Per Capita Waste Projection Do Nothing Scenario Waste Per Capita(Kg) Recycled Disposal Total Waste Per Capita(

kg)

S.NO

Year

Remark Average population of 2002 & 2003 Considered

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2003 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

796 894 1173 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050

978 1055 1081 1304 1423 1543 1663 1783 1903 2023

1775 1949 2254 2353 2473 2593 2713 2833 2953 3072

13301528

6650764

Recycled waste taken as constant as existing system will not be able to take extra material

Total waste Per Capita in 2010=2600 2011 2012

Do Nothing Scenario Waste to Disposal

Waste disposed per Capita/Kg 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2002

2004

2006

2008 Years

2010

2012

2014

2016

S.no 1 2 3

PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF EACH WASTE STREAM IN TOTAL USW Year Municipal Industrial & Commercial Building & Demolition 2002/2003 3100000 4015000 4688500 2004/2005 3180500 4819500 5118000 2006/2007 3890500 5218000 6251000 Total 10171000 14052500 16057500 Average Percentage of each stream

Total 11803500 13118000 15359500 40281000

25.25

34.89

39.86

WASTE ESTIMATE OF MAJOR WASTE STREAM Per Capita Waste from waste trend 2112 2254 2353 Total Waste in Tonnes 1055930 1150667 1226686

S.no 1 2 3

Year 2006 2007 2008

Population 500000 510500 521221

Municipal( tones) 266622 290543 309738.2

C& I ( tonnes) 368414 401468 427991

C & D (tonnes) 420894 458656 488957

4 5 6 7 8 9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2473 2593 2713 2833 2953 3072

y = 2 x - 3 9 7 6 .3

532166 543342 554752 566402 578296 590440

1316206 1408945 1504998 1604464 1707444 1814041

Re cy c le w a s t e T r e n d ( C & I) 70 60 50 Recycled Waste % 40 30 20 10 0 2002 .

332342 355758 380011 405127 431129 458045.4544

459224 491581 525094 559797 595727 632919

524640 561605 599892 639539 680587 723077

R e c y c le W a s t e T r e n d ( C & D )

R e c y c le W a s t e T r e n d ( M u n i c ip a l ) 80 70 60 50 % Recycled 40 30 20 10 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2 014 2016

72
y = 2 .5 x - 4 9 7 3.8

70 68 % Recycled 66 64 62 60 2002 2004 2006 2008

y = 0 . 7 5 x - 1 4 3 9 .4

2004

2 0 06

2 00 8

20 1 0

2 0 12

2 01 4

20 1 6

2010

2012

2014

2016

Ye ar

Y e ar s

Ye ars

S.no

Year

% TREND IN RECYCLING Municipal C& I Recycling Disposal Recycling Disposal 30 33 38 70 67 62 34 38 44 66 62 56

C &D Recycling Disposal 64 62 67 36 38 33

Remark

1 2 3

2003 2005 2007

Data

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

39.7 41.7 43.7 45.7 47.7 49.7 51.7

60.3 58.3 56.3 54.3 52.3 50.3 48.3

46.2 48.7 51.2 53.7 56.2 58.7 61.2

53.8 51.3 48.8 46.3 43.8 41.3 38.8

66.6 67.35 68.1 68.85 69.6 70.35 71.1

33.4 32.65 31.9 31.15 30.4 29.65 28.9

from graph

Recycled & Disposed Waste for Major waste Streams

S.no

Year 200 6 200 7 200 8 200 9 201 0 201 1 201 2 201 3 201 4

Municipal (tonnes)

C& I(tonnes)

C& D(tonnes)

Municipal Waste Recycle Rate%

C& I Waste Recycle Rate

Bldg & Demo

Municipal( Tonne s) Recycle Disposal 165306 178352 186613 193598 200137 206194 211731 216710 221091

Industrial & Commercial(tonnes ) Recycle 162102 174896 197563 223461 251494 281766 314383 349453 387093 Disposal 206312 222595 230063 235391 239705 242938 245017 245868 245412

Bldg & Demo(tones) Recycle 281999 304255 325368 353058 382157 412720 444803 478467 513771 Disposal 138895 149857 163172 171156 179013 186728 194282 201657 208832

Total Recycle 545417 588464 645792 714992 788997 868023 952294 104204 5 113751 7 Disposal 510513 550804 579848 600144 618855 635860 651030 664234 675335

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

266622 287665 309474 332072 355483 379730 404839 430836 457745

368414 397490 427626 458851 491200 524704 559400 595321 632504

420894 454112 488540 524214 561170 599447 639085 680123 722603 39.7 41.7 43.7 45.7 47.7 49.7 51.7 46.2 48.7 51.2 53.7 56.2 58.7 61.2 66.6 67.35 68.1 68.85 69.6 70.35 71.1

101316 109313 122861 138474 155346 173537 193108 214125 236654

WASTE COMPOSITION ANALYSIS

Composition of Municipal Waste Disposal Recycled Composition of C& I waste Disposal Recycled Composition of C& D waste Disposal Recycled

S.no

Municipal Disposed Recycled Disposed

C& I Recycled Disposed

C& D Recycled

Total

Paper & Cardboard Plastic Glass Ferrous Garden Organics Food Timber Soil/Rubble Concrete Other Recycleable Other Wastes Total

264500 114000 81000 42000 629500 637000 0 0 7000 395000 2170000

336500 24500 126000 15000 650500 0 0 0 4000 0 1156500

5000 0 12.19 12500 0 469000 5.25 0 0 280000 3.73 55000 500000 1197000 1.94 21000 0 1577500 29.01 0 0 796000 29.35 116500 82500 446000 0.00 520500 956000 1476500 0.00 465500 1451000 1916500 0.00 28000 72000 32000 319000 462000 0.32 1558000 0 112000 0 2065000 18.20 2833000 1364500 1340000 3308500 10685500 100 Note: Data for composition taken from Table 9 Wright JUNE 2002

453500 283500 28000 85000 85000 113500 198500 0

427500 34500 45000 500000 191500 45500 48500 0

29.10 2.12 10.89 1.30 56.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 100.00

16.01 10.01 0.99 3.00 3.00 4.01 7.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 54.99 100

31.33 2.53 3.30 36.64 14.03 3.33 3.55 0.00 0.00 5.28 0.00 100.00

0.4 0.9 0.0 4.1 1.6 0.0 8.7 38.8 34.7 2.4 8.4 100.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 28.9 43.9 9.6 0.0 100

Description

Paper & Cardboard Plastic Glass Ferrous Garden Organics Food Timber Soil/Rubble Concrete Other Recycleable Other Wastes Total

WASTE COMPOSITION OF WASTE TO DISPOSAL STREAM IN 2010 % Composition of waste to Disposal Stream Total Waste Generated in 2010 C&I C&D Municipal C&I C&D Municipal Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste 12.19 16.0 0.37 43363 78691 2095.5 5.25 10.0 0.93 18690 49193 5238.9 3.73 1.0 0.00 13279 4859 0.0 1.94 3.0 4.10 6886 14749 23051.0 29.01 3.0 1.57 103203 14749 8801.3 29.35 4.0 0.00 104432 19694 0.0 0.00 7.0 8.69 0 34444 48826.1 0.00 0.0 38.84 0 0 218145.9 0.00 0.0 34.74 0 0 195095.0 0.32 1.0 2.39 1148 4859 13411.5 18.20 55.0 8.36 64758 270343 46940.1 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total Municipal Waste in 2010 355758.508 C& I Waste in 2010 491581 C & D Waste 2010 561605 Total Waste in 2010 1408944.59

Total

124150 73121 18138 44686 126753 124127 83270 218146 195095 19418 382041 1408945

8.8 5.2 1.3 3.2 9.0 8.8 5.9 15.5 13.8 1.4 27.1

P p r &C rd o rd ae a ba 9 % 2% 8 P s la tic 5 % 1 % 3 % 9 % Gs la s F rro s e u G r e O a ic ad n rg n s Fo od 1 % 1% 4 1% 5 6 % T br im e 9 % S il/R b le o ub C n re o c te O e R c le b th r e yc a le O e W ste th r a s

Part 1 Lower Bunztal Regional council (LBRC) is a regional council with population of 500000 in 2006 and with a comparatively higher growth rate of 2.1% per annum. The waste generation data for the council at different year are derived from the waste data of NSW in the year 2002/2003, 2004/2005 & 2006/2007. The per capita waste generation at these different years is projected to derive per capita waste in year 2010 up to year 2014. The waste data available in Australian Waste Database (AWD) for the period of 1990 to 1996 has not been considered as trend analysis for a long period may result marked deviation in the result. Per capita indicators are used for all of three major waste streams (though economic indicators such as per dollar value of state domestic product (SDP) and per dollar value of Building Work done (BWD) would give more realistic trend for waste generation for Commercial and Industrial (C& I) and Commercial and Demolition(C & D) waste stream) and a linear trend is assumed for simplicity. Waste generation for a particular region would greatly depend upon combination of population, economy, social and cultural structure of a region. The waste trend for different major waste stream is shown in the graph (page 1&2). The per capita waste generated in 2010 is 2593 kg (1166 kg waste to disposal & 1426 kg of waste to recycle). These figure are the result obtained if LBRC keeps similar trend in waste generation, waste recycled and waste disposal. As LBRC do not have sufficient infrastructure to cope with the increased waste production, this would not be the case if council does not take any severe steps to handle the increased flow of waste. The total waste generated will continuously rise as shown in the graph if no steps are taken to reduce waste production, reuse and recycling. If no improved cost effective recycling system for waste is planned the existing recycling will not be able to take up the extra quantity of waste above the waste recycled at 2006(1050kg). This clearly indicates that in the year 2010 approximately 375 kg of potentially recyclable waste would add to the disposal stream which otherwise could have been recycled. This diversion of potentially recyclable waste stream to disposal stream would continuously rise in subsequent year if no action is taken. In year 2014 the waste to disposal would be 2023 kg. The total waste generation in tonnes at various intervals is presented in table 2. Table 3 provides information on waste to disposal and waste to recycle for the three major waste streams. If LBRC takes no steps to tackle the situation the following consequences will arise 1. A significant portion of the waste is going to be diverted to the disposal stream meaning more pressure on Belevi Landfill. The target set up by WARR STRATAGY would not be achieved. 2. The location of Belevi landfill site is not suitable as it is located near the Corbyn River. Increased leachet production would have severe impact on the river ecosystem. 3. As increased hazardous waste can no more be diverted to Sydney, this means more waste is going to be toxic. 4. Increased noise and air pollution would affect the health of retirees of which the council population is mainly comprised of. 5. Council would face legal prosecution and penalties from EPA. 6. Resident will have to pay increased levy for the increased waste generated as council will need to allocate extra funding to dispose the increased waste to land fill

7. By not managing the waste in a sustainable way LBRC will be leaving a great extent of liabilities to the future generation. Toxicity in landfill will effect the generation to come for a long period of time. This does not comply with the principle of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). In order to avoid the consequence of improper waste management the council needs to develop strategies so that the waste are tackled at life cycle of waste production, generation and disposal. The preferred hierarchy of waste management i.e Reduce,Reuse,Recycle. Reducing waste will help in resource conservation, reduction of greenhouse emission, save considerable amount of water and energy and would prevent environmental degradation. Manufacturing processes and the product should be designed so as to minimize the amount of waste. The material recycling and reuse should be promoted. Suitable market structure for the recycled waste should be developed. Market structure should be such that there is high demand of the recycled product. Shift in policy which favors the waste recycling, reuse and recovery through financial incentive should be brought upon. Part 2 The waste composition data has been derived from WARR progress report 2007. It is reasonable to assume similar waste composition of Municipal Waste stream. But for the Commercial & Industrial and Commercial & Demolition Waste the composition varies with time. New product is brought into the market also the change in recovery rate and recycling rate would greatly influence the composition. Asbestos for example is dominant waste in C & D sector but with time the disposal of this waste will be highly reduced as its use in construction sector diminishes. Only the waste composition of disposal stream considered for discussion as this is the area where focus is to be laid to achieve target of sustainable waste management. However the composition of waste in recycled waste stream is also important in design of waste recycling and processing facilities. Municipal waste stream has food waste (29%) and Garden Organics (29%). This indicates that a major component of domestic waste is biodegradable. Suitable composting facilities would reduce the food and organics waste going into disposal stream. Encouraging household composting would help to manage these two components of municipal waste in a cost effective manner. The other significant proportion of municipal waste is paper and cardboard 12% and other 18%. The paper and cardboard represents the recyclable portion of the municipal waste. The waste in other category represents mixed and contaminated waste. This waste is not suitable for recycling due to contamination. Glass 4% and plastics 5% are other two portion of the municipal waste. In summary approximately 81% of waste which is currently disposed in the landfill has high potentiality to be recycled and reprocessed. The presence of contaminated waste indicates that program such as education; awareness and some provision of penalty would help in reducing the waste contamination. The Commercial and Industrial waste has other waste category in dominant proportion (55%). This consists of mixed and contaminated waste which is not suitable for recycling. This indicates that source segregation and separation is most necessary if significant portion of the

other waste is to be made potentially recyclable. The remaining portion (45%) of the waste has potentially recyclable fractions with paper and Cardboard (16%) and Plastic (10%). For the industrial and demolition waste stream the dominant fractions are soil/rubble (39%) and Concrete (35%). This fraction of waste is a reusable material. Majority of them can be reused for construction purpose. Council should develop a policy and specifications that will support the demand of this material. For example concrete material can be used for retaining and erosion controlling structure. If we look at the overall composition of waste to disposal stream the major fraction 27% is of other category. This indicates that utmost importance is to be given to prevent toxicity of waste and mixing of waste. The remaining portion (63%) of the total waste to disposal stream has potentiality to be recycled.

REFERENCES