]]
Publications
Griffith University and the Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories, 1997
ISBN 0 868 57655 7
In this workshop participants are introduced to the general principles of community resource management through waste minimisation, the waste management hierarchy and the national goals related to landfill disposal and resource conservation.
In Australia today, significant volumes of solid waste are being produced from all sectors of the community, ranging from industry to the general public. In response, the Federal Government has developed a National Waste Minimisation Strategy to address the problems of waste generation and landfill disposal.The strategy is based on reducing the waste disposed on a weight per capita basis to achieve:
1. A 50 percent reduction in total municipal waste going to landfill by the year 2000 measured by weight per capita based on 1990 levels.
2. Domestic waste reduction of 50 percent per capita by the year 2000.
The government recognises that to achieve these goals, new policy initiatives are required. One such policy initiative is the National Kerbside Recycling Strategy. This strategy is aimed at achieving the following recycling targets by the year 2000:
During this workshop participants will:
Defining waste and outlining the Federal Government's National Waste Implementation Strategy.
An information session focusing on the waste management hierarchy and the general classification of community wastes. The processes involved in waste classification and analysis are discussed to emphasise their value as tools in measuring waste and monitoring progress in improving community waste management.
An activity to highlight the problems associated with community and household wastes. Typical components of the waste streams are identified and classified in accordance with the national system. The contribution made by individuals to the community problems associated with waste is investigated. Options for minimisation, reuse, recycling and disposal of domestic and school wastes are identified and discussed.
An activity involving the examination and representation of data relating to waste quantities and typical costs of treatment and disposal (e.g. minimisation can reduce costs while disposal always increases costs.) The economics of various options in the waste hierarchy are compared and discussed. Potential environmental impacts related to the various waste management options available to communities are identified.
An activity to develop waste management plans for the home or school.
Participants consider the use of a 'moving debate' in their own classrooms, and the feasibility of using a 'waste audit' for their own schools as a teaching strategy.
Note: If time is a constraint in conducting a workshop, it may be advisable to distribute lengthy readings to participants to read in advance of the workshop.Association of Municipal Engineers, Recycling Household Waste: The Way Ahead, Thomas Telford Ltd, London.
Brisbane City Council (1992) The Waste Guide: A Solid Waste Management Handbook for Industry and Commerce, Brisbane.
Forester, W. S. and Skinner, J. H. (1992) Waste Minimisation and Clean Technology: Waste Management Strategies for the Future, Academic Press, New York.
Haight, M. E. (1991) Municipal Solid Waste Management: Making Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Hubick, K. T. (1991) Management and Technologies of Wastes: A Perspective - Australia, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Australia.
National Strategy of Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) Australian Government Publishing Service, Queanbeyan.
Ralston, K. (1990) Working Greener: Sustainable Work Strategies for Organisations, Industry and Business, Green Press, Adelaide.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H. and Eliassen, R. (1977) Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Waste Management, Inc. and Piper and Marbury (1990) Waste Reduction: Policy and Practice, Executive Enterprises, New York.
Overhead Transparency Masters
OHT 1: National Waste Minimisation Strategy and Recycling Targets
OHT 2: The Waste Audit
OHT 3: Waste Management Hierarchy
Resources
Resource 1: The 4 RsResource 2: The National Waste Classification System
Resource 3: Typical Components of a School/Home Waste Stream
Resource 4: Waste Management Options
Resource 5: Domestic Waste Generation
Resource 6: Waste Audit Criteria for a Typical Home
Resource 7: Waste Types and Mass
Resource 8: Draft Solid Waste Classification System: Waste Composition
Resource 9: Australian Costs of Treatment/Disposal
Resource 10: Classroom Activity: The Moving Debate: Hear Me!
Activity 5: One blank OHT for each group of participants.
Ask participants to brainstorm on 'what is solid waste?' Suggestions should include food scraps, cans, bottles, paper, packaging, etc. Ask the question: Do we know the Federal Government has developed a National Waste Minimisation Strategy? and display OHT 1 to briefly outline the strategy.
Deliver a mini-lecture using Resources 1 and 2 and OHT 2 and 3 which cover the 4 Rs and the waste classification and analysis or waste audit concepts.
Distribute copies of Resource 3 to participants.
Working in small groups, ask participants to develop a definition of solid wastes and identify what waste types they feel could be either reduced, reused, recycled or disposed. Suggest they use these options as headings and list the waste types underneath them on large sheets of paper.
Distribute copies of Resources 4 and to participants. Ask groups to use this sheet to help them in selecting the best waste management option for each waste type.
Conduct a group discussion on the differences between waste management options selected by individual groups and the rationale for using that waste management option.
Optional activity: Participants could sort and weigh an actual bin sample. They should use tongs, and wear protective clothing, masks and gloves.Distribute copies of Resources 5-9 to participants. Working in small groups, ask participants to calculate the amount of waste by weight collected from a typical Australian home by completing the table in Resource 5. Ask them to consider:
Ask groups to compute the cost of their waste disposal using Resource 9. Ask:
Conduct a discussion to assess whether all groups agree on the cost/benefit.
Working in small groups, ask participants to develop a basic waste management plan for a household or school based on the data in Resource 6. The plan should incorporate elements of the Waste Management Hierarchy. Record the plan on an OHT.
Groups present their plans for general review and comment. Conduct a discussion addressing the following questions:Distribute copies of Resource 8, Resource 9 and Resource 10 to participants and ask them to consider the activity 'The Moving Debate: Hear Me!' for use in the classroom.
Ask them to list the responses for all sides of the argument which they would expect to get from their students.
In conclusion, ask participants to consider the use of a Waste Audit with their own students. Would such an 'audit' cause changes to waste generation and disposal in their own schools?
Objectives
National Kerbside Recycling Strategy Targets for 2000
Main objectives
Waste audit procedures
The 4 Rs
The main goal of the waste management hierarchy is to provide an order of preference for selection of appropriate waste management techniques. This order is based on the apparent effectiveness of each technique in conserving resources and protecting the environment against pollution. The components of the waste management hierarchy in order of decreasing preference are:
1. REDUCE (at source reduction)
2. REUSE (material basically remains in same form)
3. RECYCLE (usually implies some additional treatment or conversion process)
4. REMOVE (disposal, usually to landfill)
Note: This is in keeping with the Standards Australia, Committee MS59 draft definition of waste minimisation as inclusive of reduction, etc. Some authors consider reduction as equivalent to waste minimisation. The former SAA definition is adopted herein.
The following is an outline of the management issues associated with the above 'waste management hierarchy'.
Waste Reduction
Waste reduction has the greatest potential for conserving resources and protecting the environment by not producing or purchasing items which are superfluous to requirements. This is based on the simple assumption that items not required or used, sooner or later become 'waste'.
Two essential management issues need to be addressed when considering waste reduction solutions for community waste. These are:
In recent years many industries have adopted new technologies and management practices to reduce waste in the production and marketing of their products. Examples include concentrated washing detergents which require less packaging and the glass industry reducing the weight of bottles.
Despite these initiatives by the producers, the volume of waste in most Australian cities continues to increase. This trend suggests that the consumer is a significant part of the problem and more emphasis (i.e. education) is required to reverse this trend.
Most people are not aware of how easily they can reduce their waste, by, for example, avoiding wastage of paint by first calculating exactly how much paint is required before purchase or preparing only the amount of food required for a meal. Having shorter showers, not running the tap while brushing teeth and reducing the number of times a toilet is unnecessarily flushed are all ways in which water use can be minimised while also reducing the amount of waste water produced. (The group can suggest other examples.)
Reuse
Reuse is usually taken to mean the actual use of the product in its original form without additional processing other than, for example, cleaning. There is increasing pressure on suppliers to take back the major parts of the packaging waste stream and reuse these. This is most easily done with larger packages, wood pallets and the like. The consumer has the opportunity to reuse paper for wrapping items, plastic shopping bags and 'disposable' cups. The retreading of tyres is an example of reusing the tyre walls and basic frame essentially without full reprocessing.
A major problem in reuse is recognising opportunities to reuse products which are traditionally regarded as 'waste'. A problem of a different kind, however, frequently arises in the home. This involves the reuse of bottles to contain pesticides and other hazardous materials. Such reuse should be actively discouraged.
Recycling
Recycling has become one of the most accepted means of reducing municipal solid waste generated by the community by diverting material from the waste stream for reprocessing into similar products. (There is considerable debate as to whether milk bottles are recycled or reused. They are considered to be reused as they are not subject to processing. Milk cartons and aluminium cans, etc. are not refilled until they have been reprocessed back into 'new' containers). There are many types of wastes that can be recycled. These include glass, metals, plastics, rubber and leather, textiles and wood, and food and garden wastes. Some 'process' is used in each of these to create a new product.
The major problems associated with recycling are separation of recyclables from the waste stream and the related problem of obtaining recyclables free of contaminants. In some cases such as with plastics, the different chemical composition and properties of different types of plastics make reprocessing difficult. Contaminants such as ceramics in glass eventually prevent further reprocessing into new glass articles and the glass has to be disposed to landfill.
Separation can either be achieved 'at source' or at a community 'waste transfer station'. In many large cities a combination of both is used. Presently there are a number of recycling programs used to collect household wastes. These include: kerbside residential recycling and multifamily residential recycling (the former being the most popular).
Management issues requiring consideration in recycling from residential areas include:Source separation is an effective way to improve the performance of all facilities of waste management such as the effectiveness of recycling, quality of recovered materials and decreasing the costs of landfilling.
Recycling household waste can make good environmental and economic sense because recycling:
The treatment or processing of waste can range from destroying wastes such as tyres by incineration, composting green wastes and other organics into soil improvers or using waste gases such as methane to produce energy. Ask the group to assess the performance of a backyard composting unit.
Removal (Disposal)The most popular method of disposal of solid waste today is by landfill. In the past, local tips and landfills were badly designed and poorly managed resulting in groundwater pollution and unsightly dumps. However, they were a cheap method of disposal. As legislation relating to the environment has evolved, so has the design and management of landfills in Australia. Typical engineered landfills now consist of impermeable liners to prevent groundwater pollution, leachate collection systems, gas collection systems. They are continually monitored to ensure that they are performing correctly.
Landfills are no longer a cheap option for disposal and require consideration of many management issues. These include:
Another popular overseas method of disposal is incineration. There are many different types of incinerators capable of destroying wastes ranging from municipal solid wastes, hospital wastes and toxic and hazardous wastes. Operated in the correct manner, incinerators are capable of completely destroying wastes without producing harmful emissions.
An important aspect in the development of a waste management strategy for either a community or school is the way in which waste types are classified. Through an understanding of the National Waste Classification System, decisions relating to minimisation, reuse and recycling options can be made with greater certainty that the correct option has been adopted.
Waste characterisation and analysis is a starting point for identifying areas where waste reduction, reuse, recycling, treatment and disposal can be incorporated into an organisation's waste minimisation program. It is equally applicable to residential, school, business or industrial premises.
The main objectives are to:
This information can lead to:
| Home Wastes | School Wastes |
| Organic | Organic |
| Food wastes | Newspaper |
| Paper | Sanitary goods |
| Cardboard | Paper |
| Textiles | Cardboard |
| Rubber | Food wastes |
| Leather | Garden trimmings |
| Garden trimmings | Wood |
| Wood | Textiles |
| Disposable nappies, sanitary goods | Drink containers |
| Inorganic | Inorganic |
| Glass | Glass |
| Tin cans | Ferrous metals |
| Aluminium cans | Non-ferrous |
| Other metals | Paints/solvents |
| Batteries | Pesticides/fertilisers, cleaners and containers |
| Paints/solvents | Domestic cleaners |
| Oils | Furniture |
| Household cleaners | Batteries |
| Pesticides/fertilisers, cleaners and containers | Oils |
Reduction
Reuse
Recycling
Disposal
Alternative developing strategy involves seperate bin for organic materials - particularly greenwaste and putrescibles. Mixed clean wastes which are easily separated are placed in a second bin. Absence of putrescibles, allows pick up on a 'when full' basis.
Source: Waste Service NSW
Waste Generation from a Typical Australian Home on a Per Capita/Per Year Basis
Fill in the missing values for the totals of individual waste streams and the overall total.
| Kilograms/person/year | |
| Newsprint | 18 |
| Other clean paper | 9 |
| Soiled paper | 16 |
| Paperboard | 11 |
| Clean cardboard | 3 |
| Soiled cardboard | 3 |
| Disposable napkins | 3 |
| Total Paper | |
| Food waste | 83 |
| Garden waste | 62 |
| Total Food and Garden Waste | |
| Non deposit bottles | 26 |
| Other glass | 2 |
| Total Glass | |
| Steel cans | 10 |
| Other ferrous | 5 |
| Total Ferrous | |
| Aluminium cans | 1 |
| Other non ferrous | 2 |
| Total Non Ferrous | |
| PET Bottles | 1 |
| Other plastics | 22 |
| Total Plastics | |
| Wood | 2 |
| Textiles | 7 |
| Rubber | 2 |
| Footwear and leather | 2 |
| Total Wood, Textiles, etc. | |
| Total Ceramics, Dust, Ash, Rock | 1 |
| Total |
Note: Generation rates are based on people living in Metropolitan Sydney.
Source: Waste Management, Draft 2.
Goals:
The end result of these goals is to decrease the waste volume from a 240 litre bin per week to a 120 litre bin per fortnight.
Waste Generation from a Typical Australian Home on a Per Capita/Per Week Basis
Data from Resource 5 has been used for this exercise and is presented on a weekly basis. Assume an average household contains five people.
| Component | Kilogram/person/week |
| Newsprint | 0.35 |
| Other clean paper | 0.17 |
| Soiled paper | 0.31 |
| Paperboard | 0.21 |
| Clean cardboard | 0.06 |
| Soiled cardboard | 0.06 |
| Disposable napkins | 0.06 |
| Total Paper | 1.22 |
| Food waste | 1.60 |
| Garden waste | 1.20 |
| Total Food and Garden Waste | 2.80 |
| Non deposit bottles | 0.5 |
| Other glass | 0.04 |
| Total Glass | 0.54 |
| Steel cans | 0.19 |
| Other ferrous | 0.10 |
| Total Ferrous | 0.29 |
| Aluminium cans | 0.02 |
| Other non ferrous | 0.04 |
| Total Non Ferrous | 0.06 |
| PET Bottles | 0.02 |
| Other plastics | 0.42 |
| Total Plastics | 0.44 |
| Wood | 0.04 |
| Textiles | 0.13 |
| Rubber | 0.04 |
| Footwear and leather | 0.02 |
| Total Wood, Textiles, etc. | 0.25 |
| Total Ceramics, Dust, Ash, Rock | 0.21 |
| Total | 5.81 |
Source: Marsh, N. and Watt, C.A. (1994) Waste Audit of Main Refectory Kitchen, Griffith University, Waste management Research Unit, Griffith University, p. 5.
| P | P | NR | NR | NR | R | R | R | R | |||
| Bin | Rec | Non-rec | Card | Paper | Poly | Drink cartons | Tin, Steel | Glass | Alum | Organic Matter | Total Waste |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
200
|
60
|
10
|
100
|
5
|
20
|
|
|
|
3200
|
3590
|
| 2 |
80
|
620
|
200
|
40
|
|
|
400
|
|
5
|
3300
|
4640
|
| 3 |
|
360
|
60
|
160
|
5
|
|
60
|
|
|
2100
|
2745
|
| 4 |
|
240
|
380
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
11670
|
12410
|
| 5 |
|
700
|
200
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
5980
|
6950
|
| 6 |
|
840
|
20
|
280
|
|
20
|
280
|
380
|
320
|
3100
|
5240
|
| 7 |
|
400
|
320
|
300
|
|
10
|
100
|
|
5
|
10440
|
11560
|
| 8 |
|
520
|
100
|
220
|
|
|
|
|
|
1400
|
2240
|
| 9 |
|
20
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
340
|
370
|
| 10 |
40
|
280
|
|
60
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
1100
|
1530
|
| 11 |
140
|
780
|
360
|
400
|
5
|
10
|
40
|
120
|
5
|
7240
|
9080
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10200
|
10200
|
| Total |
460
|
4820
|
1650
|
1710
|
15
|
60
|
930
|
500
|
385
|
60070
|
70555
|
Notes: 1. All weights are in grams
2. P = plastics
3.NR = Non-recyclables
4. R = Recyclables
5. Rec = recyclable
6. Non-rec = non-recyclable
7. Poly = polystyrene
8. Alum = aluminium
| Material Detail | Material Detail |
| Paper | Newspaper Magazine Misc. packaging (P) Corrugated cardboard (P) Package board (P) Liquid paper containers (P) Disposable paper product Printing and writing paper (incl. books) Composite, mostly paper |
| Organic Compostable | Food/kitchen Garden Other putrescible |
| Other Organic | Wood-Furniture, packaging, offcuts Textiles Leather Rubber -Footwear, tyres, tubes Oils -Engine, lubricating, cooking oil |
| Glass | Packaging glass -Deposit/refillable containers -Non-dep/collect, Plate glass, Other glass |
| Plastic | 1 PET -Package, Non-package 2 HDPE -Package, Non-package 3 PVC -Package, Non-package 4 LDPE -Package, Non-package 5 Polypropylene -Package, Non-package 6 Polystyrene -Package, Non-package 7 Other Foams - PU, Foams - other, Film , Other 8 Composite, mostly plastic |
| Ferrous | Steel packaging -Cans, other packaging Other -white goods, other appliances, other Composite, mostly ferrous -Car bodies, other |
| Non Ferrous | Aluminium -Cans, other packaging, composites Other -Copper, other Composite, mostly non-ferrous, non- aluminium. |
| Household Hazardous | Paint Fluorescent tubes Dry cell batteries Car batteries |
| Household Chemicals | Pharmaceuticals Other h'hold chemicals |
| Others | Ceramics Dust/dirt/rock/inert Ash Special -Asbestos, pathogenic, infectious |
Costs of Landfill
There are two main reasons for the widespread shortage of landfill sites in the world today. Firstly, there has been an increase in resistance to waste disposal facilities being located within or near urban communities due to the associated third party effects such as a decrease in residential property values and perceived amenity losses. Secondly, market forces have led to the excessive consumption of landfill capacity as the price of waste disposal has often not incorporated the cost of replacing landfills as they are exhausted (i.e. the replacement cost). Furthermore, the fact that disposal costs by use of landfill have been set too low means that waste minimisation initiatives, recycling and waste processing industries have not been economically attractive.
The combination of a reduction in supply and market failure has had the dual effect of not just a reduction in supply of a finite and scarce resource, but over-consumption. In effect, the landfill site candle is being burnt at both ends.
Sydney has only six years landfill capacity available in the worst case scenario. However, with increased waste minimisation, the development of further recycling and processing industries and the establishment of some new landfills, the Waste Service has estimated that it could be 30-40 years or longer before disposal through large waste-to-energy plants or transport out of the region is necessary. Waste-to-energy plants to take care of Sydney's domestic waste could cost 'in the order of $500 million'. The next generation alone should not have to pay for this. Rather, it is sensible to take action now to conserve the landfill resource, by more accurately valuing waste disposal, thereby allowing market forces to correct the imbalance away from landfill.
Under the Strata Titles Act a body corporate is required to maintain a 'sinking fund' to cover the cost of maintaining its building in the long run. In much the same manner, it makes sense to make provision in the price charged for waste disposal for replacement, in the long run, of the depot being consumed. A calculation of the approximate amount that should be accrued per tonne of waste disposed of can be made by dividing the replacement cost of a landfill site (including set up costs) by the volume of capacity remaining.
Currently in Sydney, a charge of $3.25/tonne of waste disposed of is charged for replacement costs. Given increasing constraints on landfill capacity this charge is likely to rise. A comparison of Melbourne landfill replacement costs and studies in the UK indicate that an increase in the replacement cost of $5.25/tonne is required.
| Current Cost | Cost Sydney Future | Landfill Outside Crisis | Incineration | Disposal Capacity Sydney | |
| Disposal Cost $/t |
35
|
55-65
|
60-70
|
85
|
140
|
| Transport $/t |
5
|
5
|
35
|
5
|
5-35
|
| Total $/t |
40
|
60-70
|
95-105
|
90
|
145-175
|
| Cost $m/year |
80
|
120-140
|
190-210
|
180
|
280-350
|
| Process | Comparison | Capital Cost $m | Break Even Operating Cost $/t | $ Input Requiring Landfill After Processing |
| Landfill |
2 Mt
|
2
|
14
|
100
|
| Transfer and Landfill |
500/t/day
|
7
|
34
|
100
|
| Composting |
400/t/day
|
18-25
|
50-60
|
50
|
| Waste Derived Fuel |
400/t/day
|
12-15
|
40-50
|
65-70
|
| Materials Recovery |
400/t/day
|
20-25
|
45-60
|
75-90
|
| Incineration (+energy recovery) |
1000/t/day
|
120-150
|
70-80
|
30-40
|
Waste-to-Energy Conversion: Burning Wastes in an Incinerator
The waste-to-energy conversion process involves burning the waste to extract energy and reduce the mass and volume of waste going into landfills. The Waverly-Woollahra incinerator is currently the only example of burning waste on a reasonably large scale in Australia. About 160,000 tonnes of waste is incinerated annually in this plant; this amounts to about five per cent of the total quantity of waste disposed of in the Sydney region.
Transport Costs
The trend to higher environmental standards for landfilling in NSW has led to increased internalisation of the associated environmental damage cost. It is difficult to argue today that the cost to third parties is substantial, since there is every indication that the EPA will be effective in setting, policing and enforcing environmental standards for landfill operations Waste management is a transport intensive industry with significant traffic externalities. The third party costs arising from traffic congestion, road maintenance, etc. can be quantified at about 20 cents per truck km. For out-of-region landfilling with, say, five km primary haul and 150 km secondary haul, these costs would be between $3 and $4 per tonne of waste, while for landfilling in the region the figure would be at most $3/tonne. However, alternative activities such as recycling in themselves generate additional traffic in collection and transport of materials to reprocessing plants. The net traffic effects of alternative waste management activities therefore have to be established, before any judgment can be made about the effect of reduced landfilling on traffic-related third party costs. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary in a particular instance, it should be assumed that the traffic costs to third parties from recycling and resource recovery, per tonne of waste, are no less than the traffic costs to third parties from landfilling.
Divide students into three groups. Give each group a topic:
Preparation:
Ask groups to draft their own statements to explain their topics, and to appoint a spokesperson. Preparation could take one lesson.
Action:
Each spokesperson goes to a corner of the classroom, with the rest of the class in the centre.
On a signal, the first speaker starts speaking and the centre group moves to listen. Before the speech has finished, Speaker 2 is signalled to start, and some of the individual students may move to hear that speaker, or stay with the first. Then Speaker 3 starts and again the individual students can move. The teacher waits till the speakers have finished (speaker 1 may even have started again in a bid to attract an audience) and then calls 'stop'. Debriefing reviews how many students heard all three speakers, how many stayed with one, how many agreed with the speakers' views.
