Description
The Southern and Western Region of Adelaide comprising the Cities of Onkaparinga, Mitcham, Unley, Marion, Holdfast Bay and West Torrens, currently generates an estimated 610-620,000 tonnes of waste from all sources annually, of which an estimated 36% is currently recovered for re-use or recycling.
Southern and Western
Region
Report for Regional Waste
Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
August 2006
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Contents
Executive Summary i
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Scope of this strategy 1
2. Background information 3
2.1 Demographic information about the SW Region 3
2.2 Existing Waste and Resource Facilities 5
3. Previous work completed 14
3.1 Stage 1 work 14
3.2 Stage 2 work 15
4. Community Expectations 16
4.1 Domestic services 16
4.2 Current Zero Waste SA Study 17
4.3 Expectations of commerce and industry 19
5. Waste Management and Resource Recovery Targets for
the SW Region 20
5.1 Strategic framework 20
5.2 Issues for the SW Region 21
5.3 SA Government programs 22
6. Waste Management and Resource Recovery Options 26
6.1 Options Considered 26
6.2 Achievement of State strategy targets and Zero Waste SA
Kerbside Performance Standards 31
6.3 Environmental and Financial Assessment of Options 34
6.4 Overall Suitability for Implementation – Short-list of Options for
Consideration 34
7. Further analysis of Stage 2 Options 38
7.1 Municipal waste stream 38
7.2 Commercial and industrial waste stream 49
7.3 Construction and demolition waste stream 52
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7.4 Other waste streams/opportunities 52
8. Stakeholder Feedback 56
8.1 Industry Stakeholders 56
8.2 Steering Committee and Waste Policy Forum 57
8.3 General Community 58
9. Overall RWMSP Structure 60
9.1 Elements of RWMSP 60
9.2 Timing for Actions 62
10. Opportunities to attract Grants 71
11. Communication strategy 72
11.1 Strategy objectives 72
11.2 Summary of consultation methodologies 72
Table Index
Table 1-1 Summary of Options Presented ii
Table 1-2 Triple bottom line and regional benefits of Options vii
Table 2-1 Population distribution and trends within the SW
Region according to the ABS 3
Table 2-2 Population distribution and trends within the SW
Region 5
Table 2-3 Predicted Population Increases (% pa) 5
Table 2-4 Regional waste tonnages 7
Table 2-5 Summary of domestic kerbside services 8
Table 2-6 Current and Potential Regional Waste Recovery 11
Table 2-7 Potential Future Waste Streams 12
Table 4-1 Community Consultation Undertaken To Date by
Councils in the SW Region to Determine Customer
Satisfaction and Awareness 18
Table 6-1 Summary of Options for Initial Consideration 26
Table 6-2 Alignment of Options with State Waste Reduction
Targets and Zero Waste SA Kerbside Performance
Criteria 31
Table 6-3 Summary of overall suitability for implementation 36
Table 7-1 Current waste and recycling statistics and potential
improvements 41
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 7-2 Possible improvements from 3 bin system and
subsequent efficiency gains 42
Table 9-1 Elements of RWMSP and Implementation Action
Plan 60
Table 9-2 Timing of Actions 63
Table 9-3 Proposed program for implementation of RWMSP
Actions 65
Table 11-1 Consultation program adopted for RWMSP 73
Table A1 Summary of results from technical, environmental,
and social evaluation and assessment of potential
regional versus individual benefits from proposed
strategies 76
Table B1 Estimated Financial Costs 79
Table D1 Key risks 92
Figure Index
Figure 1-1 Flow Diagram of Project Elements 2
Figure 2-1 Population distribution in the SW Region 4
Figure 2-2 Existing Regional Waste Management Facilities 6
Figure 2-3 Current waste generation and recovery in the SW
Region 13
Figure 5-1 Key material recovery and recycling targets in the
State Waste Strategy 23
Figure 7-1 Major components of C&I waste stream in
Metropolitan Adelaide 50
Appendices
A Environmental Assessment
B Financial Analysis
C Cost Benefit Analysis
D Risk Assessment
E Waste Industry Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes
F Options Report Summary
i 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Executive Summary
The Southern and Western Region of Adelaide comprising the Cities of Onkaparinga,
Mitcham, Unley, Marion, Holdfast Bay and West Torrens, currently generates an
estimated 610-620,000 tonnes of waste from all sources annually, of which an
estimated 36% is currently recovered for re-use or recycling.
The current population is around 423,000 and is estimated to grow at 0.5% pa. The
region is also well serviced by a large manufacturing business and retail sector, which
generates large quantities of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and Construction and
Demolition (C&D) waste.
The southern areas of the region particularly within the City of Onkaparinga, contains
large parcels of vacant industrial and residential land and hence has the potential to
grow at a greater rate than the remainder of the region.
Accordingly the quantity of waste and resources generated in the region is expected to
grow to 670,000 tonnes by 2026.
The potential exists to recover up to 500,000 tonnes (80%) of this material over a
twenty-year period through introduction of additional resource recovery and new
technologies.
The region is currently well serviced with waste collection service providers and drop
off, landfill and resource recovery facilities, however additional services facilities and
technologies are required to achieve the key government objectives and diversion
targets set out in legislation and policies, particularly in relation to recovery and
processing of C&I and C&D waste and kerbside mixed solid waste (MSW).
To respond to these goals several program options were developed and categorised
according to the responsibility of delivery as shown in Table 1-1 below.
These included:
» Seven municipal driven options;
» Five C&I driven options;
» One C&D driven option;
» Eight categorised as other being driven by government or industry.
ii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 1-1 Summary of Options Presented
Option Description
Municipal
Option 1 Regional best-practice kerbside collection services
This option involves providing a regional 3-bin integrated kerbside
collection service across the SW Region. This would include rolling out
new 240L mobile garbage bins (MGBs) to residents in Holdfast Bay and
Unley to replace the current crate collection system for recyclables, and
having regular fortnightly collection of garden organics across the SW
Region.
Option 2 Fortnightly collection of combined garden and food organics, with
organics processed by either open windrow or enclosed composting
processes
This Option requires that food scraps and separated by residents in the
kitchen, placed in a biodegradable bag in a kitchen food organics
container/bin for intermediate storage, and then placed in the garden
organics bin for fortnightly collection.
Option 3 Increased services for household hazardous wastes
This option considers possible new services to better manage household
hazardous wastes. Potential service opportunities include:
» Provide yearly collection across the SW Region in addition to that
provided by the Zero Waste SA;
» Provide an on-call hazardous waste collection service;
» Provide required infrastructure for safe storage of these items at
Council depots and/or all Council waste facilities including transfer
stations and landfills. Each site would need to be licensed for this
activity and ensure appropriate collection and disposal of the collected
wastes; and
» Promote avoiding generation of hazardous waste in the first instance
through providing increased education to residents.
Option 4 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
This option considers potential strategies that Councils in the Region may
choose to adopt to manage these types of waste including:
» Regular collection of these types of products;
» On-call collection service;
» Acceptance for free or low-cost at a revolve/reuse centre; and
» Support establishment of a drop off centre for repair (where possible)
redistributing and reuse), or for supply to metals recyclers.
iii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 5 Council wastes
This option requires that the performance of any council wide waste
management initiatives should be measured and made publicly available
to both Council employees and the general community in order to
demonstrate each Council’s commitment to waste minimisation. It also
requires provisions for waste minimisation and monitoring of system
performance to be included in Council’s Environmental Management
Plans.
Option 6 Modifications to the domestic kerbside hard-waste collection service
This option assesses the potential to modify existing on-call kerbside
hard-waste collection services by either:
Having reusable items collected by operators of the proposed
reuse/revolve centre (residents to place direct call to the reuse centre for
this collection);
Having a regular set-day for undertaking collections in each Council area
to maximise collection efficiencies;
Requiring residents to sort the hard waste into piles of scrap steel, wood
and timber products, garden organics, and residual for example. Each of
these streams would then be collected by a different collection vehicle and
taken to the appropriate disposal point (either to recycling or landfill); or
All mixed hard waste could be taken to a depot for manual sorting prior to
delivery to landfill or recycling.
Option 7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery Facility
for recyclables.
Under this option, Local Government would share the revenue associated
with recyclables collected at kerbside within the region.
Commercial and Industrial
Option 8 Designated food organics collection service for the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
This option would involve providing a designated food collection service
for selected commercial and industrial properties that generate large
amounts of food organics. The collected organics would be processed
either by a composting or digestion process to recover the organic
content of the material as well as potentially energy.
Option 9 Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for C&I wastes
Under this option a MRF would be established either at an existing waste
disposal facility or at a new site. The MRF would accept only C&I waste
from both self-haul customers and commercial collections. Depending on
how the waste arrives at the site, the materials would either be directly
separated and stockpiled (for loads containing only one type of material),
or processed through a variety of plant to recover as much recyclables
as possible prior to disposal of residual waste to landfill.
iv 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 10 Regional Support of waste programs targeting industry, including
implementation of cleaner production processes
This option considers implementation of programs at a regional level to
assist improve industrial waste management practices, including
potentially:
Providing a source of cleaner production information to the industry;
Connecting industries which generate waste with those industries that
are able to use the waste (thus preventing the waste being disposed of
and raw materials being used);
Developing and implementing voluntary cleaner production programs
and reporting the outcomes to the public;
Negotiating self regulated initiatives to prevent pollution and waste
generation, and report the outcomes to the public; and
Encouraging the community to get involved with industry to deliver better
environmental performance.
Option 11 Liquid waste services
This option considers the establishment of a liquid waste treatment plant
in the SW Region to service councils located in southern Metropolitan
Adelaide and surrounds. It also considers increasing the number of
collection points for liquid wastes (including oily fats and used engine
oils) to all Council operated depots (including landfills and transfer
stations).
Option 12 Establishment of an Eco-Industrial Precinct
A separate study is being undertaken to identify the potential suitability of
establishing an integrated waste eco-industrial precinct (or precincts in
the SW Region). The study stems from the desire of the region to
emulate the principals and activities contained in the proposed eco-
industrial park to be located at the former Wingfield Landfill depot site.
The notion of such a precinct is that waste material from one company is
used as a valuable input material for its neighbours
Construction and Demolition
Option 13 Establishment of a Regional Depot for Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials
This option considers the development of a regional C&D depot for the
accepting, sorting, processing, and resale of C&D materials.
Other
Option 14 Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) processing of kerbside
collected garbage
This option is the same as per Option one, but garbage would be
disposed at an AWT facility for further separation and treatment and
residuals then transferred to landfill.
v 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 15 Single bin collection system combined with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
This option would involve moving from a 3-bin collection system
(separate collection of garbage, recyclables, and organics) to a
weekly 240L 1-bin collection system (all mixed wastes) with the mixed
waste stream being sent to an AWT plant for processing.
Option 16 Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse centre
A revolve/reuse centre is a facility for residents to drop off unwanted
household items including furniture, appliances and white goods (in
working order). The items can then be refurbished and then resold
back to the community.
Option 17 Regional Approaches to Waste Education
The option of undertaking education on a regional level refers to the
sharing of education resources across all six member Councils. This
would include the employment of education officers that work on
behalf of the Councils/Industries/Public across the whole region, the
use of standardised advertising and education materials, and
promotion and organisation of special events.
Option 18 Tyres
A potential strategy to address disposal of tyres in the SW Region is
to recommend Councils support a total ban on the landfilling of tyres
(i.e. even tyres in shredded form). In order for the ban to be
successful, there must be development of markets for recovered
tyres.
Option 19 Regional plastic bag reduction strategies
This option considers establishing a regional approach to plastic bag
reduction campaigns that would result in consistency in education and
promotional material across a wider area (hence a greater chance of
being able to impact consumer behaviour). It would also involve sharing
human resources as well as promotion and marketing material across
the Region.
Option 20 A Public place litter management
This option considers opportunities to undertake litter reduction
campaigns on a regional basis.
Option 20 B Public place recycling
This option considers opportunities to undertake public place
recycling campaigns on a regional basis.
vi 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 21 Formation of Regional Partnerships
This option involves forming co-operative relationships with industry to
influence the uptake of cleaner production and eco-efficiency across
the SW Region. Development of industry partnerships may be
progressed at the individual level between Council and individual
organisations, or potentially via representative industry organisations.
In addition to forming partnerships with industry, the Region should
consider the potential establishment of a Regional Environmental
Cluster Working Group. Members of the group would comprise of
representatives from industry, small business, Councils, and waste
industry service providers. Representatives from Zero Waste SA and
the EPA may also be invited to attend.
The above options were presented to industry stakeholders at an industry workshop
and to a community panel with representation from each of the six Council areas.
Comments were also invited from the general public via advertisements placed in
Messenger newspapers within each of the six Council areas.
Of the options presented to the community panel, the following comments were noted
from 26 respondents:
» Options 1-7 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 1,5 and 6 being the most
strongly supported and best delivered by Local Government;
» Options 8-13 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 11, 12 and 13 being the
most strongly supported but views were mixed on whether Local Government or
industry should deliver the programs;
» Options 16,17 and 21 are overwhelmingly supported with views mixed on the other
remaining options;
» The least favoured was Option 15.
Of the options presented to industry stakeholders, the following comments were
offered:
» Options considered to be significant to very significant to industry comprised
Options 1, 9 and 12;
» Options considered to be moderately significant to industry comprised Options 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, 8,10, 16-18, 20A, 20B-21;
» Options considered to be of little or no significance to industry because they were
either already being widely addressed within the region or industry, required new
market or legislative intervention to be effective, were considered to be a producer
responsibility, or would provide low financial returns, included Options 4, 11, 13 and
14.
Based on the above, the options developed in the draft RWMSP are considered by the
waste and resource industry and some community representatives, to be appropriate
for the region and achievable, however there are some options which are not
considered suited to or the responsibility of either local government (regional MRF’s
and electronics tyre waste recycling) or the private waste resource industry (Revolve
Centres).
A triple bottom line assessment was undertaken for each of the options and is
summarised in Table 1-2 below.
vii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 1-2 Triple bottom line and regional benefits of Options
Option Description
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Municipal
1 Regional best practice kerbside
collection
» Garbage collection 1
» Recyclables collection 5
» Garden organics collection
15
6
2 H
2 Fortnightly combined food and
garden organics collection
processed by:
» Open windrow composting 12
» Enclosed composting 10
12 4 H
3 Household hazardous waste
additional collection or drop-off
services
12 5 7 M
4 Services for electronic wastes and
household appliances
10 6 7 M
5 Council waste management and
reduction strategies
NA 4 2 L – M
6 Collection of source separated
household hard waste
11 5 4 M - H
7 Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables.
15 9 8 H
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service
for C&I properties
NS NS NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased
sorting and recovery of C&I waste
10 7 4 H
10 Management of industrial and
special wastes
NA 5 5 M
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing
as per Eco-Industrial precinct
model
» Development of a new liquid
waste treatment plant within the
Region
NA
» Motor oil collection at additional
garages and service stations
12
» Oil collection at waste facilities 15
5 5 H
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct NA NA NA NA
viii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting,
sorting, processing, and resale of
C&D materials
13 12 7 H
Other
14 AWT processing of kerbside
garbage stream
12 11 2 H
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin
collection system. Mixed waste
stream processed using AWT.
NS NS NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s for
household hard waste items and
second hand goods
15 6 8 M
17 Increased education / regional
education strategies
NA 5 4 H
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres NA NA NA H
19 Plastic bag reduction 13 7 5 L
20A Public place litter management 15 2 6 L
20B Public place recycling and
recycling at public events
13 3 6 L – M
21 Cooperative partnership
arrangements
NA NA NA NA
NA – Not able to be assessed at present
NS – Not assessed as the option is not considered potentially suitable for implementation within the
timeframe of the RWMSP
H-High benefit
M-Medium benefit
L-Low benefit
1 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
1. Introduction
GHD was commissioned to undertake the development of a long-term Regional Waste
Management Strategy and Plan (RWMSP) for the Southern and Western Regions of
Adelaide (the SW Region). The SW Region encompasses the six Local Government
areas of the City of Onkaparinga, City of Unley, City of Mitcham, City of Marion, City of
Holdfast Bay and City of West Torrens.
The preparation of the RWMSP was overseen by a Steering Committee comprising
officer representatives of the six Councils and Zero Waste SA and a Waste Policy
Forum comprising the Chief Executive Officers of the six Councils and Zero waste SA.
1.1 Objectives
A comprehensive inventory of current waste and waste management facilities and
practices has been undertaken in Stage 1 of the project. Future opportunities and
imperatives for waste management across the Region have been assessed, and a
number of options for new or improved services have been analysed in Stage 2.
In this Stage 3 report, the key findings of Stages 1 and 2 are summarised, and options
which have most relevance to the overall RWMSP are further assessed. A number of
key Actions are identified that should form the basis of the detailed RWMSP.
The RWMSP is intended to guide waste management in the Region for the next 10 to
20 years and to present an understood and agreed position for Councils within the
Region. The project staging, including the involvement of the Steering Group, is
summarised in Figure 1-1.
1.2 Scope of this strategy
This RWMSP is focused on the current to long-term (up to 20 years) in the future, and
takes into consideration:
» Potential arrangements between Councils;
» Potential use of facilities as regional facilities;
» Priority issues that are anticipated to be determined throughout the consultation
processes;
» Environmental and planning requirements for existing facilities and potential new
facilities;
» Programs to increase resource recovery considering the requirements for collection
and reprocessing, existing markets for recovered materials, collection, disposal, and
transport costs;
» Improving or at least maintaining existing service levels where possible;
» Impediments and risks associated with new/rationalised services; and
2 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Triple bottom line impacts i.e. consideration of economic, environmental and social
impacts.
Waste types that are considered in the strategy include MSW, C&I, C&D, household
hard waste, Council waste and household hazardous waste.
Figure 1-1 Flow Diagram of Project Elements
Stage 1
Project inception and planning
Preliminary consultation
Assessment of current waste management
provisions
Factors affecting the strategic waste agenda
Stage 2
Assessment of future options
Stage 3
Regional Waste Management Strategy and
Plan
Stage 4
Final Regional Waste Management
Strategy and Plan
Project outline
Critical path
Site visits
Workshop/s
Stage 1 Report
Stage 2 Report
Final RWMSP
Input from
inception
meeting
Feedback
from Steering
Group
Feedback from
Steering Group
Feedback from
Steering Group
Feedback from
Steering Group
Input from
workshop/s
Preliminary Draft
RWMSP
Draft RWMSP
3 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
2. Background information
2.1 Demographic information about the SW Region
2.1.1 Current Regional Population
The current residential population of the Southern and Western (SW) Region is
estimated at 423,000, which represents approximately 36% of the Adelaide
metropolitan population. The distribution and growth in residential population across
the SW Region since 1996 is shown in Figure 2-1.
Table 2-1 Population distribution and trends within the SW Region according
to the ABS
LGA 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
City of Unley 36,663 36,501 36,620 36,572 36,601
City of Mitcham 61,878 62,033 62,379 62,417 62,572
City of Onkaparinga 148,720 149,912 151,010 152,036 152,833
City of Holdfast Bay 33,223 33,522 33,689 33,712 33,957
City of Marion 78,232 78,678 79,055 79,581 80,039
City of West Torrens 52,275 52,291 52,364 52,514 52,588
Total 410,991 412,937 415,117 416,832 418,590
Source: ABS National Regional Profile
4 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Population Distribution in the SW Region
City of Unley - ABS
9%
City of Mitcham - ABS
15%
City of Onkaparinga - ABS
36%
City of Holdfast Bay - ABS
8%
City of Marion - ABS
19%
City of West Torrens - ABS
13%
Figure 2-1 Population distribution in the SW Region
Source: Based on ABS National Regional Profile, residential population as at 30 June 2003
2.1.2 Projected Population
The State Strategic Plan Projects a state population of 2 million by 2050, which allows
for a 2.7% increase per annum.
Population projections under low to high growth rate scenarios (as published by
Planning SA) indicate a population range of 1,140,059 to 1,210,468 in the Adelaide
Statistical Division by 2016.
A modest increase of 0.5% per annum is considered reasonable for the SW Region
and would suggest a regional population of 444,000 and 465,000 within 10 and 20
years respectively. This is in agreement with population projections for the SW Region
as published by Planning SA.
5 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 2-2 Population distribution and trends within the SW Region
LGA 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
City of Unley 36,481 37,511 38,374 39,190 39,940
City of Mitcham 61,542 61,432 61,701 61,500 61,464
City of Onkaparinga 144,636 151,170 158,354 165,341 172,211
City of Holdfast Bay 32,372 32,959 32,868 32,748 32,545
City of Marion 77,446 78,213 80,634 82,956 85,172
City of West Torrens 51,523 52,591 52,088 51,525 50,831
Total 404,000 413,876 424,019 433,260 442,163
Source: Planning SA, Population Projections for South Australia (1996-2026) and Statistical Divisions
(1996-2016), Government of South Australia, Adelaide
Table 2-3 Predicted Population Increases (% pa)
LGA 1996-2001 2001-2006 2006-2011 2011-2016
City of Unley 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
City of Mitcham 0.0% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0%
City of Onkaparinga 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%
City of Holdfast Bay 0.4% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1%
City of Marion 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
City of West Torrens 0.4% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3%
Total 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
2.2 Existing Waste and Resource Facilities
Waste and resource facilities in the SW Region comprise:
» Three public landfill depots;
» Three transfer stations;
» One Materials Recovery Facility (MRF);
» Council drop off depots; and
» Three recycled crushed concrete drop off and crushing facilities.
6 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
There are a further 20 Container Deposit (CDL), scrap metal and cardboard drop off
depots, and seven scout depots located throughout the SW Region, which receive
recyclables, paper, metals and batteries. The location of main waste depots and
landfills are shown in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2 Existing Regional Waste Management Facilities
Major existing waste infrastructure in the SW Region includes:
» Adelaide Waste and Recycling Centre (North Plympton, West Torrens), operated by
Solo Resource Recovery on behalf of the City of West Torrens;
» Metro Waste Services transfer station (Thebarton, West Torrens), privately owned
and operated;
» Southern Region Waste Disposal Depot (also known as Pedlar Creek landfill),
operated by the Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga;
7 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Lonsdale Waste and Recycling Depot (Lonsdale, City of Onkaparinga), owned and
operated by SA Waste Management;
» Southern Waste Depot (also known as Maslins Beach landfill, McLaren Vale),
Lucas Waste Management, this landfill is primarily used by the private sector; and
» Allbulk Waste and Recycling Centre, Lonsdale.
2.2.1 Existing Regional Waste Tonnages
The estimated tonnages of regional waste are shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Regional waste tonnages
Waste stream tonnes/year tonnes/capita/year
Municipal domestic kerbside waste 112,484 0.27
Municipal kerbside recyclables 24,553 0.06
Municipal kerbside green organics 30,818 0.07
Municipal kerbside hard waste 5,114 0.01
Council concrete asphalt and soil C&D waste
for disposal or recycling 49,630 0.12
Council green waste street sweepings and
litter for disposal /recycling 8,740 0.02
Council facility C&I and depot waste 355 0.001
Domestic self hauled hard and residual waste* 154,100 0.37
C&D waste from private sources 117,500 0.28
C&I waste from offices and industries 45,000 0.11
Green organics from private sources 80,000 0.22
Waste from CDL and other small drop off
depots 10,000 0.02
Total 639, 200 1.51
* This figure is high because it includes skips and other non-compactor vehicle transported waste from
domestic premises, as well as resident delivered wastes. It also includes 10,000 tonnes of putrescible waste
received from Yankalilla, Kangaroo Island and Goolwa and a proportion of waste from the Adelaide Waste
and Recycling Centre, which is a metropolitan facility.
8 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
2.2.2 Existing and planned collection services
The type of waste services offered in each LGA within the Region varies as shown in
Table 2-5. All Councils currently provide domestic kerbside waste and recycling
services, however there are variations in the method of service delivery and the
frequency of servicing.
» The Cities of West Torrens and Marion have recently introduced a combined
integrated waste collection service for both domestic waste and recycling streams,
using separate MGBs for domestic waste and recycling. Unley and Holdfast Bay
Councils use crate based systems for recyclables.
» The City of Onkaparinga in 2005 introduced a fortnightly MGB based recycling
service and in March 2006 introduced a four weekly kerbside green waste collection
service, to replace the monthly depot based green waste drop off system. Holdfast
Bay has a user pays fortnightly 240L MGB garden waste collection system.
Council day labour provides domestic waste collection services in Mitcham and
Onkaparinga. All other services in these Councils and in other councils are provided
under contract.
Table 2-5 Summary of domestic kerbside services
City of: Garbage
service
Recycling
service
Garden
organics
Hard waste Other
Holdfast
Bay
Weekly
120L or
240L
service
Fortnightly crate
service for
containers,
bundled paper
Fortnightly
240L
service,
user pays
Annual
service
Marion Weekly
140L bin
Weekly fully
integrated
wheelie bin
service in
conjunction with
West Torrens
Fortnightly
240L
service
Pick up
scheme
Council
facilitates a
waste
register for
commercial
businesses
Mitcham Weekly
140L
service
Fortnightly 240L
service
Fortnightly
240L
service
Chemical
collection
every 2
years
Onkaparinga Weekly
140L
service
Fortnightly 240L
service
Four
weekly
240L
service
Up to 2 on-
call services
per household
per year
9 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
City of: Garbage
service
Recycling
service
Garden
organics
Hard waste Other
West
Torrens
Weekly
140L bin
Weekly
integrated
wheelie bin
service in
conjunction with
Marion
Fortnightly
240L
service
Annual
service
Unley Weekly
service
Fortnightly crate
service,
separate crates
for containers
and paper
Fortnightly
240L
service
Up to 2 on-
call services
per household
per year
2.2.3 Disposal of collected materials
Domestic waste
Currently all of the kerbside collected domestic waste from the Region, other than that
of the City of Unley, is sent to the Southern Region Waste Disposal Depot. This is
partly due to the closure of Wingfield landfill in December of 2004. Waste from
domestic services in the City of Unley is transported to the Integrated Waste Services
(IWS) transfer facility at Wingfield and then to the IWS balefill at Dublin.
Recyclables
There is currently only one operator in Adelaide to receive, sort and market recyclables
collected across the entire metropolitan area. Based on that operator’s advice,
recyclables processed by his organisation are disposed of as follows:
» Paper – exported to China, if it meets high quality levels set by agents (fetching
approximately $300/tonne), or sent to Visy in Sydney or Melbourne;
» Glass – sent to Amcor in Gawler Belt;
» Steel-Local agents such as Norm metals and Sims metals;
» Aluminium- -Local agents such as Norm metals and Sims metals;
» Plastics (Polypropylene/HDPE/LDPE) – granulated and used by local SA industry;
» Plastics (mixed) – sent to Advanced Plastic Recycling in SA for conversion into
fencing posts, railway sleepers and other products;
» PET-sent to Visy in Sydney
10 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Garden organics
The majority of kerbside collected garden organics is currently direct hauled to either
Pedlar Creek or the Peats Soils and Garden Supplies facility at Willunga for
processing. Garden organics from domestic collections in the City of West Torrens are
taken to the Adelaide Waste and Recycling Centre prior to transport to Jeffries Soils.
2.2.4 Opportunities for improved resource recovery
From this assessment it was concluded of the 610,000 tonnes of waste estimated to be
generated in the SW Region each year, approximately 222,000 tonnes per year (36%)
is currently recycled or recovered for beneficial reuse (refer Table 2-6).
With total waste generation in the SW Region predicted to increase from the current
rate to 640,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) and 671,000 tpa respectively within 10 and 20
years, it is estimated that there is the potential to recover up to 511,500 tpa (80%) of
the overall waste stream within 10 years (refer Table 2-7)
1
.
1
Increase in waste generation based on estimated annual population growth of 0.5% as outlined in the
Stage 1 report.
11 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 2-6 Current and Potential Regional Waste Recovery
Waste stream
Current
Generation
(tpa)
Current
Recycled/
Recovered
(tpa)
Current
Recycled/
Recovered
(%)
Potentially
Recycled/
Recovered
(%)
Potentially
Recycled/
Recovered
(tpa)
Municipal domestic
kerbside waste
112,500 0 0% 65% 73,100
Municipal kerbside
recyclables
24,550 23,300 95% 95% 23,300
Municipal kerbside
garden organics
30,820 28,000 91% 95% 29,300#
Municipal kerbside
hard waste
5,120 4,500 88% 50% 2,600
Council concrete
and soil for
recycling
49,700 10,000 20% 90% 44,700
Council waste 355 177 50% 90% 300
Council garden
organics, litter and
street sweepings
10,540 5,900 56% 90% 9,500
Domestic self
hauled hard and
residual waste**
154,100 32,000 21% 70% 107,900
C&D waste 117,500 40,000 34% 90% 105,800
Private C&I waste 45,000* 18,000 40% 75% 33,800
Garden organics
from private
sources
50,000 50,000 100% 100% 50,000
Waste from CDL
and other small
drop off depots
10,000 10,000 100% 100% 10,000
Total 610,185 221,877 36% 80% 490,300
* Includes estimated 15,000 tpa mixed paper collection from offices and other buildings collected under
existing recycling services. Also includes 30,000 tpa mixed C&I materials delivered to landfill based on the
recent (2004) Zero Waste SA Landfill Audit.
** This figure includes skips and other non-compactor vehicle transported waste, as well as resident
delivered wastes. It also includes 10,000 tonnes of putrescible waste received from Yankalilla, Kangaroo
Island and Goolwa and a proportion of waste from the Adelaide Waste and Recycling Centre, which is a
metropolitan facility.
12 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
# This figure could increase with the inclusion of food organics as per the Burnside Council trial. Report to be
released in the future.
Table 2-7 Potential Future Waste Streams
Year
Total Waste Stream
(tpa)
Potentially
Recoverable
(%)
Potentially
Recovered
(tpa)
2016 640,500 80 511,500#
2026 671,200 80 536,000
1
Increase in waste generation based on estimated annual population growth of 0.5% as outlined in the
Stage 1 report.
13 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Municipal domestic kerbside waste
Municipal kerbside recyclables
Municipal kerbside green organics
Municipal kerbside hard waste
Council concrete and soil for recycling
Council C&I Waste
Council Greenwaste, litter and streetsweepings
Domestic self hauled hard and residual waste
C&D waste
Private C&I waste
Garden organics from private sources
Waste from CDL and other small drop off depots
W
a
s
t
e
S
t
r
e
a
m
Estimated Quantity as at 2005 (tpa)
Current Generation (tpa) Current Recycled/ Recovered (tpa) Potentially Recyclable / Recoverable (tpa)
Figure 2-3 Current waste generation and recovery in the SW Region
14 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
3. Previous work completed
3.1 Stage 1 work
3.1.1 Statutory and industry consultation
GHD conducted joint face-to-face discussions with the policy and regional enforcement
officers of the EPA, ZWSA, and Council representatives to obtain relevant information
on the performance of existing waste facilities and their expectations in terms of future
infrastructure standards and resource recovery programs.
A preliminary workshop was held with the identified key project stakeholders within the
early stages of the project to facilitate collection of information and stakeholder
engagement from the outset of the RWMSP development.
Priority issues discussed at the workshop/s included:
» Identifying issues facing individual Councils which may need to be considered (or
which desirably would be considered) before the finalisation and consideration of
the final RWMSP;
» Identifying the strategic platforms and initiatives of participating Councils, the State
Government and any other major stakeholder, relating to regional waste
management; and
» Identifying key strategic and operational issues relating to waste management in
individual Council areas, and the region as a whole – both current and future.
3.1.2 Assessment of current waste management provisions and facilities
The assessment of current waste management provisions included:
» Current waste generation and disposal practices;
» Existing waste and recycling facilities; and
» Kerbside systems.
Waste management facilities and practices were also reviewed.
3.1.3 Strategic platforms
Strategic platforms and initiatives of participating Councils, the State Government and
any other major stakeholders as they relate to regional waste management were
assessed.
15 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
3.2 Stage 2 work
The Stage 2 report of the RWMSP identified potential strategies for future waste and
resource management in the SW Region to assist in achieving waste targets as
specified in the South Australian Waste Strategy (2005-2010) and to address
limitations in existing infrastructure as identified in the Stage 1 Report.
Each potential option was assessed in terms of its ability to help meet the relevant
targets as well as affordability, operational constraints and impacts, and potential social
and environmental impacts.
16 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
4. Community Expectations
Understanding community expectations for waste management service levels is an
important factor for consideration in the formulation of future management strategies. A
brief overview of typical service expectations is provided below.
4.1 Domestic services
McGregor Tan (2000) conducted a detailed survey and analysis of community
expectations for kerbside collection services in SA. The outcomes of the study
indicated the community has an expectation that kerbside collections be:
» Regularly provided;
» Convenient;
» Consistent; and
» Provided at a reasonable cost.
The community also has the expectation that the materials placed out for collection will
be genuinely recycled (not disposed of to landfill). They also expect best practice and
environmental management in overall waste management infrastructure and services.
To date there is little information on the perceived level of community satisfaction with
the current waste collection and disposal systems in place in the SW Region, however
it is understood that the introduction of the 240L recycling containers has led to
increased yields and participation when introduced. It is understood that the
introduction of a shared bin arrangement in multi-unit sites has been the subject of
complaints.
In order to understand if current and future community expectations are met, it is
important to have a clear understanding of the waste minimisation attitudes and
knowledge of the general community.
An annual (or biennial) survey of the community is a good method of determining
community attitudes, expectations, and current waste management practices. This
information is useful for guiding future educational initiatives and planning for different
types of future waste management services. In addition, observation studies may be
useful in understanding resident behaviour, and in determining the effectiveness of
existing services and programs.
A resident survey could be used to determine:
» Willingness of residents to participate in recycling and other waste minimisation
initiatives such as home composting, home worm farms, reusing items, and avoided
excess packaging;
» Barriers to participation such as convenience of using the provided services,
uncertainty about what is and isn’t recyclable (for example);
17 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Ways in which they find out information about the recycling system and support for
continued and additional education of items such as proper recycling, how to
compost, practical ways to reduce waste;
» Accuracy of knowledge about the system, i.e. what can and can’t be recycled or
what items can be placed in the garden organics bin;
» Understanding of the system;
» Suggestions for new services or facilities to manage problematic wastes;
» Potential level of support for proposed new services;
» Willingness of residents to pay for proposed new services; and
» Suggestions and general comments.
Some of the Councils in the SW Region have already undertaken consultation and/or
surveys for determining community awareness, understanding, and the overall
attitudes of residents to waste management. However there is a significant difference
in the level of consultation undertaken across the SW Region and the systems in place
for ongoing monitoring of customer satisfaction. Details of programs across the SW
Region are outlined in Table 4-1.
4.2 Current Zero Waste SA Study
Zero Waste SA has recently completed a market research study “Attitudes,
perceptions, and behaviours of South Australian householders towards waste
avoidance, reduction, and recycling”. The Study involved undertaking a statewide
survey to achieve the objectives of:
» Understanding current community attitudes and behaviour in relation to waste
reduction measures; and
» Identifying the drivers and inhibitors to the adoption of effective waste reduction
practices.
Other objectives of the study were to:
» Provide information that will assist with the development of effective community
information programs with priority given to data collection that will facilitate
development of the Local Government Education Assistance Program; and
» Establish benchmarks for community attitudes and behaviours that can be
remeasured at completion of programs.
The report outlining the findings and implications from the study are available on the
Zero Waste SA website and will be of great assistance to the SW Region, proving
better understanding of community expectations, and information to assist preparation
of future education strategies.
18 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 4-1 Community Consultation Undertaken To Date by Councils in the SW
Region to Determine Customer Satisfaction and Awareness
Council Program Timing and details
Holdfast Bay
City Council
General queries about the waste
management system answered as
required.
As yet there have been no surveys
undertaken.
There is also no formal register of
complaints. Despite no formal register of
complaints, anecdotal evidence suggests
crate system for recyclables is generally
unfavourable with residents.
As required
Marion City
Council
Consultation was undertaken as part of
the implantation program for the new 3-
bin system.
Council are also about to undertake
consultation relating to the hard waste
collection service.
One-off events
Mitcham City
Council
Use Council ward forums as a means of
collecting information about community
attitudes to new services.
As required
To provide evidence to support
introduction of the new 3-bin recycling
system an audit was undertaken to
determine the participation rate for the old
crate-based recycling system.
One-off event. Audit
results indicated
participation rate of
about 50% for the crate
based recycling service.
Onkaparinga
City Council
Recycling trial involving 1,200 residents.
The trial included a resident’s survey
program of bin audits, questionnaires and
focus groups.
2004
Telephone surveys. Approximately 1,000
properties are surveyed quarterly to assist
with establishing customer satisfaction
levels for recycling along with recycling
participation rates.
Quarterly
Drive-by surveys. Approximately 1,000
properties are surveyed (in person) to
assist with establishing customer
satisfaction levels for recycling along with
recycling participation rates.
Quarterly
Annual “Community Perceptions Survey”
on all key services delivered including
waste and recycling services.
Annually. Results from
2004 indicated an
overall score of 84%
for waste services and
72% for recycling.
19 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Council Program Timing and details
Onkaparinga
City Council
Local area surveys, questionaries sent to
sample areas.
Survey based on assessing service
delivery, i.e. timeliness, effectiveness,
quality of service, customer friendliness,
etc.
2004. Results
indicated 98%
satisfaction for waste
and 74% for recycling
services.
Unley City
Council
Waste Management customer service
survey
Last undertaken in
2000.
General customer service surveys Annually
West Torrens
City Council
Community survey that included specific
questions about waste management
Annually - Undertaken
in 2003. 2004, and
2005
(Source: above comments provided by Councils)
4.3 Expectations of commerce and industry
Commercial businesses and industrial organisations may not have the same
expectations about the level of waste services that should be provided by the Councils
as the general community. There is no requirement for the Councils to provide services
to these organisations, since in most cases private collection arrangements are in
place due to the nature of the waste. However there is an expectation that the Councils
should strive to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes for the area, and
providing waste management services or advice to these groups would form a part of
that expectation.
20 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5. Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Targets for the SW Region
5.1 Strategic framework
Management of waste is in transition in South Australia. Some regions, with the
assistance of the South Australian Environment Protection Agency (EPA), Zero Waste
SA (ZWSA) and the Local Government Association (LGA), have instigated the
preparation of Regional Waste Management Plans in anticipation of the emerging
Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy and State waste strategy.
Major issues for Local Government in relation to waste management include:
» Arrangements for future residual waste disposal;
» Cost of service provision;
» Realistic levels of recovery and access to markets for recyclable materials;
» Future waste and resource recovery infrastructure implementation; and
» Continued development of waste minimisation opportunities.
The Southern Region Waste Resource Authority (SRWRA) has set the policy
framework for the preparation of a region waste management plan. The SRWRA Board
recognised that although councils in the south west region have their own well
established almost ‘Best Practice’ collection and disposal services, waste management
issues go wider than the areas covered by the three member councils and that
economies of scale could be potentially achieved by having an integrated regional and
/or cross-regional collection disposal treatment and education arrangement.
Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officers (CEO’s) of the three member Councils
together with the CEO’s of Mitcham, West Torrens and Unley have agreed to take
ownership of this regional study. The six Councils in the southwestern region of
Adelaide have resolved to undertake a long-term waste management strategy and plan
for their area and accordingly to undertake the preparation of the strategy and plan.
The strategy and plan are to be used as the foundation for future waste management
planning, review, reporting and improvements in the region.
This project is strongly related to other projects and capital works in the area such as
the study into the desirability, suitability and feasibility of establishing an integrated
eco-industrial precinct in the southwest region of Adelaide.
The Southern and Western Region presents some challenges and opportunities for
waste management. For example, while most people live in established suburbs and
residential estates, there are proportions of the region comprising small coastal
communities, farms and country towns. The strategy and plan will need to consider the
service and infrastructure needs for providing effective and efficient waste
management to both built-up and rural-type areas.
21 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Furthermore, although the project is focussed on the southwestern Council areas, the
RWMSP allows for interaction with adjacent councils and regions (such as the
Southern Hills Region and Fleurieu Regional Development Board) if appropriate.
5.2 Issues for the SW Region
Issues that must be addressed by the SW Region to ensure efficient and cost-effective
management of waste include:
» Performance of kerbside systems should comply with the proposed performance
targets specified in the Draft Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan and objectives
of South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010;
» Future activities should reflect the objectives and requirements of the Environment
Protection Act 1993. Namely, all activities should be in accordance with principles of
ecologically sustainable development (including waste management charges that
reflect the “user-pays” principles), there should be encouragement of industry and
community involvement in trying to achieve sustainable outcomes, and information
transparency; and
» Infrastructure development should be aligned with State planning policy (including
development of key integrated waste management facilities.
Future recommendations for planned waste infrastructure in the Region (to be
identified in the RWMSP) must take into consideration infrastructure planning and
strategies as identified in relevant planning documents including the:
» Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan (EPA, Draft 2003); and
» Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide (Planning SA, Draft 2005).
The desire to locate integrated waste treatment and resource recovery facilities within
specified areas as indicated in the recommendations above, is further reflected in the
Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide.
The recommendations in the draft Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan will need to
be reviewed to reflect the desired outcomes of the RWMSP, the closure of Wingfield,
changing community attitudes towards the establishment of Eco-industrial precincts
and waste facilities, and transport economics.
Strategies for waste reuse as identified in the plan include to “cluster waste
management facilities in strategic locations where businesses can use waste products,
and where new markets for recyclables maybe created”. The planning strategy further
includes the objective to “provide waste management facilities at the regional, district
and neighbourhood level to maximise resource recovery”.
Areas identified (in the Planning Strategy) for potential development of “key waste
management facilities” in the Region include Pedlar Creek, the Southern Waste Depot,
Lonsdale, and North Plympton.
22 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5.3 SA Government programs
The current framework for waste management in South Australia reflects a “zero
waste” attitude. This is manifested in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010, and
the likely future requirements of the Environment Protection (Waste) Policy.
5.3.1 South Australia’s State Waste Strategy 2005 – 2010
ZWSA has developed a Waste Strategy for South Australia, to guide and inform necessary
changes to waste management over the next five years (2005 – 2010).
Development of the strategy has been guided by the philosophy of the waste management
hierarchy. The waste management hierarchy establishes a scale of least to most
preferable options for waste management based on maximising waste avoidance and
reduction prior to reuse, recycling, and recovery of waste, and ultimately waste treatment
and disposal as the least preferred approach.
The Waste Strategy for South Australia sets objectives and (staged) targets for six key
areas including:
» Municipal solid waste (MSW);
» Commercial and industrial waste (C&I);
» Construction and demolition waste (C&D);
» Litter/illegal dumping;
» Hazardous waste / liquid waste; and
» Waste transfer and landfill disposal and storage.
In addition to targets set for key waste streams (as listed above), the strategy sets a target for
all metropolitan councils and large non-metropolitan urban centres to provide high
performance kerbside recycling collection services at least fortnightly by 2007. The target for
smaller non-metropolitan towns is to provide high performance recycling services by 2010.
The Waste Strategy also includes targets to reduce littering and illegal dumping in South
Australia, and to develop a Hazardous Waste Strategy for South Australia by December 2005.
Also included in the strategy are actions for waste transfer and landfill disposal including
investigating the need to establish dedicated cells or sites (mono-fills) for specific waste
streams for later recovery as technologies become available, and upgrading non-
complying landfills to meet EPA licence conditions.
The targets for municipal waste as outlined in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010,
include:
» All metropolitan councils and large non-metropolitan urban centres to provide high
performance kerbside recycling collection services at least fortnightly by 2007;
» Increase the recovery, recycling and utilisation of metropolitan kerbside collected
waste to 50% by 2008 (excluding food waste); and
» Increase the recovery, recycling and utilisation of metropolitan kerbside collected
waste to 75% by 2010 (if food waste is included).
23 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Recommended service standards will need to also take into account community
expectations and the community’s capacity to pay.
The RWMSP is designed to ensure that the SW region has the means to achieve the
targets for municipal waste as outlined in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010,
which are shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 Key material recovery and recycling targets in the State Waste
Strategy
MSW
At least 25% of all
material presented at
the kerbside recycled
(excluding food
organics).
50% of all material
presented at the
kerbside is
recycled (excluding
food organics).
75% of all material
presented at the
kerbside is recycled
(if food waste is
included).
C&I
5% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&I
materials.
15% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&I
materials.
30% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&I
materials.
C&D
20% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&D
materials.
35% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&D
materials.
50% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&D
materials.
2005 2006 2007 2010 2008 2009 Staged
Targets!
!
5.3.2 SA EPA Proposed Environment Protection (Waste) Policy
It is anticipated that the Environment Protection (Waste) Policy, due to be finalised in
March 2006, will require adoption of best practice principles in areas of waste
management including differential pricing for disposal of different types of waste, and
the banning of different types of waste from landfill at specified time frames.
Whilst the exact details of the proposed policy are not yet known, the background and
discussion papers for the policy indicate that the following may be required:
» Charging an extra levy on loads to landfills that contain more than 25% recyclables;
» Banning from landfills certain wastes at specified dates, including kerbside collected
green waste, and recyclable components of construction and demolition waste;
» Encouraging Local Government to provide households with an annual collection
and/or drop off service for some domestic controlled wastes (e.g. oil, paints,
batteries etc);
» Metro, outer-metro, major regional centres, and significant regional towns will be
required to provide a kerbside recycling service at a minimum fortnightly frequency
or alternate drop off arrangement depending on economic, community attitudes,
and markets; and
» An annual hard waste collection may also be required in metro, outer-metro, major
regional centres, and significant regional towns.
24 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5.3.3 Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure
and Kerbside Services
The primary objective of the plan is stated as being “to provide a way forward for waste
management in metropolitan Adelaide that is both consistent with the direction of State
policy and is equitable across stakeholder groups”. Secondary objectives of the Plan
are to provide information to Local and State Government regarding potentially viable
kerbside collection services and waste and resource recovery management options,
and the potential environment, social, and economic costs and benefits associated with
these management options.
The Draft Plan does not set specific requirements for local Councils. It does however
recommend kerbside performance targets including:
» Source separated diversion of at least 2.5 kg/hh/wk dry recyclables to sorting;
» Source separated diversion of at least 80% green waste and 65% food waste to
organics processing facilities; and
» Reduction in residual waste disposal to less than 5 kg/hh/wk.
A number of potential kerbside collection systems are put forward as potential systems
to achieve the required performance targets. The Plan also recommends following
infrastructure development in the southern region of Metropolitan Adelaide.
The Plan has implications for councils in the Region on a number of fronts. Firstly, one
of the Council collection services in the Region is not aligned with the proposed service
standards, therefore they may be future changes required to the existing kerbside
collection services to align them with State objectives. Secondly, the Region is well
placed to implement and utilise proposed new infrastructure to assist in meeting
resource recovery objectives.
Relevant key planning elements for infrastructure development in the Region as
identified in the Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan include:
» Planning for the establishment of an integrated waste management facility at either
Pedlar Creek or another suitable location;
» Plan for the operation of two to three domestic materials recovery facilities in
Metropolitan Adelaide overall, with the current facility at West Torrens noted as
being suitably located for servicing the southern region;
» Plan for the establishment and operation of a major regional green waste only open
windrow compost facility in the south east of metropolitan Adelaide;
» Plan for the establishment of enclosed organic processing facilities, ideally located
at integrated waste management facilities;
» Support the continued operation of small self haul transfer station and resource
recovery facilities;
» Provide for a building and demolition recycling facility at Pedlar Creek;
» Consider residual waste treatment once organic processing infrastructure is fully
established; and
» Discourage any new approvals for landfills to service metropolitan Adelaide.
25 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5.3.4 Strategic Plan for SA
In 2004, the South Australian Government released its Strategic Plan for the State.
The plan is designed to look forward and mark out the path for South Australia for the
coming decade.
The six interrelated objectives of the Plan include:
» Growing prosperity;
» Improving wellbeing;
» Attaining sustainability;
» Fostering creativity;
» Building communities; and
» Expanding opportunity.
The third objective of the RWMSP relates to sustainability. Within this objective there is
a target to reduce waste to landfill by 25% within 10 years.
26 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6. Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Options
6.1 Options Considered
The options assessed in the Stage 2 report were formulated on the basis of their likely
effectiveness in achieving the key waste avoidance, reduction, diversion, and recycling
objectives in the policy framework guiding the waste agenda in SA. They were based
upon workshops held as part of the consultation process.
Some of the proposed options involve new services and infrastructure, whilst others
relate to social and human based programs designed to engender a cultural change.
In total, 22 options were put forward for consideration in Stage 2. These are
summarised in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Summary of Options for Initial Consideration
Option Description
Municipal
Option 1 Regional best-practice kerbside collection services
This option involves providing a regional 3-bin integrated kerbside
collection service across the SW Region. This would include rolling out new
240L mobile garbage bins (MGBs) to residents in Holdfast Bay and Unley
to replace the current crate collection system for recyclables, and having
regular fortnightly collection of garden organics across the SW Region.
Option 2 Fortnightly collection of combined garden and food organics, with
organics processed by either open windrow or enclosed composting
processes
This Option requires that food scraps and separated by residents in the
kitchen, placed in a biodegradable bag in a kitchen food organics
container/bin for intermediate storage, and then placed in the garden
organics bin for fortnightly collection.
Option 3 Increased services for household hazardous wastes
This option considers possible new services to better manage household
hazardous wastes. Potential service opportunities include:
» Provide yearly collection across the SW Region in addition to that
provided by the Zero Waste SA;
» Provide an on-call hazardous waste collection service;
» Provide required infrastructure for safe storage of these items at Council
depots and/or all Council waste facilities including transfer stations and
landfills. Each site would need to be licensed for this activity and ensure
appropriate collection and disposal of the collected wastes; and
» Promote avoiding generation of hazardous waste in the first instance
through providing increased education to residents.
27 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 4 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
This option considers potential strategies that Councils in the Region may
choose to adopt to manage these types of waste including:
» Regular collection of these types of products;
» On-call collection service;
» Acceptance for free or low-cost at a revolve/reuse centre; and
» Support establishment of a drop off centre for repair (where possible)
redistributing and reuse), or for supply to metals recyclers.
Option 5 Council wastes
This option requires that the performance of any council wide waste
management initiatives should be measured and made publicly available to
both Council employees and the general community in order to
demonstrate each Council’s commitment to waste minimisation. It also
requires provisions for waste minimisation and monitoring of system
performance to be included in Council’s Environmental Management Plans.
Option 6 Modifications to the domestic kerbside hard-waste collection service
This option assesses the potential to modify existing on-call kerbside hard-
waste collection services by either:
» Having reusable items collected by operators of the proposed
reuse/revolve centre (residents to place direct call to the reuse centre
for this collection);
» Having a regular set-day for undertaking collections in each Council
area to maximise collection efficiencies;
» Requiring residents to sort the hard waste into piles of scrap steel, wood
and timber products, garden organics, and residual for example. Each
of these streams would then be collected by a different collection
vehicle and taken to the appropriate disposal point (either to recycling or
landfill); or
» All mixed hard waste could be taken to a depot for manual sorting prior
to delivery to landfill or recycling.
Option 7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
Under this option, Local Government would share the revenue associated
with recyclables collected at kerbside within the region.
28 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Commercial and Industrial
Option 8 Designated food organics collection service for the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
This option would involve providing a designated food collection service
for selected commercial and industrial properties that generate large
amounts of food organics. The collected organics would be processed
either by a composting or digestion process to recover the organic content
of the material as well as potentially energy.
Option 9 Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for C&I wastes
Under this option a MRF would be established either at an existing waste
disposal facility or at a new site. The MRF would accept only C&I waste
from both self-haul customers and commercial collections. Depending on
how the waste arrives at the site, the materials would either be directly
separated and stockpiled (for loads containing only one type of material),
or processed through a variety of plant to recover as much recyclables as
possible prior to disposal of residual waste to landfill.
Option 10 Regional Support of waste programs targeting industry, including
implementation of cleaner production processes
This option considers implementation of programs at a regional level to
assist improve industrial waste management practices, including
potentially:
» Providing a source of cleaner production information to the industry;
» Connecting industries which generate waste with those industries that
are able to use the waste (thus preventing the waste being disposed of
and raw materials being used);
» Developing and implementing voluntary cleaner production programs
and reporting the outcomes to the public;
» Negotiating self regulated initiatives to prevent pollution and waste
generation, and report the outcomes to the public; and
» Encouraging the community to get involved with industry to deliver
better environmental performance.
Option 11 Liquid waste services
This option considers the establishment of a liquid waste treatment plant in
the SW Region to service councils located in southern Metropolitan
Adelaide and surrounds. It also considers increasing the number of
collection points for liquid wastes (including oily fats and used engine oils)
to all Council operated depots (including landfills and transfer stations).
29 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 12 Establishment of an Eco-Industrial Precinct
A separate study is being undertaken to identify the potential suitability of
establishing an integrated waste eco-industrial precinct (or precincts in the
SW Region). The study stems from the desire of the region to emulate the
principals and activities contained in the proposed eco-industrial park to be
located at the former Wingfield Landfill depot site. The notion of such a
precinct is that waste material from one company is used as a valuable
input material for its neighbours
Construction and Demolition
Option 13 Establishment of a Regional Depot for Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials
This option considers the development of a regional C&D depot for the
accepting, sorting, processing, and resale of C&D materials.
Other
Option 14 Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) processing of kerbside
collected garbage
This option is the same as per Option one, but garbage would be
disposed at an AWT facility for further separation and treatment and
residuals then transferred to landfill.
Option 15 Single bin collection system combined with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
This option would involve moving from a 3-bin collection system
(separate collection of garbage, recyclables, and organics) to a weekly
240L 1-bin collection system (all mixed wastes) with the mixed waste
stream being sent to an AWT plant for processing.
Option 16 Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse centre
A revolve/reuse centre is a facility for residents to drop off unwanted house
hold items including furniture, appliances and white goods (in working
order). The items can then be refurbished and then resold back to the
community.
Option 17 Regional Approaches to Waste Education
The option of undertaking education on a regional level refers to the
sharing of education resources across all six member Councils. This
would include the employment of education officers that work on behalf
of the Councils/Industries/Public across the whole region, the use of
standardised advertising and education materials, and promotion and
organisation of special events.
Option 18 Tyres
A potential strategy to address disposal of tyres in the SW Region is to
recommend Councils support a total ban on the landfilling of tyres (i.e.
even tyres in shredded form). In order for the ban to be successful, there
must be development of markets for recovered tyres.
30 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 19 Regional plastic bag reduction strategies
This option considers establishing a regional approach to plastic bag
reduction campaigns that would result in consistency in education and
promotional material across a wider area (hence a greater chance of
being able to impact consumer behaviour). It would also involve sharing
human resources as well as promotion and marketing material across
the Region.
Option 20A Public place litter management
This option considers opportunities to undertake litter reduction
campaigns on a regional basis.
Option 20B Public place recycling
This option considers opportunities to undertake public place recycling
campaigns on a regional basis.
Option 21 Formation of Regional Partnerships
This option involves forming co-operative relationships with industry to
influence the uptake of cleaner production and eco-efficiency across the
SW Region. Development of industry partnerships may be progressed at
the individual level between Council and individual organisations, or
potentially via representative industry organisations.
In addition to forming partnerships with industry, the Region should
consider the potential establishment of a Regional Environmental Cluster
Working Group. Members of the group would comprise of
representatives from industry, small business, Councils, and waste
industry service providers. Representatives from Zero Waste SA and the
EPA may also be invited to attend.
31 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6.2 Achievement of State strategy targets and Zero Waste SA
Kerbside Performance Standards
Preliminary assessment of each potential option against State strategy targets and
Zero Waste kerbside performance standards is provided in Table 6-2.
In many cases, whilst identified options will be likely to assist in achieving the guidance
targets and standards, the actual level of resource recovery and waste diversion that
will be achieved cannot be accurately determined without further information about the
likely participation in the proposed new services. This information may be obtained
through running trials of some of the proposed new services.
Table 6-2 Alignment of Options with State Waste Reduction Targets and Zero
Waste SA Kerbside Performance Criteria
No Description Contribution to State
Waste Reduction Target
Alignment with Zero
Waste SA Kerbside
Performance Targets
1 Regional best practice
kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables,
and garden organics (3-
bin MGB system).
Increased recovery of
municipal recyclables and
garden organics from
regional implementation of
3-bin kerbside system.
Diversion of up to 45% of
kerbside collected waste.
Potential to achieve
recommended
diversion rates for
recyclables.
2 Fortnightly combined
food and garden
organics collection from
all households, collected
organics processed
either by open-windrow
or enclosed composting
Up to 75% of diversion for
kerbside collected waste
achievable
Aligned with standards
where 3-bin collection
system is maintained
3 Household hazardous
waste additional
collection or drop-off
services
Improved hazardous
waste management –
potential collection of
additional 25 – 80 tonnes
hazardous waste per year
-
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances, either on-call
collection or permanent
drop-off facility
Reduction in hard waste to
landfill, actual diversion
achievable not yet
measurable
May assist to achieve
performance
standards for hard
waste collection (50%
recovery of materials)
5 Reducing Council
wastes
Potential reduction in C&I
waste – dependant on
identified opportunities
from proposed audit
-
32 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
No Description Contribution to State
Waste Reduction Target
Alignment with Zero
Waste SA Kerbside
Performance Targets
6 Modified collection of
source separated
household hard waste
Improved recovery of
domestic hard wastes
May assist to achieve
performance
standards for hard
waste collection (50%
recovery of materials)
7 Regional MRF for
Recyclables
Increased recovery of
municipal recyclables and
garden organics from
regional implementation of
3-bin kerbside system.
Diversion of up to 45% of
kerbside collected waste.
Potential to better
control end markets
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food
collection service for C&I
properties
NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF Diversion of up to
estimated 36% C&I
waste in the SW Region
-
10 Management of industrial
and special wastes
(cleaner production
initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
Indirect impact on C&I
wastes
-
11 Industrial and liquid waste
sharing as per Eco-
Industrial precinct model
Reduction in C&I waste.
Improved management
of liquid wastes.
-
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct Improved C&I waste
management – refer
Eco-Industrial Study
-
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot Diversion of up to
estimated 86% C&D
waste in the SW Region
-
Other
14 Use of AWT for
processing kerbside
garbage stream (continue
separate collection of
domestic recyclables and
garden organics)
Diversion of up to 85% of
kerbside collected waste
achievable.
Aligned with standards
where 3-bin collection
system is maintained
33 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
No Description Contribution to State
Waste Reduction Target
Alignment with Zero
Waste SA Kerbside
Performance Targets
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-
bin collection system.
Mixed waste stream
processed using AWT
NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s
for household hard waste
items and second hand
goods
Reduction in hard waste
to landfill, actual diversion
achievable not yet
measurable
Operation of the centre
may assist to achieve
performance standards
for hard waste collection
(50% recovery of
materials) where the
centre is involved in
providing the collection
or recovery service
17 Increased education /
regional education
strategies
Indirect impact on all
waste streams
Development of waste
service and reduction
education program is
aligned with
performance criteria
18 Increased reuse recycling
of tyres
NA NA
19 Plastic bag reduction Reduction in plastic bag
waste
-
20A Public place litter
management
NA NA
20B Public place recycling
(including recycling at
public events)
Increased recovery of
recyclables – actual
contribution to targets
cannot be determined at
this time
-
21 Cooperative partnership
arrangements
Improved C&I waste
management – actual
contribution to targets
cannot yet be determined
-
NA – Not able to be assessed at present
NS – Not assessed as the option is not considered suitable for implementation in the SW region
34 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6.3 Environmental and Financial Assessment of Options
Assessment of the potential financial, environmental and social implications of potential
waste management options allows for a “triple bottom line” approach to be taken in the
decision making process. This approach allows the Councils to consider not only the
financial implications of modifying existing waste management services, but also the
potential impacts of the community and environment.
All options were assessed against a number of criteria for evaluating their potential
financial costs, technical suitability, and possible environmental and social impacts. In
addition, a comparison of the potential benefits from adopting each option at the
individual Council level compared to on a regional basis was undertaken.
A summary of the outcomes of the outcomes of the technical, social, and
environmental evaluation is shown in Table A1 in Appendix A. In Table A1, the results
from each evaluation are shown as numerical scores out of 15. Increasing numerical
scores indicate increasing technical suitability, environmental benefits, and social
benefits from the implementation of the suggested option compared to under the
current situation.
Table A1 also shows the assessed relative advantage of implementing the proposed
strategies on a regional versus an individual Council basis. A scoring matrix, as listed
below, was used for this evaluation.
» L = Low, Limited advantage from implementation on a regional basis.
» M = Medium, Some advantage to be gained either through sharing of resources,
greater ability to influence the community and industry behaviour, improved service
efficiencies and per unit costs.
» H = High, High advantage to be gained either through increased service or resource
efficiencies, reduced per unit service costs, greater ability to influence community
and industry behaviour, or increased volumes of materials for more economic
processing.
Financial costs (for the SW Region as a whole) associated with each option have also
been calculated and are summarised in Table B1 in Appendix B. Cost estimates
provided in Table B1 refer to the total potential cost and potential additional cost to the
SW Region for undertaking any of the proposed strategies. Additional costs for each
potential strategy have been estimated taking into account existing costs for waste
management services.
6.4 Overall Suitability for Implementation – Short-list of Options
for Consideration
A short-list of options for further assessment in this Stage 3 report was determined
based on a preliminary assessment of triple bottom line factors, which is reported in
Appendix A as well as consideration of financial and other factors. Potential suitability
for the region is reported in Table 6-3, and is classified as High (H), Medium (M), or
Low (L). Options identified as having low (L) overall suitability were not considered
further in the assessment process.
35 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6.4.1 Cost benefit analysis of options
A cost benefit analysis was undertaken that sought to provide a qualitative description
of potential benefits, as well as indirect costs (not considered in financial analysis).
6.4.2 Risk Analysis
A preliminary risk analysis was undertaken to identify the major risks associated with
each of the waste management options under consideration, and to suggest possible
methods to minimise the potential impacts of these risks.
36 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 6-3 Summary of overall suitability for implementation
Option Description Suitability
Municipal
1 Regional best practice kerbside collection of garbage,
recyclables, and garden organics (3 bin system).
Weekly 140 L MGB for garbage, fortnightly 240 L MGB for
recyclables and monthly 240 L MGB for garden organics.
H
2 Fortnightly combined food and garden organics collection
from domestic households, processed either by open-
windrow or enclosed composting
H
3 Household hazardous waste additional collection or drop-
off services
H
4 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances H
5 Reducing Council waste H
6 Modifications to the kerbside on-call hard waste service
including potential sorting of kerbside collected hard waste
into distinct material streams for recycling, or collection of
hard waste by operators of proposed reuse/revolve centre
H
7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables.
M-H
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service for C&I properties L
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased sorting and recovery of
C&I waste
M
10 Management of industrial and special wastes (cleaner
production initiatives and eco-efficiency)
H
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing as per Eco-Industrial
precinct model
H
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct H
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting, sorting, processing,
and resale of C&D materials
H
Other
14 Use of AWT for processing kerbside garbage stream
(continue separate collection of domestic recyclables and
garden organics)
M
37 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Suitability
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin collection system. Mixed waste
stream processed using AWT
L
16 Revolve type operation/s for household hard waste items
and second hand goods
H
17 Increased education / regional education strategies H
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres H
19 Plastic bag reduction H
20A Public place litter management H
20B Public place recycling and recycling at public events H
21 Cooperative partnership arrangement with commercial
operators and stakeholders from the waste industry
H
38 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7. Further analysis of Stage 2 Options
A total of 22 options were presented and analysed in the Stage 2 report, and are
covered in Table 6-3. Further detail on the 20 options that received a suitability rating
of medium (M) to high (H) is undertaken in this Chapter. The two options that received
a suitability rating of low (L) are no longer being considered.
7.1 Municipal waste stream
Option 1 involves providing a regional 3-bin integrated kerbside collection service
across the SW Region. This would include provision of new 240L mobile garbage bins
(MGBs) to residents in Holdfast Bay and Unley to replace the current crate collection
systems for recyclables.
The main objective of this option is to implement the most effective and efficient
collection services in all Councils across the region in three main areas:
» Domestic waste;
» Recycling; and
» Garden organics/green waste.
The reason for this is twofold – firstly, it appears from the existing data from SA and
elsewhere that a three-bin system is the most effective system in terms of delivering
outcomes that are consistent with the State strategy targets and meeting Zero Waste
kerbside performance standards.
Secondly there may be cost efficiencies for Councils in aggregating some of the
existing smaller Council collection contracts, since collection costs are the most
significant components of waste management costs, and there are a number of fixed
costs that could be distributed over a larger number of services. Costs savings could
potentially be used for resource recovery purposes.
7.1.1 Flexibility for future AWT solutions
The SW Region will need to implement alternative waste technologies (AWT) in order
to meet the ambitious waste reduction targets set by the State Government. It is
important that maximum flexibility be maintained until an appropriate technology is
selected. A three-bin system has the advantage of being able to be adapted easily to
a wide range of technologies in the medium to longer term, as outlined in Option 14.
The two main types of alternative waste technology that are in existence overseas and
are currently being implemented around Australia (1) are energy recovery plants,
involving significant capital investment, and (2) composting plants, which are more
economical, provided that the compost products can be marketed, rather than
disposed of in landfill.
A conventional bin arrangement (domestic waste, recycling and green waste in the 3
bins) would allow municipal waste (including food but excluding garden waste) to be
39 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
directed to something like an anaerobic digestion plant, with an upfront materials
separation section. Since woody garden organics are not compatible with anaerobic
digestion, they would be best kept separate via the separate green waste collection,
and directed to a composting plant, for production of high-grade marketable compost.
Using the same bins, but in a different manner would allow for a different type of
alternative waste technology, which focuses on compost production, rather than
energy recovery. The domestic waste bin would be used as a “dry waste” or residuals
bin. This would enable this material could be directed to a “dirty MRF”, for removal of
metals, plastics and glass.
Some pre-processing could also be undertaken to assist in removing the recyclables
and reduce the volume of residual waste for landfilling. The proposed AWT facility at
Coffs Harbour in Northern NSW will use an autoclave to pre-treat the residual bin
material and make it easier to remove plastics, glass and metals from the waste
stream using conventional MRF technology. The remaining material, with a much
reduced volume, and lower potential gas and leachate emissions will be landfilled. It
also has future potential to be reprocessed into fuel suitable for energy production
and/or low grade cardboard.
In this arrangement, food waste would be put into the garden organics bin, which
would be collected fortnightly (or perhaps weekly if odour becomes an issue), and
directed toward a composting plant, for production of high grade compost.
The “wet bin/dry bin” system is consistent with Option 2, which involves food scraps
being separated by residents in the kitchen, placed in a biodegradable bag in a kitchen
food organics container/bin for intermediate storage, and then placed in the garden
organics bin for fortnightly collection.
Burnside Council, in conjunction with East Waste, the Jeffries Group and Zero Waste
SA, is currently trialling this system with 1,800 households, with the material to be
processed into compost at the Jeffreys sites at Wingfield and Buckland Park. (However
it is understood that the in vessel composting unit for the food component has not yet
been put into operation).
7.1.2 Potential performance improvements
Some of the waste data provided by the various Councils is summarised in Table 7-1.
Analysis of this data shown in this table suggests that some Council‘s currently perform
“better” than others, in terms of the following measures:
» Amount of garbage collected per person (the less the better);
» Amount of recyclables collected per person (the more the better); and
» Amount of garden organics collected per person (higher numbers suggest more
effective collection systems and greater diversion from landfill).
The introduction of a best practice system would also have the impact of reducing the
total tonnage of kerbside municipal waste generated within the region.
40 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
No Council appears to be the “best performer” in all three areas, and it needs to be
understood that waste data is only an indicator of performance. Ideally all councils
would have the same “best practice” collection system, which would mean that they
could potentially all reach the same targets.
41 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 7-1 Current waste and recycling statistics and potential improvements
Data derived from 2003/2004 and 2004/005 Council waste records. Some Council’s have introduced services changes since then will impact on the above results.
The low waste yield corresponds with Council’s having an existing 3 bin system.
ave / better best ave / better best ave / better best ave / better best
t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr
Holdfast Bay 18614 13800 741 11082 8875 1962 105.4 1962 3231 108 5.8 3036 5651 361 19.4 504 1059
Marion 36306 17310 477 17310 17310 4640 127.8 4718 6302 11023 303.6 11023 11023 443 12.2 983 2066
Mitcham 26500 19688 743 15777 12635 3063 115.6 3444 4600 5500 207.5 4323 8046 1508 56.9 1508 1508
Onkaparinga 62800 40496 645 40496 29942 7886 125.6 8161 10900 2977 47.4 10244 19067 1500 23.9 1700 3574
West Torrens 26214 12272 468 12272 12498 3791 144.6 3791 4550 7021 267.8 7021 7959 814 31.1 814 1492
Unley 18500 8918 482 8918 8820 3211 173.6 3211 3211 4189 226.4 4189 5617 488 26.4 488 1053
TOTAL 188934 112484 595 105855 90080 24553 130.0 25287 32793 30818 163.1 39835 57363 5114 27.1 5996 10751
-6629 -22404 734 8240 9017 26545 882 5637
-5.9% -19.9% 3.0% 33.6% 29.3% 86.1% 17.3% 110.2%
above regional average
below regional average
best
Note: If figures better than regional average, then actual figure has been applied
households
Improvement
Garden Organics Hard Waste
existing existing
improved improved
Domestic Waste Recycling Mixed
existing existing
improved improved
42 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
If all councils were able to achieve the same performance statistics or better than the
“average”, in each area, or in the most optimistic situation, be as good as the “best
performer”, the yield improvements indicating a reduction in waste presented in
garbage bins and increase in resources presented in recycling and garden organics
bins as shown in Table 7-2 would be possible.
Table 7-2 Possible improvements from 3 bin system and subsequent
efficiency gains
All councils achieve
performance equivalent to
average or better
All councils achieve
performance equivalent to
best performer
Garbage -5.9% (6,629 tonnes/yr) -19.9% (22,404 tonnes/yr)
Recycling +3.0% (734 tonnes/yr) + 33.6% (8,240 tonnes/yr)
Garden organics + 29.3% (9,017 tonnes/yr) +86.1% (26,545 tonnes/yr)
The Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure and
Kerbside Services, advocates source separated diversion of at least 2.5 kg/hh/wk dry
recyclables to sorting. This equates to 130 kg/hh/yr, which coincides with the regional
average for the SW region. The best performer in the region is currently achieving
approximately 173 kg/hh/yr, and four of the six councils are below this 130 kg/hh/yr
figure, so there is room for improvement. If all councils were able to achieve the same
as this best performing council, there would be a 33.6% increase in collected
recyclables.
All metropolitan councils and large non-metropolitan urban centres are required to
provide high performance kerbside recycling collection services at least fortnightly by
2007, according to South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010. The 3-bin system is
also consistent with the best practice system outlined in the National Packaging
Covenant, of which four of the six councils are signatories.
The Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure and
Kerbside Services also advocates source separated diversion of at least 80% green
waste and 65% food waste to organics processing facilities; and reduction in residual
waste disposal to less than 5 kg/hh/wk.
Providing an effective garden waste collection system that results in higher collection
rates of garden organics would provide higher diversion of garden organics from the
garbage stream. This is consistent with trying to achieve the above-mentioned targets,
as well as the targets for municipal waste as outlined in South Australia’s Waste
Strategy 2005-2010, such as increasing the recovery, recycling and utilisation of
metropolitan kerbside collected waste to at least 25% by 2006 (excluding food waste),
to 50% by 2008 and to 75% by 2010 (including food waste).
43 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7.1.3 Aggregating collection services
There is obviously a lot of debate about the optimal number of services for a waste or
recycling contract, to obtain the best-cost efficiencies. In the SW region currently,
there are almost 190,000 households/services. The costs reported by each Council for
providing the various services vary as follows:
» Domestic waste $0.52 to $0.73 per service
» Recycling $0.60 to $1.50 per service
» Garden organics $1.00 to $1.50 per service
The lowest costs do not necessarily apply to those Councils with the largest number of
services, however this could be for reasons such as the rates quoted in old vs new
contracts, and differences in the cost basis for reporting between day labour Councils
and councils using contractors.
There are no guidelines on the optimal number of services for a service provider. The
general principle is that the more services in a contract, the more economic it should
be, due to economies of scale. There are cases where one single service provider
covers a very large region (such as Brisbane City Council). However there are issues
that arise in these situations, including lack of competition, and concentration of market
power in a limited number of waste and recycling companies. Therefore a single
contract for the entire region would not be a suitable model for the SW region.
The current breakdown of households/services per region is as follows:
» Holdfast Bay 18,614 services
» Marion 36,306 services
» Mitcham 26,500 services
» Onkaparinga 62,800 services
» Unley 18,500 services
» West Torrens 26,214 services
» TOTAL 188,934 services
To provide a high enough number of services for improved efficiencies, but ensure that
there is adequate competition (and hence keep tendered prices as low as possible), a
model that provides for 2 regional contracts of approximately 100,000 services per
contract (domestic waste, green waste and recyclables) may be most appropriate. This
would enable each contractor to have a fleet of approximately 15 collection vehicles for
each type of service.
The next best option would have 3 contracts of approximately 60,000 services, which
would enable a contractor to have a vehicle fleet of approximately 10 vehicles. It can
be seen that none of the current service areas are anywhere near 100,000 services,
only one is near 60,000 services, and two of the service areas are less than 20,000
services.
44 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Logically, the Councils with the smallest number of services should join together with
other smaller councils in a single contract, or join with another larger council. At
present, Mitcham and Onkaparinga use day labour for collection (for domestic waste
only). If these two adjacent councils wished to aggregate their waste and recycling
services, at a time of their choosing, they could do so, and create a collection area with
almost 90,000 services.
They could however aggregate their recycling services into a single contract, and their
garden organics into another single contract, providing about 90,000 services in each
case.
Similarly, Marion and West Torrens have established a joint contract to enable them to
switch from split bins to a 140L garbage service, and 240L commingled MGB for
recycling. This will create a collection area with approximately 62,000 services for each
of domestic garbage and recycling. There will be a total of 124,000 services within the
two contracts, which should provide immediate cost savings in terms of managing the
collection fleet.
In terms of geography, it would make sense for Holdfast Bay to eventually join in with
Marion and West Torrens on domestic waste and recycling services (and in doing so
upgrade its recycling service from a crate based system). This would permit the
combined domestic waste and recycling services to eventually be split, with
approximately 80,000 services in each contract.
Unley Council has a small number of services, and due to its geographical location, it
could either join in with the Western or the Eastern councils. If it joined in with the
Western councils, which could occur as soon as its current collection contracts expire,
this would create a collection area of almost 100,000 services for each type of material.
If it waited until the Eastern councils decided to do a combined contract, this would
increase the Eastern contract to approximately 108,000 services for each type of
material. Either way, this would increase the cost efficiency of the service provided to
Unley residents.
Once two collection areas of between 80,000 and 100,000 services are established,
this would allow for contractors to bid on either domestic waste, recycling or garden
organics contracts, or a combination of these (any two, or all three). This might lead to
even greater savings.
7.1.4 Household hazardous waste - additional collection or drop-off services
Option 3 involves better management of household hazardous wastes (HHW), which
are of some concern in collection systems due to potential environmental and safety
issues. HHW are particularly problematic for AWT facilities, since they contaminate
compost products (sometimes making them unmarketable due to high heavy metals
content), and they can also affect the biological processes in mechanical biological and
anaerobic digestion type plants, leading to plant breakdowns. HHW are a major issue
for all Councils.
Currently only two of the six Councils in the SW Region provide some form of annual
or biennial chemical collection service. There are a number of different options,
45 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
including regular collection services, receival of HHW at existing facilities and on call
services. The most suitable option depends upon the needs and preferences of the
region, but a combination of receiving HHW at existing facilities and occasional special
events where people can deliver such HHW materials to the facilities, or to another
site, helps maintain awareness in resident’s minds.
7.1.5 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
According to Zero Waste SA, nearly 1 million computers are sent to landfill in Australia
every year. Australians discard their mobile phones every 18 to 24 months and dump
about 90% of them. There are about 10 million obsolete mobile phones lying around in
Australia, and Australians discard 2.5 million major appliances each year. Most small
appliances end up in landfills.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs are being implemented in some
States such as NSW, for particular types of material. This approach may take off
nationally, but such EPR schemes are only likely to apply to new items. Items that are
currently in households are going to appear on the kerbside as hard waste, be
delivered to landfills and transfer stations by residents as general waste, or may end
up in garbage bins.
The main problem with many such items at the moment is that there is very little
opportunity for them to be recycled, even if they are separately collected, particularly if
they mainly consist of plastics, and have very little steel in them. White goods are an
exception, and computer recycling is currently occurring in the commercial sector.
Mobile phones are currently being recycled.
More work needs to be done to identify potential opportunities for recycling of particular
items, before any collection systems are established, otherwise they may end up in
landfill after being carefully collected and sorted.
7.1.6 Reducing Council Waste
Option 5 looks at wastes associated with Council services and facilities. These vary in
nature from mixed waste, garden organics, litter, and street sweepings, to concrete
and soil. As a promoter of waste management initiatives it is important that Councils in
the SW Region set a good example in promoting waste minimisation, particularly waste
avoidance and reuse in day-to-day operational activities.
The majority of waste from council buildings is generally office paper and residual
waste. Ways in which the Councils could demonstrate best practice in relation to
managing office wastes include:
» Showing a commitment to buying recycled products;
» Promoting initiatives to reuse paper before recycling (i.e. use both sides by double
siding printing or using the back of printed papers for notes or general stationary);
and
» Recycling printer toners.
46 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
It is likely that many of these practices are already being undertaken in some form,
however there may be advantages from comparing information across Councils in the
Region in terms of evaluating system performance. Whilst paper recycling may be
undertaken in some Council offices, it is currently not clear if paper and other mixed
recycling are also undertaken in all libraries and other council facilities including leisure
centres. Recycling of concrete, soil, street sweepings, and other materials collected
from Council works and services also vary across the SW Region.
It is therefore important that good baseline information be obtained through an audit of
all council buildings and facilities, as well as service and maintenance operations prior
to implementing waste reduction strategies.
The performance of any council wide waste management initiatives should be
measured and made publicly available to both Council employees and the general
community in order to demonstrate each Council’s commitment to waste minimisation
and to encourage support for the program. Provisions for waste minimisation and
monitoring of system performance (including having specific purchasing policies
guiding preferred purchase of recycled products) should also form part of each
Council’s dedicated Environmental Management Plan.
Therefore, as a first stage in addressing council generated wastes, it is recommended
that a regional wide audit be undertaken of each council’s operations to identify further
opportunities for reduction of both office and general wastes.
7.1.7 Modification of the domestic kerbside hard waste collection service
Option 6 deals with potential improvements to the domestic kerbside hard waste
collection system. All Councils in the SW Region currently provide some form of annual
hard waste collection service to their residents. Over 5,000 tonnes of hard waste is
collected across the Region. It is understood that a portion of this waste is currently
disposed of to landfill with minimal separation of potentially recyclable items such as
metal items and wood and timber products.
Greater recovery of materials from the hard waste stream could be achieved by either:
» Having reusable items collected by operators of the proposed reuse/revolve centre
(residents to place direct call to the reuse centre for this collection);
» Having a regular set-day for undertaking collections in each Council area to
maximise collection efficiencies;
» Requiring residents to sort the hard waste into piles of scrap steel, wood and timber
products, garden organics, and residual for example. Each of these streams would
then be collected by a different collection vehicle and taken to the appropriate
disposal point (either to recycling or landfill); or
» All mixed hard waste could be taken to a depot for manual sorting prior to delivery
to landfill or recycling.
The current cost of providing on-call hard waste collections across the SW Region is
quite significant, estimated at between $8 to $32 per participating household.
47 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
On average only approximately 30kg of hard waste is collected per household across
the SW Region (equivalent to an average of about 100kg per participating household)
2
.
Hence depending on demand for the existing service, there may be scope to either
modify the service, or discontinue the service with collection of potentially reusable
items to be arranged by the resident with the operators of the reuse centre.
Therefore, prior to revising service options for the hard waste it is first important that
improved baseline information be obtained through undertaking a detailed audit and
customer satisfaction survey of the current service. The audit and survey should be
used to determine:
» Current level of participation;
» Reasons for low/high participation in each Council area;
» Composition of hard waste placed out for collection (including percentage of
potentially recyclable items);
» Number of households that place out only one type of waste for collection (i.e. only
bulky garden wastes or furniture);
» Average volume of hard waste placed out per collection per household;
» Potential residential reaction if the service was discounted or modified so that only
potentially reusable items would be collected (for resale in the reuse centre); and
» Current level of customer satisfaction and suggestions for service improvements.
7.1.8 Regional MRF
Option 7 involves having a MRF in the region. The motivation for including this option
in the study is that the SW Region councils are not convinced that the current
arrangements, with a single operator are optimising the financial returns to Councils
and that they present potential environmental risks (through lack of control over the
eventual destination of the collected recyclables).
Currently the majority or all of recyclables collected from kerbside sources within the
Adelaide Metropolitan area and the region are processed at Material Recovery
Facilities (MRF’s) operated by the one company. That company undertakes all
marketing and procurement of end markets. No Councils or regions operate or have
ownership of MRF’s. Only one regional authority in SA, the Northern Adelaide Waste
Management Authority (NAWMA), has an arrangement for sharing of revenue derived
from sales of recyclables to end markets.
The current total volume of recyclables collected across the SW region is of the order
of 24,553 tonnes/yr. As outlined in Section 7.1.2, the overall quantity of recyclables
collected could potentially rise by between 3% and 33% due to improvements in
collection practices. This would result in approximately 30,000 tonnes of recyclables
2
Detailed information about the current hard waste collection service is included in Appendix H, under
Option 20
48 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
being collected each year and a reduction in the tonnage of kerbside municipal waste
collected.
If it was assumed that 50% of the collected materials were paper, which is currently
fetching up to $300/tonne, the value of the recyclables collected from the SW region
annually would be conservatively estimated at $7- 9 million per year. If the SW region
was able to obtain a 10% margin on these sales, it could gain $0.7-0.9 million in extra
revenue each year.
There is obviously some financial benefit for the SW region in being involved in the
receival of recyclables. The question is really what is the best way of the SW region
being involved, as the potential rewards always reflect the risks involved.
At the most risky end, the SW region could set up and operate its own MRF, in
competition with the existing operator. This would require the region to raise sufficient
capital to build such a facility, and to operate it for a sufficient period to amortise the
capital involved (at least 7-10 years).
A lack of experience in setting up and operating such a facility by the current regional
staff would potentially mean that operational costs might not be as low as they should
be. Also, the region would need to market the recyclables to reprocessors, and to
negotiate contracts with these reprocessors. Again a lack of experience (and relatively
low tonnages of only 30,000 tonnes/yr) could mean that contract prices are not as high
as could be gained by experienced MRF operators.
The are a few examples of Councils or regions within Australian capital cities owning or
operating MRF’s, or even having royalty arrangements, as this involves sharing some
of the commercial risks associated with their operation, and marketing of the materials.
The majority of MRFs are owned or operated by the private sector, often under a
combined collection and receival contract arrangement with councils.
It should be noted that EcoRecycle Victoria’s (now Sustainability Victoria) developed
model kerbside recycling contracts, which advocated separation of collection and
recycling contracts, to provide better outcomes in terms of yields and quality of
material, as well as more efficient collections. These split contracts are becoming more
common throughout the industry, as older contracts end. Councils and regional bodies
are now calling for regional receival tenders before they go to tender for collection
services, as per the Eco Recycle Victoria recommendations.
In the Stage 2 report, the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council and the City of
Wannaroo were mentioned as two examples of Regional Groups or Councils operating
MRF’s in Western Australia in their own right.
In the case of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council, which took over the
operation of the AWT facility and MRF at Canning Vale from Bedminster (which had
significant engineering problems in commissioning its AWT), the seven member
Councils had to each guarantee a loan contribution proportional to their population and
sign a contract guaranteeing supply of recyclables to the MRF, and payment of agreed
gate fees for a 20 year period. It should be noted that this action was taken in order to
resolve a situation that had developed in relation to the Canning Vale project, not as a
preferred strategy by these Councils.
49 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
In the case of the Wannaroo MRF, it is understood to be joint venture arrangement
with two abutting Councils, whereby the joint venture markets and sells commodities
and contracts out the operation of the plant. It is assumed that the Council owns the
facility, and has provided the capital to operate the plant.
Another possible method for the SW region to become more closely involved in the
recycling of materials and gain some financial advantages would be to call for a
regional tender for a private operator to set up and operate a MRF in the region. Part of
the contract conditions would be for Councils to pay a set availability fee (covering the
capital cost of establishing the facility over a set amortization period) and also sharing
a percentage of the profits gained from marketing the materials. This may be more
financially attractive than the current arrangements. Testing the market by going out to
tender will provide more certainty on whether this is the right strategy for the SW
region.
In reality, Councils are exposed to similar financial risks whether they own and operate
the facility, or just enter a long-term contract with a private operator to receive the
recyclables from their region. In the former case, Councils need to come up with a
large amount of capital, whereas in the latter case, the operator borrows the money,
but minimizes their commercial risk by locking Councils into medium to long-term
contracts.
Given the high cost of establishment, the specialized operational equipment and the
anecdotal evidence around Australia, the ownership and operation of MRF by the
region or member councils in their own right may not be the better of the two options.
The Regions potential involvement in a regional MRF could be as follows:
» Purchasing a site within an eco-industrial precinct similar to the Canberra Hume
Resource Recovery Estate and leasing the land to a private operator;
» Entering into a separate contract for the processing of kerbside and commercial
recyclables collected under a regional contract and in return obtaining a share in
revenue from sale of recyclables.
7.2 Commercial and industrial waste stream
7.2.1 Regional C&I MRF
Option 9 involves maximising recovery of materials from the C&I waste stream without
requiring significant changes to existing collection and processing systems. Results
from the recent landfill audit of C&I waste in Metropolitan Adelaide indicated that a
considerable proportion of the C&I waste stream is potentially recoverable (as shown
in Figure 7-1).
Under this option a MRF would be established either at an existing waste disposal
facility or at a new site. The MRF would accept only C&I waste from both self-haul
customers and commercial collections. Depending on how the waste arrives at the site,
the materials would either be directly separated and stockpiled (for loads containing
only one type of material), or processed through a variety of plant to recover as much
recyclables as possible. Residual waste would then be transported to landfill for final
disposal.
50 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Food / Kitchen
20%
Garbage bags
18%
Treatment Plant Residue
8%
Soil / Clean Fill
6%
Foundry Sand
6%
Cardboard
6%
Flock
5%
Vegetation / Garden
4%
Wood – Timber
4%
Tyres / Rubber
4%
Plastic – Bags & Film
2%
Paper
2%
Wood – Pallets
2%
Other C&I
13%
Figure 7-1 Major components of C&I waste stream in Metropolitan Adelaide
(Source: based on the Zero Waste SA Landfill Survey, 2004)
Note: components representing less than 2% of the waste stream have been grouped under “Other C&I”
The operating objective of the MRF would be to maximise the recovery of recyclable
materials and minimise residual waste sent to landfill. Whilst there is a potentially
recoverable organics component of the C&I waste stream, it is not proposed to attempt
to recover this fraction within the short-to-medium timeframe. This is because there is
likely to be high contamination of recovered organics from a mixed waste separation
process and hence the quality of any compost products made from this material may
have limited use.
The total volume of C&I waste generated in the SW region is of the order of 45,000
tonnes/yr, Approximately 36% (15,000 tonnes/yr) of this is potentially recyclable. This
may not be sufficient to establish a commercially viable facility, and cooperation with
another region may be needed to provide the necessary economies of scale. A much
better understanding of the composition and sources of C&I wastes is also needed
before the feasibility of a C&I MRF can be properly assessed, since greater source
separation of recyclable materials such as cardboard is likely to yield better results
than trying to extract them from a mixed waste stream at such a facility.
It is understood that Resource Co is establishing C&I separation operations at the
former Mitsubishi site at Lonsdale. This may provide the C&I MRF type facilities that
have been identified in this report.
51 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7.2.2 Industrial and special wastes
Option 10 is about managing (and minimising) industrial wastes. Strategies that
businesses can use to prevent the generation of waste include eco-efficiency and
cleaner production.
Local Government has no regulatory powers to require industry to adopt cleaner
production practices. However, local government can directly drive incentives that
encourage the adoption of eco-efficiency and cleaner production by industry.
The Region as a whole could introduce programs and schemes to help industry
overcome the barriers and to promote the motivators. Examples of programs that could
be undertaken at a regional level include:
» Providing a source of cleaner production information to the industry;
» Connecting industries which generate waste with those industries that are able to
use the waste (thus preventing the waste being disposed of and raw materials
being used)
3
;
» Developing and implementing voluntary cleaner production programs and reporting
the outcomes to the public;
» Negotiate self regulated initiatives to prevent pollution and waste generation, and
report the outcomes to the public; and
» Encourage the community to get involved with industry to deliver better
environmental performance.
Special note should be taken that the development of the RWMSP is being undertaken
simultaneously as an investigation into the feasibility of establishing an eco-industrial
precinct in the SW Region. The outcomes of the feasibility assessment will help to
identify further opportunities to assist in identifying potential synergies between
industries in the Region, and hence further opportunities to promote cleaner production
and eco-efficient processes.
7.2.3 Liquid waste treatment facility
Option 11 focuses on liquid wastes, since there are no treatment facilities for liquid
waste in the southern region, other than waste engine oil drop off facilities at selected
depots and the Southern Region Waste Disposal Depot. The two existing treatment
facilities for liquid wastes in the Adelaide Metropolitan area other than for waste oil
operated by Mulhullens, are operated by Transpacific Technical Services and Collex in
Wingfield and Kilburn. Potentially a further liquid waste treatment plant could potentially
be established in the south western region to receive used engine oil, coolants and
grease trap fats generated from Council operations and public buildings and from
private businesses located in southern Metropolitan Adelaide and surrounds. This
3 It is noted that the Marion and Mitcham Environmental Education Project already includes promotes
responsible environmental management practices to a range of industry sectors and this is promoted
through an established “Waste Exchange Register”. The Waste Exchange Register allows companies to
register the types of materials they have available online on the Councils websites. Parties interested in
acquiring any of the registered wastes can do so via either Council’s officers.
52 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
would result in potential savings in transport and disposal costs for Councils and
businesses in this area.
Collection points for used engines oils are currently limited to some local service
stations and a waste oil disposal facility at Pedlar Creek landfill. The number of
collection points for oily fats and used engine oils could be extended to all Council
operated depots (including landfills and transfer stations).
However establishing a treatment facility would cost millions of dollars, and it would be
a risky commercial venture. Only a private operator with expertise in this area (i.e. not
councils) should consider this, after assessing the likely demand for such a service.
7.2.4 Eco-Industrial Precinct
Option 12 is establishing an Eco Precinct in the SW region. This is the subject of a
separate study, which is being undertaken to identify the potential suitability of
establishing an integrated waste eco-industrial precinct (or precincts in the SW
Region). The study stems from the desire of the region to emulate the principals and
activities contained in the proposed eco-industrial park to be located at the former
Wingfield Landfill depot site.
However it is understood that ResourceCo is in the process of establishing its own Eco
Precinct at the former Mitsubishi site at Lonsdale. Councils in the SW region should
support this initiative, as it has the potential to reduce the amount of C&D and C&I
waste going to landfill. More details about the proposed operations at Lonsdale are
provided in the Eco Precinct report.
7.3 Construction and demolition waste stream
7.3.1 Regional C&D depot
Option 13 involves the development of a regional C&D depot for the accepting,
sorting, processing, and resale of C&D materials. There is significant potential to
recover a significant proportion (up to 40%) of the 150,000 plus tonnes of C&D waste
generated in the SW Region.
It is noted that Resource Co have recently purchased the former Mitsubishi site in
Lonsdale with the intention of establishing a C&D materials recovery facility in the SW
Region similar to its existing operations in Northern Adelaide. The proposed Resource
Co development could therefore service requirements for C&D materials recovery in
the SW Region.
7.4 Other waste streams/opportunities
7.4.1 Revolve/reuse type operation/s for household items
Option 16 involves establishing a revolve/reuse centre is a facility for residents to drop
off unwanted household items including furniture, appliances and white goods (in
working order). The items can then be refurbished and then resold back to the
53 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
community. These kinds of facilities help divert significant quantities of waste from
landfill as well as providing training and employment opportunities for the mentally or
physically handicapped.
A revolve/reuse centre’s success hinges on support from the community, but generally,
most revolve/reuse centres have been received enthusiastically with residents.
Revolve/reuse centres can be managed/operated in a variety of ways, including:
» By council – council footing the associated costs but retaining all income from the
centre;
» Under contract – which may be a commercial contractor or in some circumstances,
community development groups; or
» By charity/non-profit organisations with support from councils.
They are often established at landfill sites, but there is no reason why they could not be
located in light industrial areas in the SW region, so they are reasonably convenient for
residents.
7.4.2 Education on a Regional basis
Option 17 involves sharing of education resources across all six member Councils, by
employing education officers that work on behalf of the Councils/Industries/Public
across the whole region, the use of standardised advertising and education materials,
and promotion and organisation of special events.
Regional education strategies may also include employing contamination management
officers that act across the Region. One of the roles of the contamination management
officers could be to inspect recycling and organics bins placed out for collection, and to
issue warning notices to residents that continually contaminate their recycling bins.
The strategic direction for a shared education program could focus on a few key areas
that would benefit most from a regional approach. For residents, regional education
campaigns could include:
» How to use the new regional collection services, and to minimise contamination in
garden organics and recycling bins;
» Waste avoidance in the household through responsible purchasing, which would
target the modern tendency for overconsumption of consumer items (i.e. the “throw
away” society);
» Waste minimisation in the household through buying less packaged foods and more
healthy raw ingredients such as fruit and vegetables;
» Proper disposal of household hazardous wastes, such as engine oil, batteries, paint
thinners and poisonous chemicals; and
» Reducing plastic bag use.
Since commercial and industrial wastes are a significant component of the waste
stream, shops could be targeted to encourage them to separate their wastes, and to
group together to establish recycling systems. Local businesses could also be
54 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
encouraged to recycle paper within the workplace, by eliminating most of their desk
bins for mixed wastes, and by separating other wastes such as toner cartridges,
containers and cardboard for collection by recyclers.
One of the features of successful education programs is that they are based upon a
good understanding of what motivates people to initially get involved, and to keep
participating. It can be a desire to save money, or to help the environment, or peer
pressure from neighbours, work colleagues, or their children. Schools are also a
worthy target for regional education programs, since behaviour learnt from an early
age is much more likely to continue into adulthood.
7.4.3 Tyres
Option 18 involves diverting tyres from landfill. Technology for tyre recovery and
recycling is well established, however the Adelaide market is comparatively small and
therefore limits the economic incentives to develop and introduce effective recycling
options locally. Furthermore, the cost of transportation of tyres to the eastern states is
prohibitive. It is estimated that approximately 14-15,000 tonnes of tyres are shredded
each year in SA to enable them to be disposed of to landfill.
Councils could support a total ban on the landfilling of tyres (i.e. even tyres in shredded
form). For such a ban to be successful, markets must exist for recovered tyres. Reuse
options for tyres collected in the SW Region are currently limited to retreading and
reuse. Additional options for reusing recovered tyres include:
» Energy recovery and use of alternative fuel (particularly suitable for cement kilns);
» Crumbing tyres and using the crumb for a range of applications including paving,
sound insulation, and workplace flooring; and
» Recycling of tyres through companies such as Biofloat (a company that makes truck
body liners and dam covers from rubber material) and EcoFlex (converts waste
tyres into low-cost building products).
Whilst the above options are put forward for consideration, it is recognised that
pursuing the above strategies requires the support of government agencies such as
the EPA and Zero Waste SA and the tyre manufacturing and reprocessing industry.
This would be best done by a number of regions simultaneously, rather than just by the
SW region.
7.4.4 Public Place Recycling
Option 20B relates to public place recycling. This can be implemented at major
shopping centres and strip shopping centres and at major public events, such as
outdoor concerts, sporting events, New Years Eve events, and parades.
A large number of containers (specifically glass, PET, and aluminium) are generated at
public events and therefore there is an opportunity to promote recycling and diversion
of public litter from the garbage stream. Public event recycling can therefore yield large
quantities of recyclables with potentially little contamination.
55 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Council support and promotion of public place event recycling also has the added
benefits of promoting environmentally responsible behaviour, reducing potential litter in
the area and hence the cost of clean up and disposal, and being able to achieve a high
volume of source separated materials without requiring separation of a mixed waste
stream.
Zero Waste SA has developed guidelines for event organisers in South Australia on
how to minimise waste at public events.
56 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
8. Stakeholder Feedback
8.1 Industry Stakeholders
In order to validate the robustness and suitability of the options, a stakeholder
workshop was held with waste industry representatives on 18 November 2005.
The stakeholders were asked firstly to confirm the applicability of each option and then
to provide a score from 1(not at all significant)-5(very significant) indicating the likely
benefit of each option and the reasons.
Options considered to be significant to very significant included:
» Option 1 Regional Best Practice Kerbside Collection over 2-3 contracts
» Option 9 Regional C&I MRF
» Option 12 Eco Industrial Precinct
Options considered to be moderately significant included:
» Option 2 Fortnightly food organics and garden organics collection as an adjunct
to Option 1(Collection frequency may need to be flexible by season)
» Option 3 Household hazardous wastes additional services (producer
responsibility)
» Option 5 Council waste reduction and reuse
» Option 6 Household hard waste modification
» Option 7 Regional MRF for recyclables involving Council equity (Local
Government seen as facilitators not builders/operators/marketers but
some opportunity for partnerships), Private industry will have built a
plant anyway in the region and possibly cheaper)
» Option 8 Designated food waste collection for C&I properties (Transport an
issue)
» Option 10 Management of Industrial and special wastes (Already happening)
» Option 16 Revolve Operation linked to Option 5 (low returns)
» Option 17 Increased education /regional education strategies (Already well
serviced)
» Option 18 Increased reuse of tyres (Govt needs to create demand, Producer
responsibility)
» Options 20A & 20B Public Place litter management and Public Place recycling
(low private sector involvement)
» Option 21 Corporate partnership arrangements (project specific)
57 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Options considered to be of little or no significance because they were either already
being widely addressed within the region or industry, required new market or legislative
intervention to be effective, were considered to be a producer responsibility, or would
provide low financial returns, included:
» Option 4 Services for electronic wastes (Producer responsibility, could be
received at one regional MRF)
» Option 11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing and extra disposal facilities (well
serviced already)
» Option 13 New Regional C&D Depot (Well covered by Resource Co proposal and
existing depots/quarries and linked to Option 9 because facility can
receive and process both C&I and C&D wastes)
» Option 14 AWT Processing of kerbside garbage (Landfill charge subsidies a
constraint and some technologies still not proven)
» Option 15 Convert to a single bin kerbside system (Not politically or
environmentally acceptable)
» Option 19 Plastic Bag reduction (already addressed by legislation and policy)
Based on the above, the options developed in the draft RWMSP are considered by the
waste and resource industry to be appropriate for the region and achievable, however
there are some options which are not considered suited to or the responsibility of either
local government (regional MRF’s and electronics tyre waste recycling) or the private
waste resource industry (Revolve Centres).
8.2 Steering Committee and Waste Policy Forum
As part of the process the project Steering Committee and Waste Policy Forum
progressively considered and ranked the options presented in the draft strategy. At the
completion of the options identification, the options were converted into action numbers
as part of the Implementation Action Plan listed in Section 9.0. The following options
and actions were supported subject to the following covenants:
Option 1(A1)-Common specification implementation program and make up of services
(i.e. Number of services per contract and separate garbage recycling and garden
organics vs integrated) required but recycling service split into separate collection and
processing contracts, Unley and Holdfast Bay first off the rank short term-Performance
of contracts to be monitored:
» Option 2 (A 3) - High level State Government BCR analysis required after
completion of Burnside trials and approvals and suitability of the Jeffries and Peats
‘In Vessel Composting’ systems known-Monitor for now;
» Options 4 (A5) - 16(A 13), 6 (A7)-Further work is required on the mechanism and
the management model and business case (private municipal and charitable group
involvement). Zero Waste SA to develop a model;
» Option 5 (A6) - Common approach required. LGA Waste Committee could address
this at a policy level. Role for individual Councils representatives;
58 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Options 9 (A9) - & 13 (A12)-Councils will supply waste inputs and reuse processed
material;
» Option 12 (A11)-Part of Eco Industrial Precinct Model;
» Option 17 (A14) - One jointly funded education officer for the region. Steering
committee to develop a regional education strategy;
» Options 20 A (A17) and 20 B (A 18) - Receival contracts would need to be set in
place to control contamination and minimise waste to landfill;
» Option 21 (A 19) - Support for Partnership model as per existing Onkaparinga
Marion Environmental Industrial Cluster.
The following options were not strongly supported because:
» Option 4 (A4) - System working ok leave as is funded by Zero Waste SA;
» Option 7 (A8) - Industry likely to construct a Recycling MRF anyway and Councils
can gain some control of end uses through splitting the recycling contract;
» Option 10 (A10) - In place by some Councils adequate coverage;
» Option 14 (A2) is not considered a feasible option at this stage and should wait until
technology is proven and processing costs and markets matured;
» Option 18(A 15) - Being addressed nationally through EPP;
» Option 19 (A 16) - is already well established amongst member councils and being
addressed nationally.
8.3 General Community
The options outlined in this strategy were subjected to a limited public consultation
program comprising the following activities:
» Posting a summary document on a web site;
» Advertising in the Messenger newspaper seeking public comment via a 1800
number or project website;
» Distribution of a summary report and questionnaire to a community panel selected
from community groups or individuals nominated by the Project Steering
Committee.
The responses received from 26 respondents can be summarised as follows:
Of the options presented to the community, the following comments were noted:
» Options 1-7 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 1,5 and 6 being the most
strongly supported and best delivered by Local Government;
» Options 8-13 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 11, 12 and 13 being the
most strongly supported but views were mixed on whether Local Government or
industry should deliver the programs;
» Options 16,17 and 21 are overwhelmingly supported with views mixed on the other
remaining options;
59 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» The least favoured was Option 15.
The community results indicate that based on 26 responses from across all six Council
areas, there could potentially be broad community support for implementation of the
options and actions outlined in this strategy, however this sample size is not
statistically valid and hence the support for some aspects may need to be further
confirmed prior to implementation. It is also considered that some aspects relating to
changes to the kerbside hard garbage service such a reduced level of service or
linking it to Revolve Centre operation, may not have been totally understood by the
respondents.
A further detailed summary of the consultation findings is contained in Appendix F.
60 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
9. Overall RWMSP Structure
9.1 Elements of RWMSP
The RWMSP for the SW region should have the following elements:
» Municipal waste;
» Household hazardous waste;
» Electronic waste;
» Council generated waste;
» Hard waste;
» Commercial and industrial waste;
» Construction and demolition waste; and
» Other waste streams/opportunities.
Options examined in the Stage 2 report, identified as having medium to high suitability
and further assessed in Section 7 have been regrouped beneath these headings as
Actions for implementation under an Implementation Action Plan. These are specific
initiatives in each area that are designed to improve current performance and in some
cases, to achieve the ambitious targets set by the SA Government. These Actions are
further described in Table 9-1 below.
Table 9-1 Elements of RWMSP and Implementation Action Plan
Action Description Previous
option
Comment
Municipal waste stream
A1 Regional best practice kerbside
collection of garbage,
recyclables, and garden organics
(3 bin system)
1 Funds saved on waste
collection can be spent on
future waste treatment and
resource recovery activities.
A2 Alternative waste technology
(AWT) for municipal solid waste
14 Landfill space in SW region
is limited to 14 yrs at current
rates and future landfills
(needed for non recyclable
materials) will be long haul
operations. AWT is
necessary to minimise
reliance on landfill and
increase resource recovery
rates to meet State targets.
A3 Combined food and waste
collection from households
2 The suitability of this
collection system depends
upon the AWT eventually
selected for the region.
61 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Previous
option
Comment
A4 Household hazardous waste
services
3 HHW can cause problems in
landfills and also in AWT
facilities.
A5 Electronic wastes and household
appliance collections
4 Reprocessing facilities are
limited at present, so
separate collection may not
be warranted, except for
specific items eg computers.
A6 Reducing Council generated
wastes
5 This is a small contributor to
the overall waste stream, but
sends a message to
residents and businesses in
the region.
A7 Modifications to the kerbside on-
call hard waste service including
potential sorting of kerbside
collected hard waste into distinct
material streams for recycling
6 Hard waste is not as high a
priority as municipal solid
waste, but better
management can contribute
to sustainability through re-
use of items.
A8 Local Government equity in a
Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
7 To improve financial returns
for Councils by providing
more competition for receival
of kerbside recyclables.
Commercial and Industrial waste stream
A9 Regional C&I MRF for increased
sorting and recovery of C&I
waste
9 Support initiative by
ResourceCo at Mitsubishi
site.
A10 Management of industrial and
special wastes (cleaner
production initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
10 Waste minimisation by
industry at source is of key
importance in reducing
amount of C&I wastes and
increasing resource recovery
rates to meet State targets.
A11 Eco-Industrial Precinct 12 Support initiative by
ResourceCo at Mitsubishi
site.
Construction and Demolition waste stream
A12 Regional C&D depot 13 Support initiative by
ResourceCo at Mitsubishi
site.
62 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Previous
option
Comment
Other wastes/opportunities
A13 Revolve operation/s for
household items
16 Sustainability initiative – re-
use of items instead of
discarding them will assist in
“dematerialisation” of society
that is needed to reduce
current trends of increasing
waste production per person.
A14 Regional education strategies 17 Builds on existing work being
done at council level.
A15 Increased reuse/recycling of tyres 18 Tyres are a waste stream
that needs to be dealt with in
innovative ways, but are an
Australia wide problem.
A16 Plastic bag reduction 19 Plastic bag reduction will
reduce wind blown litter at
landfill sites.
A17 Public place litter management 20A Litter reduction is always an
important issue for protection
of the environment and
preservation of public
amenity
A18 Public place recycling 20B Due to the increasing amount
of away from home dining
that is occurring, recycling
needs to become more
effective if C&I wastes are to
be minimised.
A19 Cooperative partnership
arrangement with commercial
operators and stakeholders from
the waste industry
21 Important to build bridges
with commercial operators to
solve the problems
associated with C&I wastes.
9.2 Timing for Actions
The likely timing of the various Actions is summarised in Table 9-3. Some Actions can
commence immediately, and others that involve changing existing contractual
arrangements, or involve new infrastructure, will obviously take longer to implement. A
proposed program, which provides additional detail on timing, and the steps involved,
is provided in Table 9-3.
63 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 9-2 Timing of Actions
Action Description Likely timing
Municipal waste stream
A1 Regional best practice kerbside
collection of garbage,
recyclables, and garden organics
(3 bin system)
May take up to 5 years to regionalise all
collection contracts and implement best
practice collection systems in all councils.
A2 Alternative waste technology
(AWT) for municipal solid waste
May take up to 5 years to establish an
AWT facility in the region.
A3 Combined food and waste
collection from households
This would be undertaken at the same
time as the AWT facility is established,
since the need for this depends upon the
technology selected.
A4 Household hazardous waste
services
This should commence immediately, and
will take 2 or 3 yrs to implement.
A5 Electronic wastes and household
appliance collections
Since there are very few places that
currently recycle electronic wastes, this
would have to be implemented
progressively, as recycling options for
different items become commercially
available.
A6 Reducing Council generated
wastes
This should begin immediately and be an
ongoing campaign.
A7 Modifications to the kerbside on-
call hard waste service including
potential sorting of kerbside
collected hard waste into distinct
material streams for recycling
This could begin immediately, and would
take 1-2 years to implement.
A8 Local Government equity in a
Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
Tendering for receival of the regions
recyclables could be undertaken within 12
months, and a MRF facility could be
operating within 2 yrs.
Commercial and Industrial waste stream
A9 Regional C&I MRF for increased
sorting and recovery of C&I
waste
A regional C&I MRF is being established
by ResourceCo. This could be used by
businesses in the region as soon as it is
available. Otherwise, if this facility is not
suitable for the region’s needs, it would
take up to 3 yrs to establish a new facility.
A10 Management of industrial and
special wastes (cleaner
production initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
This work should begin immediately and
continue while industry exists in the
region, since there is always room for
improvement.
64 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Likely timing
A11 Eco-Industrial Precinct Timing is subject to the findings of the Eco
Precinct Study, as to the type of facility
needed etc
Construction and Demolition waste stream
A12 Regional C&D depot A regional C&D depot is being established
by ResourceCo. This could be used by
businesses in the region as soon as it is
available. Otherwise, if this facility is not
suitable for the region’s needs, it would
take up to 3 yrs to establish a new facility.
Other wastes/opportunities
A13 Revolve operation/s for
household items
Revolve type operations could be
established reasonably quickly if suitable
sites were identified and secured.
However it may take longer than a year to
find operators, develop viable business
plans and to establish commercial
arrangements between Councils and the
operators.
A14 Regional education strategies These initiatives could begin as soon as
suitable programs are devised, and
agreed within the region, and
progressively rolled out as staff are
appointed.
A15 Increased reuse/recycling of
tyres
This is a longer-term objective, which
needs to commence now. No quick results
should be expected.
A16 Plastic bag reduction Regional initiatives could be developed
within 12 months, and rolled out soon
afterwards. They would need to tie in with
SA Govt proposals in this area.
A17 Public place litter management This should commence immediately, and
will continue for a long time.
A18 Public place recycling This should commence immediately, and
will continue for a long time.
A19 Cooperative partnership
arrangement with commercial
operators and stakeholders from
the waste industry
This should commence immediately, and
will continue for a long time.
65 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 9-3 Proposed program for implementation of RWMSP Actions
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
Municipal waste stream
A1 Regional best practice
kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables,
and garden organics (3
bin system).
Consultation and planning
(including contractor and
community consultation)
Prepare tender documents,
including engaging a probity
officer
Tendering process
Cancellation of existing
collection contracts if
required
New service
commissioning
A2 Use of AWT for
processing kerbside
garbage stream
(continue separate
collection of domestic
recyclables and garden
organics)
Selection of appropriate
choice of processing
technology
Identification of possible site
for processing facility
Facility design
Lodge development
application for AWT
plant
Preliminary consultation
with waste collection
contractors – expression
of interest process to
identified potential
contractors
Obtain planning and
development
approvals
Site (AWT plant)
construction and
commissioning
Site (AWT plant)
construction and
commissioning
continues
Modification of
existing garbage
collection
contracts if
required
AWT plant in
operation
Commence AWT
processing of
garbage stream
66 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
A3 Combined food and
garden organics
collection from domestic
households, processed
either by open-windrow
or enclosed composting
Liaison with organics
collection providers and
processors over possible
service establishment and
costs
Devise proposed trial
program
Preparation of education
and contamination
management materials
Source kitchen bins and
biodegradable bags for
food scraps (if these are
to be used)
Undertake trial of
proposed service with
sample of the residential
population
Analyses results and
outcomes of the trial
If trial was successful:
- Liaise with organics
processors to
determine available
processing capacity for
mixed organics
- Revise contracts for
organics collection and
processing
- Commence process
of full-scale roll-out of
modified collection
system (including
regular fortnightly
collection of organics
in each council area)
A4 Household hazardous
waste additional
collection or drop-off
services
Detailed assessment of most
suitable type of service of
hazardous waste, including
consultation with the wider
community
Identification of required
sites/infrastructure
Negotiations with service
providers and disposal
facilities for hazardous waste
Tendering process (if
required)
Trial of service
Full scale service
commences (depending
on trial outcomes)
67 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
A5 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
Consultation with the
community as to the
willingness to pay for the
service, and to determine
most appropriate type of
service
Identification of options for
reuse and recycling of
collected goods
Identification of required
sites/infrastructure for the
proposed service
Negotiations with
service providers
Tendering process (if
required)
Trial of service
Full scale service
commences (depending
on trial outcomes)
A6 Reducing Council waste Ongoing from Year 1
A7 Modifications to the
kerbside on-call hard
waste service
Consultation with waste
collection and processing
contractors, and operators of
the reuse centre (if it exists)
to identify possible
modifications to hard waste
service to make it more
efficient, and improve
resource recovery.
Short-list options for potential
changes to hard-waste
collection service.
Tendering process
Cancellation of existing
collection contracts if
required
New service
commissioning
68 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
Consultation with the
community over proposed
options for modifying the
hard waste service.
A8 Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
Call for tenders for receival of
recyclables from the SW
region
Assess and award tenders
Operator builds new
facility and commences
operations
Commercial and Industrial waste stream
A9 Regional C&I MRF for
increased sorting and
recovery of C&I waste
Detailed feasibility study of
available C&I waste
quantities and composition in
the SW Region
Site identification
Lodge development
application
Facility design
Lodge development
application for MRF
Obtain planning and
development approvals
Site construction and
commissioning
Full operation
A10 Management of
industrial and special
wastes (cleaner
production initiatives
and eco-efficiency)
Establishment of role/s for
Council officers to work with
industry where they are not
already in place.
Expand the existing Waste
Register so it services the
entire Region.
69 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
Ongoing regional approach
to facilitate information
exchange with industry, and
support for the
implementation of cleaner
production programs.
A11 Eco-Industrial Precinct To be determined via Eco-Industrial Precinct study
Construction and Demolition
A12 Regional C&D depot for
accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale
of C&D materials
Detailed feasibility study of
available C&D waste
quantities and composition in
the SW Region
Site identification
Facility design
Lodge development
application
Obtain planning and
development approvals
Site construction and
commissioning
Full operation
Other
A13 Revolve type
operation/s for
household hard waste
items and second hand
goods
Seek expressions of interest
from charitable and/or private
organisations for potential
establishment and operation
of the facility.
Identification of preferred
site/s
Liaison with potential
operators as to Councils
role and involvement.
Facility design
Obtain planning and
development approvals
Site construction
Commence operations
70 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
A14 Increased education /
regional education
strategies
Negotiation between
Councils to determine
preferred regional
approaches and regional
management structure.
Engagement of staff.
Regional education
program commences.
A15 Increased reuse
recycling of tyres
Ongoing lobbying of government and support for industry
A16 Plastic bag reduction Negotiation between Councils to determine preferred regional approaches and regional management structure.
Ongoing regional approaches potentially adopted from Year 1.
A17 Public place litter
management
Negotiation between Councils to determine preferred regional approaches and regional management structure.
Ongoing regional approaches potentially adopted from Year 1.
A18 Public place recycling
and recycling at public
events
Negotiation between Councils to determine preferred regional approaches and regional management structure.
Ongoing regional approaches potentially adopted from Year 1.
A19 Cooperative partnership
arrangement with
commercial operators
and stakeholders from
the waste industry
Identification of existing environmental and industrial clusters
Facilitate working group arrangements between industry, small business, Councils, waste service providers, Zero Waste
SA and the EPA
Provide ongoing support for regional groups
71 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
10. Opportunities to attract Grants
There are a number of funding programs in place to assist Local Government
implement waste management projects. Funding is generally available for projects
where it can be demonstrated that the initiatives will improve waste and resource
recovery systems, follow best practice, and are aligned with the objectives of the
funding strategy.
An overview of funding programs available in SA that may provide financial assistance
for the SW Region are outlined below.
» Green events financial assistance program administered by Zero Waste SA;
» Various Zero Waste funding programs - under the 2005-2006 business plan,
funding will be made available to Councils to assist in:
– Formation of regional waste management plans – 2005-2006, $205,000/yr in
total, for individual councils, funding of up to 50% of the cost of employing a
waste officer, and up to 50% of the cost of development of plans;
– Local Government education assistance – funding includes providing advisory
and information service to Councils, 2005-2006 budget is $155,000;
– Funding for industry education – 2005-2006, $105.000 in total funding available
– Funding for waste wise public events- 2005-2006, $200,000 in total;
– Funding for infrastructure to service Metropolitan Adelaide -2005-2006,
$315,000 in total;
– Funding for household hazardous waste and farm chemicals collection -
$970,000 allocated for 2005-2006;
– Kerbside Performance Initiatives – a total of $4.5 million is being offered to
Councils over two years. Funding for 2005-2006 is budgeted at $2.3 million;
– Plastic bag reduction - 2004-2006, $250,000/yr in total (see example below) –
Zero Waste SA is currently reviewing their plastic bag reduction program; and
– Assistance with education, information, data collection, litter control, and advice.
» Schools education program administered by KESAB;
» Environmental Education Grants Program administered by Department of
Environment and Heritage (DEH);
» Butt Littering Trust Project Partnerships 2005 - Priority Butt Litter Hotspots;
» The Product Stewardship for Oil Program administered by the Department of
Environment and Heritage;
» Greening the Supply Chain. - Greener Business Alliance Projects and Industry
Association Projects, administered by the SA EPA;
» National Packaging Covenant Public Place Recycling Grants.
72 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
11. Communication strategy
Community consultation is important to delivering a successful Regional Waste
Management Strategy.
11.1 Strategy objectives
The community consultation strategy would be designed to provide a comprehensive
approach to consultation by:
» Providing for a transparent process of open, effective and appropriate consultation
with the Councils and their communities;
» Providing for increased and accessible engagement of the community;
» Identify community responsibilities, resources and timeframes for community and
stakeholder contact and input;
» Identify key stakeholder and community groups through a demographic and social
analysis; and
» Ensuring the community is informed in the early stages and throughout the process.
This is designed to invite and receive community input on the Draft Strategy.
Consultation at this stage would allow the community to respond to the Regional
Waste Management Strategy’s key messages and priorities, and the proposed options.
This community feedback would then be considered for incorporation in the Final
Strategy.
11.2 Summary of consultation methodologies
Table 11-1 outlines the consultation approach adopted for the draft RWMSP.
73 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 11-1 Consultation program adopted for RWMSP
Activity Tasks
EXHIBITION OF DRAFT STRATEGY REPORT
Draft Report and Summary Draft Report and Summary made available to the
community in hard and soft copy formats
Stakeholder contact database Database set up for collection of broader community
feedback and input on the Draft Strategy
Inform community Information methods listed below used to promote
the four-week exhibition of the Draft Report:
Advertisement in local Messenger newspapers
Newsletter distributed and at key information points
such as libraries, councils’ offices and shopping
centres.
Set-up 1800 number & email address for feedback
Councils’ websites
Media release
Feedback summary report Separate report prepared and included in Appendix
to this report.
STAGE 4: PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT
Final Report Format Final Report and Summary to be available
to the community in hard and soft copy formats
Inform community Draft copy for the materials listed below to promote
the availability of the Final Report and a timetable of
outcomes:
Advertisement for local newspapers
Councils’ websites
Media release
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix A
Environmental Assessment
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table A1 – Summary of results from technical, environmental, and social evaluation and
assessment of potential regional versus individual benefits from proposed strategies
Option Description
Technical
score
(max. 15)
Environ-
mental
Score
(max. 15)
Social
Score
(max. 15)
Benefits
of
Regional
Cooper-
ation
Municipal
1 Regional best practice kerbside collection
» Garbage collection 1
» Recyclables collection 5
» Garden organics collection
15
6
2 H
2 Fortnightly combined food and garden
organics collection processed by:
» Open windrow composting 12
» Enclosed composting 10
12 4 H
3 Household hazardous waste additional
collection or drop-off services
12 5 7 M
4 Services for electronic wastes and
household appliances
10 6 7 M
5 Council waste management and reduction
strategies
NA 4 2 L – M
6 Collection of source separated household
hard waste
11 5 4 M - H
7 Regional Materials Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
15 9 8 H
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service for C&I
properties
NS NS NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased sorting
and recovery of C&I waste
10 7 4 H
10 Management of industrial and special
wastes
NA 5 5 M
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing as per
Eco-Industrial precinct model
» Development of a new liquid waste
treatment plant within the Region
NA
» Motor oil collection at additional
garages and service stations
12
» Oil collection at waste facilities 15
5 5 H
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct NA NA NA NA
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Technical
score
(max. 15)
Environ-
mental
Score
(max. 15)
Social
Score
(max. 15)
Benefits
of
Regional
Cooper-
ation
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale of C&D materials
13 12 7 H
Other
14 AWT processing of kerbside garbage
stream
12 11 2 H
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin collection
system. Mixed waste stream processed
using AWT.
NS NS NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s for household
hard waste items and second hand goods
15 6 8 M
17 Increased education / regional education
strategies
NA 5 4 H
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres
NA NA NA H
19 Plastic bag reduction
13 7 5 L
20A Public place litter management
15 2 6 L
20B Public place recycling and recycling at
public events
13 3 6 L – M
21 Cooperative partnership arrangements NA NA NA NA
NA – Not able to be assessed at present
NS – Not assessed as the option is not considered potentially suitable for implementation within the timeframe of the RWMSP
H-High benefit
M-Medium benefit
L-Low benefit
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix B
Financial Analysis
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table B1 – Estimated Financial Costs
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
NO
1 Regional best practice kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables, and garden organics (3-bin
MGB system). Refer to Appendix H for outline of
Scenario A and Scenario B.
» Garbage collection and disposal – Scenario A
Assumes purchase of new trucks to undertake
the Regional service, and purchase of additional
bins as new at cost of $40/bin
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$11.1M/year -$0.2M
» Garbage collection and disposal – Scenario B
Assumes purchase of up to 15 second-hand
collection vehicles to undertake the Regional
service, and purchase of additional bins at
second-hand cost of $25/bin
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$9.9M/year -$1.4M/year
» Recyclables collection and processing -
Scenario A
Assumes purchase of new trucks to undertake
the Regional service, and purchase of additional
bins as new at cost of $45/bin, roll-out of new
MGB service in Unley and Holdfast Bay
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$8.0M/year +$2.6M/year
» Recyclables collection and processing –
Scenario B
Assumes purchase of up to 15 second-hand
collection vehicles to undertake the Regional
service, and purchase of additional bins at
second-hand cost of $30/bin, roll-out of new MGB
service in Unley and Holdfast Bay
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$6.7M/year +1.3M/year
» Garden organics collection and processing –
Scenario A
Assumes purchase of new trucks to undertake
the Regional service, and purchase of additional
bins as new at cost of $45/bin, fortnightly 240L
collection service in all Council areas
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$8.0M/year +$4.1M/year
» Garden organics collection and processing -
Scenario B
Assumes purchase of up to 15 second-hand
collection vehicles to undertake the Regional
service, and purchase of additional bins at
second-hand cost of $30/bin, fortnightly 240L
collection service in all Council areas
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$6.7M/year +$2.8M/year
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
2 Combined food and garden organics fortnightly
collection
» Organics collection (fortnightly organics
collection provided for all council areas)
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$7.1M/ year +2.7M/year
» Open windrow composting –processing costs
organics, landfill cost for garbage
$10.9M/ year
garbage
$11.1M/ year
organics
-$0.5M/year
+$7.0M/year
» Enclosed composting –processing costs
organics, landfill cost for garbage
$10.9M/ year
garbage
$13.0M/ year
organics
-$0.5M/year
+9.0M/year
3 Household hazardous waste additional collection
or drop-off services
» For additional one-day drop-off events in each
LGA
$175,000 -
$280,000/
event
$175,000 -
$280,000/
event
» On-call collection service $200,000/yr $200,000/yr
» Establish drop-off facility at an existing Council
depot
$50,000 $70,000/year $70,000/year +
$50,000
implementation
cost
4 Services for electronic wastes and household
appliances
» On-call collection service $270,000/
year
$270,000/yea
r
» Permanent drop off facility $60,000/
year
4
$60,000/year
5 Reducing Council waste – cost for regional audit
and assessment
$60,000 Dependant
on
opportunities
identified
through audit
process
$60,000 +
Potential
collection
and
processing
costs
4
Assumes drop off facility is co-located at an existing reuse centre or Council depot, therefore no additional land acquisition or
staffing costs
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
6 Modified collection of source separated
household hard waste – cost for regional audit
and customer survey as outlined in Appendix H
$55,000 Depends on
opportunities
identified
through audit
process
$55,000 +
ongoing
costs that are
dependant
on
opportunities
identified
through audit
process
7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for recyclables.
$10M $3.7M/
year **
-$0.59M/
year***
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service for C&I
properties
NS NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased sorting and
recovery of C&I waste
$5.0M $1.8M/year $1.8M/year +
$5.0M
implementati
on cost
10 Management of industrial and special wastes
(cleaner production initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
$15,000 $172,000/ye
ar
$172,000/year
+ $15,000
implementation
cost
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing as per Eco-
Industrial precinct model
» Development of a new liquid waste
treatment plant within the SW Region
NA NA NA
» Motor oil collection at additional garages and
service stations
Included in
ongoing costs
$54,000/yea
r
$54,000/year
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct NA
5
NA NA
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale of C&D materials
$5.7M $1.6M/year $1.6M/year
+$5.70M
implementation
cost
Other
14 AWT processing of kerbside garbage stream
(costs do not include waste collection)
+$9.5 -
$12.0M/year
+$5.6 -
$7.5M/year
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin collection system.
Mixed waste stream processed using AWT
NS NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s for household hard $350,000 $0 (Breaks Implementati
5
To be assessed as part of the Eco-Industrial Precinct Feasibility Study
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
waste items and second hand goods even) on cost of
$350,000
17 Increased education / regional education
strategies
$100,000/
year
6
$100,000/yea
r
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres NA NA NA
» Oil collection at waste facilities $60,000 Potential
collection
and
processing
costs
$60,000 +
Potential
collection
and
processing
costs
19 Plastic bag reduction $110,000 $110,000
20A Public place litter management NA NA NA
20B Public place recycling and recycling at public
events
» Recycling at shopping centres $20,000 $15,000/
year
$15,000/year
+ $20,000
implementatio
n cost
» Recycling at public events NA NA NA
21 Cooperative partnership arrangement with
commercial operators and stakeholders from
the waste industry
NA NA NA
6
Cost of staff only, additional costs for printing and distribution of education materials as required and costs associated with any
special event promotions
** Assumes 24,500 tonnes processed pa at $150/tonne gross processing cost and $35/tonne disposal cost
*** Assumes annual disposal cost of $40/tonne less 25% share of recyclables revenue estimated at $100/tonne
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix C
Cost Benefit Analysis
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table C1 - Benefits and Costs
Option Description Benefits Costs
Municipal
1 Regional best
practice
kerbside
collection of
garbage,
recyclables, and
garden organics
» Avoided landfill costs from improved
services for recyclables and garden
organics resulting in a reduction in
waste to landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
» Possible disposal of existing
Council owned collection
vehicles and deployment of
collection staff
» Additional greenhouse gases
from collection vehicles due to
increased level of service in
some areas
2 Combined food
and garden
organics
fortnightly
collection with
composting
» Increased employment from
expansion of the composting industry
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT technology)
» Residents inconvenience to
separate food organics
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the
composting operation (odour,
traffic)
» Potential costs of detecting,
preventing, and managing
contamination
» Education campaigns to
ensure integrity of the system
3 Household
hazardous
waste additional
collection or
drop-off
services
» Increased direct and indirect
employment from service provision
and the processing and disposal of
collected materials
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Increased risk of accidents if
residents are required to
separate and transport
materials to a drop-off facility
» Cost of managing and
operating the service
4 Services for
electronic
wastes and
household
appliances
» Increased direct and indirect
employment from service provision
and the support of markets for
materials reuse and recycling
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
potential leakage of hazardous
materials from electronic wastes and
household appliances
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Increased green house gas
emissions from collection
vehicles if additional collection
service is provided
» Cost of selling materials
collected to reprocessors
» Potential costs of landfilling is
markets fail
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
5 Reducing
Council wastes
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
» Cost of peoples time to
establish and maintain
programs
6 Changes to the
household hard
waste collection
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increased reuse and recycling
of hard waste items.
» Social cost if less convenient
service is provided
» Additional greenhouse gas
emissions if collection is
provided to all households on
a set-regular day
» Costs of disposing of more
collected materials is a more
convenient service is offered
7 Regional MRF
for recyclables
» Potential reduction in kerbside
recycling annual cost due to revenue
from site rental or commodity sales
» Potential employment in the region
» Potential support to Eco-Waste
Industrial Precinct
» Opportunities to support recyclables
disposal for local commercial and
industrial premises
» Site purchase costs
» Additional establishment
costs to private sector
» Additional contract
administration costs
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food
collection
service for C&I
properties
followed by
AWT processing
of organics
» Increased employment from
operation of an AWT facility, and
increased indirect employment from
supporting jobs in manufacturing
and reprocessing of recovered
recyclables
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste
to landfill
» Cost of segregating food
organics and maintaining
separate collection service
(time and administration)
» Increased greenhouse gas
emissions from operating a
separate collection service for
food organics
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the AWT
operation (odour, traffic, noise)
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Revenue from compost sales
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT
technology)
» Cost of education campaign to
prevent contamination
9 Regional C&I
MRF for
increased
sorting and
recovery of C&I
waste
» Increased direct and indirect
employment
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to centralised location of
facilities in the SW Region (reduced
requirements to transport materials
to northern Adelaide or other
regions)
» Costs of dealing with
contamination
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the C&I
materials recovery operation
(noise and litter)
10 Management of
industrial and
special wastes
(cleaner
production
initiatives and
eco-efficiency)
» Benefits cannot be accurately
determined without further detail of
proposed cleaner production
initiatives, however in general, most
cleaner production initiatives would
result in:
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material; and
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Costs of changing production
processes and procedures at
industrial facilities (however a
lot of these should be offset by
production and waste cost
savings)
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
11 Industrial and
liquid waste
services
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Potential contamination of
collected liquid wastes
» Transport costs and
environmental costs
(greenhouse gases) associated
with increased vehicle
movements for waste collection
12 Eco-Industrial
Precinct
Benefits cannot be accurately
determined without further detail of
proposed activities in eco-industrial
precinct, however benefits would likely
include:
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to centralised location of
facilities in the SW Region (reduced
requirements to transport materials
to northern Adelaide or other
regions)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material; and
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Interdependence between
industries means failure of one
business could undermine
entire precinct – potential cost
associated with this may be
quite significant
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D
depot for
accepting,
sorting,
processing, and
resale of C&D
materials
» Increased direct and indirect
employment
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to centralised location of
facilities in the SW Region (reduced
requirements to transport materials
to northern Adelaide or other
regions)
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the C&D
materials recovery operation
(dust, noise, and litter)
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
Other
14 AWT processing
of kerbside
garbage
(retaining
separate
collection of
garden organics
and recyclables,
3-bin system)
» Increased employment from
operation of an AWT facility, and
increased indirect employment from
supporting jobs in manufacturing
and reprocessing of recovered
recyclables
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste
to landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material (over and above Option 1)
» Improved soils (and reduced
reliance on chemical fertilisers) from
land application of compost
materials from the AWT process
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT
technology)
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the AWT
operation (odour, traffic, noise)
» Cost of transporting and
handling extra recyclables,
compost, green energy
» Potential costs of landfilling low
grade compost produced if it
cannot be marketed
15 Move from a 3-
bin to 1-bin
collection
system. Mixed
waste stream
processed using
AWT
» Increased employment from
operation of an AWT facility, and
increased indirect employment from
supporting jobs in manufacturing
and reprocessing of recovered
recyclables
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Revenue from sale of MGBs
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste
to landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material (over and above Option 1)
» Decreased employment from
requiring less collection
vehicles
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Potential negative impact on
community attitudes and
behaviour to resource recovery
and recycling
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the AWT
operation (odour, traffic, noise)
» Cost of transporting and
handling extra recyclables,
compost, green energy
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
» Improved soils (and reduced
reliance on chemical fertilisers) from
land application of compost
materials from the AWT process
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT
technology)
» Potential costs of landfilling low
grade compost produced if it
cannot be marketed
16 Revolve type
operation/s for
household hard
waste items and
second hand
goods
» Increased employment from
operation of the reuse centre
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Social benefits associated with sale
of low-cost second-hand goods to
the public
» Social benefits from possible
training and employment of the
disabled at the reuse centre
(depending on preferred operating
arrangement)
» Possible negative impact on
existing second-hand stores
» Cost of running operation and
disposal of non-purchased
items
17 Increased
education /
regional
education
strategies
» Avoided landfill costs from improved
progress towards waste avoidance,
increased participation in recycling
and organics collection services,
and decreased contamination of
recyclables and organics
» Costs of running campaigns
18 Increased reuse
recycling of
tyres
» Increased direct and indirect
employment from service provision
and the support of markets for
materials reuse and recycling
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Potential costs associated with
continued landfilling of
shredded tyres if campaign fails
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
19 Plastic bag
reduction
» Avoided environmental harm from
plastic bag litter
» Improved visual amenity
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to decreased requirements for
plastic bag manufacture
» Environmental cost associated
with producing and end-of-life
management for reusable (or
other) alternate bags to plastic
» Consumer purchase costs of
reusable bags
20A Public place
litter
management
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of waters with litter
» Improved visual amenity
» Costs of installing new bins and
disposing of old ones (if
standardising bin infrastructure
s is part of the Regional litter
management strategy)
20B Public place
recycling and
recycling at
public events
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Costs of dealing with
contamination in bins
21 Cooperative
partnership
arrangement
with
commercial
operators and
stakeholders
from the waste
industry
Benefits cannot be accurately
determined at this time, however
assuming the partnership arrangement
result in improved waste management
practises and pursuit of cleaner
production, possible benefits may
include:
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material; and
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Cost of peoples time to be
involved in the partnership
program
» Cost of any initiatives
undertaken
» Reduced competitiveness of
industry through less
differentiation in services
offered
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix D
Risk Assessment
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table D1 Key risks
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
Municipal
1 Regional best practice
kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables,
and garden organics
» Selecting unsuitable system
» Tied into long-term contracts
» Payment of cancellation fees
for existing contracts
» Require contract terms less
than 7 years
» Progressively implement
regional service as individual
contracts expire
2 Combined food and
garden organics
fortnightly collection
with composting
» Lower than expected market
demand for compost products
» Higher per unit cost of
processing (if using enclosed
composting) where insufficient
organics quantities available to
achieve economies of scale
» High contamination of
combined organics stream
» Councils commit to buying
recovered compost products
» Use modular process
» Control contamination
through educational
campaigns and regular bin
inspections
3 Household hazardous
waste additional
collection or drop-off
services
» Poor utilisation of staff and
high per unit costs where there
is low participation in the
service
» Cost of disposal may be
prohibitive where large
amounts of hazardous waste
are collected, would need to
be recovered through some
form of charge to residents.
» Wide scale promotion of the
service across the SW
Region
» Costs of service provision to
be incorporated in domestic
waste management charges,
or costs recovered on a user-
pays basis for people using
the service
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
» Poor utilisation of staff and
high per unit costs where there
is low participation in the
service
» Low demand for recovered
components and materials
» Potential prohibitive cost of
collection, disassembly and
recycling where reprocessors
are located outside the Region
» Wide scale promotion of the
service across the SW
Region
» Costs of service provision to
be incorporated in domestic
waste management charges,
or costs recovered on a user-
pays basis for people using
the service
» Encourage establishment of
reprocessing/recovery facility
in the SW Region. Potentially,
this can be done as part of
the operations of the Reuse
Centre, or through charitable
organisations.
5 Reducing Council
wastes
» Creates animosity within staff
over new arrangements for
waste management
» Education campaign targeted
at staff understanding and
behaviour
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
6 Modification of the
household hard waste
on-call collection
» Low participation rate in
service resulting in high per
unit service costs
» Community outrage if service
is discontinued or significantly
altered
» Lower than expected market
demand for recovered
materials
» Consult with the community
prior to changing the service
» Determine community
capacity to pay, and if user-
paid service would be
appropriate
» Ensure equity in service
provision for all members of
the community, this may
require providing special
services for the elderly for
example
» Engage Reuse Centre (if
operating) to collect, repair,
and re-sell household items
7 Regional MRF for
recyclables
» Waste throughput – lower than
expected throughput can
increase per unit costs of
processing
» Lower market demand than
expected for recovered
materials
» Contamination levels high
» Already have a regional MRF
in region which may reduce
prices to compete
» Regional collection contract
written so that all kerbside
recyclables disposed at the
facility as a nominated facility
» Specification determines
quality requirements
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food
collection service for
C&I properties
» Low participation rate in the
service resulting in high per
unit costs of collection and
processing
» Higher cost of AWT
processing compared to
landfill
» Failure to obtain required
waste throughput for
economies of scale
» Contamination of collected
organics
» Confirm future agreements
with potential customers prior
to commencing the service
and establishing the facility
» Include specific requirements
for low contamination as part
of the customer contract
agreement
» Select modular AWT process
9 Regional C&I MRF for
increased sorting and
recovery of C&I waste
» Variable composition of C&I
waste resulting in changes to
types and quantities of
recovered materials
» Waste throughput – lower than
expected throughput can
increase per unit costs of
processing
» Undertake detailed audit over
significant period to confirm
potential variations in C&I
waste type and quantity
» Confirm future agreements
with potential customers prior
to commencing the service
and establishing the facility
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
» Lower market demand than
expected for recovered
materials
» Design and operate facility
such that there is flexibility to
increase/decrease recovery
of selected materials
according to market demand
10 Management of
industrial and special
wastes (cleaner
production initiatives
and eco-efficiency)
» Failure of industry to truly
embrace cleaner production
initiatives, even with Council
assistance
» Limit Councils involvement
with industry to one of
information provision and
facilitation
» Encourage industry
associations to take an active
role in working with industry
members to implement
cleaner production
11 Industrial and liquid
waste sharing as per
Eco-Industrial precinct
model
» Increase in cost of liquid waste
collection and recycling
» Where drop-off points are
provided at Council facilities,
cost of service provision to be
recovered through gate fees
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct » Low support from both industry
and the general community for
the precinct
» Failure to achieve required
waste throughput for
economies of scale
» Risks associated with selected
processing technologies
» Engage with industry and the
community from the outset to
determine requirements for a
successful precinct
» Ensure Precinct design will
allow for future flexibility in
terms of activities and waste
throughputs
Construction
13 Regional C&D depot
for accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale
of C&D materials
» Composition of C&D waste.
Analysis based on assumed
percentage of recoverable
materials.
» Waste throughput – low than
expected throughput can
increase per unit costs of
processing
» Lower market demand than
expected for recovered
materials
» Undertake detailed audit over
significant period to confirm
potential variations in C&D
waste type and quantity
» Wide scale promotion of the
depot across the SW Region,
including promoting
availability of low-cost
materials for reuse
» Councils commit to buying
recycled products from the
facility
» Promote small-scale
operators to be involved in
the establishment and
operation of the Regional
facility to consolidated
materials available for
processing
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
Other
14 AWT processing of
kerbside garbage
stream
» Higher cost of mixed waste
AWT processing compared to
landfill
» Lower than expected market
demand for recovered
materials
» Lock in set processing cost
($/tonne) in contract
» Councils commit to buying
recovered compost products
from the process, or Councils
assume no responsibility for
marketing and selling
recovered products
15 Move from a 3-bin to
1-bin collection
system. Mixed waste
stream processed
using AWT
» Higher cost of mixed waste
AWT processing compared to
landfill
» Lower than expected market
demand for recovered
materials
» Lock in set processing cost
($/tonne) in contract
» Councils commit to buying
recovered compost products
from the process, or Councils
assume no responsibility for
marketing and selling
recovered products
16 Revolve type
operation/s for
household hard waste
items and second
hand goods
» Low patronage of the reuse
centre
» Failure to achieve high
turnover and attract donations
of good quality reusable items
» High staff costs vs reliance on
volunteers
» Wide scale promotion of the
centre across the SW Region
» Potentially offer free collection
of reusable items in good
condition from households
» Encourage charitable (and
other similar) organisations to
be involved in the operation of
the facility
17 Increased education /
regional education
strategies
» Insufficient time for education
officers to adequately deal with
local issues
» Duplication of education
materials where services differ
across Council areas (need 2
sets of education materials)
» Ensure adequate number of
staff employed to provide
education services
» Attempt to standardise waste
services across the SW
Region where possible, or
define boundaries within
which Regional education
strategies are to operate
(versus individual
approaches)
18 Increased reuse /
recycling of tyres
» No available reuse options to
support sustainable market
» Councils take a position of
lobbying and support for
further development of tyre
recycling industry
19 Plastic bag reduction » Consumer backlash,
especially if consumers are
made to buy bin liners where
previously plastic bags were
used
» Encourage consumers to
purchase biodegradable bin
liners
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
20A Public place litter
management
» Resistance of Councils to
change
» Agreement on objectives and
actions required for regional
approaches to litter
management
20B Public place recycling
and recycling at public
events
» High contamination of
recyclables resulting in
disposal of collected materials
to landfill (higher disposal cost
compared to recycling)
» Low collection rates of
recyclables resulting in high
per unit collection service
costs
» Time required to manage and
organise recycling at public
events may be considerable
» Ensure public place recycling
is supported by long-term
education strategies to
address contamination
» Locate public place recycling
bins where large quantities of
recyclable containers are
likely to be generated (for
example food courts, picnic
areas, etc)
» Design and locate public
place recycling bins such that
they can be collected easily,
and at a similar cost to
existing recyclables collection
services (for example by
combining their collection with
the domestic kerbside
recycling service)
» Incorporate charges for
assisting with, or providing
waste management services
are included in the cost of
facilities hire or public event
fees where possible.
21 Cooperative
partnership
arrangements
» Breakdown of cooperative
partnerships due to vested
interests
» Independent facilitators used
for meetings
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix E
Waste Industry Stakeholder Workshop
Outcomes
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Waste Industry Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes
Background
The objectives of this workshop were to test the feasibility and desirability of each of
the options outlined in the Stage 3 Background Report for the RWMSP. Both Council
and Industry stakeholders were invited to this workshop, which was the second with
this group. At the beginning of the meeting, Council representatives expressed that
they were more interested in the industry perspective given that they had already
discussed many of these issues in detail. Therefore the outcomes of the workshop
session are biased toward an industry perspective. All but two of the attendees
participated in the workshop session.
Attendees
Name Representing Workshop Group
Robyn Butterfield City of West Torrens 1
Steve Hodge City of Holdfast Bay 2
Ben Calder City of Onkaparinga 1
Justin Wynn City of Onkaparinga 1
Michele Bonnici City of Unley 2
Marnie Lynch City of Unley
Peter Tsokas City of Marion 3
Craig Walker City of Mitcham 3
Josh Bruce EPA 3
Lachlan Jeffries Jeffries Garden Soils 2
Mick Haywood Resource Co. 2
Rob Gabb Lucas Earthmovers 3
Ben Lucas Lucas Earthmovers 3
Geoff Johnson East Waste
Colin Mc Ardle Cleanaway 1
Jan Smealan Lonsdale Landfill 1
Paul Whiffen Boral Resources (SA) Ltd. 1
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Agenda
» Introductions;
» Recap on workshop #1;
» Presentation of preliminary RWMSP options and actions;
» Workshop each option in small groups;
» Report back and summarise comments and rankings for each option;
» Presentation of Eco Industrial Precinct Feasibility Study findings;
» Discussion; and
» Sum up, where to from here?
Outcomes of the workshop sessions
Participants were divided into three groups. Each group comprised of some Council
and Industry representatives. They were asked to consider each option. Firstly they
were asked whether or not each option was achievable and then they ranked the
option in terms of its importance or priority. Comments were made justifying their rank.
1. Is this achievable?
2. In terms of achieving targets, how important is this option?
Ranking options in order of importance / priority
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
significant
Very little Moderate Significant Very
significant
The following tables are a direct transcript of each groups comment and ranking
against the options.
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Group 1
Option Comments RANK
1 Regional best-practice
kerbside collection
services
Inevitable
Be wary of contract size (need flexibility
across systems)
5
2 Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and
food organics, with
organics processed by
either open windrow or
enclosed composting
processes
Economies of scale 5
3 Increased services for
household hazardous
wastes
Need more access to these services 3
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
Costly 2
5 Council wastes 4
6 Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
Poor diversion
On-demand system no sustainable
Support contractors
3
7 Local Government equity
in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
Rates based? 4
8 Designated food
organics collection
service for the
commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
Limited value without pooling waste
EEPT for large producers
1
9 Establishment of a
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
Quantity based 4
10 Regional Support of
waste programs
targeting industry,
including implementation
of cleaner production
processes
Already happening. Zero Waste / EPA 3
11 Liquid waste services Treatment Plant quantity / volume
based
2
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
12 Establishment of an Eco-
Industrial Precinct
Thought it was inevitable / happening? 5
13 Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
Existing facilities handling this 1
14 Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
Has been proposed
Cost may be an issue
4
15 Single bin collection
system combined with
AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
Contamination issues
Costly
Very large volumes
2
16 Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
Difficult to implement for low returns 1
17 Regional Approaches to
Waste Education
Happening now – Zero Waste 3
18 Tyres Needs market
Created by Government? (Eg VIC)
3
19 Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
Legislative action required 5
20 Public place litter
management and public
place recycling
Education strategies 3
21 Formation of Regional
Partnerships
Project driven 2
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Group 2
Option Comments RANK
1 Regional best-practice
kerbside collection
services
May not be achievable due to EM’s
Key is to have a consistent approach
across the region
Issue of frustration, 32 different systems
in the City
5
2 Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and
food organics, with
organics processed by
either open windrow or
enclosed composting
processes
May need to be weekly (in high build up
areas or in the summer)
In peak growing times, capacity issues
There is no enclosed composting in
Adelaide
75-80% increase in cost for industry for
enclosed composting
3-4
3 Increased services for
household hazardous
wastes
Is costly, is an EPR / SA Govt issue
If going to sell an item into the market,
then should take some responsibility for
the waste
Would need some legislative change
4-5
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
EPR responsibility
Could annex at MRF
2
5 Council wastes Lead from the front
Learn to close the circle
Green procurement policies
We have control
5
6 Modifications to the
domestic kerbside
hard-waste collection
service
Prevents illegal dumping
Good education tool – home source
division and diversion to revolve
2-3
7 Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables.
If is makes it economic
It won’t work, needs North/South
infrastructure for this to work
If uniform collection, 10 year contracts (3
year review)
2
8 Designated food
organics collection
service for the
commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
Covers too big an area, with too little
waste
Too used to 1 bin
1
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
9 Establishment of a
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
Not sure why separate from C&D waste
Why the distinction between C&D and
C&I?
4
10 Regional Support of
waste programs
targeting industry,
including
implementation of
cleaner production
processes
Is a Council issue
EPA to fund this, Council to focus on
particular areas
1-2
11 Liquid waste services Not such as issue
Like to see waste tracking service of liquid
waste
1-2
12 Establishment of an
Eco-Industrial Precinct
Will need cluster of like industries
Will be important to factor other small
operators on other sites.
5
13 Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
To young an area for this
Put these in one place
Need 200,000 tonnes available and a
monopoly to get the economy
$10 million set up cost
4
14 Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
0
15 Single bin collection
system combined with
AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
0
16 Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
Very nice
Partner with Anglicare
5
17 Regional Approaches
to Waste Education
Part of a uniform waste collection 5
18 Tyres Good calorific value (38-39 mega joules in
each tonne of tyres, 8000 tonnes of tyres
in the region)
EPR responsibility, pay a levy and put to
disposer
3-4
19 Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
Important issue but we’re over it 1
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
20 Public place litter
management and
public place recycling
Standardisation of recycling reinforces
education messages
3-4
21 Formation of Regional
Partnerships
Very suitable and adds value to results
Starts well, ends poorly
Economies of scale
Tendency to favour larger operators,
squeezes others out
Need to use the regional partnership to
drive down price
3-4
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Group 3
Option Comments RANK
1 Regional best-practice
kerbside collection
services
Economy of scale, linked to MRF or
similar processing facility
Potentially 1 regional MRF for all bins
5
2 Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and
food organics, with
organics processed by
either open windrow or
enclosed composting
processes
Not just composting (e.g. digestion)
Management of bins
Siting of processing facility (approved
facility in place)
End markets to support collections (need
to understand markets)
4
3 Increased services for
household hazardous
wastes
Type of hazardous wastes and quantities
Who pays?
Need to understand the need for service
and extent (nature of wastes)
EPA licensing issues
3
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
Where does it go? (China no good)
Sorting issues at the MRF
Separate collection service – costly?
3
5 Council wastes Treated as any other commercial waste 3
6 Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
Specific hard waste collections (source
separation)
More frequent collections per year is
better
Need to understand waste streams and
determine collection needs
4
7 Local Government equity
in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
Equity not issue
Need commitment to; economy of scale,
to siting and to community interests
Need to better understand waste streams
to determine collection needs
2
8 Designated food organics
collection service for the
commercial and Industrial
(C&I) sector
End markets for use of materials
Cost, who pays?
Need for site to handle waste
Potential difficulties at premises for bin
location
5
9 Establishment of a
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
Economy of scale
Sites to handle waste
5
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
10 Regional Support of
waste programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
Who pays?
Who coordinates?
Industry education
Need for incentives
3
11 Liquid waste services Already addressed 1
12 Establishment of an Eco-
Industrial Precinct
Need for it, but driven by economies of
scale
EPA licensing issues
SRWRA role?
Siting considerations
Need for LG commitment on waste
5
13 Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
Done 1
14 Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
Economy of scale / Council commitment
of waste
Subsidisation of landfill
Need for increased levies / incentives
1
15 Single bin collection
system combined with
AWT processing of mixed
waste stream
1
16 Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
2
17 Regional Approaches to
Waste Education
Limited role from industry
Dependant on impact on end markets
2
18 Tyres End market needed
Policy stance to ban from landfill
3
19 Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
1
20 Public place litter
management and public
place recycling
1
21 Formation of Regional
Partnerships
Potential impact on economies of scale
Councils have part to play in looking at
their waste strategy
Stop discounting landfill
5
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Issues / Ranking Summary
Once the workshop session was over the groups came together to report back.
Rankings and key comments were reported, discussed and summarised on a master
sheet. The results are outlined here.
Issues and Ranking Summary
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
1 Regional
best-practice
kerbside
collection
services
Frustration – many services
Economy of scale
Contract size
2 Fortnightly
collection of
combined
garden and
food
organics, with
organics
processed by
either open
windrow or
enclosed
composting
processes
Economies of scale
More options
Siting, end markets, suitability of
collection (seasonal)
3 Increased
services for
household
hazardous
wastes
EPR issue?
Not community’s responsibility
Which wastes?
Who pays?
Access to services
4 Services for
electronic
wastes and
household
appliances
EPR
1 regional MRF
Costly
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
5 Council
wastes
Easy to do – Council control
Buy back policy
Why is Council waste so
special?
6 Modifications
to the
domestic
kerbside
hard-waste
collection
service
Education, minimise dumping
Low volume
Private contractors
Focus – targeted (C&D)
7 Local
Government
equity in a
Regional
Materials
Recovery
Facility for
recyclables.
Opportunities for partnerships
Don’t think it will work (too slow)
Local government to facilitate
more input
8 Designated
food organics
collection
service for
the
commercial
and Industrial
(C&I) sector
Easy
Large area – small volume
9 Establishmen
t of a
Materials
Recovery
Facility (MRF)
for C&I
wastes
Resources
Economies of scale
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
10 Regional
Support of
waste
programs
targeting
industry,
including
implementati
on of cleaner
production
processes
EPA funding – Council issue
Could waste industry have an
impact?
Already happening
11 Liquid waste
services
Dependant on volumes
Already done
Not a huge issue
12 Establishmen
t of an Eco-
Industrial
Precinct
Coordination required
Love it
Already happening?
13 Establishment
of a Regional
Depot of C&D
materials
C&D already OK
Facilities exist
14 Alternate
Waste
Technology
(AWT)
processing of
kerbside
collected
garbage
Is it possible?
Council subsidize landfill - so
why?
For kerbside green organics
15 Single bin
collection
system
combined
with AWT
processing of
mixed waste
stream
As above
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
16 Establishmen
t of a
Revolve/
Reuse centre
Warm fuzzy
Sounds great
Difficult, low returns
17 Regional
Approaches
to Waste
Education
Refer to option 1, reinforces
zero waste
Required with uniform services
Private sector role
Happening now
18 Tyres Government to create market
demand
Not important without end
market
Producer responsibility
Why chop them up before going
to landfill?
19 Regional
plastic bag
reduction
strategies
Ban in process
Not a private sector focus
N/A?
20 Public place
litter
management
and public
place
recycling
Role of private sector?
Important to Council
Current process in public
domain is different, consistency
of approach required
21 Formation of
Regional
Partnerships
Needs to be project specific
May get good results
Disadvantages industry
Justify infrastructure
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Eco-Industrial Precinct
Following a presentation by Doug Bowers on the findings of the Eco-Industrial Precinct
Feasibility Study, the group discussed various issues. A summary of the discussion is
included here.
Council / Industry role
» Council is seeking partners and synergies;
» Industry view is that Council needs to move the process forward, needs to facilitate
the process and reduce obstacles. A coordination and liaison role is very important
for Council (planning approvals etc.);
» Council needs to lead this, make it happen, industry needs something tangible;
» If each industry worked separately it would take too long to get off the ground;
» Council to be guided by industry on the vision;
» Industry – a whole range of people want to get involved.
Viability / Feasibility
» Wide support for an industry wide facility;
» New facility will be of a high standard, which means it will be costly, is that going to
be viable?
» Resource Co. plans to integrate others, their site may/may not become the Eco-
Industrial Precinct;
» Flexibility with regards to the tenancy is essential because of the fast changing
nature of the industry;
» View that precincts don’t work because we are dealing with low value commodities,
people won’t travel long distances, need to consider what infrastructure already
exists;
» Success of precinct will be demonstrated by how well it recycles a range of wastes
and the quantity of waste is deals with;
» Need to be aware of market forces, not everyone will want to jump on board;
» Long term viability – need to consider the types of wastes to be processed, being
too prescriptive is dangerous.
Revolve Centre
» Should a Revolve Centre be incorporated into the Eco Industrial Precinct?
» The key to the success of a Revolve Centre is that it’s accessible, it must be easy to
access / use. Maybe better to have a number of them, not just one large facility.
» There is a strong link between a Revolve Centre and Hard Waste.
» Should be driven by Local Government / the community.
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Unlikely to be taken up by industry, not likely to be economically viable, could be set
up as a non-profit organisation.
Site
» Larger site, a one-stop-shop would be best;
» This is vital to the success of the project;
» Needs to be close to landfill because of transport costs;
» The nature of the industries will dictate site suitability;
» Site 5 has a big buffer. Need control of development around the precinct.
Other issues
» Are alternate energy sources viable without subsidisation?
Sum up, where to from here?
The outcomes of the workshop were summed up and participants were notified of the
next steps in the process. The outcomes of the workshop (this document) are to be
circulated to all attendees as an appendix to the Stage 3 Report for their feedback. The
Community Panel and general community will also be invited to comment on the Draft
Report.
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix F
Options Report Summary
Southern and Western
Region
Report for Regional Waste
Management Strategy
Community Consultation
Summary Report
August 2006
33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Results: 1
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Feedback on Options proposed from the Community Panel and
public 3
1.2 Household and Council Waste Options 7
1.3 Commercial and Industrial Options 20
1.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Options 31
1.5 Other options (14 – 21) 35
Table Index
Table 1 Q.1 Gender 4
Table 2 Q.2 Age 4
Table 3 Q.3 Postcode 5
Table 4 Q.4 Are you a member of a community interest
group? 6
Table 5 Acceptable to the Community? 7
Table 6 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 9
Table 7 Assign priority 11
Table 8 Option 1: Regional best-practice kerbside collection
service 13
Table 9 Option 2: Fortnightly collection of combined garden
and food organics 14
Table 10 Option 3: Increased services for household
hazardous wastes 15
Table 11 Option 4: Services for electronic wastes and
household appliances 16
Table 12 Option 5: Council Waste 17
Table 13 Option 6: Modifications to the domestic kerbside
hard-waste collection service 18
Table 14 Option 7: Local Government equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery Facility for recyclables 19
Table 15 Acceptable to the community? 20
Table 16 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 22
33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 17 Assign priority 24
Table 18 Option 8: Designated food organic collection
service for the commercial and Industrial (C&I)
sector 26
Table 19 Option 9: Establishment of a Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I wastes 27
Table 20 Option 10: Regional support of waste programs
targeting industry, including implementation of
cleaner production processes 28
Table 21 Option 11: Liquid waste services 29
Table 22 Option 12: Establishment of an Eco-Industrial
Precinct 30
Table 23 Acceptable to the community? 31
Table 24 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 32
Table 25 Assign priority 33
Table 26 Option 13: Establishment of a Regional Depot for
Construction and Demolition 34
Table 27 Acceptable to the community? 35
Table 28 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 37
Table 29 Assign priority 39
Table 30 Option 14: Alternate Waste Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside collected garbage 41
Table 31 Option 15: Single bin collection system combined
with AWT processing of mixed waste stream 42
Table 32 Option 16: Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse
centre 43
Table 33 Option 17: Regional Approaches to Waste
Education 44
Table 34 Option 18: Appropriate disposal Tyres 45
Table 35 Option 19: Regional plastic bag reduction
strategies 46
Table 36 Option 20: Public place litter management and
public place recycling 47
Table 37 Option 21: Formation of Regional Partnerships 48
1
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Executive Summary
An Options Report, incorporating the waste management options proposed as part of
the Southern and Western Councils of Adelaide Regional Waste Management Strategy
was recently put on public exhibition. A Community Panel was established in order to
obtain focused feedback. This Panel comprised a total of 46 representatives who were
nominated by each Council. The Community Panel members were sent a hard copy of
the Options Report and associated feedback form. A total of 25 responses were
received from the Community Panel (54% response rate). The Options Report was
also available to download from the project website and an online feedback form was
developed to capture feedback from they general public. This was advertised in local
newspapers. Two responses were received via the website.
The feedback form asked respondents to state their age, gender and any community
organisation, which they were associated with. Then, for each option, the following four
questions were asked.
1. Is this option acceptable to the community?
2. Is it appropriate for Councils to take responsibility for this option?
3. What priority should we give this option?
4. Provide comments where necessary
Results:
Options 1 - 7, Household and Council Waste
Generally there was very strong support for these options, with a high proportion of
respondents indicating these options are acceptable to the community and that they
were appropriate for Councils to action. Similarly most respondents considered these
options to be of either a very high or high priority. The comments made in relation to
these options generally indicated in principle support, but identified some issues and
ideas in relation to their management and operation. For example, whilst the need for a
hazardous waste collection was recognised, issues such as transport for elderly and
education regarding storage were raised. It should be noted that from the responses
received there was a clear misconception held by the community in relation to hard
waste collections. The option put to the community was for modification to the existing
hard waste service to include greater segregation of materials for either reuse or
recycling. However, comments received indicate a belief that the question related to
increased hard waste collections.
2
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Options 8 – 13, Commercial and Industrial / Construction and Demolition Waste
The feedback for this group of options was varied. While a majority of respondents
indicated that these options were acceptable to the community, they were divided over
whether or not it was appropriate for Councils to take responsibility. The comments
reflected this view, with many suggesting that industry or State Government should
take responsibility. Similarly there was a mixed response as to the priority of these
options. Concern was expressed that that some of these options would increase costs
to Councils and others suggested that there were already sufficient services/facilities in
place.
Other options (14 – 21)
With the exception of option 15, a majority of respondents felt this group of options
were acceptable to the community. Option 15 (Single bin collection system combined
with AWT) divided respondents fairly equally with respect to it’s acceptability. With
regards to whether or not Councils should take responsibility for these options, the
response was mixed, with a significant proportion answering in the negative to options
14, 15, 19 and 20. The pattern was similar with regards to the priority assigned to
these options, with options 14, 15, 19 and 20 given a relatively low priority. Comments
received indicated that there was a level of misunderstanding about what Alternative
Waste Technologies (AWT) is a perception that AWT would ‘undo’ all the good work
done recycling.
3
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1. Introduction
1.1 Feedback on Options proposed from the Community Panel
and public
Waste management options proposed as part of the Southern and Western Councils of
Adelaide Regional Waste Management Strategy were recently put on public exhibition.
A Community Panel was established in order to obtain focused feedback. This Panel
comprised a total of 46 representatives who were nominated by each Council. The
Community Panel members were sent a hard copy of the Options Report and
associated feedback form. A total of 25 responses were received from the Community
Panel (54% response rate).
The Options Report was also available to download from the project website and an
online feedback form was developed to capture feedback from they general public.
This was advertised in local newspapers. Two responses were received via the
website.
The feedback form asked respondents to state their age, gender and any community
organisation, which they were associated with. Then, for each option, the following four
questions were asked.
1. Is this option acceptable to the community? (Yes / No)
2. Is it appropriate for Councils to take responsibility for this option? (Yes / No)
3. What priority should we give this option? (Please nominate priority from 1-5
according to the scale below)
1 2 3 4 5
Very low Low Medium High Very high
4. Provide comments where necessary
All feedback from the Community Panel and public has been collated into this report
for consideration by the Steering Committee. The results have been formatted
according to the different categories of waste.
4
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Respondent characteristics
Responses from Community Panel: 25
Responses from public via website: 2
Total responses: 27 responses
Table 1 Q.1 Gender
Choice Count Percentage Answered
Male 14 53.8%
Female 12 46.2%
Table 2 Q.2 Age
Age Frequency
20 1
27 1
28 1
35 1
39 1
48 1
55 4
58 1
59 4
61 1
63 1
64 1
65 2
69 1
70 1
72 2
73 1
74 1
5
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 3 Q.3 Postcode
Postcode Suburb Frequency
5162 Morphett Vale 3
5062 Mitcham 3
5158 O’Halloran Hill 2
5045 Glenelg 2
5063 Frewville 2
5031 Torrensville 2
5167 Pt Noarlunga 1
5041 Panorama 1
5047 Marion 1
5035 Keswick 1
5052 Belair 1
5048 Brighton 1
5024 Fulham 1
5043 Ascot Park 1
5034 Millswood 1
5046 Oaklands Park 1
5061 Unley 1
5049 Seacliff Park 1
5153 Heathfield 1
6
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 4 Q.4 Are you a member of a community interest group?
Choice Count Percentage Answered
Yes - please specify: 10 43.5%
No 13 56.5%
1.1.1 Community interest groups represented:
» Volunteer at Mitcham Library
» Glenelg residents Association
» Council Environmental Advisory Group
» Elizabeth House over 50's community centre
» Volunteer Mitcham City Council - Mitcham Heritage and Justice of the peace.
Committee member of Hawthorn Bowling Club
» Clarence Pk Environment Group
» Fifty plus club, Walking group and RSL
» Dunes Revegetation
» Community Garden
» Church, Probus, Community Centre
» Probus, Meals on Wheels, Kiwonis, Neighbourhood Watch, Trees for life
» Volunteer gardener at a local railway station. Volunteer helper in a church-based
program to increase english language skills for new arrivals in Australia
» West Torrens Youth Advisory Council
» Unley Park Sports Club
7
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.2 Household and Council Waste Options
Table 5 Acceptable to the Community?
Topic Yes No
Option 1: Regional best-
practice kerbside collection
services
25 1
Option 2: Fortnightly
collection of combined
garden and food organics
21 6
Option 3: Increased services
for household hazardous
wastes
24 3
Option 4: Services for
electronic wastes and
household appliances
23 3
Option 5: Council wastes 26 1
Option 6: Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
27 0
Option 7: Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery Facility
for recyclables
19 5
8 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
9
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 6 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 1: Regional best-
practice kerbside collection
services
25 1
Option 2: Fortnightly
collection of combined
garden and food organics
22 5
Option 3: Increased services
for household hazardous
wastes
25 2
Option 4: Services for
electronic wastes and
household appliances
22 4
Option 5: Council wastes 26 1
Option 6: Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
27 0
Option 7: Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery Facility
for recyclables
20 6
10 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
11
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 7 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 1: Regional best-practice
kerbside collection services
0 0 2 9 15
Option 2: Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and food
organics
3 5 7 11 1
Option 3: Increased services for
household hazardous wastes
1 3 8 9 5
Option 4: Services for electronic
wastes and household appliances
2 5 9 6 4
Option 5: Council wastes 0 1 0 11 14
Option 6: Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-waste
collection service
0 0 2 11 13
Option 7: Local Government
equity in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for recyclables
7 3 7 6 3
12 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
13
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.2.1 Comments regarding Household and Council Waste Options (1 – 7)
Table 8 Option 1: Regional best-practice kerbside collection service
Comments Consultants response
Space constraints and small gardens
» There may be little or no need for green organics
bins for smaller gardens.
» Multi unit dwellings may only need 1 green waste
bin for all units.
» Finding space for three bins may be a problem for
small blocks.
Garden organics services
could be optional or at a
reduced frequency.
Management- 240L bin
proven to be adequate in
volume storage capacity
for fortnightly service.
Education
» Need still more complimentary education
programmes.
» Educating residents to use the correct bin is
essential to prevent contamination
Management
» Recycling bin should be emptied weekly
» Councils should be facilitators only and services
assigned to a contractor for full operation and
administration.
Questioning need for this option
» Not convinced the only crate system doesn't work
well.
» Can cause confusion for some older people
» Too complicated for householders. Better if sorting
done in central facility
» Check cost/benefit of this compared to option 14
Yields for crates limited to
3-4 kg /pick up. OH&S
issues. Discipline and
different bin lid colours
should ensure 3 bin
system not complicated.
Option 14 would have a
higher operating cost
In favour of this option
» 3 bin system maximises and complements the
community's commitment to resource recovery and
recycling
» Excellent. Encourages people to separate waste.
» Great system - recycling made simpler
» By supplying separate bins for wastes the
community has no excuse not to recycle.
14
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 9 Option 2: Fortnightly collection of combined garden and food
organics
Comments Consultants response
Education:
» Community education would be needed
Odour:
» Weekly collection will overcome odour problems.
» Any benefit would be negated by the smell
Higher cost with weekly
service.
Alternative approaches:
» It would be more cost effective to encourage the use
of compost bins, less work by the resident.
» Encourage households to manage their own
garden/organic waste, unless they have no garden.
Difficulties:
» How can you guarantee that residents will use
biodegradable bags?
» Very difficult process to manage for householder.
Rodent issues.
» Lack of discipline from householder
» Kitchen waste not a problem. Would not participate.
Have several compost bins - one exclusively for
food scraps - vermin proof - tumble bin type.
» I think this is a good idea, although I can't see too
many on the community bothering to separate their
food waste.
Burnside trial results will
possibly provide
indications on who bio-
degradable bags used by
residents.
Rodent concerns unlikely
with a 240L bin with lid
closed.
Other suggestions:
» Biodegradable bags need to be available.
In favour of this option:
» This option will better address the issue of landfill.
» No reason why community could not separate
organics in a kitchen environment
» May not be very successful program initially, but all
new strategies have to begin somewhere
» Most excellent idea. We should at least trial it, like
Burnside is.
15
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 10 Option 3: Increased services for household hazardous wastes
Comments Consultants response
Education:
» Education is a must.
» Number to call for advice
» Community education needed on storage required.
» Residents need list of classified hazardous waste.
» Educate community to reduce use of chemicals = a
high priority, but collection still required.
Frequency of collection:
» Frequency of collection could be an issue as
residents are not likely to store hazardous material
for long periods
» Council should consider twice yearly collection and
perhaps supply a receptacle for this waste to be
transported
» Once initial 'clean out' of hazardous wastes,
perhaps less regular collection may be required
» Quarterly collection
» Provide 6 monthly basis collection at a council depot
by personnel familiar with these substances
In favour of this option:
» Storage& disposal of hazardous substances is
rigorously regulated in workplace. Nothing is done
about suburban garage /garden shed.
» Hazardous waste not collected in my area
» Important for householders to dispose of safely -
currently not enough disposal points.
Question need for this option:
» Not a serious problem for many households
» There already exist means of disposing of the small
quantity of household waste found in residential
areas
» I don't see household toxics as a big issue
Other suggestions:
» Need transport arrangements for elderly
Responsibility:
» Possibly zero waste, could help fund this initiative
» Could be a shared Council initiative
16
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 11 Option 4: Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Challenging for Council to manage.
» Is this a problem for local govt? Pick up by private
industry would be unlikely unless there was a
charge which would encourage people to dump
» Councils to collect larger appliances only.
» Recycling these items is important but State govt /
Zero Waste should help Councils
» Need to work closely with other agencies and
businesses for recycling
In favour of this option:
» No reason why Councils could provide a facility for
free drop-off similar to SIMS / KKUS AB service in
place at Netley. SA e-waste is our next BIG
challenge
Alternative approaches:
» Private enterprise opportunity
» What about a recycling re-use levy at the time of
purchase
» Recycling depots would reduce unsaleable goods
left at charity bins.
» Emphasis on repair/revise if possible (perhaps
centre is supported by government funds to get
established)
» Why not hold onto these items for yearly hard
rubbish? Often left in street/kerb for anyone to pick-
up or scavenge
No guarantee of recovery
/recycling with this
approach (hard waste /
scavenging)
Collection:
» On call collection service is the best option, as many
residents do not have the means to transport this
type of waste easily.
» Drop off centre would be of benefit with technology,
this need will grow
» Hard rubbish collection often receives these items.
No more frequently than biannual collection required
» Central Council receiving area for those with
transport.
» Need to reduce cost of disposal to residents to
reduce roadside dumping.
17
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Comments Consultants response
Cost:
» A small fee for this service would be appropriate;
user pays.
» Should be provided by Council staff / vehicles
» Will have additional costs for homeowners,
especially the elderly without transport.
Question need for this option:
» There already exists free deposit depots for TV’s,
DVD’s, computers and printers for residents and
businesses
Table 12 Option 5: Council Waste
Comments Consultants response
In favour of this option:
» Council MUST lead by example. If they are
encouraging the community to do the right thing, so
should they
» I agree with benefits as listed. Upgrading of
monitoring and reporting is definitely needed
» Councils should aim for 'best practice' (zero waste)
by adapting full facilities and educating staff in their
own operations
» Western suburb councils should lead the way, go
team!
Education:
» Reporting to residents at rate times would be
beneficial and cut the cost of separate mail out
» Big emphasis of this project in the media would be
extremely valuable
Questioning priority of this option:
» But if councils can care for all their rubbish, why not
ratepayers as well? Why high for the Council but
medium/low for ratepayers?
18
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 13 Option 6: Modifications to the domestic kerbside hard-waste
collection service
Comments Consultants response
Collection frequency:
» My Council collect once per year; perhaps this could
be increased to twice per year.
» Need to be able to get rid of unwanted materials more
frequently then annually.
» A set day for each section of council area would make
for more efficiency.
» Suggest one collection every 2 months by suburb.
In favour of this option:
» Illegal dumping is rife in broad areas within SA. Hard
waste collection may assist in reducing this.
» I don't believe it would be too onerous for residents to
place hard waste into piles.
» Many people rely on this service, as they have no
means of getting their hard waste to a depot.
» Household electrical goods are hard to dispose of
when in good working order as charities won't accept
» Hard waste collection needs to be available and
accessible. Current 'dump' arrangements are too
costly and difficult to access.
» Makes great sense to have items/materials
revolved/reused by any one?
» Re-use of these items is a must, could be donated by
Council to charity.
» Recycling of the remaining waste is also a must.
Timber, plastic and metals are easily separated
Other suggestions:
» Suggest councils issue voucher for one trailer load of
rubbish to be taken to transfer station by each
ratepayer per year. Cheaper and easier option
» Random dumping should be more strictly policed
Limitations:
» Does not allow for the current practice of unofficial
recycling, taking, replacing by unauthorised
individuals.
19
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 14 Option 7: Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
Comments Consultants response
Question need for / viability of this option:
» While resource share sounds like a good idea,
equitable revenue sharing would require complicated
formulae. Agree low priority
» Trials needed to assess potential success of this
innovative project
» Not of great interest
» Private and government enterprises rarely work
» Councils have costs in collection and need to recover
them. Privatisation is not necessarily the best option.
» More responsibility for Councils to market recyclables
to ensure cost effective and financial returns. Councils
could at times have financial loss.
» Risky operation. Who can say if it would be
viable/profitable? Leave to private enterprise
» Why would this happen?
» Administration costs too high for low return - instead
put towards lowering rates.
In favour of this option:
» At least some opportunity to recover costs as a result
of effective resource recovery initiatives
» This could provide councils with the ability to recover
some costs. Would probably require a trained person
to co-ordinate
» By promoting in its area, Councils will increase
collected recyclables. This effort should result in
Councils collecting revenue based on weight of
material
Conditions:
» Councils to act as "seed financiers" only
» The willingness to collect/sort/recycle waste should
not be too closely tied to the ability to reap financial
rewards from it.
» Education and services need secure funding.
20
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.3 Commercial and Industrial Options
Table 15 Acceptable to the community?
Topic Yes No
Option 8: Designated food
organic collection service for
the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
23 4
Option 9: Establishment of a
Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF) for C&I wastes
22 5
Option 10: Regional Support
of waste programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
22 5
Option 11: Liquid waste
services
25 2
Option 12: Establishment of
an Eco-Industrial Precinct
25 1
21 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
22
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 16 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 8: Designated food
organic collection service
for the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
15 12
Option 9: Establishment of
a Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
13 14
Option 10: Regional
Support of waste
programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
15 12
Option 11: Liquid waste
services
19 8
Option 12: Establishment
of an Eco-Industrial
Precinct
17 9
23 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
24
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 17 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 8: Designated food
organic collection service for
the commercial and Industrial
(C&I) sector
8 6 5 5 3
Option 9: Establishment of a
Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF) for C&I wastes
2 8 11 5 1
Option 10: Regional Support of
waste programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
5 2 9 7 4
Option 11: Liquid waste
services
1 3 11 8 4
Option 12: Establishment of an
Eco-Industrial Precinct
2 4 9 7 4
25 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
26 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.3.1 Comments regarding Commercial and Industrial Waste Options (8 – 12)
Table 18 Option 8: Designated food organic collection service for the
commercial and Industrial (C&I) sector
Comments Consultants response
Question need for this option:
» Believe that there are companies already providing
waste collection for food / organics
Only applies to retail
/supermarkets/ some
grocers.
Responsibility:
» It should be individual organisations responsibility to
manage their own organic wastes. Councils may be
able to facilitate/guide
» This is a service best left to private enterprise.
» Industry responsibility
Yes but Local
government could
provide incentives for or
suggestions to
companies who
participate.
Other suggestions:
» Council could support this process through training
and building networks between recyclers and relevant
business
» Regulation and legislation to cover food waste
disposal by C+I sector crucial (State or local
government)
» Presumably this includes the lawn mowing franchises
and home garden businesses, who currently have to
pay to dump cuttings?
Conditions:
» Would need a special locality to allow composting -
compost could be sold to individuals to cover cost
» Charge businesses for this but make it compulsory
In favour of this option:
» Important to stop the generation of leachate in landfills
» If they pay rates it is appropriate they have access to
essential services
» So much food is sent to landfill from supermarkets and
restaurants to create the deadliest GHG - methane
(worse than CO2). Soils in Australia crave organic
matter - councils should collect revenue for this - try
Jefferies soils.
Odour:
» Good idea. Good for compost. Bad for smell
27 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 19 Option 9: Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for
C&I wastes
Comments Consultants response
In favour of this option:
» Investigation of the MRF facility is worth following up
bearing in mind the site and private venture
» Big task. Good idea
» If they pay rates it is appropriate they have access to
essential services
» Subject to facility availability and private organisation
interest this facilities would be a plus for the S/W
region
Other suggestions:
» Charge businesses for this but make it compulsory
» Council land assistant valuable here
» Need to promote existing services and advertise well
proposed new services
Responsibility:
» This is a system best left to private enterprise to
establish State Government assistance.
» Leave to private enterprise where motives would be
more profit orientated than local council
» Industry Responsibility
Difficulties:
» The problem would be to find a suitable site and a
suitable private venture
» If 36% of waste is diverted then this must go ahead.
However, if customers must pay to recycle they won't
use the service
28 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 20 Option 10: Regional support of waste programs targeting industry,
including implementation of cleaner production processes
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Should be the responsibility of the State/ Federal
government’s (E.P.A / Zero Waste, possibly monitored
by Council)
» While I see the value in education, I would not want
Councils to use their own funds. Reckon this should
be a State government initiative
» Cost to Councils need not be high
» The State Government should sponsor, with EPA
education and waste exchange programs.
» Council cooperate with private industries
» Industry responsibility
» Should be on a multi-Council State level. Check tie in
to National Pollution Inventory Reporting
Concerns:
» I worry about self-regulation. Perhaps I am cynical?
» This is idealistic and not practical. Relies too much on
industry cooperation
In favour of this option:
» An essential facility
» Re use of industrial waste is most important for
reducing pollution. Community involvement is an
excellent suggestion. Assisting industry for cleaner
production is the 1st step to ESD.
» May be a resource intensive option, however
encouraging self-management and preventative
measures is very proactive!
Conditions:
» To work needs a specialist educator / co-ordinator and
inspectors to ensure system works
» Division of responsibility between local and state
government unclear. Needs secure funding? levy on
all potential users, not just actual users
29 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 21 Option 11: Liquid waste services
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Believe that this should be a private sector project with
Council consultation as to the site
» Private businesses already exist, Councils should
promote them
» If existing arrangements work satisfactorily (eg engine
oil from repairers/lubricators) why duplicate it?
» Should be on a multi-Council State level
In favour of this option:
» This waste, in particular oil, has the potential to cause
environmental harm and should be a priority target
» Certainly need even if joint councils have to provide
finance
» Important to remove oils and fats from the waste
stream and storm water system
» This is important - not enough depots currently, nor
are they well advertised.
Question need for this option:
» Liquid waste services already exist with private
enterprise. Householders can deliver used engine oil
to nominated service stations in their area.
Considerations:
» If the problems seem more evident than the answers
at present, place higher priority on investigation,
research, invitation of submissions, etc.
» A liquid waste treatment for the both makes sense.
Where might be a problem
» Also to be available to householders?
» Should be available in Southern area near major
industries, Mobil Refinery site?
» Where liquids wastes are being produced the law
should enforce proper disposal. All liquid wastes
should already be sent to a recycling facility.
30 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 22 Option 12: Establishment of an Eco-Industrial Precinct
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Again this should be an alliance between Local, State
and Federal governments
» State Government and EPA should sponsor this
precinct along with private enterprise to establish the
need for such a scheme.
» If there is a profit to be had, private industry would rise
to the challenge but with assistance from Councils.
» It is ethically not ok to send all waste out of the area
(eg, to the north). All council precincts need to work on
this point.
» Should be industry responsibility
» Should be State responsibility. Extend to broader area
for maximum efficiency
In favour of this option:
» It is a simple way for businesses to reuse other
businesses wastes. If all waste was reused the net
waste would be zero. Conserving energy and water is
a high priority. Reducing transport also.
Location:
» Should be available in Southern area near major
industries, Mobil Refinery site?
Other suggestions:
» Let Winsfield go first - act as a model
» If the problems seem more evident than the answers
at present, place higher priority on investigation,
research, invitation of submissions, etc.
31 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Options
Table 23 Acceptable to the community?
Topic Yes No
Option 13: Establishment
of a Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
23 3
32 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 24 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 13: Establishment
of a Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
13 13
33 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 25 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 13: Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials
2 3 9 5 6
34 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.4.1 Comments regarding construction and demolition option (13)
Table 26 Option 13: Establishment of a Regional Depot for Construction and
Demolition
Comments Consultants
response
Responsibility:
» Could be a financial risk for Councils
» Private venture with Council consultation.
» Private enterprise to establish with encouragement
from State Government and EPA
» Councils provide land and other assistance as
investment for private industries to set this up
This would not
represent a financial
risk as it increases use
of recycled crushed
concrete in Council
road works and
reduces transport
costs.
In favour of this option:
» Potentially huge waste reduction outcomes for this
option. Considering C and D waste makes up over
40% of all materials to landfill, this should also be a
high priority
» This is a must do - so much reusable waste is sourced
from construction industry, it should be sold for a
bargain price. Councils should advertise it.
Considerations:
» Recycle / re-sale is important with site easily
accessible
» For private enterprise - will need advertising to sell
recycled material
» Important that this facility be available. A significant
cost when undertaking renovations
» Also to be available to house owners?
Question need for this option:
» Does this have to be a new or a promotion of existing
service?
» Isn't this already covered by private business?
35 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.5 Other options (14 – 21)
Table 27 Acceptable to the community?
Topic Yes No
Option 14: Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
18 7
Option 15: Single bin
collection system combined
with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
10 17
Option 16: Establishment of
a Revolve/ Reuse centre
26 0
Option 17: Regional
Approaches to Waste
Education
25 2
Option 18: Appropriate
disposal Tyres
25 2
Option 19: Regional plastic
bag reduction strategies
21 6
Option 20 A 7 20 B : Public
place litter management and
public place recycling
21 4
Option 21 : Formation of
Regional Partnerships
23 2
36 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
37 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 28 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 14: Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
13 11
Option 15: Single bin
collection system combined
with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
9 15
Option 16: Establishment of
a Revolve/ Reuse centre
20 7
Option 17: Regional
Approaches to Waste
Education
26 1
Option 18: Appropriate
disposal Tyres
16 11
Option 19: Regional plastic
bag reduction strategies
16 11
Option 20 : Public place litter
management and public
place recycling
14 11
Option 21 : Formation of
Regional Partnerships
24 1
38 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
39 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 29 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 14: Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT) processing of
kerbside collected garbage
8 6 5 5 1
Option 15: Single bin collection
system combined with AWT
processing of mixed waste stream
16 4 1 3 2
Option 16: Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
1 0 4 11 11
Option 17: Regional Approaches to
Waste Education
0 1 0 10 16
Option 18: Appropriate disposal
Tyres
6 3 5 7 5
Option 19: Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
6 3 5 7 5
Option 20 : Public place litter
management and public place
recycling
6 6 5 3 4
Option 21 : Formation of Regional
Partnerships
1 1 3 7 12
40 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
41 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.5.1 Comments regarding other options (14 – 21)
Table 30 Option 14: Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) processing of
kerbside collected garbage
Comments Consultants
response
Conditions:
» If appropriate technology (wet/dry scrubs) are installed
to collect toxic residues produced from burning waste,
go for it. The emissions are deadly and the procedure
is expensive, large cities are forced to do so, Australia
should do the same.
» Need more information, research? May become more
necessary in the future
» If it improves efficiency then we need to work on
developing an effective option
Cost:
» Population and low waste tonnage cannot justify the
capital cost of an AWT facility in Adelaide compared
with a modern landfill
» Involvement of private operator to make money from
it?
» Cost prohibitive
» Expense is greater than benefit
In favour of this option:
» Should be tried
Not in favour:
» No recycling!!!
» A step in the wrong direction. Greater waste treatment
inefficiencies
» I do not like this option; it still leaves much waste
unused, and un-recycled. This option wastes
resources.
» One bin system not the answer at present time
Appears AWT process
not understood.
42 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 31 Option 15: Single bin collection system combined with AWT
processing of mixed waste stream
Comments Consultants
response
Not in favour:
» This option takes a backward step / not my idea of
progress / a retrograde step
Prefer recycling:
» Maximise recycling
» While community compliance with the need to
separate/sort waste is not optimal, it needs to be
encouraged. Don't abandon the goal and progress
towards achieving it
» Do recyclables still get sorted?
» Why would we threaten current recycling industry by
introducing this option?
» Would not improve current 3 bin system
» This would defeat our current recycling system and
reduction to landfill.
» Important to involve householders in the waste
minimisation process. Most of the community already
co-operate this way.
» Why another big change? Marion has just gone to a 3
bin system.
Efficiency:
» Low efficiency
Cost:
» Needs cost/benefit study
» The cost to Council would be astronomical and
unaffordable.
In favour of this option:
» Single bin preferable to new 3-bin system. Particularly
for older residents and those in units
» One day
43 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 32 Option 16: Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse centre
Comments Consultants
response
Transport:
» Disadvantages residents without the means to
transport items. Pick up service for a nominal fee could
be offered to certain residents
Responsibility:
» Council to assist establishment
» This could be incorporated with hard rubbish system.
Council should collect goods from house and divert
materials for reuse/recycling
In favour of this option:
» Have seen this approach work extremely well in ACT.
One mans trash is another mans treasure!
» Great idea. This should be well supported by rate
payers
Charities:
» Yes, but not to affect the charitable bodies like St
Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army etc
» Charity organisations do this at the moment and
should be encouraged
» Charities working together? Government funded
» Needs to be done in conjunction with charities. Would
reduce dumping at charity bins
Cost:
» Will involve additional cost to ratepayer, especially
those without transport.
» Cost/benefit options to determine most economic
Other suggestions:
» Better still if it can be managed to benefit the poorest
people in the community
» Unemployed person could be educated to restore and
prepare items for sale. Needs to be advertised
44 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 33 Option 17: Regional Approaches to Waste Education
Comments Consultants
response
In favour of this option:
» Agree. Good idea. Sharing Councils expertise and
private industry/public would be beneficial
» Proactive and often underestimated
» Education & ease of use of the system are the keys to
this problem. I still hear people say, "Recycling is for
other people".
» Educating people to the value of their participation in
such schemes will make waste management profitable
for Council & the environment
» Can give good return for small outlay
» Cost effective with common and consistent information
presented.
» Cooperation, not duplication
Other suggestions:
» Needs to be directive, not consultative
» Start by education children - generation of the future
» Not only regional emphasis on, but also much more
energy and effort put into waste education
45 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 34 Option 18: Appropriate disposal Tyres
Comments Consultants
response
Research:
» Councils could come together to support research into
this
» There needs to be a "think tank" formed in Australia to
explore the uses of recycling tyres. Landfill in not the
answer
» Research and development of uses / markets for
reusing and recycling tyres very important
Re: last dot point;
industry standards are
being developed and
research undertaken
for recycled rubber
content in tyres and
new markets.
Priority:
» This is a major issue and needs to be addressed.
» With the number of tyres discarded each year, I
believe there is a need to target this waste stream
Responsibility:
» This is a much larger problem than Council can
address.
» This is for State Government, EPA and private
enterprise to collectively to find a practical, cost
effective recycling for used tyres.
» Responsibility of motor industry and government
» Markets will lead and develop
» Manufacturers should be made to take product back
Difficulties:
» Could generate illegal dumping
Other suggestions:
» There are no options other than landfill.
» Tyres can be used in playgrounds, so could hard
rubbish. Why not construct features in parks using
tyres as opposed to bark chips.
» Alternate use must be found - why not shredded for
path / road base.
» Tyres could be used for fencing by cutting each tyre in
half
46 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 35 Option 19: Regional plastic bag reduction strategies
Comments Consultants
response
Responsibility:
» State government education to all householders
» Needs government to organise.
» Educational role by council
» The State Government and private enterprise should
lead the reduction strategies with no cost to Councils.
Priority:
» Again due to extreme numbers still within the waste
stream, this element should be a priority
» This is an important issue. A low cost initiative
» All waste reduction strategies should have high priority
Question need for this option:
» There is already enough being done about this
problem, seems to be pretty well under way,
supermarkets doing well.
» Covered by existing government and commercial
initiatives. Don't add council brochures to garbage
Other suggestions:
» This should include plastic film wrap and shrink plastic
packaging
» Councils should supply alternatives to plastic bags and
promote reuse of plastic bags - Regional EDU officers
job
» Put a surcharge on plastic bags to the consumer
Difficulties:
» Un-bagged household waste would create odour
problems before collection.
47 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 36 Option 20: Public place litter management and public place
recycling
Comments Consultants
response
In favour of this option:
» An area where councils can make an impact by
enforcing the litter act more than they do now
» Agree with benefits
» Problems associated with litter are extreme.
Responsibility:
» Again, this could go state-wide
» The State Government should also be prepared to
contribute funding for such a venture and maybe
KESAB?
Management:
» Will require: education, rules, policing & penalties.
» Public education on waste disposal must be backed up
by facility to sort mixed waste until public education
produces optimum effect
» Improve collection and disposal of rubbish in public
places
Other suggestions:
» Linking with KESAB programs would be an advantage
» Place specially marked bin for recycled waste
alongside general waste bins
» More public recycling bins each year
» Education essential
Question need for this option:
» Is there sufficient waste in public places to warrant
separate bins? This is done successfully in Europe
which does not have the collection systems in place
here
48 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 37 Option 21: Formation of Regional Partnerships
Comments Consultants
response
Responsibility:
» Responsibility and cost ought to be shared with State
government
» Should be State Government initiative.
» My opinion is that this approach should be a State /
Local government alliance network establishment
» There are existing groups for environmental issues.
Good idea but not for local government to establish
» A good idea - probably needs government finance
» State/Federal level
» A good idea in which Councils should participate in but
not have responsibility for
» This is a responsibility for State Government, EPA,
industry and small business as they will be the
financial beneficiaries
» High input by councils to get the program running and
then let private enterprise run it all
Other suggestions:
» Governments and councils do have the last word in
that they can impose penalties for non-compliance -
with regulations. Courageous legislation/regulations
needs to be done.
In favour of this option:
» A fantastic idea! Industry must be given some
incentive, 6 councils could 'force' state govt to
participate. What are the benefits for industry
involvement?
» A great way to trial projects and get feedback from
involved organisations
» I think this is an important consideration to avoid
duplication competition.
Not in favour:
» With any government / local government / private
partnership, the private group always leave it to others.
Sorry, I do not trust medium to big businesses.
» It's unclear what this would achieve
» Potential "talk-fest" consequently no action
33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
GHD Pty Ltd ABN 39 008 488 373
Level 8 68 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000
GPO Box 2052 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia
T: 61 8 8235 6600 F: 61 8 8235 6694 E: [email protected]
© GHD Pty Ltd 2006
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the
purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the
commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Reviewer Approved for Issue
Rev
No.
Author
Name Signature Name Signature Date
0 N Cunningham E Wilczek D Bowers 16/08/06
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
GHD Pty Ltd ABN 39 008 488 373
Level 8 68 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000
GPO Box 2052 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia
T: 61 8 8235 6600 F: 61 8 8235 6694 E: [email protected]
© GHD Pty Ltd 2006
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the
purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the
commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Reviewer Approved for Issue
Rev
No.
Author
Name Signature Name Signature Date
Final
Draft
R Monckton
D Gamble
D Bowers D Bowers 23/06/06
Final R Monckton
D Gamble
E Wilczek
D Bowers D Bowers 16/8/06
doc_839667651.pdf
The Southern and Western Region of Adelaide comprising the Cities of Onkaparinga, Mitcham, Unley, Marion, Holdfast Bay and West Torrens, currently generates an estimated 610-620,000 tonnes of waste from all sources annually, of which an estimated 36% is currently recovered for re-use or recycling.
Southern and Western
Region
Report for Regional Waste
Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
August 2006
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Contents
Executive Summary i
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Scope of this strategy 1
2. Background information 3
2.1 Demographic information about the SW Region 3
2.2 Existing Waste and Resource Facilities 5
3. Previous work completed 14
3.1 Stage 1 work 14
3.2 Stage 2 work 15
4. Community Expectations 16
4.1 Domestic services 16
4.2 Current Zero Waste SA Study 17
4.3 Expectations of commerce and industry 19
5. Waste Management and Resource Recovery Targets for
the SW Region 20
5.1 Strategic framework 20
5.2 Issues for the SW Region 21
5.3 SA Government programs 22
6. Waste Management and Resource Recovery Options 26
6.1 Options Considered 26
6.2 Achievement of State strategy targets and Zero Waste SA
Kerbside Performance Standards 31
6.3 Environmental and Financial Assessment of Options 34
6.4 Overall Suitability for Implementation – Short-list of Options for
Consideration 34
7. Further analysis of Stage 2 Options 38
7.1 Municipal waste stream 38
7.2 Commercial and industrial waste stream 49
7.3 Construction and demolition waste stream 52
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7.4 Other waste streams/opportunities 52
8. Stakeholder Feedback 56
8.1 Industry Stakeholders 56
8.2 Steering Committee and Waste Policy Forum 57
8.3 General Community 58
9. Overall RWMSP Structure 60
9.1 Elements of RWMSP 60
9.2 Timing for Actions 62
10. Opportunities to attract Grants 71
11. Communication strategy 72
11.1 Strategy objectives 72
11.2 Summary of consultation methodologies 72
Table Index
Table 1-1 Summary of Options Presented ii
Table 1-2 Triple bottom line and regional benefits of Options vii
Table 2-1 Population distribution and trends within the SW
Region according to the ABS 3
Table 2-2 Population distribution and trends within the SW
Region 5
Table 2-3 Predicted Population Increases (% pa) 5
Table 2-4 Regional waste tonnages 7
Table 2-5 Summary of domestic kerbside services 8
Table 2-6 Current and Potential Regional Waste Recovery 11
Table 2-7 Potential Future Waste Streams 12
Table 4-1 Community Consultation Undertaken To Date by
Councils in the SW Region to Determine Customer
Satisfaction and Awareness 18
Table 6-1 Summary of Options for Initial Consideration 26
Table 6-2 Alignment of Options with State Waste Reduction
Targets and Zero Waste SA Kerbside Performance
Criteria 31
Table 6-3 Summary of overall suitability for implementation 36
Table 7-1 Current waste and recycling statistics and potential
improvements 41
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 7-2 Possible improvements from 3 bin system and
subsequent efficiency gains 42
Table 9-1 Elements of RWMSP and Implementation Action
Plan 60
Table 9-2 Timing of Actions 63
Table 9-3 Proposed program for implementation of RWMSP
Actions 65
Table 11-1 Consultation program adopted for RWMSP 73
Table A1 Summary of results from technical, environmental,
and social evaluation and assessment of potential
regional versus individual benefits from proposed
strategies 76
Table B1 Estimated Financial Costs 79
Table D1 Key risks 92
Figure Index
Figure 1-1 Flow Diagram of Project Elements 2
Figure 2-1 Population distribution in the SW Region 4
Figure 2-2 Existing Regional Waste Management Facilities 6
Figure 2-3 Current waste generation and recovery in the SW
Region 13
Figure 5-1 Key material recovery and recycling targets in the
State Waste Strategy 23
Figure 7-1 Major components of C&I waste stream in
Metropolitan Adelaide 50
Appendices
A Environmental Assessment
B Financial Analysis
C Cost Benefit Analysis
D Risk Assessment
E Waste Industry Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes
F Options Report Summary
i 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Executive Summary
The Southern and Western Region of Adelaide comprising the Cities of Onkaparinga,
Mitcham, Unley, Marion, Holdfast Bay and West Torrens, currently generates an
estimated 610-620,000 tonnes of waste from all sources annually, of which an
estimated 36% is currently recovered for re-use or recycling.
The current population is around 423,000 and is estimated to grow at 0.5% pa. The
region is also well serviced by a large manufacturing business and retail sector, which
generates large quantities of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and Construction and
Demolition (C&D) waste.
The southern areas of the region particularly within the City of Onkaparinga, contains
large parcels of vacant industrial and residential land and hence has the potential to
grow at a greater rate than the remainder of the region.
Accordingly the quantity of waste and resources generated in the region is expected to
grow to 670,000 tonnes by 2026.
The potential exists to recover up to 500,000 tonnes (80%) of this material over a
twenty-year period through introduction of additional resource recovery and new
technologies.
The region is currently well serviced with waste collection service providers and drop
off, landfill and resource recovery facilities, however additional services facilities and
technologies are required to achieve the key government objectives and diversion
targets set out in legislation and policies, particularly in relation to recovery and
processing of C&I and C&D waste and kerbside mixed solid waste (MSW).
To respond to these goals several program options were developed and categorised
according to the responsibility of delivery as shown in Table 1-1 below.
These included:
» Seven municipal driven options;
» Five C&I driven options;
» One C&D driven option;
» Eight categorised as other being driven by government or industry.
ii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 1-1 Summary of Options Presented
Option Description
Municipal
Option 1 Regional best-practice kerbside collection services
This option involves providing a regional 3-bin integrated kerbside
collection service across the SW Region. This would include rolling out
new 240L mobile garbage bins (MGBs) to residents in Holdfast Bay and
Unley to replace the current crate collection system for recyclables, and
having regular fortnightly collection of garden organics across the SW
Region.
Option 2 Fortnightly collection of combined garden and food organics, with
organics processed by either open windrow or enclosed composting
processes
This Option requires that food scraps and separated by residents in the
kitchen, placed in a biodegradable bag in a kitchen food organics
container/bin for intermediate storage, and then placed in the garden
organics bin for fortnightly collection.
Option 3 Increased services for household hazardous wastes
This option considers possible new services to better manage household
hazardous wastes. Potential service opportunities include:
» Provide yearly collection across the SW Region in addition to that
provided by the Zero Waste SA;
» Provide an on-call hazardous waste collection service;
» Provide required infrastructure for safe storage of these items at
Council depots and/or all Council waste facilities including transfer
stations and landfills. Each site would need to be licensed for this
activity and ensure appropriate collection and disposal of the collected
wastes; and
» Promote avoiding generation of hazardous waste in the first instance
through providing increased education to residents.
Option 4 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
This option considers potential strategies that Councils in the Region may
choose to adopt to manage these types of waste including:
» Regular collection of these types of products;
» On-call collection service;
» Acceptance for free or low-cost at a revolve/reuse centre; and
» Support establishment of a drop off centre for repair (where possible)
redistributing and reuse), or for supply to metals recyclers.
iii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 5 Council wastes
This option requires that the performance of any council wide waste
management initiatives should be measured and made publicly available
to both Council employees and the general community in order to
demonstrate each Council’s commitment to waste minimisation. It also
requires provisions for waste minimisation and monitoring of system
performance to be included in Council’s Environmental Management
Plans.
Option 6 Modifications to the domestic kerbside hard-waste collection service
This option assesses the potential to modify existing on-call kerbside
hard-waste collection services by either:
Having reusable items collected by operators of the proposed
reuse/revolve centre (residents to place direct call to the reuse centre for
this collection);
Having a regular set-day for undertaking collections in each Council area
to maximise collection efficiencies;
Requiring residents to sort the hard waste into piles of scrap steel, wood
and timber products, garden organics, and residual for example. Each of
these streams would then be collected by a different collection vehicle and
taken to the appropriate disposal point (either to recycling or landfill); or
All mixed hard waste could be taken to a depot for manual sorting prior to
delivery to landfill or recycling.
Option 7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery Facility
for recyclables.
Under this option, Local Government would share the revenue associated
with recyclables collected at kerbside within the region.
Commercial and Industrial
Option 8 Designated food organics collection service for the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
This option would involve providing a designated food collection service
for selected commercial and industrial properties that generate large
amounts of food organics. The collected organics would be processed
either by a composting or digestion process to recover the organic
content of the material as well as potentially energy.
Option 9 Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for C&I wastes
Under this option a MRF would be established either at an existing waste
disposal facility or at a new site. The MRF would accept only C&I waste
from both self-haul customers and commercial collections. Depending on
how the waste arrives at the site, the materials would either be directly
separated and stockpiled (for loads containing only one type of material),
or processed through a variety of plant to recover as much recyclables
as possible prior to disposal of residual waste to landfill.
iv 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 10 Regional Support of waste programs targeting industry, including
implementation of cleaner production processes
This option considers implementation of programs at a regional level to
assist improve industrial waste management practices, including
potentially:
Providing a source of cleaner production information to the industry;
Connecting industries which generate waste with those industries that
are able to use the waste (thus preventing the waste being disposed of
and raw materials being used);
Developing and implementing voluntary cleaner production programs
and reporting the outcomes to the public;
Negotiating self regulated initiatives to prevent pollution and waste
generation, and report the outcomes to the public; and
Encouraging the community to get involved with industry to deliver better
environmental performance.
Option 11 Liquid waste services
This option considers the establishment of a liquid waste treatment plant
in the SW Region to service councils located in southern Metropolitan
Adelaide and surrounds. It also considers increasing the number of
collection points for liquid wastes (including oily fats and used engine
oils) to all Council operated depots (including landfills and transfer
stations).
Option 12 Establishment of an Eco-Industrial Precinct
A separate study is being undertaken to identify the potential suitability of
establishing an integrated waste eco-industrial precinct (or precincts in
the SW Region). The study stems from the desire of the region to
emulate the principals and activities contained in the proposed eco-
industrial park to be located at the former Wingfield Landfill depot site.
The notion of such a precinct is that waste material from one company is
used as a valuable input material for its neighbours
Construction and Demolition
Option 13 Establishment of a Regional Depot for Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials
This option considers the development of a regional C&D depot for the
accepting, sorting, processing, and resale of C&D materials.
Other
Option 14 Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) processing of kerbside
collected garbage
This option is the same as per Option one, but garbage would be
disposed at an AWT facility for further separation and treatment and
residuals then transferred to landfill.
v 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 15 Single bin collection system combined with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
This option would involve moving from a 3-bin collection system
(separate collection of garbage, recyclables, and organics) to a
weekly 240L 1-bin collection system (all mixed wastes) with the mixed
waste stream being sent to an AWT plant for processing.
Option 16 Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse centre
A revolve/reuse centre is a facility for residents to drop off unwanted
household items including furniture, appliances and white goods (in
working order). The items can then be refurbished and then resold
back to the community.
Option 17 Regional Approaches to Waste Education
The option of undertaking education on a regional level refers to the
sharing of education resources across all six member Councils. This
would include the employment of education officers that work on
behalf of the Councils/Industries/Public across the whole region, the
use of standardised advertising and education materials, and
promotion and organisation of special events.
Option 18 Tyres
A potential strategy to address disposal of tyres in the SW Region is
to recommend Councils support a total ban on the landfilling of tyres
(i.e. even tyres in shredded form). In order for the ban to be
successful, there must be development of markets for recovered
tyres.
Option 19 Regional plastic bag reduction strategies
This option considers establishing a regional approach to plastic bag
reduction campaigns that would result in consistency in education and
promotional material across a wider area (hence a greater chance of
being able to impact consumer behaviour). It would also involve sharing
human resources as well as promotion and marketing material across
the Region.
Option 20 A Public place litter management
This option considers opportunities to undertake litter reduction
campaigns on a regional basis.
Option 20 B Public place recycling
This option considers opportunities to undertake public place
recycling campaigns on a regional basis.
vi 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 21 Formation of Regional Partnerships
This option involves forming co-operative relationships with industry to
influence the uptake of cleaner production and eco-efficiency across
the SW Region. Development of industry partnerships may be
progressed at the individual level between Council and individual
organisations, or potentially via representative industry organisations.
In addition to forming partnerships with industry, the Region should
consider the potential establishment of a Regional Environmental
Cluster Working Group. Members of the group would comprise of
representatives from industry, small business, Councils, and waste
industry service providers. Representatives from Zero Waste SA and
the EPA may also be invited to attend.
The above options were presented to industry stakeholders at an industry workshop
and to a community panel with representation from each of the six Council areas.
Comments were also invited from the general public via advertisements placed in
Messenger newspapers within each of the six Council areas.
Of the options presented to the community panel, the following comments were noted
from 26 respondents:
» Options 1-7 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 1,5 and 6 being the most
strongly supported and best delivered by Local Government;
» Options 8-13 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 11, 12 and 13 being the
most strongly supported but views were mixed on whether Local Government or
industry should deliver the programs;
» Options 16,17 and 21 are overwhelmingly supported with views mixed on the other
remaining options;
» The least favoured was Option 15.
Of the options presented to industry stakeholders, the following comments were
offered:
» Options considered to be significant to very significant to industry comprised
Options 1, 9 and 12;
» Options considered to be moderately significant to industry comprised Options 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, 8,10, 16-18, 20A, 20B-21;
» Options considered to be of little or no significance to industry because they were
either already being widely addressed within the region or industry, required new
market or legislative intervention to be effective, were considered to be a producer
responsibility, or would provide low financial returns, included Options 4, 11, 13 and
14.
Based on the above, the options developed in the draft RWMSP are considered by the
waste and resource industry and some community representatives, to be appropriate
for the region and achievable, however there are some options which are not
considered suited to or the responsibility of either local government (regional MRF’s
and electronics tyre waste recycling) or the private waste resource industry (Revolve
Centres).
A triple bottom line assessment was undertaken for each of the options and is
summarised in Table 1-2 below.
vii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 1-2 Triple bottom line and regional benefits of Options
Option Description
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Municipal
1 Regional best practice kerbside
collection
» Garbage collection 1
» Recyclables collection 5
» Garden organics collection
15
6
2 H
2 Fortnightly combined food and
garden organics collection
processed by:
» Open windrow composting 12
» Enclosed composting 10
12 4 H
3 Household hazardous waste
additional collection or drop-off
services
12 5 7 M
4 Services for electronic wastes and
household appliances
10 6 7 M
5 Council waste management and
reduction strategies
NA 4 2 L – M
6 Collection of source separated
household hard waste
11 5 4 M - H
7 Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables.
15 9 8 H
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service
for C&I properties
NS NS NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased
sorting and recovery of C&I waste
10 7 4 H
10 Management of industrial and
special wastes
NA 5 5 M
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing
as per Eco-Industrial precinct
model
» Development of a new liquid
waste treatment plant within the
Region
NA
» Motor oil collection at additional
garages and service stations
12
» Oil collection at waste facilities 15
5 5 H
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct NA NA NA NA
viii 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
(
m
a
x
.
1
5
)
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting,
sorting, processing, and resale of
C&D materials
13 12 7 H
Other
14 AWT processing of kerbside
garbage stream
12 11 2 H
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin
collection system. Mixed waste
stream processed using AWT.
NS NS NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s for
household hard waste items and
second hand goods
15 6 8 M
17 Increased education / regional
education strategies
NA 5 4 H
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres NA NA NA H
19 Plastic bag reduction 13 7 5 L
20A Public place litter management 15 2 6 L
20B Public place recycling and
recycling at public events
13 3 6 L – M
21 Cooperative partnership
arrangements
NA NA NA NA
NA – Not able to be assessed at present
NS – Not assessed as the option is not considered potentially suitable for implementation within the
timeframe of the RWMSP
H-High benefit
M-Medium benefit
L-Low benefit
1 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
1. Introduction
GHD was commissioned to undertake the development of a long-term Regional Waste
Management Strategy and Plan (RWMSP) for the Southern and Western Regions of
Adelaide (the SW Region). The SW Region encompasses the six Local Government
areas of the City of Onkaparinga, City of Unley, City of Mitcham, City of Marion, City of
Holdfast Bay and City of West Torrens.
The preparation of the RWMSP was overseen by a Steering Committee comprising
officer representatives of the six Councils and Zero Waste SA and a Waste Policy
Forum comprising the Chief Executive Officers of the six Councils and Zero waste SA.
1.1 Objectives
A comprehensive inventory of current waste and waste management facilities and
practices has been undertaken in Stage 1 of the project. Future opportunities and
imperatives for waste management across the Region have been assessed, and a
number of options for new or improved services have been analysed in Stage 2.
In this Stage 3 report, the key findings of Stages 1 and 2 are summarised, and options
which have most relevance to the overall RWMSP are further assessed. A number of
key Actions are identified that should form the basis of the detailed RWMSP.
The RWMSP is intended to guide waste management in the Region for the next 10 to
20 years and to present an understood and agreed position for Councils within the
Region. The project staging, including the involvement of the Steering Group, is
summarised in Figure 1-1.
1.2 Scope of this strategy
This RWMSP is focused on the current to long-term (up to 20 years) in the future, and
takes into consideration:
» Potential arrangements between Councils;
» Potential use of facilities as regional facilities;
» Priority issues that are anticipated to be determined throughout the consultation
processes;
» Environmental and planning requirements for existing facilities and potential new
facilities;
» Programs to increase resource recovery considering the requirements for collection
and reprocessing, existing markets for recovered materials, collection, disposal, and
transport costs;
» Improving or at least maintaining existing service levels where possible;
» Impediments and risks associated with new/rationalised services; and
2 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Triple bottom line impacts i.e. consideration of economic, environmental and social
impacts.
Waste types that are considered in the strategy include MSW, C&I, C&D, household
hard waste, Council waste and household hazardous waste.
Figure 1-1 Flow Diagram of Project Elements
Stage 1
Project inception and planning
Preliminary consultation
Assessment of current waste management
provisions
Factors affecting the strategic waste agenda
Stage 2
Assessment of future options
Stage 3
Regional Waste Management Strategy and
Plan
Stage 4
Final Regional Waste Management
Strategy and Plan
Project outline
Critical path
Site visits
Workshop/s
Stage 1 Report
Stage 2 Report
Final RWMSP
Input from
inception
meeting
Feedback
from Steering
Group
Feedback from
Steering Group
Feedback from
Steering Group
Feedback from
Steering Group
Input from
workshop/s
Preliminary Draft
RWMSP
Draft RWMSP
3 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
2. Background information
2.1 Demographic information about the SW Region
2.1.1 Current Regional Population
The current residential population of the Southern and Western (SW) Region is
estimated at 423,000, which represents approximately 36% of the Adelaide
metropolitan population. The distribution and growth in residential population across
the SW Region since 1996 is shown in Figure 2-1.
Table 2-1 Population distribution and trends within the SW Region according
to the ABS
LGA 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
City of Unley 36,663 36,501 36,620 36,572 36,601
City of Mitcham 61,878 62,033 62,379 62,417 62,572
City of Onkaparinga 148,720 149,912 151,010 152,036 152,833
City of Holdfast Bay 33,223 33,522 33,689 33,712 33,957
City of Marion 78,232 78,678 79,055 79,581 80,039
City of West Torrens 52,275 52,291 52,364 52,514 52,588
Total 410,991 412,937 415,117 416,832 418,590
Source: ABS National Regional Profile
4 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Population Distribution in the SW Region
City of Unley - ABS
9%
City of Mitcham - ABS
15%
City of Onkaparinga - ABS
36%
City of Holdfast Bay - ABS
8%
City of Marion - ABS
19%
City of West Torrens - ABS
13%
Figure 2-1 Population distribution in the SW Region
Source: Based on ABS National Regional Profile, residential population as at 30 June 2003
2.1.2 Projected Population
The State Strategic Plan Projects a state population of 2 million by 2050, which allows
for a 2.7% increase per annum.
Population projections under low to high growth rate scenarios (as published by
Planning SA) indicate a population range of 1,140,059 to 1,210,468 in the Adelaide
Statistical Division by 2016.
A modest increase of 0.5% per annum is considered reasonable for the SW Region
and would suggest a regional population of 444,000 and 465,000 within 10 and 20
years respectively. This is in agreement with population projections for the SW Region
as published by Planning SA.
5 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 2-2 Population distribution and trends within the SW Region
LGA 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
City of Unley 36,481 37,511 38,374 39,190 39,940
City of Mitcham 61,542 61,432 61,701 61,500 61,464
City of Onkaparinga 144,636 151,170 158,354 165,341 172,211
City of Holdfast Bay 32,372 32,959 32,868 32,748 32,545
City of Marion 77,446 78,213 80,634 82,956 85,172
City of West Torrens 51,523 52,591 52,088 51,525 50,831
Total 404,000 413,876 424,019 433,260 442,163
Source: Planning SA, Population Projections for South Australia (1996-2026) and Statistical Divisions
(1996-2016), Government of South Australia, Adelaide
Table 2-3 Predicted Population Increases (% pa)
LGA 1996-2001 2001-2006 2006-2011 2011-2016
City of Unley 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
City of Mitcham 0.0% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0%
City of Onkaparinga 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%
City of Holdfast Bay 0.4% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1%
City of Marion 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
City of West Torrens 0.4% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3%
Total 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%
2.2 Existing Waste and Resource Facilities
Waste and resource facilities in the SW Region comprise:
» Three public landfill depots;
» Three transfer stations;
» One Materials Recovery Facility (MRF);
» Council drop off depots; and
» Three recycled crushed concrete drop off and crushing facilities.
6 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
There are a further 20 Container Deposit (CDL), scrap metal and cardboard drop off
depots, and seven scout depots located throughout the SW Region, which receive
recyclables, paper, metals and batteries. The location of main waste depots and
landfills are shown in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2 Existing Regional Waste Management Facilities
Major existing waste infrastructure in the SW Region includes:
» Adelaide Waste and Recycling Centre (North Plympton, West Torrens), operated by
Solo Resource Recovery on behalf of the City of West Torrens;
» Metro Waste Services transfer station (Thebarton, West Torrens), privately owned
and operated;
» Southern Region Waste Disposal Depot (also known as Pedlar Creek landfill),
operated by the Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga;
7 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Lonsdale Waste and Recycling Depot (Lonsdale, City of Onkaparinga), owned and
operated by SA Waste Management;
» Southern Waste Depot (also known as Maslins Beach landfill, McLaren Vale),
Lucas Waste Management, this landfill is primarily used by the private sector; and
» Allbulk Waste and Recycling Centre, Lonsdale.
2.2.1 Existing Regional Waste Tonnages
The estimated tonnages of regional waste are shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Regional waste tonnages
Waste stream tonnes/year tonnes/capita/year
Municipal domestic kerbside waste 112,484 0.27
Municipal kerbside recyclables 24,553 0.06
Municipal kerbside green organics 30,818 0.07
Municipal kerbside hard waste 5,114 0.01
Council concrete asphalt and soil C&D waste
for disposal or recycling 49,630 0.12
Council green waste street sweepings and
litter for disposal /recycling 8,740 0.02
Council facility C&I and depot waste 355 0.001
Domestic self hauled hard and residual waste* 154,100 0.37
C&D waste from private sources 117,500 0.28
C&I waste from offices and industries 45,000 0.11
Green organics from private sources 80,000 0.22
Waste from CDL and other small drop off
depots 10,000 0.02
Total 639, 200 1.51
* This figure is high because it includes skips and other non-compactor vehicle transported waste from
domestic premises, as well as resident delivered wastes. It also includes 10,000 tonnes of putrescible waste
received from Yankalilla, Kangaroo Island and Goolwa and a proportion of waste from the Adelaide Waste
and Recycling Centre, which is a metropolitan facility.
8 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
2.2.2 Existing and planned collection services
The type of waste services offered in each LGA within the Region varies as shown in
Table 2-5. All Councils currently provide domestic kerbside waste and recycling
services, however there are variations in the method of service delivery and the
frequency of servicing.
» The Cities of West Torrens and Marion have recently introduced a combined
integrated waste collection service for both domestic waste and recycling streams,
using separate MGBs for domestic waste and recycling. Unley and Holdfast Bay
Councils use crate based systems for recyclables.
» The City of Onkaparinga in 2005 introduced a fortnightly MGB based recycling
service and in March 2006 introduced a four weekly kerbside green waste collection
service, to replace the monthly depot based green waste drop off system. Holdfast
Bay has a user pays fortnightly 240L MGB garden waste collection system.
Council day labour provides domestic waste collection services in Mitcham and
Onkaparinga. All other services in these Councils and in other councils are provided
under contract.
Table 2-5 Summary of domestic kerbside services
City of: Garbage
service
Recycling
service
Garden
organics
Hard waste Other
Holdfast
Bay
Weekly
120L or
240L
service
Fortnightly crate
service for
containers,
bundled paper
Fortnightly
240L
service,
user pays
Annual
service
Marion Weekly
140L bin
Weekly fully
integrated
wheelie bin
service in
conjunction with
West Torrens
Fortnightly
240L
service
Pick up
scheme
Council
facilitates a
waste
register for
commercial
businesses
Mitcham Weekly
140L
service
Fortnightly 240L
service
Fortnightly
240L
service
Chemical
collection
every 2
years
Onkaparinga Weekly
140L
service
Fortnightly 240L
service
Four
weekly
240L
service
Up to 2 on-
call services
per household
per year
9 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
City of: Garbage
service
Recycling
service
Garden
organics
Hard waste Other
West
Torrens
Weekly
140L bin
Weekly
integrated
wheelie bin
service in
conjunction with
Marion
Fortnightly
240L
service
Annual
service
Unley Weekly
service
Fortnightly crate
service,
separate crates
for containers
and paper
Fortnightly
240L
service
Up to 2 on-
call services
per household
per year
2.2.3 Disposal of collected materials
Domestic waste
Currently all of the kerbside collected domestic waste from the Region, other than that
of the City of Unley, is sent to the Southern Region Waste Disposal Depot. This is
partly due to the closure of Wingfield landfill in December of 2004. Waste from
domestic services in the City of Unley is transported to the Integrated Waste Services
(IWS) transfer facility at Wingfield and then to the IWS balefill at Dublin.
Recyclables
There is currently only one operator in Adelaide to receive, sort and market recyclables
collected across the entire metropolitan area. Based on that operator’s advice,
recyclables processed by his organisation are disposed of as follows:
» Paper – exported to China, if it meets high quality levels set by agents (fetching
approximately $300/tonne), or sent to Visy in Sydney or Melbourne;
» Glass – sent to Amcor in Gawler Belt;
» Steel-Local agents such as Norm metals and Sims metals;
» Aluminium- -Local agents such as Norm metals and Sims metals;
» Plastics (Polypropylene/HDPE/LDPE) – granulated and used by local SA industry;
» Plastics (mixed) – sent to Advanced Plastic Recycling in SA for conversion into
fencing posts, railway sleepers and other products;
» PET-sent to Visy in Sydney
10 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Garden organics
The majority of kerbside collected garden organics is currently direct hauled to either
Pedlar Creek or the Peats Soils and Garden Supplies facility at Willunga for
processing. Garden organics from domestic collections in the City of West Torrens are
taken to the Adelaide Waste and Recycling Centre prior to transport to Jeffries Soils.
2.2.4 Opportunities for improved resource recovery
From this assessment it was concluded of the 610,000 tonnes of waste estimated to be
generated in the SW Region each year, approximately 222,000 tonnes per year (36%)
is currently recycled or recovered for beneficial reuse (refer Table 2-6).
With total waste generation in the SW Region predicted to increase from the current
rate to 640,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) and 671,000 tpa respectively within 10 and 20
years, it is estimated that there is the potential to recover up to 511,500 tpa (80%) of
the overall waste stream within 10 years (refer Table 2-7)
1
.
1
Increase in waste generation based on estimated annual population growth of 0.5% as outlined in the
Stage 1 report.
11 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 2-6 Current and Potential Regional Waste Recovery
Waste stream
Current
Generation
(tpa)
Current
Recycled/
Recovered
(tpa)
Current
Recycled/
Recovered
(%)
Potentially
Recycled/
Recovered
(%)
Potentially
Recycled/
Recovered
(tpa)
Municipal domestic
kerbside waste
112,500 0 0% 65% 73,100
Municipal kerbside
recyclables
24,550 23,300 95% 95% 23,300
Municipal kerbside
garden organics
30,820 28,000 91% 95% 29,300#
Municipal kerbside
hard waste
5,120 4,500 88% 50% 2,600
Council concrete
and soil for
recycling
49,700 10,000 20% 90% 44,700
Council waste 355 177 50% 90% 300
Council garden
organics, litter and
street sweepings
10,540 5,900 56% 90% 9,500
Domestic self
hauled hard and
residual waste**
154,100 32,000 21% 70% 107,900
C&D waste 117,500 40,000 34% 90% 105,800
Private C&I waste 45,000* 18,000 40% 75% 33,800
Garden organics
from private
sources
50,000 50,000 100% 100% 50,000
Waste from CDL
and other small
drop off depots
10,000 10,000 100% 100% 10,000
Total 610,185 221,877 36% 80% 490,300
* Includes estimated 15,000 tpa mixed paper collection from offices and other buildings collected under
existing recycling services. Also includes 30,000 tpa mixed C&I materials delivered to landfill based on the
recent (2004) Zero Waste SA Landfill Audit.
** This figure includes skips and other non-compactor vehicle transported waste, as well as resident
delivered wastes. It also includes 10,000 tonnes of putrescible waste received from Yankalilla, Kangaroo
Island and Goolwa and a proportion of waste from the Adelaide Waste and Recycling Centre, which is a
metropolitan facility.
12 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
# This figure could increase with the inclusion of food organics as per the Burnside Council trial. Report to be
released in the future.
Table 2-7 Potential Future Waste Streams
Year
Total Waste Stream
(tpa)
Potentially
Recoverable
(%)
Potentially
Recovered
(tpa)
2016 640,500 80 511,500#
2026 671,200 80 536,000
1
Increase in waste generation based on estimated annual population growth of 0.5% as outlined in the
Stage 1 report.
13 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Municipal domestic kerbside waste
Municipal kerbside recyclables
Municipal kerbside green organics
Municipal kerbside hard waste
Council concrete and soil for recycling
Council C&I Waste
Council Greenwaste, litter and streetsweepings
Domestic self hauled hard and residual waste
C&D waste
Private C&I waste
Garden organics from private sources
Waste from CDL and other small drop off depots
W
a
s
t
e
S
t
r
e
a
m
Estimated Quantity as at 2005 (tpa)
Current Generation (tpa) Current Recycled/ Recovered (tpa) Potentially Recyclable / Recoverable (tpa)
Figure 2-3 Current waste generation and recovery in the SW Region
14 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
3. Previous work completed
3.1 Stage 1 work
3.1.1 Statutory and industry consultation
GHD conducted joint face-to-face discussions with the policy and regional enforcement
officers of the EPA, ZWSA, and Council representatives to obtain relevant information
on the performance of existing waste facilities and their expectations in terms of future
infrastructure standards and resource recovery programs.
A preliminary workshop was held with the identified key project stakeholders within the
early stages of the project to facilitate collection of information and stakeholder
engagement from the outset of the RWMSP development.
Priority issues discussed at the workshop/s included:
» Identifying issues facing individual Councils which may need to be considered (or
which desirably would be considered) before the finalisation and consideration of
the final RWMSP;
» Identifying the strategic platforms and initiatives of participating Councils, the State
Government and any other major stakeholder, relating to regional waste
management; and
» Identifying key strategic and operational issues relating to waste management in
individual Council areas, and the region as a whole – both current and future.
3.1.2 Assessment of current waste management provisions and facilities
The assessment of current waste management provisions included:
» Current waste generation and disposal practices;
» Existing waste and recycling facilities; and
» Kerbside systems.
Waste management facilities and practices were also reviewed.
3.1.3 Strategic platforms
Strategic platforms and initiatives of participating Councils, the State Government and
any other major stakeholders as they relate to regional waste management were
assessed.
15 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
3.2 Stage 2 work
The Stage 2 report of the RWMSP identified potential strategies for future waste and
resource management in the SW Region to assist in achieving waste targets as
specified in the South Australian Waste Strategy (2005-2010) and to address
limitations in existing infrastructure as identified in the Stage 1 Report.
Each potential option was assessed in terms of its ability to help meet the relevant
targets as well as affordability, operational constraints and impacts, and potential social
and environmental impacts.
16 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
4. Community Expectations
Understanding community expectations for waste management service levels is an
important factor for consideration in the formulation of future management strategies. A
brief overview of typical service expectations is provided below.
4.1 Domestic services
McGregor Tan (2000) conducted a detailed survey and analysis of community
expectations for kerbside collection services in SA. The outcomes of the study
indicated the community has an expectation that kerbside collections be:
» Regularly provided;
» Convenient;
» Consistent; and
» Provided at a reasonable cost.
The community also has the expectation that the materials placed out for collection will
be genuinely recycled (not disposed of to landfill). They also expect best practice and
environmental management in overall waste management infrastructure and services.
To date there is little information on the perceived level of community satisfaction with
the current waste collection and disposal systems in place in the SW Region, however
it is understood that the introduction of the 240L recycling containers has led to
increased yields and participation when introduced. It is understood that the
introduction of a shared bin arrangement in multi-unit sites has been the subject of
complaints.
In order to understand if current and future community expectations are met, it is
important to have a clear understanding of the waste minimisation attitudes and
knowledge of the general community.
An annual (or biennial) survey of the community is a good method of determining
community attitudes, expectations, and current waste management practices. This
information is useful for guiding future educational initiatives and planning for different
types of future waste management services. In addition, observation studies may be
useful in understanding resident behaviour, and in determining the effectiveness of
existing services and programs.
A resident survey could be used to determine:
» Willingness of residents to participate in recycling and other waste minimisation
initiatives such as home composting, home worm farms, reusing items, and avoided
excess packaging;
» Barriers to participation such as convenience of using the provided services,
uncertainty about what is and isn’t recyclable (for example);
17 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Ways in which they find out information about the recycling system and support for
continued and additional education of items such as proper recycling, how to
compost, practical ways to reduce waste;
» Accuracy of knowledge about the system, i.e. what can and can’t be recycled or
what items can be placed in the garden organics bin;
» Understanding of the system;
» Suggestions for new services or facilities to manage problematic wastes;
» Potential level of support for proposed new services;
» Willingness of residents to pay for proposed new services; and
» Suggestions and general comments.
Some of the Councils in the SW Region have already undertaken consultation and/or
surveys for determining community awareness, understanding, and the overall
attitudes of residents to waste management. However there is a significant difference
in the level of consultation undertaken across the SW Region and the systems in place
for ongoing monitoring of customer satisfaction. Details of programs across the SW
Region are outlined in Table 4-1.
4.2 Current Zero Waste SA Study
Zero Waste SA has recently completed a market research study “Attitudes,
perceptions, and behaviours of South Australian householders towards waste
avoidance, reduction, and recycling”. The Study involved undertaking a statewide
survey to achieve the objectives of:
» Understanding current community attitudes and behaviour in relation to waste
reduction measures; and
» Identifying the drivers and inhibitors to the adoption of effective waste reduction
practices.
Other objectives of the study were to:
» Provide information that will assist with the development of effective community
information programs with priority given to data collection that will facilitate
development of the Local Government Education Assistance Program; and
» Establish benchmarks for community attitudes and behaviours that can be
remeasured at completion of programs.
The report outlining the findings and implications from the study are available on the
Zero Waste SA website and will be of great assistance to the SW Region, proving
better understanding of community expectations, and information to assist preparation
of future education strategies.
18 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 4-1 Community Consultation Undertaken To Date by Councils in the SW
Region to Determine Customer Satisfaction and Awareness
Council Program Timing and details
Holdfast Bay
City Council
General queries about the waste
management system answered as
required.
As yet there have been no surveys
undertaken.
There is also no formal register of
complaints. Despite no formal register of
complaints, anecdotal evidence suggests
crate system for recyclables is generally
unfavourable with residents.
As required
Marion City
Council
Consultation was undertaken as part of
the implantation program for the new 3-
bin system.
Council are also about to undertake
consultation relating to the hard waste
collection service.
One-off events
Mitcham City
Council
Use Council ward forums as a means of
collecting information about community
attitudes to new services.
As required
To provide evidence to support
introduction of the new 3-bin recycling
system an audit was undertaken to
determine the participation rate for the old
crate-based recycling system.
One-off event. Audit
results indicated
participation rate of
about 50% for the crate
based recycling service.
Onkaparinga
City Council
Recycling trial involving 1,200 residents.
The trial included a resident’s survey
program of bin audits, questionnaires and
focus groups.
2004
Telephone surveys. Approximately 1,000
properties are surveyed quarterly to assist
with establishing customer satisfaction
levels for recycling along with recycling
participation rates.
Quarterly
Drive-by surveys. Approximately 1,000
properties are surveyed (in person) to
assist with establishing customer
satisfaction levels for recycling along with
recycling participation rates.
Quarterly
Annual “Community Perceptions Survey”
on all key services delivered including
waste and recycling services.
Annually. Results from
2004 indicated an
overall score of 84%
for waste services and
72% for recycling.
19 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Council Program Timing and details
Onkaparinga
City Council
Local area surveys, questionaries sent to
sample areas.
Survey based on assessing service
delivery, i.e. timeliness, effectiveness,
quality of service, customer friendliness,
etc.
2004. Results
indicated 98%
satisfaction for waste
and 74% for recycling
services.
Unley City
Council
Waste Management customer service
survey
Last undertaken in
2000.
General customer service surveys Annually
West Torrens
City Council
Community survey that included specific
questions about waste management
Annually - Undertaken
in 2003. 2004, and
2005
(Source: above comments provided by Councils)
4.3 Expectations of commerce and industry
Commercial businesses and industrial organisations may not have the same
expectations about the level of waste services that should be provided by the Councils
as the general community. There is no requirement for the Councils to provide services
to these organisations, since in most cases private collection arrangements are in
place due to the nature of the waste. However there is an expectation that the Councils
should strive to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes for the area, and
providing waste management services or advice to these groups would form a part of
that expectation.
20 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5. Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Targets for the SW Region
5.1 Strategic framework
Management of waste is in transition in South Australia. Some regions, with the
assistance of the South Australian Environment Protection Agency (EPA), Zero Waste
SA (ZWSA) and the Local Government Association (LGA), have instigated the
preparation of Regional Waste Management Plans in anticipation of the emerging
Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy and State waste strategy.
Major issues for Local Government in relation to waste management include:
» Arrangements for future residual waste disposal;
» Cost of service provision;
» Realistic levels of recovery and access to markets for recyclable materials;
» Future waste and resource recovery infrastructure implementation; and
» Continued development of waste minimisation opportunities.
The Southern Region Waste Resource Authority (SRWRA) has set the policy
framework for the preparation of a region waste management plan. The SRWRA Board
recognised that although councils in the south west region have their own well
established almost ‘Best Practice’ collection and disposal services, waste management
issues go wider than the areas covered by the three member councils and that
economies of scale could be potentially achieved by having an integrated regional and
/or cross-regional collection disposal treatment and education arrangement.
Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officers (CEO’s) of the three member Councils
together with the CEO’s of Mitcham, West Torrens and Unley have agreed to take
ownership of this regional study. The six Councils in the southwestern region of
Adelaide have resolved to undertake a long-term waste management strategy and plan
for their area and accordingly to undertake the preparation of the strategy and plan.
The strategy and plan are to be used as the foundation for future waste management
planning, review, reporting and improvements in the region.
This project is strongly related to other projects and capital works in the area such as
the study into the desirability, suitability and feasibility of establishing an integrated
eco-industrial precinct in the southwest region of Adelaide.
The Southern and Western Region presents some challenges and opportunities for
waste management. For example, while most people live in established suburbs and
residential estates, there are proportions of the region comprising small coastal
communities, farms and country towns. The strategy and plan will need to consider the
service and infrastructure needs for providing effective and efficient waste
management to both built-up and rural-type areas.
21 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Furthermore, although the project is focussed on the southwestern Council areas, the
RWMSP allows for interaction with adjacent councils and regions (such as the
Southern Hills Region and Fleurieu Regional Development Board) if appropriate.
5.2 Issues for the SW Region
Issues that must be addressed by the SW Region to ensure efficient and cost-effective
management of waste include:
» Performance of kerbside systems should comply with the proposed performance
targets specified in the Draft Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan and objectives
of South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010;
» Future activities should reflect the objectives and requirements of the Environment
Protection Act 1993. Namely, all activities should be in accordance with principles of
ecologically sustainable development (including waste management charges that
reflect the “user-pays” principles), there should be encouragement of industry and
community involvement in trying to achieve sustainable outcomes, and information
transparency; and
» Infrastructure development should be aligned with State planning policy (including
development of key integrated waste management facilities.
Future recommendations for planned waste infrastructure in the Region (to be
identified in the RWMSP) must take into consideration infrastructure planning and
strategies as identified in relevant planning documents including the:
» Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan (EPA, Draft 2003); and
» Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide (Planning SA, Draft 2005).
The desire to locate integrated waste treatment and resource recovery facilities within
specified areas as indicated in the recommendations above, is further reflected in the
Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide.
The recommendations in the draft Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan will need to
be reviewed to reflect the desired outcomes of the RWMSP, the closure of Wingfield,
changing community attitudes towards the establishment of Eco-industrial precincts
and waste facilities, and transport economics.
Strategies for waste reuse as identified in the plan include to “cluster waste
management facilities in strategic locations where businesses can use waste products,
and where new markets for recyclables maybe created”. The planning strategy further
includes the objective to “provide waste management facilities at the regional, district
and neighbourhood level to maximise resource recovery”.
Areas identified (in the Planning Strategy) for potential development of “key waste
management facilities” in the Region include Pedlar Creek, the Southern Waste Depot,
Lonsdale, and North Plympton.
22 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5.3 SA Government programs
The current framework for waste management in South Australia reflects a “zero
waste” attitude. This is manifested in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010, and
the likely future requirements of the Environment Protection (Waste) Policy.
5.3.1 South Australia’s State Waste Strategy 2005 – 2010
ZWSA has developed a Waste Strategy for South Australia, to guide and inform necessary
changes to waste management over the next five years (2005 – 2010).
Development of the strategy has been guided by the philosophy of the waste management
hierarchy. The waste management hierarchy establishes a scale of least to most
preferable options for waste management based on maximising waste avoidance and
reduction prior to reuse, recycling, and recovery of waste, and ultimately waste treatment
and disposal as the least preferred approach.
The Waste Strategy for South Australia sets objectives and (staged) targets for six key
areas including:
» Municipal solid waste (MSW);
» Commercial and industrial waste (C&I);
» Construction and demolition waste (C&D);
» Litter/illegal dumping;
» Hazardous waste / liquid waste; and
» Waste transfer and landfill disposal and storage.
In addition to targets set for key waste streams (as listed above), the strategy sets a target for
all metropolitan councils and large non-metropolitan urban centres to provide high
performance kerbside recycling collection services at least fortnightly by 2007. The target for
smaller non-metropolitan towns is to provide high performance recycling services by 2010.
The Waste Strategy also includes targets to reduce littering and illegal dumping in South
Australia, and to develop a Hazardous Waste Strategy for South Australia by December 2005.
Also included in the strategy are actions for waste transfer and landfill disposal including
investigating the need to establish dedicated cells or sites (mono-fills) for specific waste
streams for later recovery as technologies become available, and upgrading non-
complying landfills to meet EPA licence conditions.
The targets for municipal waste as outlined in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010,
include:
» All metropolitan councils and large non-metropolitan urban centres to provide high
performance kerbside recycling collection services at least fortnightly by 2007;
» Increase the recovery, recycling and utilisation of metropolitan kerbside collected
waste to 50% by 2008 (excluding food waste); and
» Increase the recovery, recycling and utilisation of metropolitan kerbside collected
waste to 75% by 2010 (if food waste is included).
23 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Recommended service standards will need to also take into account community
expectations and the community’s capacity to pay.
The RWMSP is designed to ensure that the SW region has the means to achieve the
targets for municipal waste as outlined in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010,
which are shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 Key material recovery and recycling targets in the State Waste
Strategy
MSW
At least 25% of all
material presented at
the kerbside recycled
(excluding food
organics).
50% of all material
presented at the
kerbside is
recycled (excluding
food organics).
75% of all material
presented at the
kerbside is recycled
(if food waste is
included).
C&I
5% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&I
materials.
15% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&I
materials.
30% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&I
materials.
C&D
20% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&D
materials.
35% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&D
materials.
50% increase in
recovery and
utilisation of C&D
materials.
2005 2006 2007 2010 2008 2009 Staged
Targets!
!
5.3.2 SA EPA Proposed Environment Protection (Waste) Policy
It is anticipated that the Environment Protection (Waste) Policy, due to be finalised in
March 2006, will require adoption of best practice principles in areas of waste
management including differential pricing for disposal of different types of waste, and
the banning of different types of waste from landfill at specified time frames.
Whilst the exact details of the proposed policy are not yet known, the background and
discussion papers for the policy indicate that the following may be required:
» Charging an extra levy on loads to landfills that contain more than 25% recyclables;
» Banning from landfills certain wastes at specified dates, including kerbside collected
green waste, and recyclable components of construction and demolition waste;
» Encouraging Local Government to provide households with an annual collection
and/or drop off service for some domestic controlled wastes (e.g. oil, paints,
batteries etc);
» Metro, outer-metro, major regional centres, and significant regional towns will be
required to provide a kerbside recycling service at a minimum fortnightly frequency
or alternate drop off arrangement depending on economic, community attitudes,
and markets; and
» An annual hard waste collection may also be required in metro, outer-metro, major
regional centres, and significant regional towns.
24 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5.3.3 Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure
and Kerbside Services
The primary objective of the plan is stated as being “to provide a way forward for waste
management in metropolitan Adelaide that is both consistent with the direction of State
policy and is equitable across stakeholder groups”. Secondary objectives of the Plan
are to provide information to Local and State Government regarding potentially viable
kerbside collection services and waste and resource recovery management options,
and the potential environment, social, and economic costs and benefits associated with
these management options.
The Draft Plan does not set specific requirements for local Councils. It does however
recommend kerbside performance targets including:
» Source separated diversion of at least 2.5 kg/hh/wk dry recyclables to sorting;
» Source separated diversion of at least 80% green waste and 65% food waste to
organics processing facilities; and
» Reduction in residual waste disposal to less than 5 kg/hh/wk.
A number of potential kerbside collection systems are put forward as potential systems
to achieve the required performance targets. The Plan also recommends following
infrastructure development in the southern region of Metropolitan Adelaide.
The Plan has implications for councils in the Region on a number of fronts. Firstly, one
of the Council collection services in the Region is not aligned with the proposed service
standards, therefore they may be future changes required to the existing kerbside
collection services to align them with State objectives. Secondly, the Region is well
placed to implement and utilise proposed new infrastructure to assist in meeting
resource recovery objectives.
Relevant key planning elements for infrastructure development in the Region as
identified in the Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan include:
» Planning for the establishment of an integrated waste management facility at either
Pedlar Creek or another suitable location;
» Plan for the operation of two to three domestic materials recovery facilities in
Metropolitan Adelaide overall, with the current facility at West Torrens noted as
being suitably located for servicing the southern region;
» Plan for the establishment and operation of a major regional green waste only open
windrow compost facility in the south east of metropolitan Adelaide;
» Plan for the establishment of enclosed organic processing facilities, ideally located
at integrated waste management facilities;
» Support the continued operation of small self haul transfer station and resource
recovery facilities;
» Provide for a building and demolition recycling facility at Pedlar Creek;
» Consider residual waste treatment once organic processing infrastructure is fully
established; and
» Discourage any new approvals for landfills to service metropolitan Adelaide.
25 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
5.3.4 Strategic Plan for SA
In 2004, the South Australian Government released its Strategic Plan for the State.
The plan is designed to look forward and mark out the path for South Australia for the
coming decade.
The six interrelated objectives of the Plan include:
» Growing prosperity;
» Improving wellbeing;
» Attaining sustainability;
» Fostering creativity;
» Building communities; and
» Expanding opportunity.
The third objective of the RWMSP relates to sustainability. Within this objective there is
a target to reduce waste to landfill by 25% within 10 years.
26 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6. Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Options
6.1 Options Considered
The options assessed in the Stage 2 report were formulated on the basis of their likely
effectiveness in achieving the key waste avoidance, reduction, diversion, and recycling
objectives in the policy framework guiding the waste agenda in SA. They were based
upon workshops held as part of the consultation process.
Some of the proposed options involve new services and infrastructure, whilst others
relate to social and human based programs designed to engender a cultural change.
In total, 22 options were put forward for consideration in Stage 2. These are
summarised in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Summary of Options for Initial Consideration
Option Description
Municipal
Option 1 Regional best-practice kerbside collection services
This option involves providing a regional 3-bin integrated kerbside
collection service across the SW Region. This would include rolling out new
240L mobile garbage bins (MGBs) to residents in Holdfast Bay and Unley
to replace the current crate collection system for recyclables, and having
regular fortnightly collection of garden organics across the SW Region.
Option 2 Fortnightly collection of combined garden and food organics, with
organics processed by either open windrow or enclosed composting
processes
This Option requires that food scraps and separated by residents in the
kitchen, placed in a biodegradable bag in a kitchen food organics
container/bin for intermediate storage, and then placed in the garden
organics bin for fortnightly collection.
Option 3 Increased services for household hazardous wastes
This option considers possible new services to better manage household
hazardous wastes. Potential service opportunities include:
» Provide yearly collection across the SW Region in addition to that
provided by the Zero Waste SA;
» Provide an on-call hazardous waste collection service;
» Provide required infrastructure for safe storage of these items at Council
depots and/or all Council waste facilities including transfer stations and
landfills. Each site would need to be licensed for this activity and ensure
appropriate collection and disposal of the collected wastes; and
» Promote avoiding generation of hazardous waste in the first instance
through providing increased education to residents.
27 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 4 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
This option considers potential strategies that Councils in the Region may
choose to adopt to manage these types of waste including:
» Regular collection of these types of products;
» On-call collection service;
» Acceptance for free or low-cost at a revolve/reuse centre; and
» Support establishment of a drop off centre for repair (where possible)
redistributing and reuse), or for supply to metals recyclers.
Option 5 Council wastes
This option requires that the performance of any council wide waste
management initiatives should be measured and made publicly available to
both Council employees and the general community in order to
demonstrate each Council’s commitment to waste minimisation. It also
requires provisions for waste minimisation and monitoring of system
performance to be included in Council’s Environmental Management Plans.
Option 6 Modifications to the domestic kerbside hard-waste collection service
This option assesses the potential to modify existing on-call kerbside hard-
waste collection services by either:
» Having reusable items collected by operators of the proposed
reuse/revolve centre (residents to place direct call to the reuse centre
for this collection);
» Having a regular set-day for undertaking collections in each Council
area to maximise collection efficiencies;
» Requiring residents to sort the hard waste into piles of scrap steel, wood
and timber products, garden organics, and residual for example. Each
of these streams would then be collected by a different collection
vehicle and taken to the appropriate disposal point (either to recycling or
landfill); or
» All mixed hard waste could be taken to a depot for manual sorting prior
to delivery to landfill or recycling.
Option 7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
Under this option, Local Government would share the revenue associated
with recyclables collected at kerbside within the region.
28 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Commercial and Industrial
Option 8 Designated food organics collection service for the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
This option would involve providing a designated food collection service
for selected commercial and industrial properties that generate large
amounts of food organics. The collected organics would be processed
either by a composting or digestion process to recover the organic content
of the material as well as potentially energy.
Option 9 Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for C&I wastes
Under this option a MRF would be established either at an existing waste
disposal facility or at a new site. The MRF would accept only C&I waste
from both self-haul customers and commercial collections. Depending on
how the waste arrives at the site, the materials would either be directly
separated and stockpiled (for loads containing only one type of material),
or processed through a variety of plant to recover as much recyclables as
possible prior to disposal of residual waste to landfill.
Option 10 Regional Support of waste programs targeting industry, including
implementation of cleaner production processes
This option considers implementation of programs at a regional level to
assist improve industrial waste management practices, including
potentially:
» Providing a source of cleaner production information to the industry;
» Connecting industries which generate waste with those industries that
are able to use the waste (thus preventing the waste being disposed of
and raw materials being used);
» Developing and implementing voluntary cleaner production programs
and reporting the outcomes to the public;
» Negotiating self regulated initiatives to prevent pollution and waste
generation, and report the outcomes to the public; and
» Encouraging the community to get involved with industry to deliver
better environmental performance.
Option 11 Liquid waste services
This option considers the establishment of a liquid waste treatment plant in
the SW Region to service councils located in southern Metropolitan
Adelaide and surrounds. It also considers increasing the number of
collection points for liquid wastes (including oily fats and used engine oils)
to all Council operated depots (including landfills and transfer stations).
29 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 12 Establishment of an Eco-Industrial Precinct
A separate study is being undertaken to identify the potential suitability of
establishing an integrated waste eco-industrial precinct (or precincts in the
SW Region). The study stems from the desire of the region to emulate the
principals and activities contained in the proposed eco-industrial park to be
located at the former Wingfield Landfill depot site. The notion of such a
precinct is that waste material from one company is used as a valuable
input material for its neighbours
Construction and Demolition
Option 13 Establishment of a Regional Depot for Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials
This option considers the development of a regional C&D depot for the
accepting, sorting, processing, and resale of C&D materials.
Other
Option 14 Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) processing of kerbside
collected garbage
This option is the same as per Option one, but garbage would be
disposed at an AWT facility for further separation and treatment and
residuals then transferred to landfill.
Option 15 Single bin collection system combined with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
This option would involve moving from a 3-bin collection system
(separate collection of garbage, recyclables, and organics) to a weekly
240L 1-bin collection system (all mixed wastes) with the mixed waste
stream being sent to an AWT plant for processing.
Option 16 Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse centre
A revolve/reuse centre is a facility for residents to drop off unwanted house
hold items including furniture, appliances and white goods (in working
order). The items can then be refurbished and then resold back to the
community.
Option 17 Regional Approaches to Waste Education
The option of undertaking education on a regional level refers to the
sharing of education resources across all six member Councils. This
would include the employment of education officers that work on behalf
of the Councils/Industries/Public across the whole region, the use of
standardised advertising and education materials, and promotion and
organisation of special events.
Option 18 Tyres
A potential strategy to address disposal of tyres in the SW Region is to
recommend Councils support a total ban on the landfilling of tyres (i.e.
even tyres in shredded form). In order for the ban to be successful, there
must be development of markets for recovered tyres.
30 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Option 19 Regional plastic bag reduction strategies
This option considers establishing a regional approach to plastic bag
reduction campaigns that would result in consistency in education and
promotional material across a wider area (hence a greater chance of
being able to impact consumer behaviour). It would also involve sharing
human resources as well as promotion and marketing material across
the Region.
Option 20A Public place litter management
This option considers opportunities to undertake litter reduction
campaigns on a regional basis.
Option 20B Public place recycling
This option considers opportunities to undertake public place recycling
campaigns on a regional basis.
Option 21 Formation of Regional Partnerships
This option involves forming co-operative relationships with industry to
influence the uptake of cleaner production and eco-efficiency across the
SW Region. Development of industry partnerships may be progressed at
the individual level between Council and individual organisations, or
potentially via representative industry organisations.
In addition to forming partnerships with industry, the Region should
consider the potential establishment of a Regional Environmental Cluster
Working Group. Members of the group would comprise of
representatives from industry, small business, Councils, and waste
industry service providers. Representatives from Zero Waste SA and the
EPA may also be invited to attend.
31 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6.2 Achievement of State strategy targets and Zero Waste SA
Kerbside Performance Standards
Preliminary assessment of each potential option against State strategy targets and
Zero Waste kerbside performance standards is provided in Table 6-2.
In many cases, whilst identified options will be likely to assist in achieving the guidance
targets and standards, the actual level of resource recovery and waste diversion that
will be achieved cannot be accurately determined without further information about the
likely participation in the proposed new services. This information may be obtained
through running trials of some of the proposed new services.
Table 6-2 Alignment of Options with State Waste Reduction Targets and Zero
Waste SA Kerbside Performance Criteria
No Description Contribution to State
Waste Reduction Target
Alignment with Zero
Waste SA Kerbside
Performance Targets
1 Regional best practice
kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables,
and garden organics (3-
bin MGB system).
Increased recovery of
municipal recyclables and
garden organics from
regional implementation of
3-bin kerbside system.
Diversion of up to 45% of
kerbside collected waste.
Potential to achieve
recommended
diversion rates for
recyclables.
2 Fortnightly combined
food and garden
organics collection from
all households, collected
organics processed
either by open-windrow
or enclosed composting
Up to 75% of diversion for
kerbside collected waste
achievable
Aligned with standards
where 3-bin collection
system is maintained
3 Household hazardous
waste additional
collection or drop-off
services
Improved hazardous
waste management –
potential collection of
additional 25 – 80 tonnes
hazardous waste per year
-
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances, either on-call
collection or permanent
drop-off facility
Reduction in hard waste to
landfill, actual diversion
achievable not yet
measurable
May assist to achieve
performance
standards for hard
waste collection (50%
recovery of materials)
5 Reducing Council
wastes
Potential reduction in C&I
waste – dependant on
identified opportunities
from proposed audit
-
32 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
No Description Contribution to State
Waste Reduction Target
Alignment with Zero
Waste SA Kerbside
Performance Targets
6 Modified collection of
source separated
household hard waste
Improved recovery of
domestic hard wastes
May assist to achieve
performance
standards for hard
waste collection (50%
recovery of materials)
7 Regional MRF for
Recyclables
Increased recovery of
municipal recyclables and
garden organics from
regional implementation of
3-bin kerbside system.
Diversion of up to 45% of
kerbside collected waste.
Potential to better
control end markets
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food
collection service for C&I
properties
NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF Diversion of up to
estimated 36% C&I
waste in the SW Region
-
10 Management of industrial
and special wastes
(cleaner production
initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
Indirect impact on C&I
wastes
-
11 Industrial and liquid waste
sharing as per Eco-
Industrial precinct model
Reduction in C&I waste.
Improved management
of liquid wastes.
-
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct Improved C&I waste
management – refer
Eco-Industrial Study
-
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot Diversion of up to
estimated 86% C&D
waste in the SW Region
-
Other
14 Use of AWT for
processing kerbside
garbage stream (continue
separate collection of
domestic recyclables and
garden organics)
Diversion of up to 85% of
kerbside collected waste
achievable.
Aligned with standards
where 3-bin collection
system is maintained
33 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
No Description Contribution to State
Waste Reduction Target
Alignment with Zero
Waste SA Kerbside
Performance Targets
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-
bin collection system.
Mixed waste stream
processed using AWT
NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s
for household hard waste
items and second hand
goods
Reduction in hard waste
to landfill, actual diversion
achievable not yet
measurable
Operation of the centre
may assist to achieve
performance standards
for hard waste collection
(50% recovery of
materials) where the
centre is involved in
providing the collection
or recovery service
17 Increased education /
regional education
strategies
Indirect impact on all
waste streams
Development of waste
service and reduction
education program is
aligned with
performance criteria
18 Increased reuse recycling
of tyres
NA NA
19 Plastic bag reduction Reduction in plastic bag
waste
-
20A Public place litter
management
NA NA
20B Public place recycling
(including recycling at
public events)
Increased recovery of
recyclables – actual
contribution to targets
cannot be determined at
this time
-
21 Cooperative partnership
arrangements
Improved C&I waste
management – actual
contribution to targets
cannot yet be determined
-
NA – Not able to be assessed at present
NS – Not assessed as the option is not considered suitable for implementation in the SW region
34 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6.3 Environmental and Financial Assessment of Options
Assessment of the potential financial, environmental and social implications of potential
waste management options allows for a “triple bottom line” approach to be taken in the
decision making process. This approach allows the Councils to consider not only the
financial implications of modifying existing waste management services, but also the
potential impacts of the community and environment.
All options were assessed against a number of criteria for evaluating their potential
financial costs, technical suitability, and possible environmental and social impacts. In
addition, a comparison of the potential benefits from adopting each option at the
individual Council level compared to on a regional basis was undertaken.
A summary of the outcomes of the outcomes of the technical, social, and
environmental evaluation is shown in Table A1 in Appendix A. In Table A1, the results
from each evaluation are shown as numerical scores out of 15. Increasing numerical
scores indicate increasing technical suitability, environmental benefits, and social
benefits from the implementation of the suggested option compared to under the
current situation.
Table A1 also shows the assessed relative advantage of implementing the proposed
strategies on a regional versus an individual Council basis. A scoring matrix, as listed
below, was used for this evaluation.
» L = Low, Limited advantage from implementation on a regional basis.
» M = Medium, Some advantage to be gained either through sharing of resources,
greater ability to influence the community and industry behaviour, improved service
efficiencies and per unit costs.
» H = High, High advantage to be gained either through increased service or resource
efficiencies, reduced per unit service costs, greater ability to influence community
and industry behaviour, or increased volumes of materials for more economic
processing.
Financial costs (for the SW Region as a whole) associated with each option have also
been calculated and are summarised in Table B1 in Appendix B. Cost estimates
provided in Table B1 refer to the total potential cost and potential additional cost to the
SW Region for undertaking any of the proposed strategies. Additional costs for each
potential strategy have been estimated taking into account existing costs for waste
management services.
6.4 Overall Suitability for Implementation – Short-list of Options
for Consideration
A short-list of options for further assessment in this Stage 3 report was determined
based on a preliminary assessment of triple bottom line factors, which is reported in
Appendix A as well as consideration of financial and other factors. Potential suitability
for the region is reported in Table 6-3, and is classified as High (H), Medium (M), or
Low (L). Options identified as having low (L) overall suitability were not considered
further in the assessment process.
35 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
6.4.1 Cost benefit analysis of options
A cost benefit analysis was undertaken that sought to provide a qualitative description
of potential benefits, as well as indirect costs (not considered in financial analysis).
6.4.2 Risk Analysis
A preliminary risk analysis was undertaken to identify the major risks associated with
each of the waste management options under consideration, and to suggest possible
methods to minimise the potential impacts of these risks.
36 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 6-3 Summary of overall suitability for implementation
Option Description Suitability
Municipal
1 Regional best practice kerbside collection of garbage,
recyclables, and garden organics (3 bin system).
Weekly 140 L MGB for garbage, fortnightly 240 L MGB for
recyclables and monthly 240 L MGB for garden organics.
H
2 Fortnightly combined food and garden organics collection
from domestic households, processed either by open-
windrow or enclosed composting
H
3 Household hazardous waste additional collection or drop-
off services
H
4 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances H
5 Reducing Council waste H
6 Modifications to the kerbside on-call hard waste service
including potential sorting of kerbside collected hard waste
into distinct material streams for recycling, or collection of
hard waste by operators of proposed reuse/revolve centre
H
7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables.
M-H
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service for C&I properties L
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased sorting and recovery of
C&I waste
M
10 Management of industrial and special wastes (cleaner
production initiatives and eco-efficiency)
H
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing as per Eco-Industrial
precinct model
H
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct H
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting, sorting, processing,
and resale of C&D materials
H
Other
14 Use of AWT for processing kerbside garbage stream
(continue separate collection of domestic recyclables and
garden organics)
M
37 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Suitability
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin collection system. Mixed waste
stream processed using AWT
L
16 Revolve type operation/s for household hard waste items
and second hand goods
H
17 Increased education / regional education strategies H
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres H
19 Plastic bag reduction H
20A Public place litter management H
20B Public place recycling and recycling at public events H
21 Cooperative partnership arrangement with commercial
operators and stakeholders from the waste industry
H
38 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7. Further analysis of Stage 2 Options
A total of 22 options were presented and analysed in the Stage 2 report, and are
covered in Table 6-3. Further detail on the 20 options that received a suitability rating
of medium (M) to high (H) is undertaken in this Chapter. The two options that received
a suitability rating of low (L) are no longer being considered.
7.1 Municipal waste stream
Option 1 involves providing a regional 3-bin integrated kerbside collection service
across the SW Region. This would include provision of new 240L mobile garbage bins
(MGBs) to residents in Holdfast Bay and Unley to replace the current crate collection
systems for recyclables.
The main objective of this option is to implement the most effective and efficient
collection services in all Councils across the region in three main areas:
» Domestic waste;
» Recycling; and
» Garden organics/green waste.
The reason for this is twofold – firstly, it appears from the existing data from SA and
elsewhere that a three-bin system is the most effective system in terms of delivering
outcomes that are consistent with the State strategy targets and meeting Zero Waste
kerbside performance standards.
Secondly there may be cost efficiencies for Councils in aggregating some of the
existing smaller Council collection contracts, since collection costs are the most
significant components of waste management costs, and there are a number of fixed
costs that could be distributed over a larger number of services. Costs savings could
potentially be used for resource recovery purposes.
7.1.1 Flexibility for future AWT solutions
The SW Region will need to implement alternative waste technologies (AWT) in order
to meet the ambitious waste reduction targets set by the State Government. It is
important that maximum flexibility be maintained until an appropriate technology is
selected. A three-bin system has the advantage of being able to be adapted easily to
a wide range of technologies in the medium to longer term, as outlined in Option 14.
The two main types of alternative waste technology that are in existence overseas and
are currently being implemented around Australia (1) are energy recovery plants,
involving significant capital investment, and (2) composting plants, which are more
economical, provided that the compost products can be marketed, rather than
disposed of in landfill.
A conventional bin arrangement (domestic waste, recycling and green waste in the 3
bins) would allow municipal waste (including food but excluding garden waste) to be
39 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
directed to something like an anaerobic digestion plant, with an upfront materials
separation section. Since woody garden organics are not compatible with anaerobic
digestion, they would be best kept separate via the separate green waste collection,
and directed to a composting plant, for production of high-grade marketable compost.
Using the same bins, but in a different manner would allow for a different type of
alternative waste technology, which focuses on compost production, rather than
energy recovery. The domestic waste bin would be used as a “dry waste” or residuals
bin. This would enable this material could be directed to a “dirty MRF”, for removal of
metals, plastics and glass.
Some pre-processing could also be undertaken to assist in removing the recyclables
and reduce the volume of residual waste for landfilling. The proposed AWT facility at
Coffs Harbour in Northern NSW will use an autoclave to pre-treat the residual bin
material and make it easier to remove plastics, glass and metals from the waste
stream using conventional MRF technology. The remaining material, with a much
reduced volume, and lower potential gas and leachate emissions will be landfilled. It
also has future potential to be reprocessed into fuel suitable for energy production
and/or low grade cardboard.
In this arrangement, food waste would be put into the garden organics bin, which
would be collected fortnightly (or perhaps weekly if odour becomes an issue), and
directed toward a composting plant, for production of high grade compost.
The “wet bin/dry bin” system is consistent with Option 2, which involves food scraps
being separated by residents in the kitchen, placed in a biodegradable bag in a kitchen
food organics container/bin for intermediate storage, and then placed in the garden
organics bin for fortnightly collection.
Burnside Council, in conjunction with East Waste, the Jeffries Group and Zero Waste
SA, is currently trialling this system with 1,800 households, with the material to be
processed into compost at the Jeffreys sites at Wingfield and Buckland Park. (However
it is understood that the in vessel composting unit for the food component has not yet
been put into operation).
7.1.2 Potential performance improvements
Some of the waste data provided by the various Councils is summarised in Table 7-1.
Analysis of this data shown in this table suggests that some Council‘s currently perform
“better” than others, in terms of the following measures:
» Amount of garbage collected per person (the less the better);
» Amount of recyclables collected per person (the more the better); and
» Amount of garden organics collected per person (higher numbers suggest more
effective collection systems and greater diversion from landfill).
The introduction of a best practice system would also have the impact of reducing the
total tonnage of kerbside municipal waste generated within the region.
40 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
No Council appears to be the “best performer” in all three areas, and it needs to be
understood that waste data is only an indicator of performance. Ideally all councils
would have the same “best practice” collection system, which would mean that they
could potentially all reach the same targets.
41 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 7-1 Current waste and recycling statistics and potential improvements
Data derived from 2003/2004 and 2004/005 Council waste records. Some Council’s have introduced services changes since then will impact on the above results.
The low waste yield corresponds with Council’s having an existing 3 bin system.
ave / better best ave / better best ave / better best ave / better best
t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr kg/hh/yr t/yr t/yr
Holdfast Bay 18614 13800 741 11082 8875 1962 105.4 1962 3231 108 5.8 3036 5651 361 19.4 504 1059
Marion 36306 17310 477 17310 17310 4640 127.8 4718 6302 11023 303.6 11023 11023 443 12.2 983 2066
Mitcham 26500 19688 743 15777 12635 3063 115.6 3444 4600 5500 207.5 4323 8046 1508 56.9 1508 1508
Onkaparinga 62800 40496 645 40496 29942 7886 125.6 8161 10900 2977 47.4 10244 19067 1500 23.9 1700 3574
West Torrens 26214 12272 468 12272 12498 3791 144.6 3791 4550 7021 267.8 7021 7959 814 31.1 814 1492
Unley 18500 8918 482 8918 8820 3211 173.6 3211 3211 4189 226.4 4189 5617 488 26.4 488 1053
TOTAL 188934 112484 595 105855 90080 24553 130.0 25287 32793 30818 163.1 39835 57363 5114 27.1 5996 10751
-6629 -22404 734 8240 9017 26545 882 5637
-5.9% -19.9% 3.0% 33.6% 29.3% 86.1% 17.3% 110.2%
above regional average
below regional average
best
Note: If figures better than regional average, then actual figure has been applied
households
Improvement
Garden Organics Hard Waste
existing existing
improved improved
Domestic Waste Recycling Mixed
existing existing
improved improved
42 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
If all councils were able to achieve the same performance statistics or better than the
“average”, in each area, or in the most optimistic situation, be as good as the “best
performer”, the yield improvements indicating a reduction in waste presented in
garbage bins and increase in resources presented in recycling and garden organics
bins as shown in Table 7-2 would be possible.
Table 7-2 Possible improvements from 3 bin system and subsequent
efficiency gains
All councils achieve
performance equivalent to
average or better
All councils achieve
performance equivalent to
best performer
Garbage -5.9% (6,629 tonnes/yr) -19.9% (22,404 tonnes/yr)
Recycling +3.0% (734 tonnes/yr) + 33.6% (8,240 tonnes/yr)
Garden organics + 29.3% (9,017 tonnes/yr) +86.1% (26,545 tonnes/yr)
The Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure and
Kerbside Services, advocates source separated diversion of at least 2.5 kg/hh/wk dry
recyclables to sorting. This equates to 130 kg/hh/yr, which coincides with the regional
average for the SW region. The best performer in the region is currently achieving
approximately 173 kg/hh/yr, and four of the six councils are below this 130 kg/hh/yr
figure, so there is room for improvement. If all councils were able to achieve the same
as this best performing council, there would be a 33.6% increase in collected
recyclables.
All metropolitan councils and large non-metropolitan urban centres are required to
provide high performance kerbside recycling collection services at least fortnightly by
2007, according to South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010. The 3-bin system is
also consistent with the best practice system outlined in the National Packaging
Covenant, of which four of the six councils are signatories.
The Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure and
Kerbside Services also advocates source separated diversion of at least 80% green
waste and 65% food waste to organics processing facilities; and reduction in residual
waste disposal to less than 5 kg/hh/wk.
Providing an effective garden waste collection system that results in higher collection
rates of garden organics would provide higher diversion of garden organics from the
garbage stream. This is consistent with trying to achieve the above-mentioned targets,
as well as the targets for municipal waste as outlined in South Australia’s Waste
Strategy 2005-2010, such as increasing the recovery, recycling and utilisation of
metropolitan kerbside collected waste to at least 25% by 2006 (excluding food waste),
to 50% by 2008 and to 75% by 2010 (including food waste).
43 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7.1.3 Aggregating collection services
There is obviously a lot of debate about the optimal number of services for a waste or
recycling contract, to obtain the best-cost efficiencies. In the SW region currently,
there are almost 190,000 households/services. The costs reported by each Council for
providing the various services vary as follows:
» Domestic waste $0.52 to $0.73 per service
» Recycling $0.60 to $1.50 per service
» Garden organics $1.00 to $1.50 per service
The lowest costs do not necessarily apply to those Councils with the largest number of
services, however this could be for reasons such as the rates quoted in old vs new
contracts, and differences in the cost basis for reporting between day labour Councils
and councils using contractors.
There are no guidelines on the optimal number of services for a service provider. The
general principle is that the more services in a contract, the more economic it should
be, due to economies of scale. There are cases where one single service provider
covers a very large region (such as Brisbane City Council). However there are issues
that arise in these situations, including lack of competition, and concentration of market
power in a limited number of waste and recycling companies. Therefore a single
contract for the entire region would not be a suitable model for the SW region.
The current breakdown of households/services per region is as follows:
» Holdfast Bay 18,614 services
» Marion 36,306 services
» Mitcham 26,500 services
» Onkaparinga 62,800 services
» Unley 18,500 services
» West Torrens 26,214 services
» TOTAL 188,934 services
To provide a high enough number of services for improved efficiencies, but ensure that
there is adequate competition (and hence keep tendered prices as low as possible), a
model that provides for 2 regional contracts of approximately 100,000 services per
contract (domestic waste, green waste and recyclables) may be most appropriate. This
would enable each contractor to have a fleet of approximately 15 collection vehicles for
each type of service.
The next best option would have 3 contracts of approximately 60,000 services, which
would enable a contractor to have a vehicle fleet of approximately 10 vehicles. It can
be seen that none of the current service areas are anywhere near 100,000 services,
only one is near 60,000 services, and two of the service areas are less than 20,000
services.
44 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Logically, the Councils with the smallest number of services should join together with
other smaller councils in a single contract, or join with another larger council. At
present, Mitcham and Onkaparinga use day labour for collection (for domestic waste
only). If these two adjacent councils wished to aggregate their waste and recycling
services, at a time of their choosing, they could do so, and create a collection area with
almost 90,000 services.
They could however aggregate their recycling services into a single contract, and their
garden organics into another single contract, providing about 90,000 services in each
case.
Similarly, Marion and West Torrens have established a joint contract to enable them to
switch from split bins to a 140L garbage service, and 240L commingled MGB for
recycling. This will create a collection area with approximately 62,000 services for each
of domestic garbage and recycling. There will be a total of 124,000 services within the
two contracts, which should provide immediate cost savings in terms of managing the
collection fleet.
In terms of geography, it would make sense for Holdfast Bay to eventually join in with
Marion and West Torrens on domestic waste and recycling services (and in doing so
upgrade its recycling service from a crate based system). This would permit the
combined domestic waste and recycling services to eventually be split, with
approximately 80,000 services in each contract.
Unley Council has a small number of services, and due to its geographical location, it
could either join in with the Western or the Eastern councils. If it joined in with the
Western councils, which could occur as soon as its current collection contracts expire,
this would create a collection area of almost 100,000 services for each type of material.
If it waited until the Eastern councils decided to do a combined contract, this would
increase the Eastern contract to approximately 108,000 services for each type of
material. Either way, this would increase the cost efficiency of the service provided to
Unley residents.
Once two collection areas of between 80,000 and 100,000 services are established,
this would allow for contractors to bid on either domestic waste, recycling or garden
organics contracts, or a combination of these (any two, or all three). This might lead to
even greater savings.
7.1.4 Household hazardous waste - additional collection or drop-off services
Option 3 involves better management of household hazardous wastes (HHW), which
are of some concern in collection systems due to potential environmental and safety
issues. HHW are particularly problematic for AWT facilities, since they contaminate
compost products (sometimes making them unmarketable due to high heavy metals
content), and they can also affect the biological processes in mechanical biological and
anaerobic digestion type plants, leading to plant breakdowns. HHW are a major issue
for all Councils.
Currently only two of the six Councils in the SW Region provide some form of annual
or biennial chemical collection service. There are a number of different options,
45 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
including regular collection services, receival of HHW at existing facilities and on call
services. The most suitable option depends upon the needs and preferences of the
region, but a combination of receiving HHW at existing facilities and occasional special
events where people can deliver such HHW materials to the facilities, or to another
site, helps maintain awareness in resident’s minds.
7.1.5 Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
According to Zero Waste SA, nearly 1 million computers are sent to landfill in Australia
every year. Australians discard their mobile phones every 18 to 24 months and dump
about 90% of them. There are about 10 million obsolete mobile phones lying around in
Australia, and Australians discard 2.5 million major appliances each year. Most small
appliances end up in landfills.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs are being implemented in some
States such as NSW, for particular types of material. This approach may take off
nationally, but such EPR schemes are only likely to apply to new items. Items that are
currently in households are going to appear on the kerbside as hard waste, be
delivered to landfills and transfer stations by residents as general waste, or may end
up in garbage bins.
The main problem with many such items at the moment is that there is very little
opportunity for them to be recycled, even if they are separately collected, particularly if
they mainly consist of plastics, and have very little steel in them. White goods are an
exception, and computer recycling is currently occurring in the commercial sector.
Mobile phones are currently being recycled.
More work needs to be done to identify potential opportunities for recycling of particular
items, before any collection systems are established, otherwise they may end up in
landfill after being carefully collected and sorted.
7.1.6 Reducing Council Waste
Option 5 looks at wastes associated with Council services and facilities. These vary in
nature from mixed waste, garden organics, litter, and street sweepings, to concrete
and soil. As a promoter of waste management initiatives it is important that Councils in
the SW Region set a good example in promoting waste minimisation, particularly waste
avoidance and reuse in day-to-day operational activities.
The majority of waste from council buildings is generally office paper and residual
waste. Ways in which the Councils could demonstrate best practice in relation to
managing office wastes include:
» Showing a commitment to buying recycled products;
» Promoting initiatives to reuse paper before recycling (i.e. use both sides by double
siding printing or using the back of printed papers for notes or general stationary);
and
» Recycling printer toners.
46 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
It is likely that many of these practices are already being undertaken in some form,
however there may be advantages from comparing information across Councils in the
Region in terms of evaluating system performance. Whilst paper recycling may be
undertaken in some Council offices, it is currently not clear if paper and other mixed
recycling are also undertaken in all libraries and other council facilities including leisure
centres. Recycling of concrete, soil, street sweepings, and other materials collected
from Council works and services also vary across the SW Region.
It is therefore important that good baseline information be obtained through an audit of
all council buildings and facilities, as well as service and maintenance operations prior
to implementing waste reduction strategies.
The performance of any council wide waste management initiatives should be
measured and made publicly available to both Council employees and the general
community in order to demonstrate each Council’s commitment to waste minimisation
and to encourage support for the program. Provisions for waste minimisation and
monitoring of system performance (including having specific purchasing policies
guiding preferred purchase of recycled products) should also form part of each
Council’s dedicated Environmental Management Plan.
Therefore, as a first stage in addressing council generated wastes, it is recommended
that a regional wide audit be undertaken of each council’s operations to identify further
opportunities for reduction of both office and general wastes.
7.1.7 Modification of the domestic kerbside hard waste collection service
Option 6 deals with potential improvements to the domestic kerbside hard waste
collection system. All Councils in the SW Region currently provide some form of annual
hard waste collection service to their residents. Over 5,000 tonnes of hard waste is
collected across the Region. It is understood that a portion of this waste is currently
disposed of to landfill with minimal separation of potentially recyclable items such as
metal items and wood and timber products.
Greater recovery of materials from the hard waste stream could be achieved by either:
» Having reusable items collected by operators of the proposed reuse/revolve centre
(residents to place direct call to the reuse centre for this collection);
» Having a regular set-day for undertaking collections in each Council area to
maximise collection efficiencies;
» Requiring residents to sort the hard waste into piles of scrap steel, wood and timber
products, garden organics, and residual for example. Each of these streams would
then be collected by a different collection vehicle and taken to the appropriate
disposal point (either to recycling or landfill); or
» All mixed hard waste could be taken to a depot for manual sorting prior to delivery
to landfill or recycling.
The current cost of providing on-call hard waste collections across the SW Region is
quite significant, estimated at between $8 to $32 per participating household.
47 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
On average only approximately 30kg of hard waste is collected per household across
the SW Region (equivalent to an average of about 100kg per participating household)
2
.
Hence depending on demand for the existing service, there may be scope to either
modify the service, or discontinue the service with collection of potentially reusable
items to be arranged by the resident with the operators of the reuse centre.
Therefore, prior to revising service options for the hard waste it is first important that
improved baseline information be obtained through undertaking a detailed audit and
customer satisfaction survey of the current service. The audit and survey should be
used to determine:
» Current level of participation;
» Reasons for low/high participation in each Council area;
» Composition of hard waste placed out for collection (including percentage of
potentially recyclable items);
» Number of households that place out only one type of waste for collection (i.e. only
bulky garden wastes or furniture);
» Average volume of hard waste placed out per collection per household;
» Potential residential reaction if the service was discounted or modified so that only
potentially reusable items would be collected (for resale in the reuse centre); and
» Current level of customer satisfaction and suggestions for service improvements.
7.1.8 Regional MRF
Option 7 involves having a MRF in the region. The motivation for including this option
in the study is that the SW Region councils are not convinced that the current
arrangements, with a single operator are optimising the financial returns to Councils
and that they present potential environmental risks (through lack of control over the
eventual destination of the collected recyclables).
Currently the majority or all of recyclables collected from kerbside sources within the
Adelaide Metropolitan area and the region are processed at Material Recovery
Facilities (MRF’s) operated by the one company. That company undertakes all
marketing and procurement of end markets. No Councils or regions operate or have
ownership of MRF’s. Only one regional authority in SA, the Northern Adelaide Waste
Management Authority (NAWMA), has an arrangement for sharing of revenue derived
from sales of recyclables to end markets.
The current total volume of recyclables collected across the SW region is of the order
of 24,553 tonnes/yr. As outlined in Section 7.1.2, the overall quantity of recyclables
collected could potentially rise by between 3% and 33% due to improvements in
collection practices. This would result in approximately 30,000 tonnes of recyclables
2
Detailed information about the current hard waste collection service is included in Appendix H, under
Option 20
48 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
being collected each year and a reduction in the tonnage of kerbside municipal waste
collected.
If it was assumed that 50% of the collected materials were paper, which is currently
fetching up to $300/tonne, the value of the recyclables collected from the SW region
annually would be conservatively estimated at $7- 9 million per year. If the SW region
was able to obtain a 10% margin on these sales, it could gain $0.7-0.9 million in extra
revenue each year.
There is obviously some financial benefit for the SW region in being involved in the
receival of recyclables. The question is really what is the best way of the SW region
being involved, as the potential rewards always reflect the risks involved.
At the most risky end, the SW region could set up and operate its own MRF, in
competition with the existing operator. This would require the region to raise sufficient
capital to build such a facility, and to operate it for a sufficient period to amortise the
capital involved (at least 7-10 years).
A lack of experience in setting up and operating such a facility by the current regional
staff would potentially mean that operational costs might not be as low as they should
be. Also, the region would need to market the recyclables to reprocessors, and to
negotiate contracts with these reprocessors. Again a lack of experience (and relatively
low tonnages of only 30,000 tonnes/yr) could mean that contract prices are not as high
as could be gained by experienced MRF operators.
The are a few examples of Councils or regions within Australian capital cities owning or
operating MRF’s, or even having royalty arrangements, as this involves sharing some
of the commercial risks associated with their operation, and marketing of the materials.
The majority of MRFs are owned or operated by the private sector, often under a
combined collection and receival contract arrangement with councils.
It should be noted that EcoRecycle Victoria’s (now Sustainability Victoria) developed
model kerbside recycling contracts, which advocated separation of collection and
recycling contracts, to provide better outcomes in terms of yields and quality of
material, as well as more efficient collections. These split contracts are becoming more
common throughout the industry, as older contracts end. Councils and regional bodies
are now calling for regional receival tenders before they go to tender for collection
services, as per the Eco Recycle Victoria recommendations.
In the Stage 2 report, the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council and the City of
Wannaroo were mentioned as two examples of Regional Groups or Councils operating
MRF’s in Western Australia in their own right.
In the case of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council, which took over the
operation of the AWT facility and MRF at Canning Vale from Bedminster (which had
significant engineering problems in commissioning its AWT), the seven member
Councils had to each guarantee a loan contribution proportional to their population and
sign a contract guaranteeing supply of recyclables to the MRF, and payment of agreed
gate fees for a 20 year period. It should be noted that this action was taken in order to
resolve a situation that had developed in relation to the Canning Vale project, not as a
preferred strategy by these Councils.
49 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
In the case of the Wannaroo MRF, it is understood to be joint venture arrangement
with two abutting Councils, whereby the joint venture markets and sells commodities
and contracts out the operation of the plant. It is assumed that the Council owns the
facility, and has provided the capital to operate the plant.
Another possible method for the SW region to become more closely involved in the
recycling of materials and gain some financial advantages would be to call for a
regional tender for a private operator to set up and operate a MRF in the region. Part of
the contract conditions would be for Councils to pay a set availability fee (covering the
capital cost of establishing the facility over a set amortization period) and also sharing
a percentage of the profits gained from marketing the materials. This may be more
financially attractive than the current arrangements. Testing the market by going out to
tender will provide more certainty on whether this is the right strategy for the SW
region.
In reality, Councils are exposed to similar financial risks whether they own and operate
the facility, or just enter a long-term contract with a private operator to receive the
recyclables from their region. In the former case, Councils need to come up with a
large amount of capital, whereas in the latter case, the operator borrows the money,
but minimizes their commercial risk by locking Councils into medium to long-term
contracts.
Given the high cost of establishment, the specialized operational equipment and the
anecdotal evidence around Australia, the ownership and operation of MRF by the
region or member councils in their own right may not be the better of the two options.
The Regions potential involvement in a regional MRF could be as follows:
» Purchasing a site within an eco-industrial precinct similar to the Canberra Hume
Resource Recovery Estate and leasing the land to a private operator;
» Entering into a separate contract for the processing of kerbside and commercial
recyclables collected under a regional contract and in return obtaining a share in
revenue from sale of recyclables.
7.2 Commercial and industrial waste stream
7.2.1 Regional C&I MRF
Option 9 involves maximising recovery of materials from the C&I waste stream without
requiring significant changes to existing collection and processing systems. Results
from the recent landfill audit of C&I waste in Metropolitan Adelaide indicated that a
considerable proportion of the C&I waste stream is potentially recoverable (as shown
in Figure 7-1).
Under this option a MRF would be established either at an existing waste disposal
facility or at a new site. The MRF would accept only C&I waste from both self-haul
customers and commercial collections. Depending on how the waste arrives at the site,
the materials would either be directly separated and stockpiled (for loads containing
only one type of material), or processed through a variety of plant to recover as much
recyclables as possible. Residual waste would then be transported to landfill for final
disposal.
50 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Food / Kitchen
20%
Garbage bags
18%
Treatment Plant Residue
8%
Soil / Clean Fill
6%
Foundry Sand
6%
Cardboard
6%
Flock
5%
Vegetation / Garden
4%
Wood – Timber
4%
Tyres / Rubber
4%
Plastic – Bags & Film
2%
Paper
2%
Wood – Pallets
2%
Other C&I
13%
Figure 7-1 Major components of C&I waste stream in Metropolitan Adelaide
(Source: based on the Zero Waste SA Landfill Survey, 2004)
Note: components representing less than 2% of the waste stream have been grouped under “Other C&I”
The operating objective of the MRF would be to maximise the recovery of recyclable
materials and minimise residual waste sent to landfill. Whilst there is a potentially
recoverable organics component of the C&I waste stream, it is not proposed to attempt
to recover this fraction within the short-to-medium timeframe. This is because there is
likely to be high contamination of recovered organics from a mixed waste separation
process and hence the quality of any compost products made from this material may
have limited use.
The total volume of C&I waste generated in the SW region is of the order of 45,000
tonnes/yr, Approximately 36% (15,000 tonnes/yr) of this is potentially recyclable. This
may not be sufficient to establish a commercially viable facility, and cooperation with
another region may be needed to provide the necessary economies of scale. A much
better understanding of the composition and sources of C&I wastes is also needed
before the feasibility of a C&I MRF can be properly assessed, since greater source
separation of recyclable materials such as cardboard is likely to yield better results
than trying to extract them from a mixed waste stream at such a facility.
It is understood that Resource Co is establishing C&I separation operations at the
former Mitsubishi site at Lonsdale. This may provide the C&I MRF type facilities that
have been identified in this report.
51 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
7.2.2 Industrial and special wastes
Option 10 is about managing (and minimising) industrial wastes. Strategies that
businesses can use to prevent the generation of waste include eco-efficiency and
cleaner production.
Local Government has no regulatory powers to require industry to adopt cleaner
production practices. However, local government can directly drive incentives that
encourage the adoption of eco-efficiency and cleaner production by industry.
The Region as a whole could introduce programs and schemes to help industry
overcome the barriers and to promote the motivators. Examples of programs that could
be undertaken at a regional level include:
» Providing a source of cleaner production information to the industry;
» Connecting industries which generate waste with those industries that are able to
use the waste (thus preventing the waste being disposed of and raw materials
being used)
3
;
» Developing and implementing voluntary cleaner production programs and reporting
the outcomes to the public;
» Negotiate self regulated initiatives to prevent pollution and waste generation, and
report the outcomes to the public; and
» Encourage the community to get involved with industry to deliver better
environmental performance.
Special note should be taken that the development of the RWMSP is being undertaken
simultaneously as an investigation into the feasibility of establishing an eco-industrial
precinct in the SW Region. The outcomes of the feasibility assessment will help to
identify further opportunities to assist in identifying potential synergies between
industries in the Region, and hence further opportunities to promote cleaner production
and eco-efficient processes.
7.2.3 Liquid waste treatment facility
Option 11 focuses on liquid wastes, since there are no treatment facilities for liquid
waste in the southern region, other than waste engine oil drop off facilities at selected
depots and the Southern Region Waste Disposal Depot. The two existing treatment
facilities for liquid wastes in the Adelaide Metropolitan area other than for waste oil
operated by Mulhullens, are operated by Transpacific Technical Services and Collex in
Wingfield and Kilburn. Potentially a further liquid waste treatment plant could potentially
be established in the south western region to receive used engine oil, coolants and
grease trap fats generated from Council operations and public buildings and from
private businesses located in southern Metropolitan Adelaide and surrounds. This
3 It is noted that the Marion and Mitcham Environmental Education Project already includes promotes
responsible environmental management practices to a range of industry sectors and this is promoted
through an established “Waste Exchange Register”. The Waste Exchange Register allows companies to
register the types of materials they have available online on the Councils websites. Parties interested in
acquiring any of the registered wastes can do so via either Council’s officers.
52 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
would result in potential savings in transport and disposal costs for Councils and
businesses in this area.
Collection points for used engines oils are currently limited to some local service
stations and a waste oil disposal facility at Pedlar Creek landfill. The number of
collection points for oily fats and used engine oils could be extended to all Council
operated depots (including landfills and transfer stations).
However establishing a treatment facility would cost millions of dollars, and it would be
a risky commercial venture. Only a private operator with expertise in this area (i.e. not
councils) should consider this, after assessing the likely demand for such a service.
7.2.4 Eco-Industrial Precinct
Option 12 is establishing an Eco Precinct in the SW region. This is the subject of a
separate study, which is being undertaken to identify the potential suitability of
establishing an integrated waste eco-industrial precinct (or precincts in the SW
Region). The study stems from the desire of the region to emulate the principals and
activities contained in the proposed eco-industrial park to be located at the former
Wingfield Landfill depot site.
However it is understood that ResourceCo is in the process of establishing its own Eco
Precinct at the former Mitsubishi site at Lonsdale. Councils in the SW region should
support this initiative, as it has the potential to reduce the amount of C&D and C&I
waste going to landfill. More details about the proposed operations at Lonsdale are
provided in the Eco Precinct report.
7.3 Construction and demolition waste stream
7.3.1 Regional C&D depot
Option 13 involves the development of a regional C&D depot for the accepting,
sorting, processing, and resale of C&D materials. There is significant potential to
recover a significant proportion (up to 40%) of the 150,000 plus tonnes of C&D waste
generated in the SW Region.
It is noted that Resource Co have recently purchased the former Mitsubishi site in
Lonsdale with the intention of establishing a C&D materials recovery facility in the SW
Region similar to its existing operations in Northern Adelaide. The proposed Resource
Co development could therefore service requirements for C&D materials recovery in
the SW Region.
7.4 Other waste streams/opportunities
7.4.1 Revolve/reuse type operation/s for household items
Option 16 involves establishing a revolve/reuse centre is a facility for residents to drop
off unwanted household items including furniture, appliances and white goods (in
working order). The items can then be refurbished and then resold back to the
53 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
community. These kinds of facilities help divert significant quantities of waste from
landfill as well as providing training and employment opportunities for the mentally or
physically handicapped.
A revolve/reuse centre’s success hinges on support from the community, but generally,
most revolve/reuse centres have been received enthusiastically with residents.
Revolve/reuse centres can be managed/operated in a variety of ways, including:
» By council – council footing the associated costs but retaining all income from the
centre;
» Under contract – which may be a commercial contractor or in some circumstances,
community development groups; or
» By charity/non-profit organisations with support from councils.
They are often established at landfill sites, but there is no reason why they could not be
located in light industrial areas in the SW region, so they are reasonably convenient for
residents.
7.4.2 Education on a Regional basis
Option 17 involves sharing of education resources across all six member Councils, by
employing education officers that work on behalf of the Councils/Industries/Public
across the whole region, the use of standardised advertising and education materials,
and promotion and organisation of special events.
Regional education strategies may also include employing contamination management
officers that act across the Region. One of the roles of the contamination management
officers could be to inspect recycling and organics bins placed out for collection, and to
issue warning notices to residents that continually contaminate their recycling bins.
The strategic direction for a shared education program could focus on a few key areas
that would benefit most from a regional approach. For residents, regional education
campaigns could include:
» How to use the new regional collection services, and to minimise contamination in
garden organics and recycling bins;
» Waste avoidance in the household through responsible purchasing, which would
target the modern tendency for overconsumption of consumer items (i.e. the “throw
away” society);
» Waste minimisation in the household through buying less packaged foods and more
healthy raw ingredients such as fruit and vegetables;
» Proper disposal of household hazardous wastes, such as engine oil, batteries, paint
thinners and poisonous chemicals; and
» Reducing plastic bag use.
Since commercial and industrial wastes are a significant component of the waste
stream, shops could be targeted to encourage them to separate their wastes, and to
group together to establish recycling systems. Local businesses could also be
54 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
encouraged to recycle paper within the workplace, by eliminating most of their desk
bins for mixed wastes, and by separating other wastes such as toner cartridges,
containers and cardboard for collection by recyclers.
One of the features of successful education programs is that they are based upon a
good understanding of what motivates people to initially get involved, and to keep
participating. It can be a desire to save money, or to help the environment, or peer
pressure from neighbours, work colleagues, or their children. Schools are also a
worthy target for regional education programs, since behaviour learnt from an early
age is much more likely to continue into adulthood.
7.4.3 Tyres
Option 18 involves diverting tyres from landfill. Technology for tyre recovery and
recycling is well established, however the Adelaide market is comparatively small and
therefore limits the economic incentives to develop and introduce effective recycling
options locally. Furthermore, the cost of transportation of tyres to the eastern states is
prohibitive. It is estimated that approximately 14-15,000 tonnes of tyres are shredded
each year in SA to enable them to be disposed of to landfill.
Councils could support a total ban on the landfilling of tyres (i.e. even tyres in shredded
form). For such a ban to be successful, markets must exist for recovered tyres. Reuse
options for tyres collected in the SW Region are currently limited to retreading and
reuse. Additional options for reusing recovered tyres include:
» Energy recovery and use of alternative fuel (particularly suitable for cement kilns);
» Crumbing tyres and using the crumb for a range of applications including paving,
sound insulation, and workplace flooring; and
» Recycling of tyres through companies such as Biofloat (a company that makes truck
body liners and dam covers from rubber material) and EcoFlex (converts waste
tyres into low-cost building products).
Whilst the above options are put forward for consideration, it is recognised that
pursuing the above strategies requires the support of government agencies such as
the EPA and Zero Waste SA and the tyre manufacturing and reprocessing industry.
This would be best done by a number of regions simultaneously, rather than just by the
SW region.
7.4.4 Public Place Recycling
Option 20B relates to public place recycling. This can be implemented at major
shopping centres and strip shopping centres and at major public events, such as
outdoor concerts, sporting events, New Years Eve events, and parades.
A large number of containers (specifically glass, PET, and aluminium) are generated at
public events and therefore there is an opportunity to promote recycling and diversion
of public litter from the garbage stream. Public event recycling can therefore yield large
quantities of recyclables with potentially little contamination.
55 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Council support and promotion of public place event recycling also has the added
benefits of promoting environmentally responsible behaviour, reducing potential litter in
the area and hence the cost of clean up and disposal, and being able to achieve a high
volume of source separated materials without requiring separation of a mixed waste
stream.
Zero Waste SA has developed guidelines for event organisers in South Australia on
how to minimise waste at public events.
56 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
8. Stakeholder Feedback
8.1 Industry Stakeholders
In order to validate the robustness and suitability of the options, a stakeholder
workshop was held with waste industry representatives on 18 November 2005.
The stakeholders were asked firstly to confirm the applicability of each option and then
to provide a score from 1(not at all significant)-5(very significant) indicating the likely
benefit of each option and the reasons.
Options considered to be significant to very significant included:
» Option 1 Regional Best Practice Kerbside Collection over 2-3 contracts
» Option 9 Regional C&I MRF
» Option 12 Eco Industrial Precinct
Options considered to be moderately significant included:
» Option 2 Fortnightly food organics and garden organics collection as an adjunct
to Option 1(Collection frequency may need to be flexible by season)
» Option 3 Household hazardous wastes additional services (producer
responsibility)
» Option 5 Council waste reduction and reuse
» Option 6 Household hard waste modification
» Option 7 Regional MRF for recyclables involving Council equity (Local
Government seen as facilitators not builders/operators/marketers but
some opportunity for partnerships), Private industry will have built a
plant anyway in the region and possibly cheaper)
» Option 8 Designated food waste collection for C&I properties (Transport an
issue)
» Option 10 Management of Industrial and special wastes (Already happening)
» Option 16 Revolve Operation linked to Option 5 (low returns)
» Option 17 Increased education /regional education strategies (Already well
serviced)
» Option 18 Increased reuse of tyres (Govt needs to create demand, Producer
responsibility)
» Options 20A & 20B Public Place litter management and Public Place recycling
(low private sector involvement)
» Option 21 Corporate partnership arrangements (project specific)
57 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Options considered to be of little or no significance because they were either already
being widely addressed within the region or industry, required new market or legislative
intervention to be effective, were considered to be a producer responsibility, or would
provide low financial returns, included:
» Option 4 Services for electronic wastes (Producer responsibility, could be
received at one regional MRF)
» Option 11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing and extra disposal facilities (well
serviced already)
» Option 13 New Regional C&D Depot (Well covered by Resource Co proposal and
existing depots/quarries and linked to Option 9 because facility can
receive and process both C&I and C&D wastes)
» Option 14 AWT Processing of kerbside garbage (Landfill charge subsidies a
constraint and some technologies still not proven)
» Option 15 Convert to a single bin kerbside system (Not politically or
environmentally acceptable)
» Option 19 Plastic Bag reduction (already addressed by legislation and policy)
Based on the above, the options developed in the draft RWMSP are considered by the
waste and resource industry to be appropriate for the region and achievable, however
there are some options which are not considered suited to or the responsibility of either
local government (regional MRF’s and electronics tyre waste recycling) or the private
waste resource industry (Revolve Centres).
8.2 Steering Committee and Waste Policy Forum
As part of the process the project Steering Committee and Waste Policy Forum
progressively considered and ranked the options presented in the draft strategy. At the
completion of the options identification, the options were converted into action numbers
as part of the Implementation Action Plan listed in Section 9.0. The following options
and actions were supported subject to the following covenants:
Option 1(A1)-Common specification implementation program and make up of services
(i.e. Number of services per contract and separate garbage recycling and garden
organics vs integrated) required but recycling service split into separate collection and
processing contracts, Unley and Holdfast Bay first off the rank short term-Performance
of contracts to be monitored:
» Option 2 (A 3) - High level State Government BCR analysis required after
completion of Burnside trials and approvals and suitability of the Jeffries and Peats
‘In Vessel Composting’ systems known-Monitor for now;
» Options 4 (A5) - 16(A 13), 6 (A7)-Further work is required on the mechanism and
the management model and business case (private municipal and charitable group
involvement). Zero Waste SA to develop a model;
» Option 5 (A6) - Common approach required. LGA Waste Committee could address
this at a policy level. Role for individual Councils representatives;
58 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Options 9 (A9) - & 13 (A12)-Councils will supply waste inputs and reuse processed
material;
» Option 12 (A11)-Part of Eco Industrial Precinct Model;
» Option 17 (A14) - One jointly funded education officer for the region. Steering
committee to develop a regional education strategy;
» Options 20 A (A17) and 20 B (A 18) - Receival contracts would need to be set in
place to control contamination and minimise waste to landfill;
» Option 21 (A 19) - Support for Partnership model as per existing Onkaparinga
Marion Environmental Industrial Cluster.
The following options were not strongly supported because:
» Option 4 (A4) - System working ok leave as is funded by Zero Waste SA;
» Option 7 (A8) - Industry likely to construct a Recycling MRF anyway and Councils
can gain some control of end uses through splitting the recycling contract;
» Option 10 (A10) - In place by some Councils adequate coverage;
» Option 14 (A2) is not considered a feasible option at this stage and should wait until
technology is proven and processing costs and markets matured;
» Option 18(A 15) - Being addressed nationally through EPP;
» Option 19 (A 16) - is already well established amongst member councils and being
addressed nationally.
8.3 General Community
The options outlined in this strategy were subjected to a limited public consultation
program comprising the following activities:
» Posting a summary document on a web site;
» Advertising in the Messenger newspaper seeking public comment via a 1800
number or project website;
» Distribution of a summary report and questionnaire to a community panel selected
from community groups or individuals nominated by the Project Steering
Committee.
The responses received from 26 respondents can be summarised as follows:
Of the options presented to the community, the following comments were noted:
» Options 1-7 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 1,5 and 6 being the most
strongly supported and best delivered by Local Government;
» Options 8-13 are overwhelmingly supported with Options 11, 12 and 13 being the
most strongly supported but views were mixed on whether Local Government or
industry should deliver the programs;
» Options 16,17 and 21 are overwhelmingly supported with views mixed on the other
remaining options;
59 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» The least favoured was Option 15.
The community results indicate that based on 26 responses from across all six Council
areas, there could potentially be broad community support for implementation of the
options and actions outlined in this strategy, however this sample size is not
statistically valid and hence the support for some aspects may need to be further
confirmed prior to implementation. It is also considered that some aspects relating to
changes to the kerbside hard garbage service such a reduced level of service or
linking it to Revolve Centre operation, may not have been totally understood by the
respondents.
A further detailed summary of the consultation findings is contained in Appendix F.
60 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
9. Overall RWMSP Structure
9.1 Elements of RWMSP
The RWMSP for the SW region should have the following elements:
» Municipal waste;
» Household hazardous waste;
» Electronic waste;
» Council generated waste;
» Hard waste;
» Commercial and industrial waste;
» Construction and demolition waste; and
» Other waste streams/opportunities.
Options examined in the Stage 2 report, identified as having medium to high suitability
and further assessed in Section 7 have been regrouped beneath these headings as
Actions for implementation under an Implementation Action Plan. These are specific
initiatives in each area that are designed to improve current performance and in some
cases, to achieve the ambitious targets set by the SA Government. These Actions are
further described in Table 9-1 below.
Table 9-1 Elements of RWMSP and Implementation Action Plan
Action Description Previous
option
Comment
Municipal waste stream
A1 Regional best practice kerbside
collection of garbage,
recyclables, and garden organics
(3 bin system)
1 Funds saved on waste
collection can be spent on
future waste treatment and
resource recovery activities.
A2 Alternative waste technology
(AWT) for municipal solid waste
14 Landfill space in SW region
is limited to 14 yrs at current
rates and future landfills
(needed for non recyclable
materials) will be long haul
operations. AWT is
necessary to minimise
reliance on landfill and
increase resource recovery
rates to meet State targets.
A3 Combined food and waste
collection from households
2 The suitability of this
collection system depends
upon the AWT eventually
selected for the region.
61 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Previous
option
Comment
A4 Household hazardous waste
services
3 HHW can cause problems in
landfills and also in AWT
facilities.
A5 Electronic wastes and household
appliance collections
4 Reprocessing facilities are
limited at present, so
separate collection may not
be warranted, except for
specific items eg computers.
A6 Reducing Council generated
wastes
5 This is a small contributor to
the overall waste stream, but
sends a message to
residents and businesses in
the region.
A7 Modifications to the kerbside on-
call hard waste service including
potential sorting of kerbside
collected hard waste into distinct
material streams for recycling
6 Hard waste is not as high a
priority as municipal solid
waste, but better
management can contribute
to sustainability through re-
use of items.
A8 Local Government equity in a
Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
7 To improve financial returns
for Councils by providing
more competition for receival
of kerbside recyclables.
Commercial and Industrial waste stream
A9 Regional C&I MRF for increased
sorting and recovery of C&I
waste
9 Support initiative by
ResourceCo at Mitsubishi
site.
A10 Management of industrial and
special wastes (cleaner
production initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
10 Waste minimisation by
industry at source is of key
importance in reducing
amount of C&I wastes and
increasing resource recovery
rates to meet State targets.
A11 Eco-Industrial Precinct 12 Support initiative by
ResourceCo at Mitsubishi
site.
Construction and Demolition waste stream
A12 Regional C&D depot 13 Support initiative by
ResourceCo at Mitsubishi
site.
62 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Previous
option
Comment
Other wastes/opportunities
A13 Revolve operation/s for
household items
16 Sustainability initiative – re-
use of items instead of
discarding them will assist in
“dematerialisation” of society
that is needed to reduce
current trends of increasing
waste production per person.
A14 Regional education strategies 17 Builds on existing work being
done at council level.
A15 Increased reuse/recycling of tyres 18 Tyres are a waste stream
that needs to be dealt with in
innovative ways, but are an
Australia wide problem.
A16 Plastic bag reduction 19 Plastic bag reduction will
reduce wind blown litter at
landfill sites.
A17 Public place litter management 20A Litter reduction is always an
important issue for protection
of the environment and
preservation of public
amenity
A18 Public place recycling 20B Due to the increasing amount
of away from home dining
that is occurring, recycling
needs to become more
effective if C&I wastes are to
be minimised.
A19 Cooperative partnership
arrangement with commercial
operators and stakeholders from
the waste industry
21 Important to build bridges
with commercial operators to
solve the problems
associated with C&I wastes.
9.2 Timing for Actions
The likely timing of the various Actions is summarised in Table 9-3. Some Actions can
commence immediately, and others that involve changing existing contractual
arrangements, or involve new infrastructure, will obviously take longer to implement. A
proposed program, which provides additional detail on timing, and the steps involved,
is provided in Table 9-3.
63 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 9-2 Timing of Actions
Action Description Likely timing
Municipal waste stream
A1 Regional best practice kerbside
collection of garbage,
recyclables, and garden organics
(3 bin system)
May take up to 5 years to regionalise all
collection contracts and implement best
practice collection systems in all councils.
A2 Alternative waste technology
(AWT) for municipal solid waste
May take up to 5 years to establish an
AWT facility in the region.
A3 Combined food and waste
collection from households
This would be undertaken at the same
time as the AWT facility is established,
since the need for this depends upon the
technology selected.
A4 Household hazardous waste
services
This should commence immediately, and
will take 2 or 3 yrs to implement.
A5 Electronic wastes and household
appliance collections
Since there are very few places that
currently recycle electronic wastes, this
would have to be implemented
progressively, as recycling options for
different items become commercially
available.
A6 Reducing Council generated
wastes
This should begin immediately and be an
ongoing campaign.
A7 Modifications to the kerbside on-
call hard waste service including
potential sorting of kerbside
collected hard waste into distinct
material streams for recycling
This could begin immediately, and would
take 1-2 years to implement.
A8 Local Government equity in a
Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
Tendering for receival of the regions
recyclables could be undertaken within 12
months, and a MRF facility could be
operating within 2 yrs.
Commercial and Industrial waste stream
A9 Regional C&I MRF for increased
sorting and recovery of C&I
waste
A regional C&I MRF is being established
by ResourceCo. This could be used by
businesses in the region as soon as it is
available. Otherwise, if this facility is not
suitable for the region’s needs, it would
take up to 3 yrs to establish a new facility.
A10 Management of industrial and
special wastes (cleaner
production initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
This work should begin immediately and
continue while industry exists in the
region, since there is always room for
improvement.
64 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Likely timing
A11 Eco-Industrial Precinct Timing is subject to the findings of the Eco
Precinct Study, as to the type of facility
needed etc
Construction and Demolition waste stream
A12 Regional C&D depot A regional C&D depot is being established
by ResourceCo. This could be used by
businesses in the region as soon as it is
available. Otherwise, if this facility is not
suitable for the region’s needs, it would
take up to 3 yrs to establish a new facility.
Other wastes/opportunities
A13 Revolve operation/s for
household items
Revolve type operations could be
established reasonably quickly if suitable
sites were identified and secured.
However it may take longer than a year to
find operators, develop viable business
plans and to establish commercial
arrangements between Councils and the
operators.
A14 Regional education strategies These initiatives could begin as soon as
suitable programs are devised, and
agreed within the region, and
progressively rolled out as staff are
appointed.
A15 Increased reuse/recycling of
tyres
This is a longer-term objective, which
needs to commence now. No quick results
should be expected.
A16 Plastic bag reduction Regional initiatives could be developed
within 12 months, and rolled out soon
afterwards. They would need to tie in with
SA Govt proposals in this area.
A17 Public place litter management This should commence immediately, and
will continue for a long time.
A18 Public place recycling This should commence immediately, and
will continue for a long time.
A19 Cooperative partnership
arrangement with commercial
operators and stakeholders from
the waste industry
This should commence immediately, and
will continue for a long time.
65 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 9-3 Proposed program for implementation of RWMSP Actions
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
Municipal waste stream
A1 Regional best practice
kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables,
and garden organics (3
bin system).
Consultation and planning
(including contractor and
community consultation)
Prepare tender documents,
including engaging a probity
officer
Tendering process
Cancellation of existing
collection contracts if
required
New service
commissioning
A2 Use of AWT for
processing kerbside
garbage stream
(continue separate
collection of domestic
recyclables and garden
organics)
Selection of appropriate
choice of processing
technology
Identification of possible site
for processing facility
Facility design
Lodge development
application for AWT
plant
Preliminary consultation
with waste collection
contractors – expression
of interest process to
identified potential
contractors
Obtain planning and
development
approvals
Site (AWT plant)
construction and
commissioning
Site (AWT plant)
construction and
commissioning
continues
Modification of
existing garbage
collection
contracts if
required
AWT plant in
operation
Commence AWT
processing of
garbage stream
66 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
A3 Combined food and
garden organics
collection from domestic
households, processed
either by open-windrow
or enclosed composting
Liaison with organics
collection providers and
processors over possible
service establishment and
costs
Devise proposed trial
program
Preparation of education
and contamination
management materials
Source kitchen bins and
biodegradable bags for
food scraps (if these are
to be used)
Undertake trial of
proposed service with
sample of the residential
population
Analyses results and
outcomes of the trial
If trial was successful:
- Liaise with organics
processors to
determine available
processing capacity for
mixed organics
- Revise contracts for
organics collection and
processing
- Commence process
of full-scale roll-out of
modified collection
system (including
regular fortnightly
collection of organics
in each council area)
A4 Household hazardous
waste additional
collection or drop-off
services
Detailed assessment of most
suitable type of service of
hazardous waste, including
consultation with the wider
community
Identification of required
sites/infrastructure
Negotiations with service
providers and disposal
facilities for hazardous waste
Tendering process (if
required)
Trial of service
Full scale service
commences (depending
on trial outcomes)
67 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
A5 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
Consultation with the
community as to the
willingness to pay for the
service, and to determine
most appropriate type of
service
Identification of options for
reuse and recycling of
collected goods
Identification of required
sites/infrastructure for the
proposed service
Negotiations with
service providers
Tendering process (if
required)
Trial of service
Full scale service
commences (depending
on trial outcomes)
A6 Reducing Council waste Ongoing from Year 1
A7 Modifications to the
kerbside on-call hard
waste service
Consultation with waste
collection and processing
contractors, and operators of
the reuse centre (if it exists)
to identify possible
modifications to hard waste
service to make it more
efficient, and improve
resource recovery.
Short-list options for potential
changes to hard-waste
collection service.
Tendering process
Cancellation of existing
collection contracts if
required
New service
commissioning
68 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
Consultation with the
community over proposed
options for modifying the
hard waste service.
A8 Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
Call for tenders for receival of
recyclables from the SW
region
Assess and award tenders
Operator builds new
facility and commences
operations
Commercial and Industrial waste stream
A9 Regional C&I MRF for
increased sorting and
recovery of C&I waste
Detailed feasibility study of
available C&I waste
quantities and composition in
the SW Region
Site identification
Lodge development
application
Facility design
Lodge development
application for MRF
Obtain planning and
development approvals
Site construction and
commissioning
Full operation
A10 Management of
industrial and special
wastes (cleaner
production initiatives
and eco-efficiency)
Establishment of role/s for
Council officers to work with
industry where they are not
already in place.
Expand the existing Waste
Register so it services the
entire Region.
69 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
Ongoing regional approach
to facilitate information
exchange with industry, and
support for the
implementation of cleaner
production programs.
A11 Eco-Industrial Precinct To be determined via Eco-Industrial Precinct study
Construction and Demolition
A12 Regional C&D depot for
accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale
of C&D materials
Detailed feasibility study of
available C&D waste
quantities and composition in
the SW Region
Site identification
Facility design
Lodge development
application
Obtain planning and
development approvals
Site construction and
commissioning
Full operation
Other
A13 Revolve type
operation/s for
household hard waste
items and second hand
goods
Seek expressions of interest
from charitable and/or private
organisations for potential
establishment and operation
of the facility.
Identification of preferred
site/s
Liaison with potential
operators as to Councils
role and involvement.
Facility design
Obtain planning and
development approvals
Site construction
Commence operations
70 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Action Description Year 1 (may be delayed for
some Actions)
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+
A14 Increased education /
regional education
strategies
Negotiation between
Councils to determine
preferred regional
approaches and regional
management structure.
Engagement of staff.
Regional education
program commences.
A15 Increased reuse
recycling of tyres
Ongoing lobbying of government and support for industry
A16 Plastic bag reduction Negotiation between Councils to determine preferred regional approaches and regional management structure.
Ongoing regional approaches potentially adopted from Year 1.
A17 Public place litter
management
Negotiation between Councils to determine preferred regional approaches and regional management structure.
Ongoing regional approaches potentially adopted from Year 1.
A18 Public place recycling
and recycling at public
events
Negotiation between Councils to determine preferred regional approaches and regional management structure.
Ongoing regional approaches potentially adopted from Year 1.
A19 Cooperative partnership
arrangement with
commercial operators
and stakeholders from
the waste industry
Identification of existing environmental and industrial clusters
Facilitate working group arrangements between industry, small business, Councils, waste service providers, Zero Waste
SA and the EPA
Provide ongoing support for regional groups
71 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
10. Opportunities to attract Grants
There are a number of funding programs in place to assist Local Government
implement waste management projects. Funding is generally available for projects
where it can be demonstrated that the initiatives will improve waste and resource
recovery systems, follow best practice, and are aligned with the objectives of the
funding strategy.
An overview of funding programs available in SA that may provide financial assistance
for the SW Region are outlined below.
» Green events financial assistance program administered by Zero Waste SA;
» Various Zero Waste funding programs - under the 2005-2006 business plan,
funding will be made available to Councils to assist in:
– Formation of regional waste management plans – 2005-2006, $205,000/yr in
total, for individual councils, funding of up to 50% of the cost of employing a
waste officer, and up to 50% of the cost of development of plans;
– Local Government education assistance – funding includes providing advisory
and information service to Councils, 2005-2006 budget is $155,000;
– Funding for industry education – 2005-2006, $105.000 in total funding available
– Funding for waste wise public events- 2005-2006, $200,000 in total;
– Funding for infrastructure to service Metropolitan Adelaide -2005-2006,
$315,000 in total;
– Funding for household hazardous waste and farm chemicals collection -
$970,000 allocated for 2005-2006;
– Kerbside Performance Initiatives – a total of $4.5 million is being offered to
Councils over two years. Funding for 2005-2006 is budgeted at $2.3 million;
– Plastic bag reduction - 2004-2006, $250,000/yr in total (see example below) –
Zero Waste SA is currently reviewing their plastic bag reduction program; and
– Assistance with education, information, data collection, litter control, and advice.
» Schools education program administered by KESAB;
» Environmental Education Grants Program administered by Department of
Environment and Heritage (DEH);
» Butt Littering Trust Project Partnerships 2005 - Priority Butt Litter Hotspots;
» The Product Stewardship for Oil Program administered by the Department of
Environment and Heritage;
» Greening the Supply Chain. - Greener Business Alliance Projects and Industry
Association Projects, administered by the SA EPA;
» National Packaging Covenant Public Place Recycling Grants.
72 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
11. Communication strategy
Community consultation is important to delivering a successful Regional Waste
Management Strategy.
11.1 Strategy objectives
The community consultation strategy would be designed to provide a comprehensive
approach to consultation by:
» Providing for a transparent process of open, effective and appropriate consultation
with the Councils and their communities;
» Providing for increased and accessible engagement of the community;
» Identify community responsibilities, resources and timeframes for community and
stakeholder contact and input;
» Identify key stakeholder and community groups through a demographic and social
analysis; and
» Ensuring the community is informed in the early stages and throughout the process.
This is designed to invite and receive community input on the Draft Strategy.
Consultation at this stage would allow the community to respond to the Regional
Waste Management Strategy’s key messages and priorities, and the proposed options.
This community feedback would then be considered for incorporation in the Final
Strategy.
11.2 Summary of consultation methodologies
Table 11-1 outlines the consultation approach adopted for the draft RWMSP.
73 33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table 11-1 Consultation program adopted for RWMSP
Activity Tasks
EXHIBITION OF DRAFT STRATEGY REPORT
Draft Report and Summary Draft Report and Summary made available to the
community in hard and soft copy formats
Stakeholder contact database Database set up for collection of broader community
feedback and input on the Draft Strategy
Inform community Information methods listed below used to promote
the four-week exhibition of the Draft Report:
Advertisement in local Messenger newspapers
Newsletter distributed and at key information points
such as libraries, councils’ offices and shopping
centres.
Set-up 1800 number & email address for feedback
Councils’ websites
Media release
Feedback summary report Separate report prepared and included in Appendix
to this report.
STAGE 4: PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT
Final Report Format Final Report and Summary to be available
to the community in hard and soft copy formats
Inform community Draft copy for the materials listed below to promote
the availability of the Final Report and a timetable of
outcomes:
Advertisement for local newspapers
Councils’ websites
Media release
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix A
Environmental Assessment
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table A1 – Summary of results from technical, environmental, and social evaluation and
assessment of potential regional versus individual benefits from proposed strategies
Option Description
Technical
score
(max. 15)
Environ-
mental
Score
(max. 15)
Social
Score
(max. 15)
Benefits
of
Regional
Cooper-
ation
Municipal
1 Regional best practice kerbside collection
» Garbage collection 1
» Recyclables collection 5
» Garden organics collection
15
6
2 H
2 Fortnightly combined food and garden
organics collection processed by:
» Open windrow composting 12
» Enclosed composting 10
12 4 H
3 Household hazardous waste additional
collection or drop-off services
12 5 7 M
4 Services for electronic wastes and
household appliances
10 6 7 M
5 Council waste management and reduction
strategies
NA 4 2 L – M
6 Collection of source separated household
hard waste
11 5 4 M - H
7 Regional Materials Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
15 9 8 H
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service for C&I
properties
NS NS NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased sorting
and recovery of C&I waste
10 7 4 H
10 Management of industrial and special
wastes
NA 5 5 M
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing as per
Eco-Industrial precinct model
» Development of a new liquid waste
treatment plant within the Region
NA
» Motor oil collection at additional
garages and service stations
12
» Oil collection at waste facilities 15
5 5 H
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct NA NA NA NA
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description
Technical
score
(max. 15)
Environ-
mental
Score
(max. 15)
Social
Score
(max. 15)
Benefits
of
Regional
Cooper-
ation
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale of C&D materials
13 12 7 H
Other
14 AWT processing of kerbside garbage
stream
12 11 2 H
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin collection
system. Mixed waste stream processed
using AWT.
NS NS NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s for household
hard waste items and second hand goods
15 6 8 M
17 Increased education / regional education
strategies
NA 5 4 H
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres
NA NA NA H
19 Plastic bag reduction
13 7 5 L
20A Public place litter management
15 2 6 L
20B Public place recycling and recycling at
public events
13 3 6 L – M
21 Cooperative partnership arrangements NA NA NA NA
NA – Not able to be assessed at present
NS – Not assessed as the option is not considered potentially suitable for implementation within the timeframe of the RWMSP
H-High benefit
M-Medium benefit
L-Low benefit
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix B
Financial Analysis
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table B1 – Estimated Financial Costs
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
NO
1 Regional best practice kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables, and garden organics (3-bin
MGB system). Refer to Appendix H for outline of
Scenario A and Scenario B.
» Garbage collection and disposal – Scenario A
Assumes purchase of new trucks to undertake
the Regional service, and purchase of additional
bins as new at cost of $40/bin
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$11.1M/year -$0.2M
» Garbage collection and disposal – Scenario B
Assumes purchase of up to 15 second-hand
collection vehicles to undertake the Regional
service, and purchase of additional bins at
second-hand cost of $25/bin
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$9.9M/year -$1.4M/year
» Recyclables collection and processing -
Scenario A
Assumes purchase of new trucks to undertake
the Regional service, and purchase of additional
bins as new at cost of $45/bin, roll-out of new
MGB service in Unley and Holdfast Bay
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$8.0M/year +$2.6M/year
» Recyclables collection and processing –
Scenario B
Assumes purchase of up to 15 second-hand
collection vehicles to undertake the Regional
service, and purchase of additional bins at
second-hand cost of $30/bin, roll-out of new MGB
service in Unley and Holdfast Bay
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$6.7M/year +1.3M/year
» Garden organics collection and processing –
Scenario A
Assumes purchase of new trucks to undertake
the Regional service, and purchase of additional
bins as new at cost of $45/bin, fortnightly 240L
collection service in all Council areas
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$8.0M/year +$4.1M/year
» Garden organics collection and processing -
Scenario B
Assumes purchase of up to 15 second-hand
collection vehicles to undertake the Regional
service, and purchase of additional bins at
second-hand cost of $30/bin, fortnightly 240L
collection service in all Council areas
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$6.7M/year +$2.8M/year
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
2 Combined food and garden organics fortnightly
collection
» Organics collection (fortnightly organics
collection provided for all council areas)
Included as
amortised
component of
annual costs
$7.1M/ year +2.7M/year
» Open windrow composting –processing costs
organics, landfill cost for garbage
$10.9M/ year
garbage
$11.1M/ year
organics
-$0.5M/year
+$7.0M/year
» Enclosed composting –processing costs
organics, landfill cost for garbage
$10.9M/ year
garbage
$13.0M/ year
organics
-$0.5M/year
+9.0M/year
3 Household hazardous waste additional collection
or drop-off services
» For additional one-day drop-off events in each
LGA
$175,000 -
$280,000/
event
$175,000 -
$280,000/
event
» On-call collection service $200,000/yr $200,000/yr
» Establish drop-off facility at an existing Council
depot
$50,000 $70,000/year $70,000/year +
$50,000
implementation
cost
4 Services for electronic wastes and household
appliances
» On-call collection service $270,000/
year
$270,000/yea
r
» Permanent drop off facility $60,000/
year
4
$60,000/year
5 Reducing Council waste – cost for regional audit
and assessment
$60,000 Dependant
on
opportunities
identified
through audit
process
$60,000 +
Potential
collection
and
processing
costs
4
Assumes drop off facility is co-located at an existing reuse centre or Council depot, therefore no additional land acquisition or
staffing costs
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
6 Modified collection of source separated
household hard waste – cost for regional audit
and customer survey as outlined in Appendix H
$55,000 Depends on
opportunities
identified
through audit
process
$55,000 +
ongoing
costs that are
dependant
on
opportunities
identified
through audit
process
7 Local Government equity in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for recyclables.
$10M $3.7M/
year **
-$0.59M/
year***
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food collection service for C&I
properties
NS NS NS
9 Regional C&I MRF for increased sorting and
recovery of C&I waste
$5.0M $1.8M/year $1.8M/year +
$5.0M
implementati
on cost
10 Management of industrial and special wastes
(cleaner production initiatives and eco-
efficiency)
$15,000 $172,000/ye
ar
$172,000/year
+ $15,000
implementation
cost
11 Industrial and liquid waste sharing as per Eco-
Industrial precinct model
» Development of a new liquid waste
treatment plant within the SW Region
NA NA NA
» Motor oil collection at additional garages and
service stations
Included in
ongoing costs
$54,000/yea
r
$54,000/year
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct NA
5
NA NA
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D depot for accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale of C&D materials
$5.7M $1.6M/year $1.6M/year
+$5.70M
implementation
cost
Other
14 AWT processing of kerbside garbage stream
(costs do not include waste collection)
+$9.5 -
$12.0M/year
+$5.6 -
$7.5M/year
15 Move from a 3-bin to 1-bin collection system.
Mixed waste stream processed using AWT
NS NS NS
16 Revolve type operation/s for household hard $350,000 $0 (Breaks Implementati
5
To be assessed as part of the Eco-Industrial Precinct Feasibility Study
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Implementation
Cost ($)
Total
Ongoing
Costs
($/year)
Additional
Cost to the
Region
($/year)
waste items and second hand goods even) on cost of
$350,000
17 Increased education / regional education
strategies
$100,000/
year
6
$100,000/yea
r
18 Increased reuse recycling of tyres NA NA NA
» Oil collection at waste facilities $60,000 Potential
collection
and
processing
costs
$60,000 +
Potential
collection
and
processing
costs
19 Plastic bag reduction $110,000 $110,000
20A Public place litter management NA NA NA
20B Public place recycling and recycling at public
events
» Recycling at shopping centres $20,000 $15,000/
year
$15,000/year
+ $20,000
implementatio
n cost
» Recycling at public events NA NA NA
21 Cooperative partnership arrangement with
commercial operators and stakeholders from
the waste industry
NA NA NA
6
Cost of staff only, additional costs for printing and distribution of education materials as required and costs associated with any
special event promotions
** Assumes 24,500 tonnes processed pa at $150/tonne gross processing cost and $35/tonne disposal cost
*** Assumes annual disposal cost of $40/tonne less 25% share of recyclables revenue estimated at $100/tonne
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix C
Cost Benefit Analysis
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table C1 - Benefits and Costs
Option Description Benefits Costs
Municipal
1 Regional best
practice
kerbside
collection of
garbage,
recyclables, and
garden organics
» Avoided landfill costs from improved
services for recyclables and garden
organics resulting in a reduction in
waste to landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
» Possible disposal of existing
Council owned collection
vehicles and deployment of
collection staff
» Additional greenhouse gases
from collection vehicles due to
increased level of service in
some areas
2 Combined food
and garden
organics
fortnightly
collection with
composting
» Increased employment from
expansion of the composting industry
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT technology)
» Residents inconvenience to
separate food organics
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the
composting operation (odour,
traffic)
» Potential costs of detecting,
preventing, and managing
contamination
» Education campaigns to
ensure integrity of the system
3 Household
hazardous
waste additional
collection or
drop-off
services
» Increased direct and indirect
employment from service provision
and the processing and disposal of
collected materials
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Increased risk of accidents if
residents are required to
separate and transport
materials to a drop-off facility
» Cost of managing and
operating the service
4 Services for
electronic
wastes and
household
appliances
» Increased direct and indirect
employment from service provision
and the support of markets for
materials reuse and recycling
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
potential leakage of hazardous
materials from electronic wastes and
household appliances
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Increased green house gas
emissions from collection
vehicles if additional collection
service is provided
» Cost of selling materials
collected to reprocessors
» Potential costs of landfilling is
markets fail
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
5 Reducing
Council wastes
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
» Cost of peoples time to
establish and maintain
programs
6 Changes to the
household hard
waste collection
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increased reuse and recycling
of hard waste items.
» Social cost if less convenient
service is provided
» Additional greenhouse gas
emissions if collection is
provided to all households on
a set-regular day
» Costs of disposing of more
collected materials is a more
convenient service is offered
7 Regional MRF
for recyclables
» Potential reduction in kerbside
recycling annual cost due to revenue
from site rental or commodity sales
» Potential employment in the region
» Potential support to Eco-Waste
Industrial Precinct
» Opportunities to support recyclables
disposal for local commercial and
industrial premises
» Site purchase costs
» Additional establishment
costs to private sector
» Additional contract
administration costs
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food
collection
service for C&I
properties
followed by
AWT processing
of organics
» Increased employment from
operation of an AWT facility, and
increased indirect employment from
supporting jobs in manufacturing
and reprocessing of recovered
recyclables
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste
to landfill
» Cost of segregating food
organics and maintaining
separate collection service
(time and administration)
» Increased greenhouse gas
emissions from operating a
separate collection service for
food organics
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the AWT
operation (odour, traffic, noise)
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Revenue from compost sales
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT
technology)
» Cost of education campaign to
prevent contamination
9 Regional C&I
MRF for
increased
sorting and
recovery of C&I
waste
» Increased direct and indirect
employment
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to centralised location of
facilities in the SW Region (reduced
requirements to transport materials
to northern Adelaide or other
regions)
» Costs of dealing with
contamination
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the C&I
materials recovery operation
(noise and litter)
10 Management of
industrial and
special wastes
(cleaner
production
initiatives and
eco-efficiency)
» Benefits cannot be accurately
determined without further detail of
proposed cleaner production
initiatives, however in general, most
cleaner production initiatives would
result in:
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material; and
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Costs of changing production
processes and procedures at
industrial facilities (however a
lot of these should be offset by
production and waste cost
savings)
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
11 Industrial and
liquid waste
services
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Potential contamination of
collected liquid wastes
» Transport costs and
environmental costs
(greenhouse gases) associated
with increased vehicle
movements for waste collection
12 Eco-Industrial
Precinct
Benefits cannot be accurately
determined without further detail of
proposed activities in eco-industrial
precinct, however benefits would likely
include:
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to centralised location of
facilities in the SW Region (reduced
requirements to transport materials
to northern Adelaide or other
regions)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material; and
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Interdependence between
industries means failure of one
business could undermine
entire precinct – potential cost
associated with this may be
quite significant
Construction and Demolition
13 Regional C&D
depot for
accepting,
sorting,
processing, and
resale of C&D
materials
» Increased direct and indirect
employment
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in manufacturing
in place of virgin material
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to centralised location of
facilities in the SW Region (reduced
requirements to transport materials
to northern Adelaide or other
regions)
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the C&D
materials recovery operation
(dust, noise, and litter)
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
Other
14 AWT processing
of kerbside
garbage
(retaining
separate
collection of
garden organics
and recyclables,
3-bin system)
» Increased employment from
operation of an AWT facility, and
increased indirect employment from
supporting jobs in manufacturing
and reprocessing of recovered
recyclables
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste
to landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material (over and above Option 1)
» Improved soils (and reduced
reliance on chemical fertilisers) from
land application of compost
materials from the AWT process
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT
technology)
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the AWT
operation (odour, traffic, noise)
» Cost of transporting and
handling extra recyclables,
compost, green energy
» Potential costs of landfilling low
grade compost produced if it
cannot be marketed
15 Move from a 3-
bin to 1-bin
collection
system. Mixed
waste stream
processed using
AWT
» Increased employment from
operation of an AWT facility, and
increased indirect employment from
supporting jobs in manufacturing
and reprocessing of recovered
recyclables
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Revenue from sale of MGBs
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
from reduction in putrescible waste
to landfill (over and above Option 1)
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material (over and above Option 1)
» Decreased employment from
requiring less collection
vehicles
» Reduced income for landfill
operators
» Increased per unit cost of
landfill due to lower volumes
and high fixed costs
» Potential negative impact on
community attitudes and
behaviour to resource recovery
and recycling
» Cost of managing potential
amenity impacts from the AWT
operation (odour, traffic, noise)
» Cost of transporting and
handling extra recyclables,
compost, green energy
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
» Improved soils (and reduced
reliance on chemical fertilisers) from
land application of compost
materials from the AWT process
» Potential green energy credits
(subject to selected AWT
technology)
» Potential costs of landfilling low
grade compost produced if it
cannot be marketed
16 Revolve type
operation/s for
household hard
waste items and
second hand
goods
» Increased employment from
operation of the reuse centre
» Revenue from on-sale of recovered
materials
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Social benefits associated with sale
of low-cost second-hand goods to
the public
» Social benefits from possible
training and employment of the
disabled at the reuse centre
(depending on preferred operating
arrangement)
» Possible negative impact on
existing second-hand stores
» Cost of running operation and
disposal of non-purchased
items
17 Increased
education /
regional
education
strategies
» Avoided landfill costs from improved
progress towards waste avoidance,
increased participation in recycling
and organics collection services,
and decreased contamination of
recyclables and organics
» Costs of running campaigns
18 Increased reuse
recycling of
tyres
» Increased direct and indirect
employment from service provision
and the support of markets for
materials reuse and recycling
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Potential costs associated with
continued landfilling of
shredded tyres if campaign fails
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Benefits Costs
19 Plastic bag
reduction
» Avoided environmental harm from
plastic bag litter
» Improved visual amenity
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to decreased requirements for
plastic bag manufacture
» Environmental cost associated
with producing and end-of-life
management for reusable (or
other) alternate bags to plastic
» Consumer purchase costs of
reusable bags
20A Public place
litter
management
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of waters with litter
» Improved visual amenity
» Costs of installing new bins and
disposing of old ones (if
standardising bin infrastructure
s is part of the Regional litter
management strategy)
20B Public place
recycling and
recycling at
public events
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material
» Costs of dealing with
contamination in bins
21 Cooperative
partnership
arrangement
with
commercial
operators and
stakeholders
from the waste
industry
Benefits cannot be accurately
determined at this time, however
assuming the partnership arrangement
result in improved waste management
practises and pursuit of cleaner
production, possible benefits may
include:
» Avoided landfill costs and extended
landfill life from reduction in waste to
landfill
» Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
due to increase in materials
recovered for reuse in
manufacturing in place of virgin
material; and
» Avoided environmental harm from
pollution of land and waters due to
inappropriate disposal of wastes
» Cost of peoples time to be
involved in the partnership
program
» Cost of any initiatives
undertaken
» Reduced competitiveness of
industry through less
differentiation in services
offered
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix D
Risk Assessment
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Table D1 Key risks
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
Municipal
1 Regional best practice
kerbside collection of
garbage, recyclables,
and garden organics
» Selecting unsuitable system
» Tied into long-term contracts
» Payment of cancellation fees
for existing contracts
» Require contract terms less
than 7 years
» Progressively implement
regional service as individual
contracts expire
2 Combined food and
garden organics
fortnightly collection
with composting
» Lower than expected market
demand for compost products
» Higher per unit cost of
processing (if using enclosed
composting) where insufficient
organics quantities available to
achieve economies of scale
» High contamination of
combined organics stream
» Councils commit to buying
recovered compost products
» Use modular process
» Control contamination
through educational
campaigns and regular bin
inspections
3 Household hazardous
waste additional
collection or drop-off
services
» Poor utilisation of staff and
high per unit costs where there
is low participation in the
service
» Cost of disposal may be
prohibitive where large
amounts of hazardous waste
are collected, would need to
be recovered through some
form of charge to residents.
» Wide scale promotion of the
service across the SW
Region
» Costs of service provision to
be incorporated in domestic
waste management charges,
or costs recovered on a user-
pays basis for people using
the service
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
» Poor utilisation of staff and
high per unit costs where there
is low participation in the
service
» Low demand for recovered
components and materials
» Potential prohibitive cost of
collection, disassembly and
recycling where reprocessors
are located outside the Region
» Wide scale promotion of the
service across the SW
Region
» Costs of service provision to
be incorporated in domestic
waste management charges,
or costs recovered on a user-
pays basis for people using
the service
» Encourage establishment of
reprocessing/recovery facility
in the SW Region. Potentially,
this can be done as part of
the operations of the Reuse
Centre, or through charitable
organisations.
5 Reducing Council
wastes
» Creates animosity within staff
over new arrangements for
waste management
» Education campaign targeted
at staff understanding and
behaviour
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
6 Modification of the
household hard waste
on-call collection
» Low participation rate in
service resulting in high per
unit service costs
» Community outrage if service
is discontinued or significantly
altered
» Lower than expected market
demand for recovered
materials
» Consult with the community
prior to changing the service
» Determine community
capacity to pay, and if user-
paid service would be
appropriate
» Ensure equity in service
provision for all members of
the community, this may
require providing special
services for the elderly for
example
» Engage Reuse Centre (if
operating) to collect, repair,
and re-sell household items
7 Regional MRF for
recyclables
» Waste throughput – lower than
expected throughput can
increase per unit costs of
processing
» Lower market demand than
expected for recovered
materials
» Contamination levels high
» Already have a regional MRF
in region which may reduce
prices to compete
» Regional collection contract
written so that all kerbside
recyclables disposed at the
facility as a nominated facility
» Specification determines
quality requirements
Commercial and Industrial
8 Designated food
collection service for
C&I properties
» Low participation rate in the
service resulting in high per
unit costs of collection and
processing
» Higher cost of AWT
processing compared to
landfill
» Failure to obtain required
waste throughput for
economies of scale
» Contamination of collected
organics
» Confirm future agreements
with potential customers prior
to commencing the service
and establishing the facility
» Include specific requirements
for low contamination as part
of the customer contract
agreement
» Select modular AWT process
9 Regional C&I MRF for
increased sorting and
recovery of C&I waste
» Variable composition of C&I
waste resulting in changes to
types and quantities of
recovered materials
» Waste throughput – lower than
expected throughput can
increase per unit costs of
processing
» Undertake detailed audit over
significant period to confirm
potential variations in C&I
waste type and quantity
» Confirm future agreements
with potential customers prior
to commencing the service
and establishing the facility
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
» Lower market demand than
expected for recovered
materials
» Design and operate facility
such that there is flexibility to
increase/decrease recovery
of selected materials
according to market demand
10 Management of
industrial and special
wastes (cleaner
production initiatives
and eco-efficiency)
» Failure of industry to truly
embrace cleaner production
initiatives, even with Council
assistance
» Limit Councils involvement
with industry to one of
information provision and
facilitation
» Encourage industry
associations to take an active
role in working with industry
members to implement
cleaner production
11 Industrial and liquid
waste sharing as per
Eco-Industrial precinct
model
» Increase in cost of liquid waste
collection and recycling
» Where drop-off points are
provided at Council facilities,
cost of service provision to be
recovered through gate fees
12 Eco-Industrial Precinct » Low support from both industry
and the general community for
the precinct
» Failure to achieve required
waste throughput for
economies of scale
» Risks associated with selected
processing technologies
» Engage with industry and the
community from the outset to
determine requirements for a
successful precinct
» Ensure Precinct design will
allow for future flexibility in
terms of activities and waste
throughputs
Construction
13 Regional C&D depot
for accepting, sorting,
processing, and resale
of C&D materials
» Composition of C&D waste.
Analysis based on assumed
percentage of recoverable
materials.
» Waste throughput – low than
expected throughput can
increase per unit costs of
processing
» Lower market demand than
expected for recovered
materials
» Undertake detailed audit over
significant period to confirm
potential variations in C&D
waste type and quantity
» Wide scale promotion of the
depot across the SW Region,
including promoting
availability of low-cost
materials for reuse
» Councils commit to buying
recycled products from the
facility
» Promote small-scale
operators to be involved in
the establishment and
operation of the Regional
facility to consolidated
materials available for
processing
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
Other
14 AWT processing of
kerbside garbage
stream
» Higher cost of mixed waste
AWT processing compared to
landfill
» Lower than expected market
demand for recovered
materials
» Lock in set processing cost
($/tonne) in contract
» Councils commit to buying
recovered compost products
from the process, or Councils
assume no responsibility for
marketing and selling
recovered products
15 Move from a 3-bin to
1-bin collection
system. Mixed waste
stream processed
using AWT
» Higher cost of mixed waste
AWT processing compared to
landfill
» Lower than expected market
demand for recovered
materials
» Lock in set processing cost
($/tonne) in contract
» Councils commit to buying
recovered compost products
from the process, or Councils
assume no responsibility for
marketing and selling
recovered products
16 Revolve type
operation/s for
household hard waste
items and second
hand goods
» Low patronage of the reuse
centre
» Failure to achieve high
turnover and attract donations
of good quality reusable items
» High staff costs vs reliance on
volunteers
» Wide scale promotion of the
centre across the SW Region
» Potentially offer free collection
of reusable items in good
condition from households
» Encourage charitable (and
other similar) organisations to
be involved in the operation of
the facility
17 Increased education /
regional education
strategies
» Insufficient time for education
officers to adequately deal with
local issues
» Duplication of education
materials where services differ
across Council areas (need 2
sets of education materials)
» Ensure adequate number of
staff employed to provide
education services
» Attempt to standardise waste
services across the SW
Region where possible, or
define boundaries within
which Regional education
strategies are to operate
(versus individual
approaches)
18 Increased reuse /
recycling of tyres
» No available reuse options to
support sustainable market
» Councils take a position of
lobbying and support for
further development of tyre
recycling industry
19 Plastic bag reduction » Consumer backlash,
especially if consumers are
made to buy bin liners where
previously plastic bags were
used
» Encourage consumers to
purchase biodegradable bin
liners
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Description Key elements of risk Methods to limit or control risk
20A Public place litter
management
» Resistance of Councils to
change
» Agreement on objectives and
actions required for regional
approaches to litter
management
20B Public place recycling
and recycling at public
events
» High contamination of
recyclables resulting in
disposal of collected materials
to landfill (higher disposal cost
compared to recycling)
» Low collection rates of
recyclables resulting in high
per unit collection service
costs
» Time required to manage and
organise recycling at public
events may be considerable
» Ensure public place recycling
is supported by long-term
education strategies to
address contamination
» Locate public place recycling
bins where large quantities of
recyclable containers are
likely to be generated (for
example food courts, picnic
areas, etc)
» Design and locate public
place recycling bins such that
they can be collected easily,
and at a similar cost to
existing recyclables collection
services (for example by
combining their collection with
the domestic kerbside
recycling service)
» Incorporate charges for
assisting with, or providing
waste management services
are included in the cost of
facilities hire or public event
fees where possible.
21 Cooperative
partnership
arrangements
» Breakdown of cooperative
partnerships due to vested
interests
» Independent facilitators used
for meetings
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix E
Waste Industry Stakeholder Workshop
Outcomes
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Waste Industry Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes
Background
The objectives of this workshop were to test the feasibility and desirability of each of
the options outlined in the Stage 3 Background Report for the RWMSP. Both Council
and Industry stakeholders were invited to this workshop, which was the second with
this group. At the beginning of the meeting, Council representatives expressed that
they were more interested in the industry perspective given that they had already
discussed many of these issues in detail. Therefore the outcomes of the workshop
session are biased toward an industry perspective. All but two of the attendees
participated in the workshop session.
Attendees
Name Representing Workshop Group
Robyn Butterfield City of West Torrens 1
Steve Hodge City of Holdfast Bay 2
Ben Calder City of Onkaparinga 1
Justin Wynn City of Onkaparinga 1
Michele Bonnici City of Unley 2
Marnie Lynch City of Unley
Peter Tsokas City of Marion 3
Craig Walker City of Mitcham 3
Josh Bruce EPA 3
Lachlan Jeffries Jeffries Garden Soils 2
Mick Haywood Resource Co. 2
Rob Gabb Lucas Earthmovers 3
Ben Lucas Lucas Earthmovers 3
Geoff Johnson East Waste
Colin Mc Ardle Cleanaway 1
Jan Smealan Lonsdale Landfill 1
Paul Whiffen Boral Resources (SA) Ltd. 1
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Agenda
» Introductions;
» Recap on workshop #1;
» Presentation of preliminary RWMSP options and actions;
» Workshop each option in small groups;
» Report back and summarise comments and rankings for each option;
» Presentation of Eco Industrial Precinct Feasibility Study findings;
» Discussion; and
» Sum up, where to from here?
Outcomes of the workshop sessions
Participants were divided into three groups. Each group comprised of some Council
and Industry representatives. They were asked to consider each option. Firstly they
were asked whether or not each option was achievable and then they ranked the
option in terms of its importance or priority. Comments were made justifying their rank.
1. Is this achievable?
2. In terms of achieving targets, how important is this option?
Ranking options in order of importance / priority
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
significant
Very little Moderate Significant Very
significant
The following tables are a direct transcript of each groups comment and ranking
against the options.
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Group 1
Option Comments RANK
1 Regional best-practice
kerbside collection
services
Inevitable
Be wary of contract size (need flexibility
across systems)
5
2 Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and
food organics, with
organics processed by
either open windrow or
enclosed composting
processes
Economies of scale 5
3 Increased services for
household hazardous
wastes
Need more access to these services 3
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
Costly 2
5 Council wastes 4
6 Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
Poor diversion
On-demand system no sustainable
Support contractors
3
7 Local Government equity
in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
Rates based? 4
8 Designated food
organics collection
service for the
commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
Limited value without pooling waste
EEPT for large producers
1
9 Establishment of a
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
Quantity based 4
10 Regional Support of
waste programs
targeting industry,
including implementation
of cleaner production
processes
Already happening. Zero Waste / EPA 3
11 Liquid waste services Treatment Plant quantity / volume
based
2
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
12 Establishment of an Eco-
Industrial Precinct
Thought it was inevitable / happening? 5
13 Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
Existing facilities handling this 1
14 Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
Has been proposed
Cost may be an issue
4
15 Single bin collection
system combined with
AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
Contamination issues
Costly
Very large volumes
2
16 Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
Difficult to implement for low returns 1
17 Regional Approaches to
Waste Education
Happening now – Zero Waste 3
18 Tyres Needs market
Created by Government? (Eg VIC)
3
19 Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
Legislative action required 5
20 Public place litter
management and public
place recycling
Education strategies 3
21 Formation of Regional
Partnerships
Project driven 2
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Group 2
Option Comments RANK
1 Regional best-practice
kerbside collection
services
May not be achievable due to EM’s
Key is to have a consistent approach
across the region
Issue of frustration, 32 different systems
in the City
5
2 Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and
food organics, with
organics processed by
either open windrow or
enclosed composting
processes
May need to be weekly (in high build up
areas or in the summer)
In peak growing times, capacity issues
There is no enclosed composting in
Adelaide
75-80% increase in cost for industry for
enclosed composting
3-4
3 Increased services for
household hazardous
wastes
Is costly, is an EPR / SA Govt issue
If going to sell an item into the market,
then should take some responsibility for
the waste
Would need some legislative change
4-5
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
EPR responsibility
Could annex at MRF
2
5 Council wastes Lead from the front
Learn to close the circle
Green procurement policies
We have control
5
6 Modifications to the
domestic kerbside
hard-waste collection
service
Prevents illegal dumping
Good education tool – home source
division and diversion to revolve
2-3
7 Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables.
If is makes it economic
It won’t work, needs North/South
infrastructure for this to work
If uniform collection, 10 year contracts (3
year review)
2
8 Designated food
organics collection
service for the
commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
Covers too big an area, with too little
waste
Too used to 1 bin
1
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
9 Establishment of a
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
Not sure why separate from C&D waste
Why the distinction between C&D and
C&I?
4
10 Regional Support of
waste programs
targeting industry,
including
implementation of
cleaner production
processes
Is a Council issue
EPA to fund this, Council to focus on
particular areas
1-2
11 Liquid waste services Not such as issue
Like to see waste tracking service of liquid
waste
1-2
12 Establishment of an
Eco-Industrial Precinct
Will need cluster of like industries
Will be important to factor other small
operators on other sites.
5
13 Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
To young an area for this
Put these in one place
Need 200,000 tonnes available and a
monopoly to get the economy
$10 million set up cost
4
14 Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
0
15 Single bin collection
system combined with
AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
0
16 Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
Very nice
Partner with Anglicare
5
17 Regional Approaches
to Waste Education
Part of a uniform waste collection 5
18 Tyres Good calorific value (38-39 mega joules in
each tonne of tyres, 8000 tonnes of tyres
in the region)
EPR responsibility, pay a levy and put to
disposer
3-4
19 Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
Important issue but we’re over it 1
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
20 Public place litter
management and
public place recycling
Standardisation of recycling reinforces
education messages
3-4
21 Formation of Regional
Partnerships
Very suitable and adds value to results
Starts well, ends poorly
Economies of scale
Tendency to favour larger operators,
squeezes others out
Need to use the regional partnership to
drive down price
3-4
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Group 3
Option Comments RANK
1 Regional best-practice
kerbside collection
services
Economy of scale, linked to MRF or
similar processing facility
Potentially 1 regional MRF for all bins
5
2 Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and
food organics, with
organics processed by
either open windrow or
enclosed composting
processes
Not just composting (e.g. digestion)
Management of bins
Siting of processing facility (approved
facility in place)
End markets to support collections (need
to understand markets)
4
3 Increased services for
household hazardous
wastes
Type of hazardous wastes and quantities
Who pays?
Need to understand the need for service
and extent (nature of wastes)
EPA licensing issues
3
4 Services for electronic
wastes and household
appliances
Where does it go? (China no good)
Sorting issues at the MRF
Separate collection service – costly?
3
5 Council wastes Treated as any other commercial waste 3
6 Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
Specific hard waste collections (source
separation)
More frequent collections per year is
better
Need to understand waste streams and
determine collection needs
4
7 Local Government equity
in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for
recyclables.
Equity not issue
Need commitment to; economy of scale,
to siting and to community interests
Need to better understand waste streams
to determine collection needs
2
8 Designated food organics
collection service for the
commercial and Industrial
(C&I) sector
End markets for use of materials
Cost, who pays?
Need for site to handle waste
Potential difficulties at premises for bin
location
5
9 Establishment of a
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
Economy of scale
Sites to handle waste
5
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Option Comments RANK
10 Regional Support of
waste programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
Who pays?
Who coordinates?
Industry education
Need for incentives
3
11 Liquid waste services Already addressed 1
12 Establishment of an Eco-
Industrial Precinct
Need for it, but driven by economies of
scale
EPA licensing issues
SRWRA role?
Siting considerations
Need for LG commitment on waste
5
13 Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
Done 1
14 Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
Economy of scale / Council commitment
of waste
Subsidisation of landfill
Need for increased levies / incentives
1
15 Single bin collection
system combined with
AWT processing of mixed
waste stream
1
16 Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
2
17 Regional Approaches to
Waste Education
Limited role from industry
Dependant on impact on end markets
2
18 Tyres End market needed
Policy stance to ban from landfill
3
19 Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
1
20 Public place litter
management and public
place recycling
1
21 Formation of Regional
Partnerships
Potential impact on economies of scale
Councils have part to play in looking at
their waste strategy
Stop discounting landfill
5
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Issues / Ranking Summary
Once the workshop session was over the groups came together to report back.
Rankings and key comments were reported, discussed and summarised on a master
sheet. The results are outlined here.
Issues and Ranking Summary
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
1 Regional
best-practice
kerbside
collection
services
Frustration – many services
Economy of scale
Contract size
2 Fortnightly
collection of
combined
garden and
food
organics, with
organics
processed by
either open
windrow or
enclosed
composting
processes
Economies of scale
More options
Siting, end markets, suitability of
collection (seasonal)
3 Increased
services for
household
hazardous
wastes
EPR issue?
Not community’s responsibility
Which wastes?
Who pays?
Access to services
4 Services for
electronic
wastes and
household
appliances
EPR
1 regional MRF
Costly
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
5 Council
wastes
Easy to do – Council control
Buy back policy
Why is Council waste so
special?
6 Modifications
to the
domestic
kerbside
hard-waste
collection
service
Education, minimise dumping
Low volume
Private contractors
Focus – targeted (C&D)
7 Local
Government
equity in a
Regional
Materials
Recovery
Facility for
recyclables.
Opportunities for partnerships
Don’t think it will work (too slow)
Local government to facilitate
more input
8 Designated
food organics
collection
service for
the
commercial
and Industrial
(C&I) sector
Easy
Large area – small volume
9 Establishmen
t of a
Materials
Recovery
Facility (MRF)
for C&I
wastes
Resources
Economies of scale
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
10 Regional
Support of
waste
programs
targeting
industry,
including
implementati
on of cleaner
production
processes
EPA funding – Council issue
Could waste industry have an
impact?
Already happening
11 Liquid waste
services
Dependant on volumes
Already done
Not a huge issue
12 Establishmen
t of an Eco-
Industrial
Precinct
Coordination required
Love it
Already happening?
13 Establishment
of a Regional
Depot of C&D
materials
C&D already OK
Facilities exist
14 Alternate
Waste
Technology
(AWT)
processing of
kerbside
collected
garbage
Is it possible?
Council subsidize landfill - so
why?
For kerbside green organics
15 Single bin
collection
system
combined
with AWT
processing of
mixed waste
stream
As above
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Rank
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
l
i
t
t
l
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
V
e
r
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Option Comments
1 2 3 4 5
16 Establishmen
t of a
Revolve/
Reuse centre
Warm fuzzy
Sounds great
Difficult, low returns
17 Regional
Approaches
to Waste
Education
Refer to option 1, reinforces
zero waste
Required with uniform services
Private sector role
Happening now
18 Tyres Government to create market
demand
Not important without end
market
Producer responsibility
Why chop them up before going
to landfill?
19 Regional
plastic bag
reduction
strategies
Ban in process
Not a private sector focus
N/A?
20 Public place
litter
management
and public
place
recycling
Role of private sector?
Important to Council
Current process in public
domain is different, consistency
of approach required
21 Formation of
Regional
Partnerships
Needs to be project specific
May get good results
Disadvantages industry
Justify infrastructure
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Eco-Industrial Precinct
Following a presentation by Doug Bowers on the findings of the Eco-Industrial Precinct
Feasibility Study, the group discussed various issues. A summary of the discussion is
included here.
Council / Industry role
» Council is seeking partners and synergies;
» Industry view is that Council needs to move the process forward, needs to facilitate
the process and reduce obstacles. A coordination and liaison role is very important
for Council (planning approvals etc.);
» Council needs to lead this, make it happen, industry needs something tangible;
» If each industry worked separately it would take too long to get off the ground;
» Council to be guided by industry on the vision;
» Industry – a whole range of people want to get involved.
Viability / Feasibility
» Wide support for an industry wide facility;
» New facility will be of a high standard, which means it will be costly, is that going to
be viable?
» Resource Co. plans to integrate others, their site may/may not become the Eco-
Industrial Precinct;
» Flexibility with regards to the tenancy is essential because of the fast changing
nature of the industry;
» View that precincts don’t work because we are dealing with low value commodities,
people won’t travel long distances, need to consider what infrastructure already
exists;
» Success of precinct will be demonstrated by how well it recycles a range of wastes
and the quantity of waste is deals with;
» Need to be aware of market forces, not everyone will want to jump on board;
» Long term viability – need to consider the types of wastes to be processed, being
too prescriptive is dangerous.
Revolve Centre
» Should a Revolve Centre be incorporated into the Eco Industrial Precinct?
» The key to the success of a Revolve Centre is that it’s accessible, it must be easy to
access / use. Maybe better to have a number of them, not just one large facility.
» There is a strong link between a Revolve Centre and Hard Waste.
» Should be driven by Local Government / the community.
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
» Unlikely to be taken up by industry, not likely to be economically viable, could be set
up as a non-profit organisation.
Site
» Larger site, a one-stop-shop would be best;
» This is vital to the success of the project;
» Needs to be close to landfill because of transport costs;
» The nature of the industries will dictate site suitability;
» Site 5 has a big buffer. Need control of development around the precinct.
Other issues
» Are alternate energy sources viable without subsidisation?
Sum up, where to from here?
The outcomes of the workshop were summed up and participants were notified of the
next steps in the process. The outcomes of the workshop (this document) are to be
circulated to all attendees as an appendix to the Stage 3 Report for their feedback. The
Community Panel and general community will also be invited to comment on the Draft
Report.
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
Appendix F
Options Report Summary
Southern and Western
Region
Report for Regional Waste
Management Strategy
Community Consultation
Summary Report
August 2006
33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Results: 1
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Feedback on Options proposed from the Community Panel and
public 3
1.2 Household and Council Waste Options 7
1.3 Commercial and Industrial Options 20
1.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Options 31
1.5 Other options (14 – 21) 35
Table Index
Table 1 Q.1 Gender 4
Table 2 Q.2 Age 4
Table 3 Q.3 Postcode 5
Table 4 Q.4 Are you a member of a community interest
group? 6
Table 5 Acceptable to the Community? 7
Table 6 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 9
Table 7 Assign priority 11
Table 8 Option 1: Regional best-practice kerbside collection
service 13
Table 9 Option 2: Fortnightly collection of combined garden
and food organics 14
Table 10 Option 3: Increased services for household
hazardous wastes 15
Table 11 Option 4: Services for electronic wastes and
household appliances 16
Table 12 Option 5: Council Waste 17
Table 13 Option 6: Modifications to the domestic kerbside
hard-waste collection service 18
Table 14 Option 7: Local Government equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery Facility for recyclables 19
Table 15 Acceptable to the community? 20
Table 16 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 22
33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 17 Assign priority 24
Table 18 Option 8: Designated food organic collection
service for the commercial and Industrial (C&I)
sector 26
Table 19 Option 9: Establishment of a Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I wastes 27
Table 20 Option 10: Regional support of waste programs
targeting industry, including implementation of
cleaner production processes 28
Table 21 Option 11: Liquid waste services 29
Table 22 Option 12: Establishment of an Eco-Industrial
Precinct 30
Table 23 Acceptable to the community? 31
Table 24 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 32
Table 25 Assign priority 33
Table 26 Option 13: Establishment of a Regional Depot for
Construction and Demolition 34
Table 27 Acceptable to the community? 35
Table 28 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility? 37
Table 29 Assign priority 39
Table 30 Option 14: Alternate Waste Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside collected garbage 41
Table 31 Option 15: Single bin collection system combined
with AWT processing of mixed waste stream 42
Table 32 Option 16: Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse
centre 43
Table 33 Option 17: Regional Approaches to Waste
Education 44
Table 34 Option 18: Appropriate disposal Tyres 45
Table 35 Option 19: Regional plastic bag reduction
strategies 46
Table 36 Option 20: Public place litter management and
public place recycling 47
Table 37 Option 21: Formation of Regional Partnerships 48
1
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Executive Summary
An Options Report, incorporating the waste management options proposed as part of
the Southern and Western Councils of Adelaide Regional Waste Management Strategy
was recently put on public exhibition. A Community Panel was established in order to
obtain focused feedback. This Panel comprised a total of 46 representatives who were
nominated by each Council. The Community Panel members were sent a hard copy of
the Options Report and associated feedback form. A total of 25 responses were
received from the Community Panel (54% response rate). The Options Report was
also available to download from the project website and an online feedback form was
developed to capture feedback from they general public. This was advertised in local
newspapers. Two responses were received via the website.
The feedback form asked respondents to state their age, gender and any community
organisation, which they were associated with. Then, for each option, the following four
questions were asked.
1. Is this option acceptable to the community?
2. Is it appropriate for Councils to take responsibility for this option?
3. What priority should we give this option?
4. Provide comments where necessary
Results:
Options 1 - 7, Household and Council Waste
Generally there was very strong support for these options, with a high proportion of
respondents indicating these options are acceptable to the community and that they
were appropriate for Councils to action. Similarly most respondents considered these
options to be of either a very high or high priority. The comments made in relation to
these options generally indicated in principle support, but identified some issues and
ideas in relation to their management and operation. For example, whilst the need for a
hazardous waste collection was recognised, issues such as transport for elderly and
education regarding storage were raised. It should be noted that from the responses
received there was a clear misconception held by the community in relation to hard
waste collections. The option put to the community was for modification to the existing
hard waste service to include greater segregation of materials for either reuse or
recycling. However, comments received indicate a belief that the question related to
increased hard waste collections.
2
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Options 8 – 13, Commercial and Industrial / Construction and Demolition Waste
The feedback for this group of options was varied. While a majority of respondents
indicated that these options were acceptable to the community, they were divided over
whether or not it was appropriate for Councils to take responsibility. The comments
reflected this view, with many suggesting that industry or State Government should
take responsibility. Similarly there was a mixed response as to the priority of these
options. Concern was expressed that that some of these options would increase costs
to Councils and others suggested that there were already sufficient services/facilities in
place.
Other options (14 – 21)
With the exception of option 15, a majority of respondents felt this group of options
were acceptable to the community. Option 15 (Single bin collection system combined
with AWT) divided respondents fairly equally with respect to it’s acceptability. With
regards to whether or not Councils should take responsibility for these options, the
response was mixed, with a significant proportion answering in the negative to options
14, 15, 19 and 20. The pattern was similar with regards to the priority assigned to
these options, with options 14, 15, 19 and 20 given a relatively low priority. Comments
received indicated that there was a level of misunderstanding about what Alternative
Waste Technologies (AWT) is a perception that AWT would ‘undo’ all the good work
done recycling.
3
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1. Introduction
1.1 Feedback on Options proposed from the Community Panel
and public
Waste management options proposed as part of the Southern and Western Councils of
Adelaide Regional Waste Management Strategy were recently put on public exhibition.
A Community Panel was established in order to obtain focused feedback. This Panel
comprised a total of 46 representatives who were nominated by each Council. The
Community Panel members were sent a hard copy of the Options Report and
associated feedback form. A total of 25 responses were received from the Community
Panel (54% response rate).
The Options Report was also available to download from the project website and an
online feedback form was developed to capture feedback from they general public.
This was advertised in local newspapers. Two responses were received via the
website.
The feedback form asked respondents to state their age, gender and any community
organisation, which they were associated with. Then, for each option, the following four
questions were asked.
1. Is this option acceptable to the community? (Yes / No)
2. Is it appropriate for Councils to take responsibility for this option? (Yes / No)
3. What priority should we give this option? (Please nominate priority from 1-5
according to the scale below)
1 2 3 4 5
Very low Low Medium High Very high
4. Provide comments where necessary
All feedback from the Community Panel and public has been collated into this report
for consideration by the Steering Committee. The results have been formatted
according to the different categories of waste.
4
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Respondent characteristics
Responses from Community Panel: 25
Responses from public via website: 2
Total responses: 27 responses
Table 1 Q.1 Gender
Choice Count Percentage Answered
Male 14 53.8%
Female 12 46.2%
Table 2 Q.2 Age
Age Frequency
20 1
27 1
28 1
35 1
39 1
48 1
55 4
58 1
59 4
61 1
63 1
64 1
65 2
69 1
70 1
72 2
73 1
74 1
5
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 3 Q.3 Postcode
Postcode Suburb Frequency
5162 Morphett Vale 3
5062 Mitcham 3
5158 O’Halloran Hill 2
5045 Glenelg 2
5063 Frewville 2
5031 Torrensville 2
5167 Pt Noarlunga 1
5041 Panorama 1
5047 Marion 1
5035 Keswick 1
5052 Belair 1
5048 Brighton 1
5024 Fulham 1
5043 Ascot Park 1
5034 Millswood 1
5046 Oaklands Park 1
5061 Unley 1
5049 Seacliff Park 1
5153 Heathfield 1
6
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 4 Q.4 Are you a member of a community interest group?
Choice Count Percentage Answered
Yes - please specify: 10 43.5%
No 13 56.5%
1.1.1 Community interest groups represented:
» Volunteer at Mitcham Library
» Glenelg residents Association
» Council Environmental Advisory Group
» Elizabeth House over 50's community centre
» Volunteer Mitcham City Council - Mitcham Heritage and Justice of the peace.
Committee member of Hawthorn Bowling Club
» Clarence Pk Environment Group
» Fifty plus club, Walking group and RSL
» Dunes Revegetation
» Community Garden
» Church, Probus, Community Centre
» Probus, Meals on Wheels, Kiwonis, Neighbourhood Watch, Trees for life
» Volunteer gardener at a local railway station. Volunteer helper in a church-based
program to increase english language skills for new arrivals in Australia
» West Torrens Youth Advisory Council
» Unley Park Sports Club
7
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.2 Household and Council Waste Options
Table 5 Acceptable to the Community?
Topic Yes No
Option 1: Regional best-
practice kerbside collection
services
25 1
Option 2: Fortnightly
collection of combined
garden and food organics
21 6
Option 3: Increased services
for household hazardous
wastes
24 3
Option 4: Services for
electronic wastes and
household appliances
23 3
Option 5: Council wastes 26 1
Option 6: Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
27 0
Option 7: Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery Facility
for recyclables
19 5
8 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
9
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 6 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 1: Regional best-
practice kerbside collection
services
25 1
Option 2: Fortnightly
collection of combined
garden and food organics
22 5
Option 3: Increased services
for household hazardous
wastes
25 2
Option 4: Services for
electronic wastes and
household appliances
22 4
Option 5: Council wastes 26 1
Option 6: Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-
waste collection service
27 0
Option 7: Local Government
equity in a Regional
Materials Recovery Facility
for recyclables
20 6
10 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
11
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 7 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 1: Regional best-practice
kerbside collection services
0 0 2 9 15
Option 2: Fortnightly collection of
combined garden and food
organics
3 5 7 11 1
Option 3: Increased services for
household hazardous wastes
1 3 8 9 5
Option 4: Services for electronic
wastes and household appliances
2 5 9 6 4
Option 5: Council wastes 0 1 0 11 14
Option 6: Modifications to the
domestic kerbside hard-waste
collection service
0 0 2 11 13
Option 7: Local Government
equity in a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility for recyclables
7 3 7 6 3
12 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
13
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.2.1 Comments regarding Household and Council Waste Options (1 – 7)
Table 8 Option 1: Regional best-practice kerbside collection service
Comments Consultants response
Space constraints and small gardens
» There may be little or no need for green organics
bins for smaller gardens.
» Multi unit dwellings may only need 1 green waste
bin for all units.
» Finding space for three bins may be a problem for
small blocks.
Garden organics services
could be optional or at a
reduced frequency.
Management- 240L bin
proven to be adequate in
volume storage capacity
for fortnightly service.
Education
» Need still more complimentary education
programmes.
» Educating residents to use the correct bin is
essential to prevent contamination
Management
» Recycling bin should be emptied weekly
» Councils should be facilitators only and services
assigned to a contractor for full operation and
administration.
Questioning need for this option
» Not convinced the only crate system doesn't work
well.
» Can cause confusion for some older people
» Too complicated for householders. Better if sorting
done in central facility
» Check cost/benefit of this compared to option 14
Yields for crates limited to
3-4 kg /pick up. OH&S
issues. Discipline and
different bin lid colours
should ensure 3 bin
system not complicated.
Option 14 would have a
higher operating cost
In favour of this option
» 3 bin system maximises and complements the
community's commitment to resource recovery and
recycling
» Excellent. Encourages people to separate waste.
» Great system - recycling made simpler
» By supplying separate bins for wastes the
community has no excuse not to recycle.
14
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 9 Option 2: Fortnightly collection of combined garden and food
organics
Comments Consultants response
Education:
» Community education would be needed
Odour:
» Weekly collection will overcome odour problems.
» Any benefit would be negated by the smell
Higher cost with weekly
service.
Alternative approaches:
» It would be more cost effective to encourage the use
of compost bins, less work by the resident.
» Encourage households to manage their own
garden/organic waste, unless they have no garden.
Difficulties:
» How can you guarantee that residents will use
biodegradable bags?
» Very difficult process to manage for householder.
Rodent issues.
» Lack of discipline from householder
» Kitchen waste not a problem. Would not participate.
Have several compost bins - one exclusively for
food scraps - vermin proof - tumble bin type.
» I think this is a good idea, although I can't see too
many on the community bothering to separate their
food waste.
Burnside trial results will
possibly provide
indications on who bio-
degradable bags used by
residents.
Rodent concerns unlikely
with a 240L bin with lid
closed.
Other suggestions:
» Biodegradable bags need to be available.
In favour of this option:
» This option will better address the issue of landfill.
» No reason why community could not separate
organics in a kitchen environment
» May not be very successful program initially, but all
new strategies have to begin somewhere
» Most excellent idea. We should at least trial it, like
Burnside is.
15
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 10 Option 3: Increased services for household hazardous wastes
Comments Consultants response
Education:
» Education is a must.
» Number to call for advice
» Community education needed on storage required.
» Residents need list of classified hazardous waste.
» Educate community to reduce use of chemicals = a
high priority, but collection still required.
Frequency of collection:
» Frequency of collection could be an issue as
residents are not likely to store hazardous material
for long periods
» Council should consider twice yearly collection and
perhaps supply a receptacle for this waste to be
transported
» Once initial 'clean out' of hazardous wastes,
perhaps less regular collection may be required
» Quarterly collection
» Provide 6 monthly basis collection at a council depot
by personnel familiar with these substances
In favour of this option:
» Storage& disposal of hazardous substances is
rigorously regulated in workplace. Nothing is done
about suburban garage /garden shed.
» Hazardous waste not collected in my area
» Important for householders to dispose of safely -
currently not enough disposal points.
Question need for this option:
» Not a serious problem for many households
» There already exist means of disposing of the small
quantity of household waste found in residential
areas
» I don't see household toxics as a big issue
Other suggestions:
» Need transport arrangements for elderly
Responsibility:
» Possibly zero waste, could help fund this initiative
» Could be a shared Council initiative
16
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 11 Option 4: Services for electronic wastes and household appliances
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Challenging for Council to manage.
» Is this a problem for local govt? Pick up by private
industry would be unlikely unless there was a
charge which would encourage people to dump
» Councils to collect larger appliances only.
» Recycling these items is important but State govt /
Zero Waste should help Councils
» Need to work closely with other agencies and
businesses for recycling
In favour of this option:
» No reason why Councils could provide a facility for
free drop-off similar to SIMS / KKUS AB service in
place at Netley. SA e-waste is our next BIG
challenge
Alternative approaches:
» Private enterprise opportunity
» What about a recycling re-use levy at the time of
purchase
» Recycling depots would reduce unsaleable goods
left at charity bins.
» Emphasis on repair/revise if possible (perhaps
centre is supported by government funds to get
established)
» Why not hold onto these items for yearly hard
rubbish? Often left in street/kerb for anyone to pick-
up or scavenge
No guarantee of recovery
/recycling with this
approach (hard waste /
scavenging)
Collection:
» On call collection service is the best option, as many
residents do not have the means to transport this
type of waste easily.
» Drop off centre would be of benefit with technology,
this need will grow
» Hard rubbish collection often receives these items.
No more frequently than biannual collection required
» Central Council receiving area for those with
transport.
» Need to reduce cost of disposal to residents to
reduce roadside dumping.
17
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Comments Consultants response
Cost:
» A small fee for this service would be appropriate;
user pays.
» Should be provided by Council staff / vehicles
» Will have additional costs for homeowners,
especially the elderly without transport.
Question need for this option:
» There already exists free deposit depots for TV’s,
DVD’s, computers and printers for residents and
businesses
Table 12 Option 5: Council Waste
Comments Consultants response
In favour of this option:
» Council MUST lead by example. If they are
encouraging the community to do the right thing, so
should they
» I agree with benefits as listed. Upgrading of
monitoring and reporting is definitely needed
» Councils should aim for 'best practice' (zero waste)
by adapting full facilities and educating staff in their
own operations
» Western suburb councils should lead the way, go
team!
Education:
» Reporting to residents at rate times would be
beneficial and cut the cost of separate mail out
» Big emphasis of this project in the media would be
extremely valuable
Questioning priority of this option:
» But if councils can care for all their rubbish, why not
ratepayers as well? Why high for the Council but
medium/low for ratepayers?
18
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 13 Option 6: Modifications to the domestic kerbside hard-waste
collection service
Comments Consultants response
Collection frequency:
» My Council collect once per year; perhaps this could
be increased to twice per year.
» Need to be able to get rid of unwanted materials more
frequently then annually.
» A set day for each section of council area would make
for more efficiency.
» Suggest one collection every 2 months by suburb.
In favour of this option:
» Illegal dumping is rife in broad areas within SA. Hard
waste collection may assist in reducing this.
» I don't believe it would be too onerous for residents to
place hard waste into piles.
» Many people rely on this service, as they have no
means of getting their hard waste to a depot.
» Household electrical goods are hard to dispose of
when in good working order as charities won't accept
» Hard waste collection needs to be available and
accessible. Current 'dump' arrangements are too
costly and difficult to access.
» Makes great sense to have items/materials
revolved/reused by any one?
» Re-use of these items is a must, could be donated by
Council to charity.
» Recycling of the remaining waste is also a must.
Timber, plastic and metals are easily separated
Other suggestions:
» Suggest councils issue voucher for one trailer load of
rubbish to be taken to transfer station by each
ratepayer per year. Cheaper and easier option
» Random dumping should be more strictly policed
Limitations:
» Does not allow for the current practice of unofficial
recycling, taking, replacing by unauthorised
individuals.
19
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 14 Option 7: Local Government equity in a Regional Materials Recovery
Facility for recyclables
Comments Consultants response
Question need for / viability of this option:
» While resource share sounds like a good idea,
equitable revenue sharing would require complicated
formulae. Agree low priority
» Trials needed to assess potential success of this
innovative project
» Not of great interest
» Private and government enterprises rarely work
» Councils have costs in collection and need to recover
them. Privatisation is not necessarily the best option.
» More responsibility for Councils to market recyclables
to ensure cost effective and financial returns. Councils
could at times have financial loss.
» Risky operation. Who can say if it would be
viable/profitable? Leave to private enterprise
» Why would this happen?
» Administration costs too high for low return - instead
put towards lowering rates.
In favour of this option:
» At least some opportunity to recover costs as a result
of effective resource recovery initiatives
» This could provide councils with the ability to recover
some costs. Would probably require a trained person
to co-ordinate
» By promoting in its area, Councils will increase
collected recyclables. This effort should result in
Councils collecting revenue based on weight of
material
Conditions:
» Councils to act as "seed financiers" only
» The willingness to collect/sort/recycle waste should
not be too closely tied to the ability to reap financial
rewards from it.
» Education and services need secure funding.
20
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.3 Commercial and Industrial Options
Table 15 Acceptable to the community?
Topic Yes No
Option 8: Designated food
organic collection service for
the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
23 4
Option 9: Establishment of a
Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF) for C&I wastes
22 5
Option 10: Regional Support
of waste programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
22 5
Option 11: Liquid waste
services
25 2
Option 12: Establishment of
an Eco-Industrial Precinct
25 1
21 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
22
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 16 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 8: Designated food
organic collection service
for the commercial and
Industrial (C&I) sector
15 12
Option 9: Establishment of
a Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) for C&I
wastes
13 14
Option 10: Regional
Support of waste
programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
15 12
Option 11: Liquid waste
services
19 8
Option 12: Establishment
of an Eco-Industrial
Precinct
17 9
23 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
24
33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 17 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 8: Designated food
organic collection service for
the commercial and Industrial
(C&I) sector
8 6 5 5 3
Option 9: Establishment of a
Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF) for C&I wastes
2 8 11 5 1
Option 10: Regional Support of
waste programs targeting
industry, including
implementation of cleaner
production processes
5 2 9 7 4
Option 11: Liquid waste
services
1 3 11 8 4
Option 12: Establishment of an
Eco-Industrial Precinct
2 4 9 7 4
25 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
26 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.3.1 Comments regarding Commercial and Industrial Waste Options (8 – 12)
Table 18 Option 8: Designated food organic collection service for the
commercial and Industrial (C&I) sector
Comments Consultants response
Question need for this option:
» Believe that there are companies already providing
waste collection for food / organics
Only applies to retail
/supermarkets/ some
grocers.
Responsibility:
» It should be individual organisations responsibility to
manage their own organic wastes. Councils may be
able to facilitate/guide
» This is a service best left to private enterprise.
» Industry responsibility
Yes but Local
government could
provide incentives for or
suggestions to
companies who
participate.
Other suggestions:
» Council could support this process through training
and building networks between recyclers and relevant
business
» Regulation and legislation to cover food waste
disposal by C+I sector crucial (State or local
government)
» Presumably this includes the lawn mowing franchises
and home garden businesses, who currently have to
pay to dump cuttings?
Conditions:
» Would need a special locality to allow composting -
compost could be sold to individuals to cover cost
» Charge businesses for this but make it compulsory
In favour of this option:
» Important to stop the generation of leachate in landfills
» If they pay rates it is appropriate they have access to
essential services
» So much food is sent to landfill from supermarkets and
restaurants to create the deadliest GHG - methane
(worse than CO2). Soils in Australia crave organic
matter - councils should collect revenue for this - try
Jefferies soils.
Odour:
» Good idea. Good for compost. Bad for smell
27 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 19 Option 9: Establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for
C&I wastes
Comments Consultants response
In favour of this option:
» Investigation of the MRF facility is worth following up
bearing in mind the site and private venture
» Big task. Good idea
» If they pay rates it is appropriate they have access to
essential services
» Subject to facility availability and private organisation
interest this facilities would be a plus for the S/W
region
Other suggestions:
» Charge businesses for this but make it compulsory
» Council land assistant valuable here
» Need to promote existing services and advertise well
proposed new services
Responsibility:
» This is a system best left to private enterprise to
establish State Government assistance.
» Leave to private enterprise where motives would be
more profit orientated than local council
» Industry Responsibility
Difficulties:
» The problem would be to find a suitable site and a
suitable private venture
» If 36% of waste is diverted then this must go ahead.
However, if customers must pay to recycle they won't
use the service
28 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 20 Option 10: Regional support of waste programs targeting industry,
including implementation of cleaner production processes
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Should be the responsibility of the State/ Federal
government’s (E.P.A / Zero Waste, possibly monitored
by Council)
» While I see the value in education, I would not want
Councils to use their own funds. Reckon this should
be a State government initiative
» Cost to Councils need not be high
» The State Government should sponsor, with EPA
education and waste exchange programs.
» Council cooperate with private industries
» Industry responsibility
» Should be on a multi-Council State level. Check tie in
to National Pollution Inventory Reporting
Concerns:
» I worry about self-regulation. Perhaps I am cynical?
» This is idealistic and not practical. Relies too much on
industry cooperation
In favour of this option:
» An essential facility
» Re use of industrial waste is most important for
reducing pollution. Community involvement is an
excellent suggestion. Assisting industry for cleaner
production is the 1st step to ESD.
» May be a resource intensive option, however
encouraging self-management and preventative
measures is very proactive!
Conditions:
» To work needs a specialist educator / co-ordinator and
inspectors to ensure system works
» Division of responsibility between local and state
government unclear. Needs secure funding? levy on
all potential users, not just actual users
29 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 21 Option 11: Liquid waste services
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Believe that this should be a private sector project with
Council consultation as to the site
» Private businesses already exist, Councils should
promote them
» If existing arrangements work satisfactorily (eg engine
oil from repairers/lubricators) why duplicate it?
» Should be on a multi-Council State level
In favour of this option:
» This waste, in particular oil, has the potential to cause
environmental harm and should be a priority target
» Certainly need even if joint councils have to provide
finance
» Important to remove oils and fats from the waste
stream and storm water system
» This is important - not enough depots currently, nor
are they well advertised.
Question need for this option:
» Liquid waste services already exist with private
enterprise. Householders can deliver used engine oil
to nominated service stations in their area.
Considerations:
» If the problems seem more evident than the answers
at present, place higher priority on investigation,
research, invitation of submissions, etc.
» A liquid waste treatment for the both makes sense.
Where might be a problem
» Also to be available to householders?
» Should be available in Southern area near major
industries, Mobil Refinery site?
» Where liquids wastes are being produced the law
should enforce proper disposal. All liquid wastes
should already be sent to a recycling facility.
30 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 22 Option 12: Establishment of an Eco-Industrial Precinct
Comments Consultants response
Responsibility:
» Again this should be an alliance between Local, State
and Federal governments
» State Government and EPA should sponsor this
precinct along with private enterprise to establish the
need for such a scheme.
» If there is a profit to be had, private industry would rise
to the challenge but with assistance from Councils.
» It is ethically not ok to send all waste out of the area
(eg, to the north). All council precincts need to work on
this point.
» Should be industry responsibility
» Should be State responsibility. Extend to broader area
for maximum efficiency
In favour of this option:
» It is a simple way for businesses to reuse other
businesses wastes. If all waste was reused the net
waste would be zero. Conserving energy and water is
a high priority. Reducing transport also.
Location:
» Should be available in Southern area near major
industries, Mobil Refinery site?
Other suggestions:
» Let Winsfield go first - act as a model
» If the problems seem more evident than the answers
at present, place higher priority on investigation,
research, invitation of submissions, etc.
31 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Options
Table 23 Acceptable to the community?
Topic Yes No
Option 13: Establishment
of a Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
23 3
32 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 24 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 13: Establishment
of a Regional Depot for
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
materials
13 13
33 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 25 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 13: Establishment of a
Regional Depot for
Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials
2 3 9 5 6
34 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.4.1 Comments regarding construction and demolition option (13)
Table 26 Option 13: Establishment of a Regional Depot for Construction and
Demolition
Comments Consultants
response
Responsibility:
» Could be a financial risk for Councils
» Private venture with Council consultation.
» Private enterprise to establish with encouragement
from State Government and EPA
» Councils provide land and other assistance as
investment for private industries to set this up
This would not
represent a financial
risk as it increases use
of recycled crushed
concrete in Council
road works and
reduces transport
costs.
In favour of this option:
» Potentially huge waste reduction outcomes for this
option. Considering C and D waste makes up over
40% of all materials to landfill, this should also be a
high priority
» This is a must do - so much reusable waste is sourced
from construction industry, it should be sold for a
bargain price. Councils should advertise it.
Considerations:
» Recycle / re-sale is important with site easily
accessible
» For private enterprise - will need advertising to sell
recycled material
» Important that this facility be available. A significant
cost when undertaking renovations
» Also to be available to house owners?
Question need for this option:
» Does this have to be a new or a promotion of existing
service?
» Isn't this already covered by private business?
35 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.5 Other options (14 – 21)
Table 27 Acceptable to the community?
Topic Yes No
Option 14: Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
18 7
Option 15: Single bin
collection system combined
with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
10 17
Option 16: Establishment of
a Revolve/ Reuse centre
26 0
Option 17: Regional
Approaches to Waste
Education
25 2
Option 18: Appropriate
disposal Tyres
25 2
Option 19: Regional plastic
bag reduction strategies
21 6
Option 20 A 7 20 B : Public
place litter management and
public place recycling
21 4
Option 21 : Formation of
Regional Partnerships
23 2
36 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
37 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 28 Appropriate for Councils to take responsibility?
Topic Yes No
Option 14: Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT)
processing of kerbside
collected garbage
13 11
Option 15: Single bin
collection system combined
with AWT processing of
mixed waste stream
9 15
Option 16: Establishment of
a Revolve/ Reuse centre
20 7
Option 17: Regional
Approaches to Waste
Education
26 1
Option 18: Appropriate
disposal Tyres
16 11
Option 19: Regional plastic
bag reduction strategies
16 11
Option 20 : Public place litter
management and public
place recycling
14 11
Option 21 : Formation of
Regional Partnerships
24 1
38 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
39 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 29 Assign priority
Topic 1
Very
Low
2 3 4 5
Very
High
Option 14: Alternate Waste
Technology (AWT) processing of
kerbside collected garbage
8 6 5 5 1
Option 15: Single bin collection
system combined with AWT
processing of mixed waste stream
16 4 1 3 2
Option 16: Establishment of a
Revolve/ Reuse centre
1 0 4 11 11
Option 17: Regional Approaches to
Waste Education
0 1 0 10 16
Option 18: Appropriate disposal
Tyres
6 3 5 7 5
Option 19: Regional plastic bag
reduction strategies
6 3 5 7 5
Option 20 : Public place litter
management and public place
recycling
6 6 5 3 4
Option 21 : Formation of Regional
Partnerships
1 1 3 7 12
40 33/13094/27994 Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
41 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
1.5.1 Comments regarding other options (14 – 21)
Table 30 Option 14: Alternate Waste Technology (AWT) processing of
kerbside collected garbage
Comments Consultants
response
Conditions:
» If appropriate technology (wet/dry scrubs) are installed
to collect toxic residues produced from burning waste,
go for it. The emissions are deadly and the procedure
is expensive, large cities are forced to do so, Australia
should do the same.
» Need more information, research? May become more
necessary in the future
» If it improves efficiency then we need to work on
developing an effective option
Cost:
» Population and low waste tonnage cannot justify the
capital cost of an AWT facility in Adelaide compared
with a modern landfill
» Involvement of private operator to make money from
it?
» Cost prohibitive
» Expense is greater than benefit
In favour of this option:
» Should be tried
Not in favour:
» No recycling!!!
» A step in the wrong direction. Greater waste treatment
inefficiencies
» I do not like this option; it still leaves much waste
unused, and un-recycled. This option wastes
resources.
» One bin system not the answer at present time
Appears AWT process
not understood.
42 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 31 Option 15: Single bin collection system combined with AWT
processing of mixed waste stream
Comments Consultants
response
Not in favour:
» This option takes a backward step / not my idea of
progress / a retrograde step
Prefer recycling:
» Maximise recycling
» While community compliance with the need to
separate/sort waste is not optimal, it needs to be
encouraged. Don't abandon the goal and progress
towards achieving it
» Do recyclables still get sorted?
» Why would we threaten current recycling industry by
introducing this option?
» Would not improve current 3 bin system
» This would defeat our current recycling system and
reduction to landfill.
» Important to involve householders in the waste
minimisation process. Most of the community already
co-operate this way.
» Why another big change? Marion has just gone to a 3
bin system.
Efficiency:
» Low efficiency
Cost:
» Needs cost/benefit study
» The cost to Council would be astronomical and
unaffordable.
In favour of this option:
» Single bin preferable to new 3-bin system. Particularly
for older residents and those in units
» One day
43 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 32 Option 16: Establishment of a Revolve/ Reuse centre
Comments Consultants
response
Transport:
» Disadvantages residents without the means to
transport items. Pick up service for a nominal fee could
be offered to certain residents
Responsibility:
» Council to assist establishment
» This could be incorporated with hard rubbish system.
Council should collect goods from house and divert
materials for reuse/recycling
In favour of this option:
» Have seen this approach work extremely well in ACT.
One mans trash is another mans treasure!
» Great idea. This should be well supported by rate
payers
Charities:
» Yes, but not to affect the charitable bodies like St
Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army etc
» Charity organisations do this at the moment and
should be encouraged
» Charities working together? Government funded
» Needs to be done in conjunction with charities. Would
reduce dumping at charity bins
Cost:
» Will involve additional cost to ratepayer, especially
those without transport.
» Cost/benefit options to determine most economic
Other suggestions:
» Better still if it can be managed to benefit the poorest
people in the community
» Unemployed person could be educated to restore and
prepare items for sale. Needs to be advertised
44 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 33 Option 17: Regional Approaches to Waste Education
Comments Consultants
response
In favour of this option:
» Agree. Good idea. Sharing Councils expertise and
private industry/public would be beneficial
» Proactive and often underestimated
» Education & ease of use of the system are the keys to
this problem. I still hear people say, "Recycling is for
other people".
» Educating people to the value of their participation in
such schemes will make waste management profitable
for Council & the environment
» Can give good return for small outlay
» Cost effective with common and consistent information
presented.
» Cooperation, not duplication
Other suggestions:
» Needs to be directive, not consultative
» Start by education children - generation of the future
» Not only regional emphasis on, but also much more
energy and effort put into waste education
45 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 34 Option 18: Appropriate disposal Tyres
Comments Consultants
response
Research:
» Councils could come together to support research into
this
» There needs to be a "think tank" formed in Australia to
explore the uses of recycling tyres. Landfill in not the
answer
» Research and development of uses / markets for
reusing and recycling tyres very important
Re: last dot point;
industry standards are
being developed and
research undertaken
for recycled rubber
content in tyres and
new markets.
Priority:
» This is a major issue and needs to be addressed.
» With the number of tyres discarded each year, I
believe there is a need to target this waste stream
Responsibility:
» This is a much larger problem than Council can
address.
» This is for State Government, EPA and private
enterprise to collectively to find a practical, cost
effective recycling for used tyres.
» Responsibility of motor industry and government
» Markets will lead and develop
» Manufacturers should be made to take product back
Difficulties:
» Could generate illegal dumping
Other suggestions:
» There are no options other than landfill.
» Tyres can be used in playgrounds, so could hard
rubbish. Why not construct features in parks using
tyres as opposed to bark chips.
» Alternate use must be found - why not shredded for
path / road base.
» Tyres could be used for fencing by cutting each tyre in
half
46 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 35 Option 19: Regional plastic bag reduction strategies
Comments Consultants
response
Responsibility:
» State government education to all householders
» Needs government to organise.
» Educational role by council
» The State Government and private enterprise should
lead the reduction strategies with no cost to Councils.
Priority:
» Again due to extreme numbers still within the waste
stream, this element should be a priority
» This is an important issue. A low cost initiative
» All waste reduction strategies should have high priority
Question need for this option:
» There is already enough being done about this
problem, seems to be pretty well under way,
supermarkets doing well.
» Covered by existing government and commercial
initiatives. Don't add council brochures to garbage
Other suggestions:
» This should include plastic film wrap and shrink plastic
packaging
» Councils should supply alternatives to plastic bags and
promote reuse of plastic bags - Regional EDU officers
job
» Put a surcharge on plastic bags to the consumer
Difficulties:
» Un-bagged household waste would create odour
problems before collection.
47 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 36 Option 20: Public place litter management and public place
recycling
Comments Consultants
response
In favour of this option:
» An area where councils can make an impact by
enforcing the litter act more than they do now
» Agree with benefits
» Problems associated with litter are extreme.
Responsibility:
» Again, this could go state-wide
» The State Government should also be prepared to
contribute funding for such a venture and maybe
KESAB?
Management:
» Will require: education, rules, policing & penalties.
» Public education on waste disposal must be backed up
by facility to sort mixed waste until public education
produces optimum effect
» Improve collection and disposal of rubbish in public
places
Other suggestions:
» Linking with KESAB programs would be an advantage
» Place specially marked bin for recycled waste
alongside general waste bins
» More public recycling bins each year
» Education essential
Question need for this option:
» Is there sufficient waste in public places to warrant
separate bins? This is done successfully in Europe
which does not have the collection systems in place
here
48 33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
Table 37 Option 21: Formation of Regional Partnerships
Comments Consultants
response
Responsibility:
» Responsibility and cost ought to be shared with State
government
» Should be State Government initiative.
» My opinion is that this approach should be a State /
Local government alliance network establishment
» There are existing groups for environmental issues.
Good idea but not for local government to establish
» A good idea - probably needs government finance
» State/Federal level
» A good idea in which Councils should participate in but
not have responsibility for
» This is a responsibility for State Government, EPA,
industry and small business as they will be the
financial beneficiaries
» High input by councils to get the program running and
then let private enterprise run it all
Other suggestions:
» Governments and councils do have the last word in
that they can impose penalties for non-compliance -
with regulations. Courageous legislation/regulations
needs to be done.
In favour of this option:
» A fantastic idea! Industry must be given some
incentive, 6 councils could 'force' state govt to
participate. What are the benefits for industry
involvement?
» A great way to trial projects and get feedback from
involved organisations
» I think this is an important consideration to avoid
duplication competition.
Not in favour:
» With any government / local government / private
partnership, the private group always leave it to others.
Sorry, I do not trust medium to big businesses.
» It's unclear what this would achieve
» Potential "talk-fest" consequently no action
33/13094/27994
Regional Waste Management Strategy
Community Consultation Summary Report
GHD Pty Ltd ABN 39 008 488 373
Level 8 68 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000
GPO Box 2052 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia
T: 61 8 8235 6600 F: 61 8 8235 6694 E: [email protected]
© GHD Pty Ltd 2006
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the
purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the
commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Reviewer Approved for Issue
Rev
No.
Author
Name Signature Name Signature Date
0 N Cunningham E Wilczek D Bowers 16/08/06
33/13094/27946
Regional Waste Management Plan
Final Report and Strategy
GHD Pty Ltd ABN 39 008 488 373
Level 8 68 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000
GPO Box 2052 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia
T: 61 8 8235 6600 F: 61 8 8235 6694 E: [email protected]
© GHD Pty Ltd 2006
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the
purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the
commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Reviewer Approved for Issue
Rev
No.
Author
Name Signature Name Signature Date
Final
Draft
R Monckton
D Gamble
D Bowers D Bowers 23/06/06
Final R Monckton
D Gamble
E Wilczek
D Bowers D Bowers 16/8/06
doc_839667651.pdf