Solid Waste Audit of Landfill

Lake Macquarie City Council
AWABA LANDFILL WASTE AUDIT REPORT
May 2010
LAKE MACQAURIE CITY COUNCIL AWABA LANDFILL WASTE AUDIT REPORT Mike Ritchie & Associates ABN: 58 428 736 838
Mike Ritchie & Associates ABN: 58 428 736 838 27 Barton Avenue HABERFIELD NSW 2045 Australia Tel: +61 408 663942
Lake Macquarie City Council
AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT
Author
Elsie Nielsen
Checker
Mike Ritchie
Mike Ritchie
Approver
Mike Ritchie
Mike Ritchie
Report No Date
1 24th October 2010
This report has been prepared for Lake Macquarie City Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Awaba Landfill Audit Report 2010. Mike Ritchie & Associates (ABN: 58 428 736 838) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. - 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 7 2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 10 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Audit Methodology 11
3.1.1 Project inception meeting and OH&S induction ............................................... 11 3.1.2 Weighbridge - Data Gathering ............................................................................ 12 3.1.3 Visual Assessment .................................................................................................. 15 3.1.4 Data Matching....................................................................................................... 18 3.1.5 Data Recording Limitations .................................................................................. 19 3.2 Data Analysis 19 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 22 4.1 Overall Results 22
4.1.1 Summary of the overall results .............................................................................. 22 4.1.2 Overall composition of the landfill waste stream by weight ............................ 22 4.1.3 Comparison of the composition of the landfill waste stream by weight ........ 23 4.2 LMCC Parks Waste 31 4.2.1 Summary of the LMCC parks waste results ......................................................... 31 4.2.2 Composition of the LMCC parks waste stream by weight ............................... 31 4.2.3 Composition of the LMCC parks litter bins waste by percentage .................. 31 4.3 Commercial and Industrial Waste 37 4.3.1 Summary of the C&I waste results ....................................................................... 37 4.3.2 Composition of the C&I waste stream by weight .............................................. 37 4.4 Construction and Demolition Waste 41 4.4.1 Summary of the C&D waste results ..................................................................... 41 4.4.2 Composition of the C&D waste stream by weight ............................................ 41 4.5 Self Hauled Waste 45 4.5.1 Summary of the self hauled waste results ........................................................... 45 4.5.2 Composition of the self hauled waste stream by weight ................................. 45 4.6 LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste 49 4.6.1 Summary of the LMCC bulk hauled waste results ............................................. 49
4.6.2 Composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream by weight ................... 49 5. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 53 6. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX 1 WEIGHBRIDGE COLLECTION FORM ................................................................ 57 APPENDIX 2 TIPSITE COLLECTION FORM ............................................................................. 58 APPENDIX 3 - AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT OBSERVATIONS ...................................................... 59 APPENDIX 4 - DENSITY FACTORS ............................................................................................ 61 APPENDIX 5 ALLOCATION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE GARBAGE BAGS .......................... 62 APPENDIX 6 PHOTOS TAKEN ON SITE .................................................................................. 64 APPENDIX 7 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD......................................................................... 67
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) is currently developing new, strategic and flexible plans for waste management in the short, medium and long term. To assist in its development, LMCC commissioned Anne Prince Consulting (APC) to undertake a detailed audit of all waste arriving at the Awaba Waste Management Facility. Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA) were further commissioned to undertake the data analysis and develop the final report for the Awaba Landfill Audit. APC undertook the audit as specified in the NSW DECCW C&I Waste Audit Methodology (2008) with a few minor modifications to the methodology. APC conducted a visual assessment of almost every load, other than Council kerbside domestic waste vehicles and fill that was delivered to the main tip face over three days. This waste was classified into 40 categories, with the contents of all garbage bags then allocated out across these categories. Overall Results: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 272 loads audited was calculated to equal 209.39 tonnes. Customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $22, 188.12. The top ten most significant materials found in the landfill waste stream were: 1.Vegetation and garden (13% or 27.12 tonnes) 2. Food and kitchen (11.4% or 23.81 tonnes) 3. Wood furniture, painted wood (7.5% or 15.6 tonnes) 4. Rock, dirt and soil (7.3% or 15.36 tonnes) 5. Wood untreated board (7.3% or 15.26 tonnes) 6. Plastics - Other (5.7% or 12.03 tonnes) 7. Concrete and cement (4.6% or 9.59 tonnes) 8. Dry cardboard (4.2% or 8.76 tonnes) 9. Paper all other (3.9% or 8.8 tonnes) 10. Carpet and underlay (3.5% or 7.25 tonnes) The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in the total waste stream was 62.38% or 130.62 tonnes. The total component of packaging materials was 7.50% or 15.69 tonnes. Figures are shown for the rest of the categories below:
1
Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight

Material Vegetation / garden Food / Kitchen Wood - furniture, painted wood Rock/dirt/soil Wood - untreated board Plastic - other Concrete / cement Dry cardboard Paper - all other Carpet & underlay Wood - chipboard, MDF Cloth textiles Wood - treated board Other items Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Metals - ferrous (steel) Bricks Mattresses Covered furniture Wet cardboard Plasterboard Computers / office equipment Plastic - film Electrical/Electronic small Wood - pallets Paper - office Glass - plate Tiles Glass - containers Rubber other Metals - non-ferrous Electrical and electric whitegoods Textiles /leather other Hazardous / special Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - Polystyrene foam Tyres, tubes Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt Total Average Percentage 13.0% 11.4% 7.5% 7.3% 7.3% 5.7% 4.6% 4.2% 3.9% 3.5% 3.4% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Tonnes 27.12 23.81 15.60 15.36 15.26 12.03 9.59 8.76 8.08 7.25 7.20 5.91 4.52 4.39 4.32 4.11 3.93 3.37 3.22 2.73 2.72 2.55 2.37 1.96 1.87 1.83 1.78 1.72 1.01 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.66 0.47 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.00 209.39
Table 1: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight 2

Percentage % of material in the stream Wood Furniture & painted
Wood Chipboard, MDF
Wood untreated board
Concrete and cement %
Textiles leather, other
Metals Ferrous Steel
Vegetation & Green
Carpet & Underlay
Rocks Dirt & Soil
Food & Kitchen
Wet Cardboard
Plastics - other
Wood - treated
Dry Cardboard
Paper Office
Cloth Textiles
Paper - Other
Glass Plate
Plasterboard
LMCC Parks
25
36.57
25.02
21.54
16.97
6.34
1.79
2.07
4.78
2.05
2.18
2.04
C&I
51
44.98
6.25
28.55
3.95
6.24
4.81
2.82
6.03
7.23
6.29
C&D
41
46.86
3.97
19.68
21.68
3.05
6.76
2.96
6.9
8.33
3.88
3.45
Self Hauled LMCC Bulk
142
30.86
20.73
5.27
6.98
3.96
5.15
4.22
6.36
5.67
3.74
6.02
14
49.38
13.74
5.95
6.38
9.04
5.76
6.45
8.88
4.95
4.57
5.28
Table 2: Summary of the results of the top ten waste products for each stream by weight
3
Other items 3.74
Waste Stream
Loads No.
Total Tonnes
Electrical & electronic
Bricks
LMCC Parks Waste: The total amount of waste audited from the LMCC parks waste stream was 36.57 tonnes. LMCC parks customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $1,609.21. The top ten most significant materials found in this stream were: 1.Vegetation and garden(25.02% or 9.22 tonnes) 2. Food and kitchen (21.54% or 7.94 tonnes) 3. Rock, dirt and soil (16.97% or 6.25 tonnes) 4. Paper all other (6.34% or 2.34 tonnes) 5. Plastic other (4.78% or 1.76 tonnes) 6. Bricks (2.18% or 0.80 tonnes) 7. Dry Cardboard (2.07% or 0.76 tonnes) 8. Concrete/cement (2.05% or 0.75 tonnes) 9. Glass plate (2.04% or 0.75 tonnes) 10.Paper office (1.79% or 0.66 tonnes) The weight of DOC materials made up a total of 63.48% or 23.39 tonnes of the parks waste. The component of packaging materials was 6.08% or 2.24 tonnes. Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 51 C&I loads audited was calculated to equal 44.98 tonnes. C&I customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $7,131.94. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 1. Food and kitchen (28.55% or 12.94 tonnes) 2. Cloth textiles (7.23% or 3.27 tonnes) 3. Concrete and cement (6.29% or 2.85 tonnes) 4. Vegetation and garden (6.25% or 2.83 tonnes) 5. Paper all other (6.24% or 2.83 tonnes) 6. Plastic other (6.03% or 2.73 tonnes) 7. Dry cardboard (4.81% or 2.18 tonnes) 8. Rock, dirt and soil (3.95% or 1.79 tonnes) 9. Other items (3.74% or 1.69 tonnes) 10. Wet cardboard (2.82% or 1.28 tonnes) The weight of DOC material in the C&I stream made up a total of 65.9% or 29.86 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream is far less at 11.58% or 5.25 tonnes.
4
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 41 C&D loads audited was calculated to equal 46.86 tonnes. C&D customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $9,757.37. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 1. Wood untreated board (21.68% or 10.17 tonnes) 2. Wood furniture, painted wood (19.68% or 9.22 tonnes) 3. Concrete and cement (8.33% or 3.9 tonnes) 4. Carpet and underlay (6.9% or 3.24 tonnes) 5. Rock, dirt and soil (6.76% or 3.17 tonnes) 6. Vegetation and garden (3.97% or 1.86 tonnes) 7. Bricks (3.88% or 1.82 tonnes) 8. Plasterboard (3.45% or 1.62 tonnes) 9. Wood chipboard, MDF (3.05% or 1.43 tonnes) 10. Plastic other (2.96% or 1.39 tonnes) The weight of DOC material in the C&D stream made up a total of 64.54% or 30.26 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream was 2.8% or 1.35 tonnes. Self Hauled Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 142 self hauled waste loads audited was calculated to equal 30.86 tonnes. Self Haulage customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $4,229.60. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 1. Vegetation and garden waste (20.73% or 6.41 tonnes) 2. Furniture and painted wood (6.98 % or 2.16 tonnes) 3. Dry cardboard (6.36% or 1.97 tonnes) 4. Concrete and cement (6.02% or 1.86 tonnes) 5. Other plastics (5.67% or 1.75 tonnes) 6. Food and kitchen waste (5.27% or 1.63 tonnes) 7. Treated wood (5.15% or 1.59 tonnes) 8. Rock, dirt and soil (4.22% or 1.31 tonnes) 9.Wood untreated board (3.96% or 1.22 tonnes) 10.Carpet and underlay (3.74% or 1.16 tonnes) The weight of DOC material in the self hauled waste stream made up a total of 63.71% or 19.71 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream was 8.11% or 2.51 tonnes.
5
LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 14 LMCC bulk hauled waste loads audited was calculated to equal 49.38 tonnes. There was no charge for LMCC bulk hauled waste customers. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 1. Vegetation and garden waste (13.74% or 6.79 tonnes) 2. Wood chipboard, MDF (9.04% or 4.47 tonnes) 3. Other plastics (8.88% or 4.39 tonnes) 4. Dry cardboard (6.45% or 3.19 tonnes) 5. Wood - untreated board (6.38% or 3.15 tonnes) 6. Furniture and painted wood (5.95% or 2.94 tonnes) 7. Rock, dirt and soil (5.76% or 2.84 tonnes) 8. Electrical and electronic televisions etc (5.28% or 2.61 tonnes) 9. Metals ferrous steel (4.95% or 2.45 tonnes) 10. Textiles/leather other (4.57% or 2.26 tonnes) The overall weight of DOC material in the LMCC bulk hauled stream up a total of 55.46% or 27.41 tonnes. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream was 8.8% or 4.35 tonnes. MRA recommends that LMCC could make significant savings and increase their diversion rates considerably through the following: Investigate the way in which Council staff collect and deliver waste to the landfill. Efficiencies may be achieved by using fewer vehicles for the pick-up of Council works waste. Investigate the current capture and diversion programs and/or new or extra diversion strategies for those waste products demonstrated as being significant throughout this audit. Consider reusing rocks, dirt and soil on other Council land to keep these materials out of landfill. Review the landfill pricing structure, which seems to be inconsistent across material types. Further review the landfill pricing structure relating to charity vehicles and consider charging all charity vehicles a fee for tipping at the landfill. Investigate their current recording methods at the landfill to try and develop a more robust form of data collection.
6
1. BACKGROUND
Lake Macquarie City is a coastal local government area (LGA) situated in the Hunter region of NSW, Australia. It is the fourth largest city in NSW, with a population of nearly 200,000. The population is predicted to grow at around 0.6% per annum. Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) provides a diverse range of waste services to the community, including domestic waste kerbside and recycling collections, specialised waste collections (sharps, oil, hazardous waste), Commercial and Industrial (C&I) collection services, as well as maintaining key associated waste infrastructure such as Awaba landfill and Teralba Worm Farm. The Awaba landfill, operated by LMCC is a Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) licensed solid waste landfill and is located on the western side of Lake Macquarie, off Wilton Road, Awaba. The license permits waste defined by the Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines as Solid Waste Class 1, to be disposed at the site. Waste arrives at the landfill from a variety of sources, including Council collection vehicles, waste collection contractors, and self-haulage by businesses and residents. Upon entering the Awaba Waste Management Facility, the waste is classified and charged in accordance with the following categories: Mixed waste e.g. Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, organic garden waste, household recyclables, special wastes e.g. Asbestos and clean fill. The above waste categories incur varying fees in accordance with differing environmental safeguards applicable to their management onsite. Table 1 summarises fees and charges at the Awaba site for the 2009-10 year. Source separated loads of 100% household kerbside recyclable materials are not charged, and go to the Reuse Centre. Mixed waste load fees are charged if recyclables are co-mingled with other mixed wastes. Separated green waste is charged at a lower rate to encourage source separation prior to arriving at the Awaba Waste Management Facility. LMCC has begun a process to develop an integrated Waste Strategy to manage and implement new waste management services and facilities for Lake Macquarie, using a holistic approach across all aspects of the waste hierarchy (consumption, reuse, recycle, diversion and disposal).
7
The Waste Strategy Management Project requires high level analyses to address the complex and interrelated issues of waste management practices, community attitudes and potential solutions. Quantification of different waste materials presenting at Awaba is one key to the development of an effective strategy. This waste audit will assist waste options analysis and prioritisation of actions.
Type of Waste Green waste
Description Garden Waste - Lawn Clippings - Prunings (Max. 300 mm Diameter, No Stumps) - Timber (excludes chemically treated, painted and man-made timbers and timber with fittings, nail plates etc attached)
Minimum charge ($) 12.00
Price per tonne 73.30
Mixed Waste Special Waste
12.00 For waste requiring special handling, including:- Asbestos - Animals - Quarantine Waste - Offensive Waste Clean fill that can be used by Council for operational purposes and subject to the following criteria:- Prior contact and approval with the Awaba Waste Facility Supervisor. - Quantities over 50 tonnes. - Suitability of material for operational purposes will be confirmed prior to delivery. - Evidence that material is free from contamination. (A contamination report will be required) To be eligible the person or organisation disposing of the waste must obtain approval for the waste to be exempted from the EPA levy. A copy of letter issued by the EPA, granting the exemption and containing the approval number must be given to the gatekeeper 0.00 12.00
160.00 209.90
Clean fill
68.00
Charity and Community Service
0.00
Table 1: Waste Fees for Awaba landfill extracted from Councils Pricing Policy 2009 -10
8
General waste charges also include a $5.25 fee for tax invoice print for any loads presenting at Awaba that request this service.
9
2. INTRODUCTION
Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) is currently developing new, strategic and flexible plans for waste management in the short, medium and long term. The new Waste Strategy will ensure LMCC meets the waste management needs and expectations of the community in long-term financially, ecologically and socially sustainable ways, as well as achieving NSW Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy targets and reducing carbon liabilities from landfill. The development of new waste management practices and facilities required an analysis of current waste streams presenting at LMCCs Awaba landfill, so as to forecast waste volumes and types. Council collects information that is compiled on a monthly basis regarding the volumes of different waste streams. These waste streams include: i) Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ii) Commercial and Industrial waste(C&I) iii) Construction and Demolition waste (C&D) iv) Parks and gardens waste v) Bulk waste kerbside collections vi) Self-hauled residential waste streams However, more detailed information was needed in order to develop appropriate and effective diversion management practices and/or processing possibilities for different waste types currently presenting at Awaba landfill. Subsequently, LMCC commissioned Anne Prince Consulting (APC) to undertake a detailed audit of these wastes arriving at the landfill over a period of 3 days. Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA) were further commissioned by Council to undertake an analysis of the data taken from the Awaba landfill audit completed by APC. MRA was also commissioned to develop the final report for the Awaba landfill audit. The following report determines the material components of waste disposed at Awaba landfill, as well as the degradable organic carbon packaging components of the above waste streams. It also describes the characteristics of waste from LMCC parks, LMCC bulk hauled, self hauled, C&D and C&I waste streams. This information will help LMCC to make informed decisions around resource recovery for the future.
10
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Audit Methodology

LMCC specified a methodology consistent with the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) C&I Waste Audit Methodology (2008) which specifies how to undertake a visual assessment of mixed C&I waste. APC undertook the audit as specified in the LMCC brief and NSW DECCW C&I Waste Audit Methodology (2008) with a few minor modifications to the methodology to allow for the difference in vehicle movements and type of waste expected at Awaba landfill compared to a large metropolitan based landfill. To determine the composition of all waste delivered to the site and to quantify the C&I waste stream, APC conducted a visual assessment of almost every load, other than Council kerbside domestic waste vehicles and fill, delivered to the main tip face over three days. The visual assessment was conducted over two weekdays and a Saturday from the 8-10th April. In addition an audit was conducted on the 15th April to capture bulk waste loads. The weather during the audit period was generally fine and warm. There were no unusual disruptions to the operation of the tip face for the duration of the audit, other than to clean up the tip face, which is a normal part of the operations conducted once to twice a day to make room for new loads.
3.1.1 Project inception meeting and OH&S induction A project inception meeting was held at 1.30pm on the 7th of April 2010 with the following participants: Rick Brindley, Waste Sites Coordinator (LMCC) Steve Merrett, Waste Site Field Supervisor (LMCC) Janelle Booth, Senior Consultant - Local Government (APC) Matt Glendenning, Senior Waste Auditor (APC) David Hitchcock, Lead Auditor (APC)
11
An OH&S site induction was carried out. APC provided all relevant insurances to Rick Brindley. Steve Merrett took APC staff on a site tour and during the site visit APC was introduced to relevant site staff including Arthur (Tip Face Supervisor), John (Weighbridge Operator), Tony, Justin, Neil (other landfill staff) and the staff from the Reuse Centre. 3.1.2 Weighbridge - Data Gathering DECCW methodology required the following information to be collated and recorded for each load at the weighbridge: Date Time of entry Vehicle registration number Type of vehicle Estimated vehicle volume Load classification - C&I, C&D or domestic Geographic source of the load Disposal point if other than tip face Type of business where most waste was generated (if load is mixed) Source by industry Industry data was coded according to ANZSIC classifications as required in the DECCW Guidelines. These codes are shown in the table below. Sector Manufacturing Retail Trade Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants Property and Business Services Personal and Other Services Shopping Centres Office Waste Mixed SMEs
Table 2: ANZSIC codes according to DECCW guidelines
ANZSIC Code C G H L Q G511 N/A N/A
APC had a staff member at the weighbridge to record all of this information and try to determine the C&I type, for any distinctive loads the information was radioed through the APC staff at the tip face. APC anticipated a range of challenges in identifying the ANZSIC categories. For example:
12
1.There may only be a small number of samples presented from some of the ANZSIC categories, this may mean that the sample sizes are too small to be statistically representative of the entire ANZSIC category and caution should be used with extrapolating the results. 2.For mixed C&I loads in a compactor truck that has collected from a wide range of businesses it is difficult to determine the contents of the bags of rubbish so auditors are dependent on information from the vehicle operator 3.There are similarities in the types of waste generated from some of the ANZSIC categories of waste so they may not be able to be distinguished. APC attempted to obtain information related to the ANZSIC categories. For many mixed loads it was difficult to determine and some drivers were unclear on information about their loads. Where possible the C&I category was recorded and verified based on the composition at the tip face. Some categories were not present at all. Prior to undertaking the audit APC suggested some slight amendments to the proposed categories. A list of categories and rationale are outlined in Table 2.
DECCW/LMCC proposed categories Manufacturing Retail Trade
ANZSIC Code C G
Sub Category examples
Issues
All manufacturing businesses Grocery, furniture, homewares, vehicle, clothing, personal, recreational stores Pubs, bars, cafes, restaurants, accommodation Property, real estate agents, legal services, marketing, computer, scientific machinery hiring services Interest groups, religious groups, emergency
13
Duplicates shopping centres
Accommodation, Cafes & Restaurants Property and Business Services
Predominantly office waste therefore it is included with that category. Unlikely to find distinctive samples from
Personal and Other Services
services operating in peoples houses i.e. cleaners, Shopping Centres N/A
this category
As listed for retail trade unless it needs to be provided separately for a specific reason and is easily distinguishable as baled waste. Banks, financial investors, superannuation, accountants, insurance companies, government administration Suggest that this combine ANZSIC categories LKM, which are likely to present in a similar compositions Not sure what this would capture that isnt proposed in the other categories
Office Waste
LKM
Mixed SMEs
Additional Categories Proposed: Construction E Installation Trade Services (i.e. electricians, plumbers, carpenters) Suggest that this category is added instead of Personal and Other Services as it is likely to be observed at the landfill as distinctive waste types. Suggest that these categories be added if samples are identified during the audit
Health and Community Services Education
Hospitals, Veterinary, Child Care, Medical and Dental Schools, TAFE,
Table 3: ANZSIC Codes and issues identified by APC
Based on this, APC proposed a modified category list as shown in the table below. In addition a charity category was added due to the large number of charity waste loads observed.
14
Sector Manufacturing Construction Retail Trade (inc Shopping Centres) Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants Office Waste (inc Property and Business Services, Finance & Insurance, Government Administration) Health & Community Services Education Charity
Table 4: Industry Sectors and ANZSIC Codes proposed by APC
ANZSIC Code C E G H L, K, M
Categories to be added if samples are presented O N
A data collection form for the weighbridge developed by APC is provided in Appendix 1. LMCC provided a record, in excel format, of all vehicle movements which occurred during the audit period for reconciliation with the weighbridge data collected and the visual assessment undertaken. All Council vehicles on the weighbridge report were recorded as asset numbers not registration numbers. To ensure consistency in the records the asset numbers were translated into license plate numbers. The data from the gatehouse included net weight, vehicle type, vehicle registration number and waste classification. A photographic record of the types of vehicles entering the facility was developed to assist as a quick and easy reference, to ensure that all incoming vehicles were correctly identified. During the audits general observations were also noted on particular areas or items of interest that took place whilst the auditors were working. This has been provided with this report as Appendix 3.
3.1.3 Visual Assessment The NSW DECCW Waste Audit Methodologies specify that the visual assessment must be conducted on each load being discharged at the tip face and that such observations will be recorded on approved data recording sheets. The material categories as specified in the NSW DECCW Guidelines were used. An example of the datasheet is contained in Appendix 2. Any other distinctive items or items found
15
in significant quantities were also recorded and photos were taken of some of the parks waste and charity waste loads (provided in Appendix 6). As there were peak usage times at the tip face, where multiple vehicles were unloading at the same time, APC provided two waste auditors to visually assess each incoming load. As each load of waste was tipped, an estimate of the volume of the load contents was made. To verify the estimation a number of loads were measured. Where safe and practical to do so, the contents of the load were monitored during discharge of the load. The tip operators were very obliging in spreading the load for mixed C&I and some parks waste loads. They directed those discharging loads to various areas of the tip face to ensure loads being audited were not mixed with new loads. Additionally, some loads were spread by the Reuse Centre operators who were rummaging through boxes and bags for valuable items. This assisted in determining the contents of some smaller and self hauled loads. To assist with correlation of the weighbridge information and the visual assessment, the registration number, time and type of vehicle were recorded. All data were recorded in a consistent manner as a percentage of volume of the load. As the weighbridge was approximately 400m from the tip face there was approximately 2-8 minutes between the time a vehicle arrived at the weighbridge and tipped their load. Additionally, some vehicles claimed to have green waste but their load may have been contaminated so they were sent back to the tip face with a partial or entire load. This may have created anomalies between the tipface and weighbridge data. LMCC requested that the minimum number of loads assessed visually for each stream required was: Commercial and Industrial: 30 loads Construction and Demolition: 10 loads Self hauled residential waste: 20 loads LMCC Bulk waste kerbside collections: 10 loads LMCC Parks collections: 1 load Based on the vehicle movements APC attempted to audit this proportion of loads. The following issues/observations were noted: a) Commercial and Industrial Waste: There were very few mixed C&I loads. Anecdotally, it is suggested that this is because the gate fee prices at Awaba are higher than the gate fee price at Newcastle landfill. Each mixed C&I load that arrived during the audit period was tipped to the side of the active face. It was then audited and then the entire load was spread for further observation. The initial audit observations were then refined.
16
There were a large number of smaller C&I loads that were recorded, of which a small number were from retail, manufacturing businesses and accommodation. However the majority were from various tradesmen. All of these were recorded to exceed the required number of 30 loads. b) Construction and Demolition Waste: There were a large number of loads made up of C&D waste. Many were delivered by self haul Do it Yourself (DIY) householders or tradesmen. In addition, there were large commercial loads of C&D waste. The large commercial loads were primarily from a school that was being demolished nearby. The company involved with the demolition regularly use the Awaba landfill when they have jobs in the area, however the composition would vary depending on the job. The large heavy loads may influence the audit results. c) Self Hauled Residential Waste: Based on the preliminary gate figures provided prior to the audit, it was expected that there would be a large number of self hauled residential loads. These loads were generated from a wide variety of deceased estates being cleared out, spring cleans, residents who missed their weekly garbage service, garden clear outs and generally excess waste. d) LMCC Bulk Waste: Unfortunately the week of the audit was one of only two off weeks for Council during the year where no bulk waste was being collected. One small missed services load and one load that were cleared due to a Council maintenance works being carried out were observed during the initial audit period. After speaking to Debbie Cleary at LMCC, APC determined that an additional audit day should be undertaken to capture the 10 bulk waste loads. 13 loads were analysed on the 15th April 2010. As only 6 full loads are received each day, loads from the 14 April were also tipped to the side of the tip face ready for observation when APC staff arrived at 8.30am on the 15th April. Generally the bulk waste is separated into green waste, metals and general waste with three different collection vehicles. On busy roads only, the general waste vehicle collects all of the material to reduce disruption to traffic and for the safety of staff. The loads with a higher proportion of green waste were generally collected from areas with major roads. There were two sizes of compactor collection vehicles used. A smaller vehicle used for green waste collections is used to mop up the general waste collections and delivered loads that APC also audited.
17
e) LMCC Parks Waste: Parks waste refers to any Council collection truck that contains non-domestic waste. This included the public litter bins, Council commercial waste customers, illegal dumping, litter and infirm wheel out services (known as blue dot services at LMCC). The intention of the one parks collection was to capture the public litter bin composition. The only Parks load that collects entirely public litter bin waste is on a Sunday. Due to the timing of the audits, the Sunday that the run was undertaken was Easter Sunday 4th April. The load from that run was tipped to the side of the active tip face. The load was spread for further analysis. Based on the composition observed and that it was a public holiday weekend and good weather on the Sunday, the waste may have been atypical as there would have been a larger number of picnickers than usual. It was observed that there were a large number of very small loads delivered by Council utilities and tippers, possibly from the park maintenance staff, road crews, rangers and other Council operations. A community service crew, supervised by a Council staff member, regularly tips illegally dumped waste and bagged litter that they have collected. These loads were all recorded to assist council in their understanding of current council and tip operations. Seaweed, dredgings and other similar loads from Council operations that were put to the side as fill were generally not recorded. As a general observation these loads were largely free from contamination (i.e. 99% organic). To undertake the audits, all staff participating were issued with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including gloves, overalls, high visibility safety vests, safety boots, eye protection and sunscreen. Equipment used to visually assess loads for auditing included: Two way radios and mobile phones Pens Camera Tape measure 3.1.4 Data Matching In as far as it was possible, each individual audited load was matched with the corresponding weighbridge record. This was done using registration numbers, time and vehicle type.
18
3.1.5 Data Recording Limitations From time to time during the course of an audit a number of environmental and other conditions can occur that limit the accuracy of the data being recorded. For this particular audit these included: Line of sight obstruction by plant, staff, customers, structures, topography and other vehicles Dirty, damaged or obscured registration plates The ambiguous nature of some vehicles and the contents of some loads The inability to safely approach some vehicles or loads to inspect them more closely As a result some data inconsistencies occur in relation to vehicle registration numbers and the classification of the load. MRA deleted 40 loads from the record where loads were either not classified or classified incorrectly. Anomalies in weighbridge data may occur where vehicles do not go to the tipping area but to other parts of the site such as the recycling areas or reuse area. These were deleted from the data set.
3.2 Data Analysis

Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA) were commissioned by LMCC to analyse the data from the Awaba landfill audit undertaken by Anne Prince Consulting (APC). APC provided data to MRA in a raw format on three separate excel sheets. The first excel sheet was the raw weighbridge data, the second and third were of the percentage of the volume for each material from each load obtained from auditor Matt Glendenning and auditor Janelle Booth. The data from Janelle and Matt were consolidated into one sheet. From there, the data were collapsed so that all the less significant items that had been audited separately (and that were not a part of the original brief for the audit) were put into one category, known as other items. The average percentages were taken for the whole load. The tonnes for each material were calculated by multiplying each materials percentage by the overall volume and then by its corresponding density factor (assuming it was a medium compacted load) according to the Density Factors proposed for the NSW C&I Audit table which was provided to MRA by LMCC in the initial project brief. This table is provided as Appendix 4. This table did not provide density factors for mattresses or toner cartridges. Thus, the density factor for covered furniture was used for mattresses and the density factor
19
for computers/office equipment/electrical and electronic items was used for toner cartridges. Once this was completed, the gross data sheet was then divided up into the 5 categories stipulated by LMCC. These included LMCC park waste, C&I, C&D, self hauled waste and LMCC bulk hauled waste. A total of 40 loads of 272 (15%) were removed from the total data set due to not being properly categorised during the audit process or because they had insufficient information (i.e. no actual weights were recorded for that particular vehicle). The 40 loads were Parks, C&I, C&D, selfhauled, bulk waste loads and unclassified loads. There was no apparent common features to which loads were inappropriately, or not, classified. For each category the contents of the rubbish bags contained in a load were extrapolated out into the various material categories. This was initially done by multiplying the total volume of the bags of rubbish contained within a load using the DECCWs average percentages of a C&I garbage bag taken from Commercial and Industrial Waste in Sydney An Overview (DECCW 2009). This information is provided as Appendix 5. The total weight (tonnes) for each waste material for each category was then able to be calculated by multiplying the rest of the material percentages by the load volume, and then by the corresponding density factor and adding it to the value already calculated for the contents of the garbage bags. The data were then plotted to show in graphs and tables the results of the Awaba landfill audit. As specified by LMCC, the total Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) and total packaging waste for each category was calculated. To calculate the DOC component of each category the following streams were added together: Paper - office Paper - other Dry cardboard Wet Cardboard Food/kitchen Vegetation/garden Wood pallets Wood furniture, painted wood Wood chipboard MDF Wood untreated board Wood treated board Carpet and underlay Cloth textiles Textiles/leather other
20
To calculate the packaging component of each category the following streams were added together: Dry cardboard Wet cardboard Waxed cardboard Glass containers Plastic containers recyclable Plastic film Plastic Polystyrene foam
21
4. RESULTS
4.1 Overall Results

4.1.1 Summary of the overall results
Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste Audit Results

272 Number of Total Loads $22,188.12 Total $ Dollars Charged 1,039.76 Total Load Volume (cubic metres) 209.39 Total Weight (Tonnes) Table 6: Summary of the overall waste audit results
The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 272 loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 209.39 tonnes. Customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $22, 188.12. Landfilling 209.39 tonnes at the mixed load (shingle) rate of $160/tonne equates to total landfill fees of $33,502. The variation is due to: Council trucks not being charged for the waste deposited (a function of weighbridge protocols) Green waste charged at the rate at $73.70
4.1.2 Overall composition of the landfill waste stream by weight Table 7, Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the makeup of the overall waste stream before the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories. The materials that contributed most to the weight of the total waste steam at this stage were vegetation and garden waste, concrete/cement, rock/soil/dirt, painted wood and furniture, dry cardboard, wood untreated board, and other plastics. Garbage bags made up a total of 6.5% or 14 tonnes of the overall waste stream.
22
Table 8, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the makeup of the overall waste stream after the contents of the garbage bags were calculated and allocated into waste categories. This saw a subsequent change in the most significant materials, which now consist of: vegetation and garden waste, food and kitchen waste, painted wood and furniture, rock, dirt and soil, wood untreated board and other plastics. The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material that was found to be disposed of at the landfill is quite significant, making up a total of 62.38% of the weight or 130.62 tonnes of the total waste stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is at 7.50% or 15.69 tonnes.
4.1.3 Comparison of the composition of the landfill waste stream by weight The data collected from the Awaba landfill audit was divided into five categories to assist LMCC to gain a greater understanding of the various waste streams at Awaba landfill. These categories included LMCC parks waste, Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste, Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, self hauled waste and LMCC bulk hauled waste. Figure 5 compares how the different waste materials are distributed across the categories with the contents of the garbage bags allocated across the material streams. The overall data shows an early indication that there is great potential for further diversion at the Awaba landfill with a large quantity of the significant waste materials being Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) or recyclable materials. It will be necessary for LMCC to ensure that these materials are being picked up in current diversion operations or are captured in future diversion strategies.
23
Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight (with garbage bags included) Material Average Percentage Tonnes Vegetation / garden 14.8% 31.80 Concrete / cement 9.2% 19.73 Rock/dirt/soil 8.9% 19.14 Garbage bags of rubbish 6.5% 14.00 Wood - furniture, painted wood 6.5% 13.91 Wood - untreated board 4.5% 9.72 Dry cardboard 4.5% 9.69 Plastic - other 4.3% 9.20 Wood - treated board 3.4% 7.34 Bricks 2.9% 6.20 Food / Kitchen 2.9% 6.17 Other items 2.9% 6.12 Carpet & underlay 2.8% 5.90 Wood - chipboard, MDF 2.6% 5.55 Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Metals - ferrous (steel) Plasterboard Tiles Cloth textiles Paper - all other Covered furniture Mattresses Wood - pallets Electrical/Electronic small Plastic - film Electrical and electric whitegoods Paper - office Wet cardboard Textiles /leather other Computers / office equipment Glass - plate Metals - non-ferrous Rubber other Plastic - containers recyclable Glass - containers Plastic - Polystyrene foam Hazardous / special Tyres, tubes Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt
TOTAL
2.5% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
5.35 5.12 4.74 4.50 4.36 3.67 3.22 3.10 2.93 2.07 1.88 1.78 0.96 0.96 0.83 0.80 0.75 0.68 0.66 0.48 0.34 0.30 0.24 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.00 214.42
Table 6: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight before the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories. 24
0.0% 8.9% 2.2% 2.1%
0.1% 2.9% 0.4% 6.5%
1.7%
4.5%
0.4% 2.9%
0.0%
2.9%
9.2%
14.8%
1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%
2.5% 1.4% 6.5% 4.3%
2.4% 0.9%
0.1%
4.5%
2.8% 3.4%
0.3% 1.4% 2.0% 0.1% 0.4% 1.5%
2.6%
0.2%
Garbage bags of rubbish Paper - office Paper - all other Dry cardboard Wet cardboard Waxed cardboard Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden Wood - pallets Wood - furniture, painted wood Wood - chipboard, MDF Wood - untreated board Wood - treated board Carpet & underlay Cloth textiles Covered furniture Mattresses Textiles /leather other Tyres, tubes Rubber other Glass - containers Glass - plate Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - film Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - other Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous Computers / office equipment Toner cartridges Electrical and electric whitegoods Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement Bricks Tiles Plasterboard Rock/dirt/soil Asphalt
Figure 1: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (percentage) before the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories 25
35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00

5.00 0.00
Figure 2: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (tonnes) before the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories 26
Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight

Material
Vegetation / garden Food / Kitchen Wood - furniture, painted wood Rock/dirt/soil Wood - untreated board Plastic - other Concrete / cement Dry cardboard Paper - all other Carpet & underlay Wood - chipboard, MDF Cloth textiles Wood - treated board Other items Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Metals - ferrous (steel) Bricks Mattresses Covered furniture Wet cardboard Plasterboard Computers / office equipment Plastic - film Electrical/Electronic small Wood - pallets Paper - office Glass - plate Tiles Glass - containers Rubber other Metals - non-ferrous Electrical and electric whitegoods Textiles /leather other Hazardous / special Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - Polystyrene foam Tyres, tubes Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt Total
Average Percentage
13.0% 11.4% 7.5% 7.3% 7.3% 5.7% 4.6% 4.2% 3.9% 3.5% 3.4% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Tonnes 27.12 23.81 15.60 15.36 15.26 12.03 9.59 8.76 8.08 7.25 7.20 5.91 4.52 4.39 4.32 4.11 3.93 3.37 3.22 2.73 2.72 2.55 2.37 1.96 1.87 1.83 1.78 1.72 1.01 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.66 0.47 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.00
209.39
Table 7: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight after the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories. 27
0.3% 1.3%
0.9%
0.0%
7.3%
2.1% 3.9%
1.3%
0.9%
1.9%
0.8%
4.2%
0.0%
2.1%
0.4% 4.6%
11.4%
0.0% 1.2%
0.4%
2.0%
5.7% 13.0%
0.2% 1.1%
0.2%
0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 2.8%
7.5% 3.5% 7.3%

2.2%
0.9%
0.3% 1.6% 1.5%
3.4%
0.2%
Paper - office Paper - all other Dry cardboard Wet cardboard Waxed cardboard Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden Wood - pallets Wood - furniture, painted wood Wood - chipboard, MDF Wood - untreated board Wood - treated board Carpet & underlay Cloth textiles Covered furniture Mattresses Textiles /leather other Tyres, tubes Rubber other Glass - containers Glass - plate Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - film Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - other Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous Computers / office equipment Toner cartridges Electrical and electric whitegoods Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement Bricks Tiles Plasterboard Rock/dirt/soil Asphalt Hazardous / special Other items
Figure 3: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (percentage) after the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories. 28
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
Figure 4: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight (tonnes) after the contents of the garbage bags were allocated into waste categories. 29
10.00
12.00
14.00
6.00
8.00
0.00
Paper - office Paper - all other
2.00
4.00
Dry cardboard Wet cardboard

Waxed cardboard
Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden

Wood - pallets
Wood - furniture, painted wood Wood - chipboard, MDF

Wood - untreated board
Wood - treated board Carpet & underlay

Cloth textiles Covered furniture
Mattresses Textiles /leather other

Tyres, tubes
Rubber other Glass - containers

Glass - plate
Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - film

Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - other
30
Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous

Computers / office equipment
Figure 5: The overall composition of the landfill waste stream broken up into load categories by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams.
Toner cartridges Electrical and electric whitegoods
Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc
Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement

Bricks
Tiles Plasterboard
Rock/dirt/soil Asphalt
Hazardous / special Other items
Categories C&I
Categories C&D
Categories LMCC Bulk
Categories Self Hauled
Categories LMCC Parks
4.2 LMCC Parks Waste

4.2.1 Summary of the LMCC parks waste results
Summary of the LMCC Parks Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads Total Load Volume (cubic metres) Total Weight (tonnes) Table 8: Summary of the LMCC Parks waste audit results 25 140.3 36.57
The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 25 LMCC parks waste loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 36.57 tonnes. 4.2.2 Composition of the LMCC parks waste stream by weight The most significant materials that made up the percentage of the total LMCC parks waste stream, as shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Table 9 were vegetation and garden waste, food and kitchen waste, rock dirt and soil, other paper and other plastics. These data show that there is a huge amount of organic materials being generated from the parks waste stream. There may be scope for greater diversion of these products for recycling or energy production. There is also capacity for the large amount of rock dirt and soil that is currently being disposed of at the landfill to be reused in other Council areas or parks. Lastly, increased recycling and illegal dumping education initiatives may help to decrease the amount of other plastics and paper that are significantly contributing to this waste stream. The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in this stream is quite important, making up a total of 63.48% or 23.39 tonnes of the total LMCC parks waste stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is minimal at 6.08% or 2.24 tonnes.
4.2.3 Composition of the LMCC parks litter bins waste by percentage There was one parks litter bin truck that delivered waste to the landfill during the time of the audit. The contents of this truck have been analysed separately so as to
31
develop an understanding of the types of waste being collected from the LMCC park litter bins. The pie graph below shows the majority (63%) of the parks waste is made up of garbage bags of waste. A further 8% if made up of other paper, 5% of vegetation and garden waste, 4% carpet and underlay and 4% cloth textiles. This suggests that some of the litter bins are being used by people for the disposal of household wastes, rather than just for those wastes produced from patrons visiting the parks.
32
1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.3% 3.0% 2.0% 4.0% 1.0%
5.0%
1.0%
0.5% 1.5%
0.3%
Garbage bags of rubbish
1.3%
Paper - all other

Dry cardboard
4.0%
Wet cardboard Food / Kitchen

Vegetation / garden Wood - pallets
Wood - chipboard, MDF Carpet & underlay

Cloth textiles
Glass - containers Plastic - containers recyclable
63.0%
Plastic - film
8.0%
Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - other

Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous
Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Electrical/Electronic small

Other items
33
Figure 6: The percentage of wastes audited from the LMCC parks litter bin truck.
Summary of the LMCC Parks waste by weight

Material
Vegetation / garden Food / Kitchen Rock/dirt/soil Paper - all other Plastic - other Bricks Dry cardboard Concrete / cement Glass - plate Paper - office Wet cardboard Other items Metals - ferrous (steel) Cloth textiles Glass - containers Wood - untreated board Covered furniture Wood - treated board Metals - non-ferrous Wood - furniture, painted wood Plastic - film Carpet & underlay Rubber other Plastic - containers recyclable Wood - pallets Hazardous / special Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Computers / office equipment Wood - chipboard, MDF Tyres, tubes Textiles /leather other Toner cartridges Plastic - Polystyrene foam Tiles Electrical/Electronic small Electrical and electric whitegoods Plasterboard Waxed cardboard Mattresses Asphalt Total
Average Percentage
25.02% 21.54% 16.97% 6.34% 4.78% 2.18% 2.07% 2.05% 2.04% 1.79% 1.77% 1.49% 1.41% 1.33% 1.15% 1.03% 0.87% 0.67% 0.61% 0.60% 0.57% 0.54% 0.49% 0.44% 0.42% 0.35% 0.29% 0.29% 0.28% 0.14% 0.10% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Tonnes
9.22 7.94 6.25 2.34 1.76 0.80 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.65 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.42 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.85
Table 9: The overall composition of the LMCC parks waste stream by weight
34
0.35%
0.00%
1.49%
1.79%
6.34%
16.97%
2.07%
1.77%
0.00%
0.03% 0.07%
0.07% 0.05% 0.09% 0.29%
2.18% 2.05% 21.54%
0.29%
0.61%
1.41% 0.08%
4.78%
0.57% 0.44% 1.15%

2.04%
0.49%
0.14% 1.33%
0.10% 0.00% 0.87% 0.54% 25.02%
1.03% 0.67% 0.28%
0.60%
0.42%
Figure 6: The overall composition of the LMCC parks waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams 35
10.00 9.00
8.00
7.00 6.00
5.00
4.00 3.00
2.00
1.00 0.00
Figure 7: The overall composition of the LMCC parks waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream 36
4.3 Commercial and Industrial Waste

4.3.1 Summary of the C&I waste results
Summary of the C&I Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads 51 Total $ Dollars Charged 7,131.94 Total Load Volume (cubic metres) 214.72 Total Weight (Tonnes) 44.98 Table 10: Summary of the C&I waste audit results
The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 51 C&I loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 44.98 tonnes. C&I customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $7,131.94.
4.3.2 Composition of the C&I waste stream by weight The most significant materials that made up the Commercial and Industrial waste stream, as shown in Table 11, Figure 8 and Figure 9 were food and kitchen waste , cloth textiles, concrete and cement, vegetation and garden waste, other paper and other plastics. The analysis of the C&I stream clearly shows that there is a high organic component in this waste stream, that could have further opportunities for diversion. There is also some capacity for increased recycling of plastics and paper, as well as, the capture and diversion of concrete. There was an unusually large amount of cloth textiles in the C&I waste stream due to a large number of charity vehicles that are accessing the landfill for free. LMCC should review their policy for accepting charity wastes for free. The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in this stream is significant making up a total of 65.9% or 29.86 tonnes of the total C&I waste stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is far less at 11.58% or 5.25 tonnes of the total weight of the C&I stream.
37
Summary of the C&I Waste by Weight

Material
Food / Kitchen Cloth textiles Concrete / cement Vegetation / garden Paper - all other Plastic - other Dry cardboard Rock/dirt/soil Other items Wet cardboard Carpet & underlay Plastic - film Wood - furniture, painted wood Bricks Metals - ferrous (steel) Covered furniture Paper - office Glass - plate Wood - pallets Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Wood - treated board Glass - containers Wood - untreated board Wood - chipboard, MDF Mattresses Rubber other Tyres, tubes Hazardous / special Plastic - Polystyrene foam Electrical/Electronic small Metals - non-ferrous Tiles Plasterboard Plastic - containers recyclable Electrical and electric whitegoods Computers / office equipment Textiles /leather other Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt Total
Average Percentage
28.55% 7.23% 6.29% 6.25% 6.24% 6.03% 4.81% 3.95% 3.74% 2.82% 2.81% 2.49% 2.34% 1.65% 1.50% 1.33% 1.19% 1.18% 1.14% 0.99% 0.87% 0.83% 0.76% 0.68% 0.50% 0.48% 0.37% 0.37% 0.36% 0.34% 0.33% 0.33% 0.30% 0.26% 0.25% 0.24% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Tonnes
12.94 3.27 2.85 2.83 2.83 2.73 2.18 1.79 1.69 1.28 1.27 1.13 1.06 0.75 0.68 0.60 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.45 0.39 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.23 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.31
Table 11: The overall composition of the C&I waste stream by weight
38
0.34%
0.99% 0.25%
0.30%
0.33% 1.65%
0.37% 0.00% 3.95%
1.19% 3.74% 6.24%
4.81%
6.29%
2.82%
0.00%
0.00% 0.33% 0.24%

1.50% 6.03%
0.36%
1.18%
2.49%
0.26%
28.55%
0.83%
0.48% 0.37% 0.22% 0.50% 7.23% 1.33%
2.81%
0.87%
6.25% 2.34% 1.14% 0.68%
0.76%
Figure 8: The overall composition of the C&I waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream 39
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Figure 9: The overall composition of the C&I waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream
40
4.4 Construction and Demolition Waste

4.4.1 Summary of the C&D waste results
Summary of the C&D Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads Total $ Dollars Charged Total Load Volume (cubic metres) Total Weight (Tonnes) 41 9,757.37 240.4 46.86
Table 12: Summary of the C&D waste audit results
The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 41 C&D loads audited was to equal a total of 46.86 tonnes. C&D customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $9,757.37.
4.4.2 Composition of the C&D waste stream by weight The most significant materials in the Construction and Demolition waste stream, as shown in Figure 10, Figure 11 and Table 13 were untreated board, painted wood and furniture, concrete and cement, carpet and underlay, and rock, dirt and soil. The C&D data shows that, not surprisingly this stream is mainly made up of building materials. However many of the products that make up the largest quantities of this stream are recyclable or reusable in some form and it would be worth LMCC investigating the potential for greater diversion of these streams. The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in this stream is significant, making up a total of 64.54% or 30.26 tonnes of the total C&D waste stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is minute in comparison at 2.8% or 1.35 tonnes of the total weight of the C&D stream.
41
Summary of the C&D Waste by weight

Material
Wood - untreated board Wood - furniture, painted wood Concrete / cement Carpet & underlay Rock/dirt/soil Vegetation / garden Bricks Plasterboard Wood - chipboard, MDF Plastic - other Metals - ferrous (steel) Wood - pallets Wood - treated board Dry cardboard Tiles Food / Kitchen Plastic - film Other items Paper - all other Electrical/Electronic small Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Cloth textiles Electrical and electric whitegoods Textiles /leather other Metals - non-ferrous Glass - plate Hazardous / special Covered furniture Paper - office Plastic - containers recyclable Rubber other Tyres, tubes Plastic - Polystyrene foam Glass - containers Mattresses Wet cardboard Computers / office equipment Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt Total
Average Percentage
21.68% 19.68% 8.33% 6.90% 6.76% 3.97% 3.88% 3.45% 3.05% 2.96% 2.68% 2.24% 2.16% 1.40% 1.33% 1.32% 1.26% 1.24% 1.02% 0.93% 0.84% 0.54% 0.49% 0.43% 0.28% 0.27% 0.22% 0.13% 0.12% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Tonnes
10.17 9.22 3.90 3.24 3.17 1.86 1.82 1.62 1.43 1.39 1.26 1.05 1.01 0.66 0.62 0.62 0.59 0.58 0.48 0.44 0.39 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.88
Table 13: The overall composition of the C&D waste stream by weight
42
0.22%
1.24%
0.00%
0.12% 1.02% 1.40% 0.02% 0.00% 6.76%

3.97%
1.32% 2.24%
1.33%
3.45%
3.88%
0.84%
0.93%
8.33%
19.68%
0.49%
1.26%
0.01% 0.06%
0.00% 0.28%
2.68%
2.96% 3.05%
0.27%
0.09%
0.05% 0.08%
0.07% 0.43% 0.54% 2.16% 6.90%
21.68%
0.13%
0.04%
Figure 10: The overall composition of the C&D waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams 43
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Figure 11: The overall composition of the C&D waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste stream
44
4.5 Self Hauled Waste

4.5.1 Summary of the self hauled waste results
Summary of the Self Hauled Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads Total $ Dollars Charged Total Load Volume (cubic metres) Total Weight (Tonnes) 142 4,229.60 160.34 30.86
Table 14: Summary of the self hauled waste audit results
The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 142 Self Hauled waste audited was calculated to be a total of 30.86 tonnes. Self Haulage customers delivering to the landfill during this audit period incurred a total charge of $4,229.60.
4.5.2 Composition of the self hauled waste stream by weight The most significant material in the self hauled waste stream, as shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Table 15 was vegetation and garden waste. The next largest quantities of waste were furniture and painted wood, dry cardboard, concrete and cement, other plastics, food and kitchen waste, treated wood and rock, dirt and soil. Again, for the self hauled waste stream there is a large potential for increased diversion of organic materials, which is further demonstrated by the overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material, which makes up a total of 63.71% or 19.71 tonnes of the total self hauled waste stream. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream is, on the other hand, only 8.11% or 2.51 tonnes of the total weight of the self hauled stream. Self-hauled waste is primarily household waste. However, this does not necessarily exclude some small commercial operators bringing waste in under the self hauled category.
45
Summary of the Self Hauled Waste by Weight

Material
Vegetation / garden Wood - furniture, painted wood Dry cardboard Concrete / cement Plastic - other Food / Kitchen Wood - treated board Rock/dirt/soil Wood - untreated board Carpet & underlay Paper - all other Wood - chipboard, MDF Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Other items Cloth textiles Metals - ferrous (steel) Mattresses Tiles Covered furniture Paper - office Electrical/Electronic small Plasterboard Electrical and electric whitegoods Bricks Glass - plate Plastic - film Wet cardboard Textiles /leather other Rubber other Wood - pallets Metals - non-ferrous Glass - containers Hazardous / special Plastic - containers recyclable Computers / office equipment Plastic - Polystyrene foam Tyres, tubes Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt Total
Average Percentage
20.73% 6.98% 6.36% 6.02% 5.67% 5.27% 5.15% 4.22% 3.96% 3.74% 3.54% 2.88% 2.47% 2.43% 2.36% 2.25% 2.21% 1.97% 1.67% 1.49% 1.13% 1.09% 0.87% 0.85% 0.71% 0.61% 0.44% 0.43% 0.42% 0.38% 0.36% 0.30% 0.27% 0.26% 0.25% 0.13% 0.11% 0.03% 0.01% 0.00% 100.00%
Tonnes
6.41 2.16 1.97 1.86 1.75 1.63 1.59 1.31 1.22 1.16 1.09 0.89 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.68 0.61 0.52 0.46 0.35 0.34 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 30.93
Table 15: The overall composition of the self hauled waste stream by weight
46
0.27% 1.97%
0.85% 1.09%
0.00% 4.22%
2.43%
1.49% 3.54% 6.36%
0.44% 0.01% 5.27%
1.13% 0.87% 0.25% 0.13% 0.61% 0.26%
6.02%
0.03% 0.36%
2.47% 2.25% 5.67%
20.73%
0.30%
0.71% 0.42%
0.11%
0.43%
2.21%
1.67% 2.36%
3.74% 5.15% 3.96%

2.88%
6.98%
0.38%
Paper - office Paper - all other Dry cardboard Wet cardboard Waxed cardboard Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden Wood - pallets Wood - furniture, painted wood Wood - chipboard, MDF Wood - untreated board Wood - treated board Carpet & underlay Cloth textiles Covered furniture Mattresses Textiles /leather other Tyres, tubes Rubber other Glass - containers Glass - plate Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - film Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - other Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous Computers / office equipment Toner cartridges Electrical and electric whitegoods Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement Bricks Tiles Plasterboard Rock/dirt/soil Asphalt Hazardous / special
Figure 12: The overall composition of the self hauled waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams 47
7.00
6.00 5.00 4.00
3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
Figure 13: The overall composition of the self hauled waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams 48
4.6 LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste

4.6.1 Summary of the LMCC bulk hauled waste results
Summary of the LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste Audit Results

Number of Total Loads Total $ Dollars Charged Total Load Volume (cubic metres) Total Weight (Tonnes) 14 0.00 284 49.38
Table 16: Summary of the LMCC bulk hauled waste audit results
The table above shows that the overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 14 bulk hauled loads audited was calculated to equal a total of 49.38 tonnes. As all bulk hauled waste is transported by Council vehicles, there was no charge for LMCC bulk hauled waste customers. 4.6.2 Composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream by weight The most significant materials in the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream, as shown in Figure 14, Figure 15 and Table 17 were vegetation and garden waste, MDF chipboard, other plastics, dry cardboard, wood - untreated board, furniture and painted wood, rock, dirt and soil, and electrical and electronic televisions etc. The LMCC bulk hauled waste stream comprised a surprising amount of MDF chipboard wood, as well as electrical and electronic goods. It is unclear as to whether this is a normal characterization of this waste stream or if on the particular day this stream was audited something occurred that caused a spike in these figures. The potential diversion of these products would be worth investigating further by LMCC. The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in this stream was, like the other categories, extremely noticeable for the bulk waste stream, making up a total of 55.46% or 27.41 tonnes of the total weight. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream was 8.8% or 4.35 tonnes of the total weight of the LMCC bulk hauled stream.
49
Summary of the Bulk Hauled Waste by Weight

Material
Vegetation / garden Wood - chipboard, MDF Plastic - other Dry cardboard Wood - untreated board Wood - furniture, painted wood Rock/dirt/soil Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Mattresses Computers / office equipment Covered furniture Carpet & underlay Paper - all other Wood - treated board Cloth textiles Electrical/Electronic small Metals - ferrous (steel) Other items Food / Kitchen Wet cardboard Plasterboard Rubber other Tiles Bricks Plastic - film Concrete / cement Textiles /leather other Metals - non-ferrous Hazardous / special Glass - plate Paper - office Electrical and electric whitegoods Glass - containers Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - containers recyclable Tyres, tubes Wood - pallets Toner cartridges Waxed cardboard Asphalt Total
Average Percentage
13.74% 9.04% 8.88% 6.45% 6.38% 5.95% 5.76% 5.28% 4.95% 4.57% 3.48% 2.79% 2.73% 2.58% 2.36% 2.00% 1.95% 1.66% 1.38% 1.34% 1.25% 0.67% 0.63% 0.60% 0.51% 0.45% 0.41% 0.41% 0.36% 0.30% 0.24% 0.22% 0.20% 0.18% 0.12% 0.12% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Tonnes
6.79 4.47 4.39 3.19 3.15 2.94 2.84 2.61 2.45 2.26 1.72 1.38 1.35 1.27 1.16 0.99 0.96 0.82 0.68 0.66 0.62 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.42
Table 17: The overall composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste stream by weight 50
0.63% 0.60%
0.45% 2.00% 1.25%
0.36% 0.00% 5.76%
1.66%
0.24%
2.73%
1.34%
6.45%
0.00%
1.38%
0.22% 5.28% 0.00% 4.57% 0.41%

1.95%
13.74%
0.07%
8.88% 5.95%
0.18% 0.51% 0.12%

0.12% 2.36% 0.41% 2.79% 2.58%
0.30%
0.20%
9.04%
4.95%
3.48%
0.67%
6.38%
Figure 14: The overall composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste by weight (percentage) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams 51
8.00 7.00 6.00

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
1.00 0.00
Figure 15: The overall composition of the LMCC bulk hauled waste by weight (tonnes) and with the contents of the garbage bags allocated into waste streams 52
5. CONCLUSIONS
This report showed that the total amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 272 loads audited was calculated to equal 209.39 tonnes. The top ten most significant materials found in the landfill waste stream were: 11.Vegetation and garden (13% or 27.12 tonnes) 12. Food and kitchen (11.4% or 23.81 tonnes) 13. Wood furniture, painted wood (7.5% or 15.6 tonnes) 14. Rock, dirt and soil (7.3% or 15.36 tonnes) 15. Wood untreated board (7.3% or 15.26 tonnes) 16. Plastics - Other (5.7% or 12.03 tonnes) 17. Concrete and cement (4.6% or 9.59 tonnes) 18. Dry cardboard (4.2% or 8.76 tonnes) 19. Paper all other (3.9% or 8.8 tonnes) 20. Carpet and underlay (3.5% or 7.25 tonnes) The overall weight of Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC) material in the total waste stream was 62.38% or 130.62 tonnes. The total component of packaging materials was 7.50% or 15.69 tonnes. Figures are shown for the rest of the categories below: LMCC Parks Waste: The total amount of waste audited from the LMCC parks waste stream was 36.57 tonnes. The top ten most significant materials found in this stream were: 11.Vegetation and garden(25.02% or 9.22 tonnes) 12. Food and kitchen (21.54% or 7.94 tonnes) 13. Rock, dirt and soil (16.97% or 6.25 tonnes) 14. Paper all other (6.34% or 2.34 tonnes) 15. Plastic other (4.78% or 1.76 tonnes) 16. Bricks (2.18% or 0.80 tonnes) 17. Dry Cardboard (2.07% or 0.76 tonnes) 18. Concrete/cement (2.05% or 0.75 tonnes) 19. Glass plate (2.04% or 0.75 tonnes) 20.Paper office (1.79% or 0.66 tonnes) The weight of DOC materials made up a total of 63.48% or 23.39 tonnes of the parks waste. The component of packaging materials was 6.08% or 2.24 tonnes.
53
Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 51 C&I loads audited was calculated to equal 44.98 tonnes. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 11. Food and kitchen (28.55% or 12.94 tonnes) 12. Cloth textiles (7.23% or 3.27 tonnes) 13. Concrete and cement (6.29% or 2.85 tonnes) 14. Vegetation and garden (6.25% or 2.83 tonnes) 15. Paper all other (6.24% or 2.83 tonnes) 16. Plastic other (6.03% or 2.73 tonnes) 17. Dry cardboard (4.81% or 2.18 tonnes) 18. Rock, dirt and soil (3.95% or 1.79 tonnes) 19. Other items (3.74% or 1.69 tonnes) 20. Wet cardboard (2.82% or 1.28 tonnes) The weight of DOC material in the C&I stream made up a total of 65.9% or 29.86 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream is far less at 11.58% or 5.25 tonnes. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 41 C&D loads audited was calculated to equal 46.86 tonnes. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 11. Wood untreated board (21.68% or 10.17 tonnes) 12. Wood furniture, painted wood (19.68% or 9.22 tonnes) 13. Concrete and cement (8.33% or 3.9 tonnes) 14. Carpet and underlay (6.9% or 3.24 tonnes) 15. Rock, dirt and soil (6.76% or 3.17 tonnes) 16. Vegetation and garden (3.97% or 1.86 tonnes) 17. Bricks (3.88% or 1.82 tonnes) 18. Plasterboard (3.45% or 1.62 tonnes) 19. Wood chipboard, MDF (3.05% or 1.43 tonnes) 20. Plastic other (2.96% or 1.39 tonnes) The weight of DOC material in the C&D stream made up a total of 64.54% or 30.26 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream was 2.8% or 1.35 tonnes.
54
Self Hauled Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 142 self hauled waste loads audited was calculated to equal 30.86 tonnes. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 11. Vegetation and garden waste (20.73% or 6.41 tonnes) 12. Furniture and painted wood (6.98 % or 2.16 tonnes) 13. Dry cardboard (6.36% or 1.97 tonnes) 14. Concrete and cement (6.02% or 1.86 tonnes) 15. Other plastics (5.67% or 1.75 tonnes) 16. Food and kitchen waste (5.27% or 1.63 tonnes) 17. Treated wood (5.15% or 1.59 tonnes) 18. Rock, dirt and soil (4.22% or 1.31 tonnes) 19.Wood untreated board (3.96% or 1.22 tonnes) 20.Carpet and underlay (3.74% or 1.16 tonnes) The weight of DOC material in the self hauled waste stream made up a total of 63.71% or 19.71 tonnes. The component of packaging materials in this stream was 8.11% or 2.51 tonnes.
LMCC Bulk Hauled Waste: The overall amount of waste delivered to Awaba landfill from the 14 LMCC bulk hauled waste loads audited was calculated to equal 49.38 tonnes. The top ten most significant materials found in the waste C&I waste stream were: 11. Vegetation and garden waste (13.74% or 6.79 tonnes) 12. Wood chipboard, MDF (9.04% or 4.47 tonnes) 13. Other plastics (8.88% or 4.39 tonnes) 14. Dry cardboard (6.45% or 3.19 tonnes) 15. Wood - untreated board (6.38% or 3.15 tonnes) 16. Furniture and painted wood (5.95% or 2.94 tonnes) 17. Rock, dirt and soil (5.76% or 2.84 tonnes) 18. Electrical and electronic televisions etc (5.28% or 2.61 tonnes) 19. Metals ferrous steel (4.95% or 2.45 tonnes) 20. Textiles/leather other (4.57% or 2.26 tonnes) The overall weight of DOC material in the LMCC bulk hauled stream up a total of 55.46% or 27.41 tonnes. The overall component of packaging materials in this stream was 8.8% or 4.35 tonnes.
55
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this report, MRA proposes some recommendations for LMCC to improve functionality of Awaba landfill and increase diversion of recyclable and reusable materials. They include the following: LMCC review the operations of parks trucks. Fourteen of the 25 trucks audited from the LMCC Parks Waste section arrived at the landfill with only 300kg or less of Council works waste for landfill disposal. Of these 14 trucks, 5 were tippers, however many of the other vehicle types were not recorded. Thus it is difficult to tell if the reason for the small loads was related to load capacity or not. MRA suggests LMCC investigate this issue to see if Council vehicles are filling their loads before going to the landfill and if any efficiencies can be realised. LMCC investigate current systems and diversion programs for DOC materials (that make up over 62% of the waste stream), building materials, such as concrete and bricks, and electrical items. LMCC investigate the potential for reusing rocks, dirt and soil on other Council land to avoid landfilling these materials. LMCC review pricing at Awaba landfill and in particular how loads are classified and priced at the weighbridge. This needs to be consistent with LMCCs strategic goals for waste management and waste avoidance. There was an unusually large amount of cloth textiles in the C&I waste stream, which may be attributed to the high number of charity vehicles currently using the landfill for free. LMCC should review their pricing structure relating to charity vehicles and consider i) charging all charity vehicles a fee and ii) including the s.88 landfill levy for those charities that have not received an exemption through the EPA. Points made in observations by APC (Appendix 3) suggested there may be some inefficiencies in the way in which waste data are currently recorded. Further research is recommended with the aim of collecting and maintaining more robust data for this site in more efficient ways for this landfill.
56
Appendix 1 Weighbridge Collection Form

Manufacturing (G) Office Waste (O) Retail Trade (R) Charity (X) Mixed Load(M)
AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT 2010 WEIGHBRIDGE DATA COLLECTION SHEET Auditor:. Date:..
Construction/Trade (C) Health & Community (H) Accom/Restaurants (A)
Time
Registration No.
Trading Name
Vehicle Type (see vehicle identity sheet)
Source (Hhld/ C&I/ C&D/GW/bulk waste/Council)
C&I Industry Geographical Type/s Source (by suburb)
Disposal Point (other than tipface)
Truck size (vol)
% full
57
Appendix 2 Tipsite Collection Form

Data Collection form - AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT VISUAL ESTIMATION Sheet No: ________ Date: _________________ Location: __________________ Auditor: _____________ C&I type that most of the load is from: Retail Trade: R
Time Registration Number Type of vehicle/container Source (Self Haul/ C&I/ C&D/GW/bulk C&I Industry Type/s Total Load Volume (m2) Garbage bags of rubbish Paper - office Paper - all other Dry cardboard Dry cardboard production spoils Wet cardboard Waxed cardboard Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden Wood - pallets Wood - furniture, painted Wood - chipboard, MDF Wood - untreated board Wood treated board Carpet & underlay Cloth/Textiles Covered furniture Mattresses Leather/other textiles Tyres, tubes Rubber other Glass - containers Glass plate Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic film Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic other Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous Computers / office equipment Toner cartridges Electrical and electric white goods Electrical/Electronic televisions etc Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement Bricks Tiles Plasterboard Rock/dirt/soil Asphalt Hazardous / special Other items
Manufacturing: M Education: E
Office Waste: O
Construction: C Mixed Load: M
Health & Community: H
Accom/Restaurants: A
58
Appendix 3 - Awaba Landfill Audit Observations

Daily conditions: Wednesday 7th April one load of parks only litter bin waste was observed. This load was stored from Easter Sunday. Sunday is the only day that a litter bin only run is carried out. Due to Easter Sunday being a sunny day it is likely that this load was heavier than usual as there appeared to be a lot of food waste presumably from picnickers. Thursday 8th April there was only one large mixed C&I load, which was spread, plus the council mixed parks waste. It was an off week for council so there were no bulk waste vehicles. The bulk waste audit was undertaken the following Thursday instead. It was 18- 31 degrees and sunny. The previous day two days had been raining but were heavy days as a result of the Easter long weekend. Friday 9th April there was only one large mixed C&I load, plus the council mixed parks C&I/litter bin waste. Both loads were spread for further identification. It was 14-30 degrees and sunny. Saturday 10th April there were two large mixed C&I loads, both were spread. The rest of the loads were generally self haul as there were no council domestic or parks trucks. The weather was 13-29 degrees, overcast in the morning and sunny in the afternoon. Thursday 14th April 13 bulk waste samples from Wednesday 13th April and Thursday 14th April were observed. General site observations Photos were taken of distinctive loads or general observations and of some of the loads that were spread such as mixed parks or C&I loads. There is a company onsite (Rogers Recycling) who scavenge from the tip face and take material either for metal recycling or to the tip shop for on selling. The audit results include metals, some e-waste, wood, paint and other bric-a-brac that the scavengers recovered after auditing. Street sweepings, dredging and seaweed, along with fill that is purchased by the site is tipped in a slightly different area and then used as cover. Gas bottles, batteries, oil and other recyclables can be dropped at the reuse and recycle centre prior to going to the main tip face. Green waste is tipped separately. Green waste 59
loads were not part of the required observations for this audit, but they were recorded at the gate. If there were contaminants in the green waste load the operator at the green waste tip face or weighbridge, sent the vehicle to the tip face to dump the non-green waste materials. There is no separate tipping point for C&D or hazardous waste. It is all tipped at the main face. Much of the 20-25m C&D loads were demolition waste from a school. This may affect the C&D results as they were all from one source that was project related. However this company apparently often uses the Awaba landfill. It may be worth determining how frequently they bring loads in to assist in extrapolating/interpreting the data. C&I interpretation Parks is an additional category used in Source. A sub category of illegal dumping, litter, C&I, street sweepings, ranger etc may apply Charity - There was quite a few loads tipped from charity organisations. This was added as a separate category. C&I C is generally tradesman electricians, carpenters, plumbers, tilers etc. Interpretation of data Hazardous: As it was a visual audit only paint cans being tipped were recorded as hazardous unless they were obviously empty. The Recyclers would remove most of the paint tins either for reusing the paint or for recycling the can. Some residents observed to be dropping off full paint tins on the Saturday were told they had to take them back with them. Insulation that was wrapped or foil backed was generally accepted. Some pieces of unwrapped insulation in mixed loads were observed, foil backed insulation was also recorded as hazardous. Composite materials: plastic toys, brooms etc that were composite were recorded as the item that they were primarily made up of or noted in other items. BC67YK: was called bulk waste but appeared to be more from councils internal depot operations. The driver kept referring to it as bulk waste and wasnt clear of the source of the material.
60
Appendix 4 - Density Factors

Density (tonnes / m3) Category Office Paper Paper Other Dry Cardboard Wet Cardboard Waxed cardboard Food/kitchen Vegetation/Garden Wood-Furniture Wood- Pallets Wood MDF etc Wood Solid Untreated Wood Solid Treated Textiles-Carpet (including foam) Textiles-Cloth Textiles-Cloth Furniture Textiles/Leather Other Rubber-Tyres Rubber-Shredded Tyres Rubber Other Glass Containers Glass Plate Plastic Containers Plastic Film Polystyrene Foam Foam Plastic Other Ferrous Metals Non-ferrous Concrete/Cement Bricks Tiles Plasterboard Soil Rubble>150mm Asphalt Garbage bags of rubbish Computers/Office equipment /Electrical & Electronic items White goods Hazardous Other C & I & Underlay Low compaction / Uncompacted 0.076 0.076 0.13 0.26 0.055 0.343 0.091 0.16 0.156 0.156 0.12 0.18 0.10 Medium 0.152 0.152 0.13 0.26 0.092 0.514 0.227 0.17 0.156 0.156 0.16 0.22 0.15 Compacted 0.228 0.228 0.13 0.26 0.130 1.029 0.445 0.4 0.156 0.156 0.36 0.26 0.35
0.091 0.09 0.091 0.2 0.4 0.26 0.28 0.411 0.072 0.039 0.014 0.030 0.17 0.12 0.139 0.830 0.828 0.47 0.227 0.922 1.048 0.68 0.087 0.265 0.105 0.227 0.17
0.12 0.1 0.091 0.2 0.4 0.26 0.28 0.411 0.072 0.078 0.021 0.030 0.17 0.12 0.139 0.830 0.828 0.55 0.227 0.922 1.048 0.68 0.17 0.265 0.113 0.227 0.17
0.24 0.45 0.24 0.2 0.4 0.26 0.28 0.411 0.072 0.156 0.028 0.090 0.36 0.12 0.139 0.830 0.828 0.64 0.227 0.922 1.048 0.68 0.348 0.265 0.120 0.227 0.35
61
Appendix 5 Allocation of the contents of the garbage bags

For each category the contents of the rubbish bags contained in a load were extrapolated out into the various material categories. This was initially done by multiplying the total volume of the bags of rubbish contained within a load using the DECCWs average percentages of a C&I garbage bag taken from Commercial and Industrial Waste in Sydney An Overview (DECCW 2009).
Composition of the Average C & I garbage bag (DECCW) Waste Product Average % in garbage bag Paper 29.2% Food 27.7% Plastic 15.1% Other 7.0% Textile 4.5% Cardboard 4.1% Glass 3.8% Metal 2.4% Vegetation 1.6% C&D material 1.5% Hazardous/special 1.4% Rubber 0.7% Whitegoods/electrical 0.7% Wood 0.3% Figure 1: DECCWs average percentages of a C&I garbage bag
Thus, by multiplying the data from the garbage bags that had already been categorised into the DECCW categories by the gross averages of the 40 audited materials (see the table below), the contents of the garbage bags were able to be allocated across the range of waste streams. This data was then multiplied by its corresponding density factor to give it a final weight in tonnes. The only anomalies were that: Mattresses and covered furniture had to be made zero instead of given an average as it would have skewed the data incorrectly to say that these items were contained in the garbage bag waste, which is highly unlikely unless they had been pulled apart. After the data was extrapolated out from the garbage bags into the corresponding waste categories, the overall weight differed slightly to the weight of the total waste without the contents of the garbage bags extrapolated out. This is due to the multiplication by the density factors
62
(which are only approximate figures rather than actual) of the waste in the garbage bags. Thus, to make the data statistically viable the total weight of the garbage bags in the waste stream had to be altered to equal the contents of the bag after it was allocated to waste categories.
Average percentages of total waste (excluding the garbage bags) Total % of waste excluding garbage bags 92.7% Material Average Percentage (excluding garbage bags)
Paper - office Paper - all other Dry cardboard Wet cardboard Waxed cardboard Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden Wood - pallets Wood - furniture, painted wood Wood - chipboard, MDF Wood - untreated board Wood - treated board Carpet & underlay Cloth textiles Covered furniture* Mattresses* Textiles /leather other Tyres, tubes Rubber other Glass - containers Glass - plate Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - film Plastic - Polystyrene foam Plastic - other Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous Computers / office equipment Toner cartridges Electrical and electric whitegoods Electrical/Electronic - televisions etc Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement Bricks Tiles Plasterboard Rock/dirt/soil Asphalt Hazardous / special Other items Total Figure 2: Average percentages of total 63
0.5% 1.9% 5.0% 0.5% 0.0% 3.2% 16.4% 1.5% 7.2% 2.9% 5.0% 3.8% 3.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% 4.7% 2.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 2.8% 1.1% 10.2% 3.2% 2.3% 2.4% 9.9% 0.0% 0.1% 3.2% 100.0% waste (excluding the garbage bags)
Appendix 6 Photos taken on site
Photo 1: Parks Waste
64
Photo 11: Charity Waste
65
66
Appendix 7 Limitations of the method
There were a number of research limitations encountered during development of this report. These included: The original tender brief by LMCC indicated only 71 loads would be audited in total. However over 300 loads were audited which led to inaccuracies in the way the data was recorded (inconsistent classifications and non-classification of a number of loads). Of loads audited, 40 (15%) were removed from the total to create a sample for data analysis, because of incomplete data records. For example, many of these loads had no total weights recorded or had not been categorised correctly or at all. MRA was provided with two separate excel sheets containing raw data which had been completed by two different auditors from APC. Upon merging the sheets, MRA found the two auditors had used different sub-categories under the category other, meaning the two sheets did not match up clearly and assumptions were made when assigning some waste fractions into the other category. A number of extra categories were used in the auditing process than originally specified in the brief. MRAs initial tender suggested to LMCC that instead of manually auditing garbage bags found in the audits (which is a lengthy process and involves much more stringent OH&S standards), that garbage bag composition data be determined by applying garbage bag composition results from DECCWs C&I waste audit data collected in Sydney in 2008. This method was used. However DECCW classified garbage bag waste into 14 categories, whereas the auditors used their own classification of 40 waste types for the Awaba landfill audit. This made the information difficult to compare. Consequently the data was unable to be divided into the industry specific types, as was asked for in the request for tender provided by LMCC.
67

Solid Waste Audit of Landfill

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Solid Waste Audit of Landfill

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lake Macquarie City Council

AWABA LANDFILL WASTE AUDIT REPORT

Lake Macquarie City Council

AWABA LANDFILL AUDIT

1 24th October 2010

Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight

Table 1: The overall composition of the landfill waste by weight 2

Percentage % of material in the stream Wood Furniture & painted

Wood Chipboard, MDF

Wood untreated board

Concrete and cement %

Textiles leather, other

Metals Ferrous Steel

Vegetation & Green

Carpet & Underlay

Rocks Dirt & Soil

Food & Kitchen

Self Hauled LMCC Bulk

Other items 3.74

Electrical & electronic

Type of Waste Green waste

Minimum charge ($) 12.00

Price per tonne 73.30

Mixed Waste Special Waste

Charity and Community Service

3.1 Audit Methodology

ANZSIC Code C G H L Q G511 N/A N/A

DECCW/LMCC proposed categories Manufacturing Retail Trade

Sub Category examples

Duplicates shopping centres

Accommodation, Cafes & Restaurants Property and Business Services

Personal and Other Services

services operating in peoples houses i.e. cleaners, Shopping Centres N/A

Health and Community Services Education

Hospitals, Veterinary, Child Care, Medical and Dental Schools, TAFE,

Table 3: ANZSIC Codes and issues identified by APC

Categories to be added if samples are presented O N

3.2 Data Analysis

4.1 Overall Results

Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste Audit Results

0.0% 8.9% 2.2% 2.1%

0.1% 2.9% 0.4% 6.5%

1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%

2.5% 1.4% 6.5% 4.3%

35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00

Summary of the Overall Landfill Waste by Weight

7.5% 3.5% 7.3%

0.3% 1.6% 1.5%

Dry cardboard Wet cardboard

Food / Kitchen Vegetation / garden

Wood - furniture, painted wood Wood - chipboard, MDF

Wood - treated board Carpet & underlay

Mattresses Textiles /leather other

Rubber other Glass - containers

Plastic - containers recyclable Plastic - film

Metals - ferrous (steel) Metals - non-ferrous

Electrical/Electronic small Concrete / cement

Hazardous / special Other items

Categories LMCC Bulk

Categories Self Hauled

Categories LMCC Parks

4.2 LMCC Parks Waste

Summary of the LMCC Parks Waste Audit Results

Garbage bags of rubbish