to view the WARR Strategy. - Liverpool City Council - NSW ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Contamination, 3%Newsprint, 28%Glass, 33%Steel, 2%Aluminium, 1%PVC, 0.2%HDPE, 3%PET, 4%LPB, 0.4%Cardboard, 15%Paper/Magazines, 8%Figure 3.4: Liverpool Kerbside Recyclables Composition (2003 Audit)Over 50% of the recycling is fibre-based, with glass the next largest component. Acontamination level of 3% places Liverpool well below the average of approximately 6% forGreater Sydney. This indicates that residents have a reasonable understanding of therecycling service. In addition, crate-based recycling services generally achieve lower rates ofcontamination than closed bins (eg MGBs) as collectors are able to readily identify and rejectcontaminated loads.3.6 Benchmarking Against Good Practice Performance MeasuresThe NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has recently developedpreliminary good practice performance benchmarks for Sydney metropolitan Council kerbsiderecycling systems. These are documented in the report Getting more from our recyclingsystems. Good practice performance measures for kerbside recycling systems (DEC andNSWJRG; 2004). The aim of the project was to establish ‘good practice’ performancemeasures for key elements of kerbside recycling systems in order to assist Councils to delivermore effective and efficient systems.This section presents a comparison between Liverpool’s kerbside recycling system and the‘good practice’ measures developed by DEC.Liverpool City Council13Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy
3.6.1 Kerbside Recycling Yield, Contamination and Service CostsThe good practice performance measures established for kerbside recycling yield,contamination and costs are set out in Table 3.6. Also shown is the respective data forLiverpool City Council’s kerbside recycling system. The comparison shows that kerbsiderecycling yield and diversion rates within Liverpool are less than the potential good practicemeasures established by DEC. This (together with the results of the 2003 audit) suggeststhat there is some opportunity to increase recovery of kerbside recyclables in Liverpool.Notwithstanding this, contamination levels, as well as service costs are within the targetranges established by DEC. The Action and Implementation Program developed for wasteand recycling collection services (Section 6.3) aims to ensure that future recycling serviceswithin Liverpool conform to the DEC good practice measures.Table 3.6: Comparison of Liverpool Recycling Performance withDEC Good Practice Performance MeasuresPerformance Measure Unit Description PotentialGoodPractiseMeasure(baseline)Household Net Yield kg/hhld/wk Total quantity ofkerbsiderecyclablescollected perhousehold,excluding grosscontamination.Per Capita Net Yield kg/person/wk Quantity ofkerbsiderecyclablescollected perperson, excludinggrosscontamination.Net Diversion % Total proportion ofdomestic wastediverted to therecycling stream.Contamination % Contaminantsplaced in recyclingbins byhouseholdersPotentialGoodPractiseMeasure(target)LiverpoolPerformance≥ 4.0 ≥ 5.5 3.3≥ 1.5 ≥ 2.1 1.0≥ 19% ≥ 29% 15.4%n/a ≤ 3.5% 3%Liverpool City Council14Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy
Page 3: TABLE OF CONTENTSPART 1: ..........
Page 6 and 7: 1 INTRODUCTIONLiverpool City Counci
Page 8 and 9: 2 BACKGROUNDTo provide the framewor
Page 10 and 11: In the period 1991 to 2001, the pop
Page 12 and 13: Table 3.3 Domestic Waste Collection
Page 14: 3.4.2 CurrentThe total current (200
Page 17: Dirt/Ash/Ceramics,6%Other, 13%Hazar
Page 21 and 22: Table 3.7: Comparison of DEC-Prefer
Page 23 and 24: Increased diversion can be achieved
Page 25 and 26: 4 WASTE LEGISLATION AND POLICY4.1 L
Page 27 and 28: • Reducing toxic substances in pr
Page 29 and 30: amounts to increasing the resource
Page 31 and 32: 5 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION OF
Page 33 and 34: OptionSingle Unit Dwellings Multi U
Page 35 and 36: Option 4For this option, garbage is
Page 40 and 41: • Assessment of alternative waste
Page 42 and 43: OptionTable 5.4: Assumed Extent of
Page 44 and 45: OptionGarbageTable 5.5: System Cost
Page 46 and 47: ) Environmental PerformanceThe envi
Page 48 and 49: Single Unit Dwellings2.0E+07Load CV
Page 50 and 51: Single Unit Dwellings$15$10Eco $/hh
Page 52 and 53: 5.2.4 ConclusionsOn the basis of th
Page 54 and 55: 6 ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Page 56 and 57: Waste Avoidanceand Resource Recover
Page 58 and 59: d) Action MatrixKey Actions Timefra
Page 60 and 61: Key Actions Timeframe Groups Involv
Page 64 and 65: The materials currently recovered f
Page 68 and 69:
6.4 Charging for Waste Management S
Page 70 and 71:
Key Actions Timeframe Groups Involv
Page 72 and 73:
Liverpool City Council (2004), Soci
Page 74 and 75:
d) Action MatrixKey Actions Timefra
Page 76 and 77:
6.7 Development Controls for Waste
Page 78 and 79:
6.8 Commercial and Industrial Waste
Page 80 and 81:
6.9 Household Clean-upa) Strategic
Page 82 and 83:
6.10 Multi Unit Dwellingsa) Strateg
Page 84:
6.11 Illegal Dumpinga) Strategic Ob
Page 88 and 89:
6.12 Problem Wastesa) Strategic Obj
Page 90 and 91:
d) Action MatrixKey Actions Timefra
Page 92 and 93:
6.13 Recovery and Disposal of Counc
Page 94 and 95:
Resource NSW (2003), Specification
Page 96 and 97:
NSW Department of Environment and C
Page 98 and 99:
7 CONCLUSIONSFrom the assessment of
Page 100 and 101:
8 REFERENCESDEC NSW & UNSW (2003),
Page 102 and 103:
Appendix AReview of Waste-Related L
Page 104:
However, it should be noted that th
show all

to view the WARR Strategy. - Liverpool City Council - NSW ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?