full length protective trousers and shirts/ overalls Not applicable.

Safety boots Steel toe capped fully enclosed boots

AS/NZS 2210.3:2009 - Occupational protective footwear - Specification for safety footwear.

High visibility vest Fluorescent with reflective strips AS/ NZS 4602: 2011 - High visibility safety garments.

Sun protection including sunscreen (and hats and sunglasses) Very high protection - SPF 30+ (When necessary if working outside in daylight conditions)

AS/ NZS 2604: 2012 - Sunscreen products, evaluation and classification.

Insect repellent Not applicable.

* National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Test Protocol 99-114.


2.7 Data verification and accuracy

To ensure accurate data, the combined weight of the material weighed in the individual sorting

categories for each sample was compared to the weight of the initial truck load weighed prior to

sorting, as obtained from the weighbridge record. To obtain the initial bag weight prior to sorting, the

full bag was weighed as well as the empty bag, with the bag contents calculated by subtracting the

empty bag weight from the full bag weight.

The raw data weights for each of the premises were entered into an Excel database. Cross-checks

of this information were made by an independent staff member to verify correct data entry. EC

Sustainable amended the database to create a model that provided data analyses and charts.

Results are not provided in this report for individual premises due to confidentiality requirements.

2.8 Audit monitoring

A management staff member was assigned the role of monitoring the audit. This included factors

such as:

• Monitoring WHS compliance and facilitating inductions and procedure management;

• Observing the correct sorting of materials and witnessing the correct logging of weights;

• Conducting tests on equipment such as scales to ensure accuracy and trucks to ensure

safety; and

• Verifying correct data entry.

Alice_Springs_Town_Counci!_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 10 | R a g e

3 Results

This section provides the general waste stream audit results, including presentation rate, bin

percentage used, general waste stream generation, composition, unrecovered resources and

hazard waste liabilities. The audit is a single snapshot in time of the Council waste profile.

3.1 Presentation rate

The presentation rate provides Council with information in relation to the percentage of households

that have placed a bin out on the kerbside for collection.

Table 4 shows the presentation rate of the general waste bins in this audit was 62.12%. Out of the

132 surveyed households, 82 households presented a bin(s) at the kerbside for collection.

Table 4 - Presentation rate by percentage (%)

Detail Presentation rate (%)Number of households surveyed (No.) 132Number of households presented bins (No.) 82

Presentation rate (%) 62.12

3.2 Bin capacity usage

The general waste stream average bin percentage full result for each audit is shown in Table 5. The

data is provided based on all of the bins surveyed. The mean and median bin percentage full were

approximately 85% and 100% respectively in the 2015 audit. The maximum bin percentage full

surveyed was 110%.

Table 5 - Summary bin percentage full (%)

Mean bin percentage full (%) Median bin percentage full (%) Maximum bin percentage full (%)84.62 100 110

Table 6 provides the detailed bin percentage full on each collection day audited in 2015. The data

shows the highest average bin capacity usage on Thursday at 88.80% full, and the lowest average

bin capacity usage on Friday at 77.20%.


Table 6 also shows the details of number of bins and households surveyed by day. The average

number of bins per household shows some households own more than one bin.

Table 6 - Summary bin percentage full by day (%)

Date DayMean bin

percentage full (%)

Median bin percentage

full (%)

No. of bins

surveyed

No. of household surveyed

Average No. of bins per household

2/11/2015 Monday 88.80 95 27 26 1.043/11/2015 Tuesday 86.77 100 31 31 1.004/11/2015 Wednesday 81.60 100 26 25 1.045/11/2015 Thursday 88.80 100 25 25 1.006/11/2015 Friday 77.20 90 43 25 1.72

Table 7 shows the distribution of bin usage. Approximately 55% of all collection points audited have

used more than 90% of their bin capacity in the 2015 audit.

It is recommended that Council should aim to increase bin capacity available for those households

that have used 90% or more of their bin capacity. This does not mean larger waste bins or more

frequent waste collection. More bin capacity available could be achieved through:

• A commingled recycling stream service (commingled recycling material accounted for

approximately one third of the waste bin weight in the 2015 audit, as shown in Table 9).

• A garden organics service or FOGO bin services (garden organics and loose food accounted

for approximately 16% and 18% respectively of the waste bin weight in the 2015 audit).

• Reducing the level of unrecovered recyclables that could be placed into the recycling bins.

• At source recycling.

• Waste avoidance initiatives.

Table 7 - Detailed bin percentage full - count and percentage (%)

Percentage full (%) Number of collection points Percentage (% of collection points)0-49 17 12.950-69 20 15.270-89 22 16.790+ 73 55.3

Total 132 100.0

Alice_Springs_Town_Counci]_Waste_Audit_.Report_2015_251115 12 | P a g e

3.3 Generation rate

The mean bin weight per household for each audit is provided in Table 8.

The mean bin weight audited when a bin is presented to the kerbside is 19.98kg per household in

the 2015 audit, varying from 16.5kg/hh/wk on Wednesday to 25.9kg/hh/wk on Friday.

The weight by day results were different with the bin capacity usage by day (as shown in Table 6)

as the waste type and bulky density varied by day.

Table 8 - Generation rate by day and overall (kg/hh/wk)

Date Day Total weight audited (kg/load)

No. of households in the load

Average generation rate (kg/hh/wk)

2/11/2015 Monday 508.975 26 19.5763/11/2015 Tuesday 568.849 31 18.3504/11/2015 Wednesday 411.953 25 16.4785/11/2015 Thursday 500.520 25 20.0216/11/2015 Friday 646.986 25 25.879

Overall 2,637.283 132 19.980

3.4 Overall composition3.4.1 Summary composition and resource recovery

Table 9 provides a summary composition and the resource loss (unrecovered resources) of the

general waste stream in the 2015 audit.

The results show that commingled recycling material and organics weighed approximately 34% and

38% of the stream respectively. These material could be recovered through commingled recycling

and organics bins, or being dropped off at the material recovery facilities (MRF).


The major recoverable material in the general waste streams in the 2015 audit were:

• Food/kitchen (loose) at 3.687kg/hh/wk (or 18.45% of the stream).

• Garden/vegetation at 3.144kg/hh/wk (or 15.74% of the stream).

• Compliant paper and cardboard at 3.067kg/hh/wk (or 15.35% of the stream).

• Compliant glass at 1,730kg/hh/wk (or 8.66% of the stream).

• Compliant plastics-non-CDS at 1.127kg/hh/wk (or 5.64% of the stream).

Rounding of figures may lead to a slight difference to the second decimal place.


3.4.2 Detailed composition

Table 10 provides the general waste stream generation by household (kg/hh/wk) and percentage (%

by weight), including replacement bins for non-presented bins for the 2015 audit.

Table 10 shows that loose food weighed 18.45% of the total stream or 3.687kg per household per

week. There is also a substantial proportion of green waste at 15.74% of the total stream or 3.144kg

per household per week.

Other key materials are:

• Cardboard at 1.711 kg/hh/wk (or 8.56% by weight of the stream).

• Glass-CDS (incl. wine bottles) at 1,306kg/hh/wk (or 6.54% by weight of the stream).

• Textiles at 1,252kg/hh/wk (or 6.27% by weight of the stream).

• Glossy paper, magazines, newsprint at 0.947kg/hh/wk (or 4.74% by weight of the stream).

• Nappies at 0.929kg/hh/wk (or 4.65% by weight of the stream).

• Compostable soiled paper at 0.519kg/hh/wk (or 2.60% by weight of the stream).

• Containerised food at 0.451 kg/hh/wk (or 2.26% by weight of the stream).

• Glass - non-CDS at 0.424kg/hh/wk (or 2.21% by weight of the stream).

The containerised food was further sorted into each categories. These results are provided in

Attachment 1 Raw Data File.

CDS and non-CDS containers weighed approximately 8.7% and 10.3% of the general waste stream

respectively, totalling 19.0% of containers overall.

Hazardous material weighed approximately 0.99% of the stream. Hazardous items in the 2015 audit

were mainly e-waste and chemicals by weight, including twenty nineteen AA batteries, seven AAA

batteries, six AV batteries, four C batteries, fifteen chargers, a calculator, two watches, an electric

toy, a CD player, two Xbox, two DVD players, three remotes, two toners, a speaker, four mobile

phones, a phone, four head phone, an IPad, an IPod, an IPod dock, nine data cables, a light set, six

light globes, a mixer, two power sockets, a smoke alarm, a door bell, an engine filter and some

engine oil.

Medical/clinical waste was not a separate sorting category. However, the auditors noted that five

needles were encountered during the sorting process.

Alice„Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 15 | P a g e

Glass-CDS category includes wine bottles.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report__2015_251115 16 | P a g e

3.5 Composition and resource recovery by day3.5.1 Composition and resource recovery by day

Table 11 provides a composition and the resource loss (unrecovered resources) by day in this

audit. The raw data are supplied in Appendix A.

The data shows a generally consistent result on each of the auditing days:

• Commingled recycling material weighed approximately one third of the stream, ranging from

31.7% on Thursday to 37.8% on Friday.

• Organics which ranged from 23.7% of the stream on Friday to 44.4% on Thursday. The lower

result on Friday was mainly due to less garden/vegetation observed, compared with the other

audit days.

Other steel 0.44 1.72 0.32 0.47 2.47Sub-total potentially recyclable 2.46 3.18 2.11 2.32 4.18

Food/kitchen (loose) 27.48 11.68 16.55 18.44 18.54Garden/vegetation 12.92 23.11 22.89 21.08 2.81Other paper 2.08 2.28 3.27 3.35 2.28Other putrescible 0.47 2.65 1.57 1.56 0.10

Sub-total organics 42.94 39.71 44.28 44.43 23.74Containerised food 2.54 1.25 1.86 2.61 2.90Miscellaneous 19.85 23.59 14.22 18.92 31.37

Sub-total other waste 22.39 24.85 16.07 21.53 34.26Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


3.5.2 Detailed composition by day

Table 12 provides the general waste stream composition by day. The raw data are supplied in

Appendix A.

The key materials by weight were:

• Loose food which ranged from 11.7% of the stream on Tuesday to 27.5% on Monday.

• Green waste which ranged from 2.8% of the stream on Friday to 23.1% on Tuesday.

• Cardboard which ranged from 5.7% of the stream on Thursday to 14.3% on Wednesday.

• Glass-CDS (incl. wine bottles) which ranged from 4.9% of the stream on Thursday to 8.0%

on Tuesday.

• Textiles which ranged from 1.9% of the stream on Wednesday to 13.9% on Friday.

• Glossy paper, magazines, newsprint which ranged from 3.0% of the stream on Friday to 6.7%

on Thursday.


Glass-CDS category includes wine bottles.


4 Audit photosFigures 1 to 4 provide photos for unrecovered resources, hazardous items and other items in the

general waste.

1. Steel cans. 2. Newspaper. 3. Glass bottles. 4. Plastic bottles. 5. Aluminium cans. 6. Printing paper.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report„2015_251115 20 | P a g e

Figure 2 - Photos of unrecovered resources (organics)

1. Garden organics. 2. Kitchen food waste.

Figure 3 - Photos of hazardous items

1. Nappies. 2. Parts of a kettle and try cell batteries. 3. Parts of a vacuum and a broken lamp. 4. Cables, a light bulb and other e-waste.

Alice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report„2015„251115 21 | P a g e

1. A bag and other textiles. 2. Thermal bottles, a dish drying rack, a metal pot, a small piece of timber and other kitchenware. 3. Foams. 4. Plastic bags. 5. An electric toy. 6. Blankets, carpets and clothes.

Alice-Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 22 | P a g

5 Comments and recommendations

Based on the results of this audit, the following comments are made:

• Generation rate - the mean bin weight was 19.980kg/hh/wk in the 2015 audit.

This figure is similar to Councils in Australia before they had the kerbside recycling and garden

organics bin and a focus on waste minimisation.

Councils should:

o Consider the costs of acquiring and servicing additional bins, or crates, within the

waste strategy for kerbside recycling and garden organics or Food and garden

organics (FOGO). This will need to consider the costs of processing and community

education.

o Consider non-binned kerbside recycling collection services such as organics bundles,

collected in rear loaders or cage trucks.

o Determine whether existing resource recovery technologies and future options, would

have the capacity to recover any additional material collected,

o Consider additional non-binned kerbside recycling services that return the material to

the generator and thus create a direct local market without the need for more waste

processing sites, such as home composters, worm farms, and kerbside chipping of

timber and tree waste to provide material directly back to residents. Council has

recently commenced participation in the Compost Revolution Program which

provides an online, step-by-step guide to composting and a discounted compost bin.

o Consider options to match reusable materials with local businesses for drop-off by

residents, such as shredded paper to local pet shops or large cardboard boxes to

storage businesses.

o Consider waste minimisation approaches, such as Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW)

and working with local businesses to reduce packaging wastes,

o Conduct additional education on the usage of Councils existing drop-off centres,

o Consult with residents about their satisfaction with Councils drop-off centre services

and locations, and seek to encourage more usage by residents.


• Bin percentage full - the mean and median bin percentage full results were 84.62% and

100% in the 2015 audit Approximately 55% of the households used 90% and over of their bin

capacity.

• Presentation rate-the presentation rates in the 2015 audit was 62.12%. This figure is lower

than in many surveys, may mean that households do not present their bins until they are full or

near full. A typical presentation rate based on our experience may be approximately 85% to

90% for general waste as an average in Australia.

Council should:

o Consult with residents about the adequacy of their capacity and consider ways to


o Reduce the high proportion of households that have used their full bin capacity.

It is not advisable within resource recovery or service cost, to consider a Council-wide offer of bigger

general waste bins or more frequent collection. However, some households may require additional

capacity, which could be provided at a fee.

• Unrecovered commingled recycling material - the total amount of commingled recycling

material in the 2015 audit was 6.864kg/hh/wk (or 34.35% of the stream).

• Unrecovered organics-the total amount of organics (excl. containerised food) in the 2015

audit was 7.595kg/hh/wk (or 38.01% of the stream).

The unrecovered resources rate of approximately 72% (with approximately 34% of the stream being

commingled recycling material and approximately 38% of the stream being organics material) of a

bin was similar to Councils in Australia before they had additional kerbside recycling and garden

organics bins and a focus on waste minimisation.

Council should:

o Consult with residents about their willingness to participate in alternative ways to



The consultation should focus on food waste, garden organics, paper, cardboard,

containers CDS and containers non-CDS.

o If a centralised processing systems was viable, the general waste stream material

composition appears suited to an initiative that could recover the compostable

material and typical kerbside recyclable material. This could achieve a maximum

reduction of 72.36% of the audited general waste stream based on 34.35% of the

general waste stream being typical kerbside recyclabies and 38.01% of the general

waste stream being organics material.

• Hazardous waste -the total amount of hazardous waste in the 2015 audit was 0.20kg/hh/wk

(or 0.99% of the stream).

Council should:

o Consider more local drop-off solutions for hazardous wastes, particularly chemicals

and e-waste. It is noted that no paint or vehicles batteries were audited in the study.

In addition, as part of monitoring the effectiveness of its waste strategy, Council should conduct

waste audits annually and in all seasons to build up trend data and also monitor performance of any

waste recycling or avoidance programs implemented.


References

Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2011 http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services

/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/LGA70200?opendocument&navpos=220 [accessed 3

November 2015].

DECCW (2008), “Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and

Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas” (June 2008), DECCW, Sydney.

DECCW (2010), “Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and

Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas” (December 2010), DECCW, Sydney.

Alice_Springs_Towri_Coundl_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 26 | P a g

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services

Appendix A - Raw data by dayTable 13 - Raw data - overall summary composition by day-weight (kg in load)

Material categoryWeight (kg in load)

Mon Tues Wed Thur FriCompliant paper and cardboard 63.78 89.51 86.94 77.19 87.40Compliant LPB containers 3.04 2.24 2.11 4.04 6.57Compliant glass 50.41 52.52 31.88 33.71 59.80Compliant plastics - CDS 5.63 2.95 4.45 5.30 19.66

Compliant plastics - non-CDS 18.79 27.27 21.57 26.39 54.65Compliant steel 11.56 6.06 5.06 6.63 8.03Compliant aluminium 10.74 3.13 2.51 5.72 8.59

Sub-total commingled recycling 163.95 183.68 154.53 158.98 244.69Other glass 0.22 0.30 0.48 0.84 1.43Plastic - EPS 4.84 1.60 1.11 3.96 1.34Plastic - other rigid mouldings 5.19 6.41 5.81 4.46 8.29Other aluminium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other steel 2.25 9.73 1.28 2.41 16.03

Sub-total potentially recyclable 12.50 18.04 8.68 11.67 27.09Food/kitchen (loose) 139.75 66.39 68.26 92.21 120.02

Garden/vegetation 65.68 131.35 94.39 105.44 18.16Other paper 10.61 12.89 13.43 16.73 14.81Other putrescible 2.39 15.09 6.48 7.77 0.65

Sub-total organics 218.43 225.72 182.56 222.15 153.64Containerised food 13.00 7.19 7.65 13.06 18.69

Miscellaneous 101.09 134.22 58.54 94.66 202.88Sub-total other waste 114.09 141.41 66.19 107.72 221.57

Total 508.98 568.85 411.95 500.52 646.99

Table 14 - Raw data - weighbridge record - weight (kg in load)

Weight (kg in load) *

Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri

520.00 580.00 400.00 500.00 660.00

* These weights are indicative, based on standard truck tare weights and may also vary slightly due to moisture changes during auditing.


A1ice_Springs_Town_Council_Waste_Audit_Report_2015_251115 28 | P a g e

to: ordinary council - monday 14 december 2015 … · acknowledgements: hayley michener, reinier...

Documents