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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OptionTable 5.4: Assumed Extent of Processing at MBT FacilityWasteStabilisationThroughBiologicalTreatmentProduction ofOrganic RichFraction forBeneficial UseProduction ofBiogas withEnergyRecoverySorting ofWastes toRecover DryRecyclableMaterialsAssumedFacility GateFeeOption 1 & 3 Yes Yes No No $90/tOption 2 & 5 Yes Yes Yes No $100/tOption 4 & 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes $110/td) Garden Organics RecoveryFor Options 1 and 7, a separate garden organics recovery system is provided for Single UnitDwellings in Liverpool. Recovery rates and costs have been estimated based on recent costmodelling and survey work undertaken on behalf of DEC for garden organics recoveryprograms in Greater Sydney (DEC, 2003b and DEC, 2005), while taking account the proportionof garden organics present in Liverpool’s waste stream.5.2.3 Resultsa) Financial PerformanceThe financial performance of each option is summarised in Table 5.5 and Figure 5.3.Single Unit DwellingsOf the eight systems assessed, the lowest cost systems for Single Unit Dwellings are Option 3($179/hhld/yr), and the Existing System and Option 2 (each $189/hhld/yr).Option 3 achieves cost savings over the projected Existing System costs mainly from theintroduction of a fortnightly, commingled MGB kerbside recycling service compared to thecurrent kerbside recycling service.The estimated cost for Option 2 is equivalent to the projected Existing System costs. For thisoption, which includes a fortnightly commingled MGB kerbside recycling service andprocessing of garbage in an MBT facility (with energy recovery), the increased cost ofgarbage treatment compared to landfill disposal is offset by the cheaper kerbside recyclingservice cost compared to the Existing System.Options 1 and 7, which include kerbside collection programs for garden organics, are the nextmost expensive options, some $7/hhld/yr and $2/hhld/yr dearer than the Existing Systemrespectively.Liverpool City Council37Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy
The highest cost option is Option 6, which comprises a single bin twice-weekly garbagecollection service with processing of garbage at a high performing MBT (with energyrecovery and recovery of dry recyclable materials). The estimated total system cost forOption 6 is $248/hhld/y, some $59 hhld/yr higher than the projected Existing System cost of$189/hhld/yr.Multi Unit DwellingsFor Multi Unit Dwellings, each of the alternatives modelled are more expensive than theExisting System. This is because the Existing System does not include any resource recovery,with currently all waste collected as garbage and disposed to landfill. Of the seven optionsinvestigated, the cheapest is Option 6, a single bin system collected weekly (same aspresent) with processing of garbage at a high performing MBT (with energy recovery andrecovery of dry recyclable materials). Costs for Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, which each include afortnightly commingled MGB kerbside recycling service for MUDs, are of the same order (i.e.$143 - $155/hhld/yr). The highest cost option is Option 5 ($183/hhld/yr), which providesseparate fortnightly kerbside recycling collections for commingled containers and for paper.Liverpool City Council38Waste 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 and 18: Dirt/Ash/Ceramics,6%Other, 13%Hazar
Page 19 and 20: 3.6.1 Kerbside Recycling Yield, Con
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 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 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 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?