REGIONAL
WASTE AUDIT
REPORT
for
SSROC
September 2011
APRINCE CONSULTING PTY LTD TRADING AS APC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ABN 96 077 504 226
TH 4/28 West St North Sydney, NSW 2060 ~ Phone: 612 9907 0994 Fax: 612 9907 0330
Web: www.aprince.com.au E-mail: admin@aprince.com.au
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
This report was researched and prepared by
APrince Consulting Pty Ltd trading as APC
ACN 077 504 226
Email: admin@aprince.com.au
Web: www.aprince.com.au
TH 4/28 West St
North Sydney NSW 2060
Phone: (02) 9907 0994
Fax: (02) 9907 0330
for
Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils
34 McMahon St
Hurstville NSW 2220
Phone: 9330 6455
Fax: 9330 6456
E-mail: www.ssroc.nsw.gov.au
 September 2011 APC
DISCLAIMER
Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in this
publication is made in good faith, but on the basis that APC is not liable (whether by
reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss
whatsoever, which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not
taking (as the case may be) action in respect to any representation, statement or advice
referred to here.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 2
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 5
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7
1.1
Objectives .................................................................................................. 7
1.2
Background ................................................................................................ 7
2
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 11
2.1
Project inception ...................................................................................... 11
2.2
Sample size .............................................................................................. 11
2.3
Sample selection ...................................................................................... 11
2.4
Sample collection ..................................................................................... 12
2.5
Sorting ...................................................................................................... 14
2.6
Quality assurance – data verification ....................................................... 15
3
Issues ..................................................................................................................... 15
4
Study limitations .................................................................................................. 16
5
Results .................................................................................................................. 17
5.1
Overall findings ....................................................................................... 17
5.2
General waste composition ...................................................................... 21
5.3
Recycling composition............................................................................. 26
5.4
Garden organics composition .................................................................. 31
5.5
Recovery rates .......................................................................................... 32
5.6
Diversion rates ......................................................................................... 33
5.7
Extrapolation of waste tonnage ................................................................ 35
5.8
Bin capacity utilised ................................................................................. 36
6
Comparision with previous audit data .............................................................. 39
7
Key findings ......................................................................................................... 47
Appendix A - Definitions ........................................................................................... 48
Appendix B - Sorting categories ............................................................................... 49
Appendix C - Overall detailed waste composition .................................................. 51
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 3
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 - Council collection systems – single dwellings ............................................... 7
Table 2 - Council collection systems – multi-unit dwellings ........................................ 8
Table 3 - Materials accepted in each recycling stream .................................................. 9
Table 4 - Previous waste audits ................................................................................... 10
Table 5 - Proportion of MUDs/SDs for each council .................................................. 12
Table 6 - Collection schedule ...................................................................................... 13
Table 7 - Issues that affected sample collection .......................................................... 15
Table 8 - Sample collections ........................................................................................ 17
Table 9 - Presentation rates .......................................................................................... 19
Table 10 – Proportion of bagged material in each waste stream ................................. 20
Table 11 - Percentage of recyclable material in the general waste stream .................. 22
Table 12 - Number of items ......................................................................................... 24
Table 13 - Average weight of garbage per household per week (kgs) – all dwellings 25
Table 14 - Average weight of recycling per household per week (kgs) – by Council 28
Table 15 - Detailed breakdown of contaminants ......................................................... 30
Table 16 - Detailed diversion rates .............................................................................. 34
Table 17 - Extrapolation of annual waste generation .................................................. 35
Table 18 - All dwellings general waste stream ............................................................ 51
Table 19 - Overall recycling stream composition ........................................................ 53
Table 20 - Overall garden organics stream composition ............................................. 54
Figure 1 - Overall consolidated general waste composition ........................................ 21
Figure 2 - Overall detailed composition of the general waste stream .......................... 23
Figure 3 - Weight of general waste in SDs and MUDs ............................................... 25
Figure 4 - Consolidated composition of the recycling stream –inc bagged material... 26
Figure 5 - Consolidated recycling composition –bagged material dispersed .............. 26
Figure 6 – Detailed recycling composition .................................................................. 27
Figure 7 - Consolidated recycling composition by weight .......................................... 28
Figure 8 – Main recycling contaminants ..................................................................... 29
Figure 9 - Overall garden organics bin composition ................................................... 31
Figure 10 - Weight of garden organics bins ................................................................. 31
Figure 11 - Recovery rates ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 12 - Diversion rates .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 13 - Waste generation per stream per week ...................................................... 35
Figure 14 – Average (mean) volume of SD general waste bins utilised ..................... 36
Figure 15 – Average (mean) volume of SD recycling bins used ................................. 36
Figure 16 – Average (mean) volume of SD organics bins used .................................. 37
Figure 17 – Average volume of general waste bins utilised in MUDs by council ...... 37
Figure 18 – Average volume of recycling bins utilised in MUDs by council ............. 38
Figure 19 – Average volume of garden organics bins utilised in MUDs by council ... 38
Figure 20 - Consolidated composition of general waste – previous audits ................. 39
Figure 21 - Consolidated composition of recycling – previous audits ........................ 40
Figure 22 - Weekly weight of waste stream by household – previous audits.............. 41
Figure 23 - Volume of bins used – previous audits ..................................................... 42
Figure 24 - Recovery rates – all dwellings – previous audits ...................................... 43
Figure 25 - Diversion rates – SDs - previous audits .................................................... 44
Figure 26 - Diversion rates – MUDs – previous audits ............................................... 45
Figure 27 - Diversion rates – all dwellings – previous audits...................................... 46
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 4
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APC Environmental Management (APC) undertook a kerbside domestic waste audit
from 13 SSROC councils between March – July 2011. The 13 member councils
include Ashfield, Bankstown, Burwood, Canterbury, Hurstville, Kogarah, Leichhardt,
Marrickville, Randwick, Rockdale, Sutherland, Waverley and Woollahra Councils.
This is the fifth regional waste audit undertaken over the past 12 years providing a
very comprehensive data set for comparison despite slightly different methodologies
used each year.
In 2011 general waste, recycling and garden organics bins from 220 households in
each council were sampled. The methodology was based on the Guidelines for
Conducting Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW
Local Government Areas 2008 and the Addendum 2010. Samples were randomly
selected from both single dwellings (SDs) and multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) to
provide a representative proportion of each dwelling type in each council.
In total 6,869 bins were collected over 112 separate collections from 9,020
households. The samples were weighed, sorted and categorised into 71 categories
specified by DECCW. The project in the field took over 6,700 man-hours to collect
and sort 69.5 tonnes of municipal waste. This comprised 38 tonnes of residual waste,
15.9 tonnes of recyclables and 15.6 tonnes of garden organics which were sorted at
the Waverly Council depot.
Each council was provided a report outlining their individual results. This report
summarises the findings of the region as a whole outlining individual council’s results
against the regional average. Findings from the previous audits have been used as a
basis for longitudinal comparison.
The key findings of the audit were:
General waste generation – Households produced between 7.9 and 14.1kg of general
waste per week with an average of 9.7kg across the region. This is an increase from
9kg per household in 2008, and 8.6kg in 2005.
Composition of general waste stream – Food is the largest component of the general
waste stream in all councils averaging 37%, this is slightly less than 42% in 2008.
There are less recyclables in the general waste stream in 2011 with 6.2% recyclable
paper and card, compared to 7.8% in 2008; and 6.4% containers compared to 7.7% in
2008.
Vegetation in the general waste stream – The proportion of vegetation in the general
waste stream has increased slightly in 2011 to 6.1%, compared to 5.7% in 2008.
General waste-bin capacity – The average (mean) volume of general waste bins used
in single dwellings in was 72%. This is down from 78% in 2008.
Recycling generation – The amount of recycling generated from the average single
dwelling household was 5.3kg per week up from the 4.5kg produced in 2008.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 5
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Composition of the recycling stream – The recycling stream comprised 55% paper
and cardboard, slightly less than the 58% in 2008. Containers comprised 34% the
same as recorded for the 2008 audit.
Contamination – Contamination in the recycling system was 11% the significantly
higher than 7.5% in 2008 as a result of the different sort categories used in 2011.
Recycling-bin capacity – The average volume of recycling bins used in single
dwellings in 2011 was 74% compared to 82% in 2008.
Garden organics generation – The amount of garden organics generated was 2.8kg in
2011 compared to 4.9kg in 2008. This difference is partly attributed to the different
audit methodology used in 2008.
Garden organics bin capacity - The average bin capacity used in SDs was 72% in
2011 and 78% in 2008.
Garden organics contamination – The garden organics contamination rate was 3.1%
in 2011 compared to 1.8% in 2008.
Recovery rates – Overall recovery in 2011 was 79% compared to 84% in 2008.
Diversion – The diversion rate of 41% is down from 47% recorded in 2008. The
potential additional diversion possible if all garden organics and recyclables were
recovered is 10.8%.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 6
Regional Waste Audit
1
SSROC
INTRODUCTION
Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) requested that APC
Environmental Management (APC) conduct a domestic waste audit as per the NSW
Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH formerly DECCW) Waste and
Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) requirements. Accordingly the agreed
methodology is the Guidelines for Conducting Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling
and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local Government Areas 2008 including the
audit Guideline Addendum 2010.
SSROC represents 16 councils in the Southern Sydney metropolitan area, with
approximately 1.2 million people and 400,000 properties. In 2011 thirteen member
councils participated in the domestic kerbside audit, including Ashfield, Bankstown,
Burwood, Canterbury, Hurstville, Kogarah, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Randwick,
Rockdale, Sutherland, Waverley and Woollahra Councils.
APC conducted the regional kerbside audits for SSROC councils in 1999, 2001, 2005,
2008 and 2011. Previous audit data has been used for comparison for each council and
the region as a whole. In the past Botany Bay and City of Sydney have also
participated in the regional audit however this is the first time Bankstown has
participated in the SSROC audit The different demographics and collection
infrastructure in the participating councils may have affected the regional results
slightly.
Waste terms used in the audit report have been defined in Appendix A.
1.1 Objectives
This project has four main objectives. These are to:
1. Establish the character, amount, type and proportion of materials in the
selected waste streams to be audited.
2. Determine the recovery rate of each category of recycled materials identified.
3. Identify the type of contamination (hazardous or otherwise) in the recycling
stream.
4. Measure changes to household waste management since the previous waste
audit.
1.2 Background
The table below shows the details of the general waste, recycling and garden organics
collection system for each council.
Table 1 - Council collection systems – single dwellings
Council
Ashfield
General waste
Bin Size Frequency
120L
Weekly
Recyclables
Bin Size
Frequency
240L
Fortnightly
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
120L
120L
140L
120L
120L
240L
240L
240L
240L
240L
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Green Waste
Bin Size
Frequency
240L
Fortnightly
(opt in)
240L
Fortnightly
240L
Fortnightly
240L
Fortnightly
240L
Fortnightly
240L
Fortnightly
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 7
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Council
Leichhardt
General waste
Bin Size Frequency
55/80/
Weekly
120L
Marrickville
140L
Weekly
Rockdale
Randwick
Sutherland
Waverley
240L
120L
120L
140L
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Recyclables
Bin Size
Frequency
55L
crate Fortnightly
/120L paper on alternate
& containers
weeks
240L
Fortnightly
240L
240L
240L
140L paper
140L
containers
Woollahra
55/120L Twice
2x55L/ 120L/
weekly/
240L
Weekly
Paper
&
containers
1 - Optional service used by about half of households
Green Waste
Bin Size
Frequency
55/80/120 or Fortnightly
240L
140/240L
Fortnightly
Opt in 1
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
No service
240L
240L
80/140/240L
optional
Weekly
55L
240L
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Weekly
includes food
waste
Table 2 - Council collection systems – multi-unit dwellings
Recyclables
Bin Size
Frequency
240 L/ 2 units Weekly
240L/2 units
Fortnightly
Green Waste
Bin Size
Frequency
240lt
Fortnightly
240L
Fortnightly
240L
Weekly
240L
Canterbury
General waste
Bin Size
Frequency
240 L/2 units
Weekly
240L/ 660L/ Weekly, 21100L
3 times/wk
240 L/2 units 1a Weekly
+ some 660lt
240L/2 units
Weekly
240L/3 units
Weekly
Hurstville
240L/ 4 units
240L/ 3 units
Weekly
Kogarah
120L or 240L /
2 units
Twice
weekly
Weekly
240L /5 Fortnightly.
units
No service
240L/3 units
Weekly
240L
Fortnightly
Leichhardt*
240L/2-4 units
Weekly
Weekly
240L
Fortnightly
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Marrickville
240L/ 2 units
Weekly
120 or 240L
paper
120 or 240L
containers
240L/ 2 units
Randwick
240L/2 units
Weekly
240L/2 units
Fortnightly
Rockdale
240L/ 4 units
240L/ 4 units
Weekly
Sutherland
240L/ 2 units
Twice
weekly
Weekly
240L/2 units
Fortnightly
Waverley
240L/3 units
Twice
weekly
Fortnightly
Woollahra
55L, 120L or
240L
Weekly,
twice
weekly or
more
frequently
140L
containers
140L paper/
8 units
240L paper/
240L
containers
Fortnightly
Weekly
Fortnightly
Weekly
140/
Fortnightly
240L
Not included due to low
usage
No service
240L/4
units
240L max
2/property
Fortnightly
120L
240L
Weekly
or
Fortnightly
optional
service
1a- Some MUDs have 660-litre bins, but these were not included in the audit.
*Also have food waste service but none of the selected MUDs presented food waste bins.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 8
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Materials accepted in each recycling stream are shown in Table 3. For the purposes of
the regional analysis it is assumed that all councils accept the same materials which
are recovered at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). All recycling is analysed
together regardless of whether the council has a two, three or four stream collection.
The only exceptions in materials accepted are Marrickville who accept steel pots and
pans for recycling; Bankstown that don’t accept ‘other putrescible waste in their
garden organics and Woollahra that accept food waste in their garden organics.
Table 3 - Materials accepted in each recycling stream
Recycling - accepted
Newspaper
Magazines/Brochures
Paper Packaging
Corrugated Cardboard
Flat Cardboard
Liquid Paper Containers
Print/ Writing/ Office Paper
Glass Drink Containers
Other Packaging Glass
Glass Fines
PET Drink Containers
PET Packaging
HDPE Drink Containers
HDPE Packaging
PVC Containers
PVC Packaging
LDPE Packaging
Polypropylene Packaging
PS Packaging
Steel Drink Containers
Steel Packaging
Aluminium Drink Cans
Aluminium Packaging
Garden organics –accepted
Vegetation
Other Putrescible
Not accepted
Disposable Paper Product
Composite (Mainly Paper)
Contaminated Soiled Paper
Other Glass
PET Other
HDPE Other
PVC Other
LDPE Other
Polypropylene Other
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)
Packaging
Polystyrene Packaging & EPS
other
Polystyrene Other
Other Plastic
Composite Mostly Plastic
Plastic Bags
Plastic Film
Steel Other
Aluminium Other
Containerised Food and Liquid
Not accepted
Everything Else
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 9
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
APC has conducted other waste audits in each council. The number of general waste
bins collected in each of the previous audits by council outlined in Table 4.
Table 4 - Previous waste audits
51
53
43
46
54
44
50
48
49
50
535
158
261
107
89
90
359
49
304
104
108
152
122
120
104
116
91
103
104
2366
204
158
147
148
204
168
160
153
174
153
158
1737
162
150
152
154
156
165
151
165
151
159
148
162
325
634
148
152
162
154
150
150
152
1685
Total
107
120
2008
Regional
2007
2006
2005
Regional
2004
2003
2002
2001
Regional
2000
1997
1995
1993
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
Region
1999
Regional
Council
260
537
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
3900
367
1076
418
1355
712
966
615
892
686
733
723
853
1139
12350
The previous regional audit data has been used for historical trend analysis later in
this report.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 10
Regional Waste Audit
2
SSROC
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Project inception
On being awarded the project APC staff met with the SSROC project managers to
clarify the strategic and logistical aspects of the audit. APC’s project manager then
liaised directly with each council to confirm the specific operational requirements for
their audit.
APC undertakes is own safety inductions prior to every project. Even though we are
utilising experienced waste auditors and collection crews we undertake refreshers in
all aspects of the work. An induction was conducted at the Waverley Council Works
Depot, where the audit sorting was being undertaken, on the first day of the physical
audit. Any new casual staff that joined the project during the 4 months also undertook
a safety briefing.
2.2 Sample size
The WaSIP criteria and Addendum 2010 requires that “matched pair” data (ie. general
waste and recycling bins from the same household) from 220 households is required
to measure household behaviour, including waste generation, composition, recovery
and diversion. For three council’s containers and paper recycling are collected
separately APC collected bins from any household presenting both a general waste
and one of the two recycling bins. SSROC requested that APC also collect garden
organics from the selected 220 households that presented a garden organics bin.
2.3 Sample selection
As recycling and garden organics are generally collected on alternate weeks
fortnightly the general waste and recycling were collected the first week, garden
organics were collected from the same household the following week.
When selecting streets for sampling the Guidelines specify that:
‘at the street level within each collection zone, the recommended number of
households should be selected randomly. Any appropriate random sampling regime
will be acceptable for this purpose.1’
In most councils four streets were selected each night, along with two reserve streets
in case there were any issues with the preferred streets. APC selected samples
randomly from the bin database provided by each Council.
For multi-unit dwellings the Guidelines recommend that:
‘for those areas where a high proportion (greater than 10%) of MUDs exist, that
stratified sampling is used as opposed to simple random sampling alone. This will
involve identifying the ratio of SUDs to MUDs and altering sample sizes accordingly
to accommodate these proportions’.2
The Addendum 2010 also recommends that:
1
Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local
Government Areas 2008 , 4.3 p9
2
Addendum 2010 to Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in
NSW Local Government Areas section 8 Page 5
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 11
Regional Waste Audit


SSROC
At least 10 individual MUD properties should make up the entire sample.
High rise (more than three storeys) should be avoided
The reason for doing this is to avoid any one or two large MUD properties skewing
the overall MUD results and to allow for a larger number of MUD samples to be
taken as part of the sampling regime.
Each of the SSROC councils has more that 10% MUDs and a representative portion
of the sample was made up of MUD properties.
Table 5 - Proportion of MUDs/SDs for each council
Council
Total Samples
SD Sample Size
MUD Sample size
Waste Stream Total Sample
Ashfield
220
123
97
GRO
660
Bankstown
220
191
29
GRO
660
Burwood
220
143
77
GRO
660
Canterbury
220
141
79
GRO
660
Hurstville
220
163
57
GRO
660
Kogarah
220
145
75
GRO
660
Leichardt
220
165
55
GPCO
880
Marrickville
220
139
81
GRO
660
Randwick
220
108
112
GRO
660
Rockdale
220
141
79
GR
440
Sutherland
220
174
46
GRO
660
Waverley
220
90
130
GPCO
880
Woollahra
220
103
117
GPCO
880
Total
2860
1826
1034
9020
2.4 Sample collection
The Guidelines specify that ‘data should be collected on a household by household
basis (bin-by-bin)’’3 rather than all samples aggregated together. This specification
means that samples are collected manually from each selected household. The
Guidelines prevent automated collection and aggregation of samples.
The Addendum specifies that ‘every second to fifth bin is selected from the start
address.’ This allows for non-presentation of bins by some households and the next
household being used as the replacement sample. It also reduces results being affected
by households that put material in their neighbour’s bins. APC collected bins from
every second household.
All evening collections were commenced around 7pm and were completed prior to
11pm on the night prior to the scheduled collection while morning collections
commenced at 4am, the same morning as the waste collection and were completed by
8am. . For the majority of councils APC commenced general waste and recycling
3
Addendum to Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW
Local Government Areas section 5 page 4
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 12
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
sample collections on the night prior to the normal collection service however
Randwick and Canterbury nominated morning collections for both streams,
Bankstown requested evening collections only. The St George (Rockdale, Kogarah
and Hurstville) audit was integrated over four weeks due to their shared collection
system.
Table 6 - Collection schedule
Council
Woollahra
Canterbury
Marrickville
Burwood
Ashfield
Waverley
Liechhardt
Hurstville
Kogarah
Rockdale
Week
Commence
6 Mar pm
20 Mar am
27 Mar am
27 Mar pm
3 April am
3 Apr pm
10 Apr am
10 Apr pm
17 Apr am
24 April
1 May pm
8 May am
8 May pm
15 May am
15May pm
22 May am
22 May pm
29 May am
29 May pm
Sutherland
Bankstown
Randwick
5 June pm
12 June am
12 June pm
19 June am
26 June pm
26 June am
3 July pm
Sunday
GPCO
Monday
Tuesday
GPCO
GPCO
GR
GR
O
O
GR
GR
GR
O
O
GR
GR
GR
O
O
GR
GR
GR
O
O
No collection due to Easter
GP
GP
GP
CO
CO
GP
GP
OC
C
Rock GR Hurst
Kog
GR
GR
Liech O
Hurst O
Rock
Hurst
Kog
GR
GR
GR
Hurst O
Rock
Kog
GR
GR
GR
GR
GR
Kog O
O (PH)
O
Public Holiday
GR
GR
GR
O
O
GR
GR
GR
O
O
Wed
Thurs
GPCO
GR
O
GR
O
GR
O
GR
O
GPCO
GR
O
GR
O
GR
O
GR
O
GP
CO
GP
C
Rock
GR
Kog O
Rock
GR
Kog O
GP
CO
GP
C
Hurst
GR
GR
GR
O
O
GR
O
GR
O
GR
O
GR
O
Friday
GR
O
O
O
O
CO
C
Hurst O
Hurst
GR
Hurst O
O
O
O
The contents of the presented bin were emptied into a sample bag. A collection sheet
was used to assign a code for each sample location. Each bag was coded to identify its
contents, source and waste stream.
To ensure only positive public relations with the community each Council provided a
representative to accompany the collection crew for the duration of the sample
collection each night/morning as a point of contact for residents. A letter, on Council
letterhead, explaining the program was provided to any residents who had concerns
that couldn’t be immediately addressed. This prevented any lengthy delays to the
collection process.
APC’s collection crew consisted of three people, two collectors, who empty the bins
and one collection supervisor who drove the vehicle, recorded sample data, estimated
bin contents by volume, recorded bin size and labelled sample bags. In this way
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 13
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
accurate data collection is guaranteed and safe work conditions provided for staff.
APC used a bespoke designed bin lifter to reduce OH & S issues associated with
manual handling.
Where households didn’t present a bin the following procedure was followed as
specified in the Guidelines:
‘(i) Record non presented MGBs as “non presenters” on the recording sheets
(ii) Where a bin is not presented at a household which has been included in the sample, data
collectors should move to the neighbouring household, bagging and analysing the contents as
per these Guidelines.’4
2.5 Sorting
Sorting was conducted at Waverley Council’s Works Depot. Collected material
deposited at the sorting site was separated into the appropriate waste streams (general
waste, recycling and garden organics). The Addendum lists 68 sorting categories
specified as part of the audit. There are a number of changes to the categories since
the 2008 methodology, which include removing the colour separation of glass,
separating plastics by type into recyclable beverage containers, non-beverage
packaging and non-packaging, rather than just by polymer type. This has provided a
more accurate contamination level and will assist further with AWT planning. With
agreement from the OEH (then DECCW) and SSROC four additional categories were
included by APC - containerised food and liquid, plastic bags, plastic film and
separation of PS packaging (recyclable) and EPS packaging (non-recyclable). Overall
71 sort categories have been used. The categories and descriptions are shown in
Appendix B.
Each stream from each household was sorted separately, the code number and bag
weight was recorded on the top of the sorting sheet, and the bag was then opened and
tipped on to the sorting table.
The methodology requires a preliminary sort of ‘bagged’ material from loose waste.
The purpose of this step is to determine the proportion of material contained in bags
and therefore not available for recovery at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) or
Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) facility without added equipment (ie. bag
breakers or shredders to access the waste or recyclables). For each household and
waste stream any material in household shopping or general waste bags was weighed
separately. The bagged waste was then placed on the sort table, opened and the
contents added in with the remainder of the material to be sorted by category.
Separated materials were placed in appropriate containers labelled by category,
weighed on a set of electronic scales and the weight recorded. All electronic scales
were calibrated just prior to commencing the SSROC audit.
Sorted material was placed into general waste and garden organics bins provided by
Waverley Council or recycling bins provided by Visy Recycling.
4
Guidelines for Conducting Household Kerbside Residual Waste, Recycling and Garden Organics Audits in NSW Local
Government Areas 4.4 p9
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 14
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
2.6 Quality assurance – data verification
A number of techniques and procedures were used to check and verify data. When
samples were unloaded from the collection trucks, the codes on the bags were
checked against the codes recorded as collected. During the sorting phase, as each bag
was weighed for sorting, the code was again checked against the list of codes recorded
as having been collected. Collectors recorded when more than one bag was used to
collect a sample at any property so that sorters knew how many bags there should be
for each property.
At the data-entry stage, each coded sheet on which sorting data was recorded was
checked again against the collection entry for that sample. Also the weight of each
bag recorded before sorting was checked against the total weight of the sorted
components and any significant differences were investigated.
APC has invested in a computer model to assist with the analysis of audits; this allows
systematic error checking at the data entry stage and ensures consistency in layout and
the design of charts.
3 ISSUES
Given the scale of the project with over 6,869 samples collected from 116 suburbs on
112 separate collection times, and the logistics due to variations in each council’s
collection system, vehicle start times, street configurations and resourcing required
the number of issues that arose was minimal. However, there were some issues that
have affected the data interpretation for some council’s which are outlined in Table 7.
Table 7 - Issues that affected sample collection
Council
Burwood
Issue
Two garden organics streets missed
Canterbury
Two garden organics street missed
Kogarah
One bag excluded due to paint and chemicals
spilt throughout bag
Two garden organics street missed
Marrickville
Randwick
4 garden organics bins excluded as over
40kg/bin
Sutherland
One garden organics street missed
Two general waste samples not sorted due to
oil and paint throughout contents.
1 recycling bin not collected, over 40kg.
Impact on data
Reduced the recovery and diversion
rates
Reduced the recovery and diversion
rates
Nil, considered an anomaly that
would have skewed data.
Reduced the recovery and diversion
rates
Would have created an atypical
contamination level as council
would not have collected the bins
Unsorted samples and their matched
pairs excluded from the audit,
reducing sample size slightly.
The purpose of this methodology is to capture waste behaviour for a household. The
matched household data has caused the garden organics sample to be quite low in
some councils, particularly those with an opt in service. The smaller sample size for
organics has caused the waste generation, diversion and recovery rates to be lower for
most councils than reported in 2008.
The different methodology in 2011 has increased nearly all council’s contamination
rates from previous years. This is explained in more detail in section 5.3.4.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 15
Regional Waste Audit
4
SSROC
STUDY LIMITATIONS
The data for this study was collected and analysed using the best and most accurate
methods available within the constraints of available time and budget. This study is a
survey, which means that a relatively small amount of data has been collected and
then treated as representative of the total. As in any survey there are limitations to the
accuracy of the data, as described below:
Timeframe: This audit was carried out over five days, with samples distributed
carefully over the geographic area of the subject area. The data was then used as being
representative of the whole Council. It should be noted that seasonal trends (eg.
warmer weather leading to increased consumption of beverages), seasonal
celebrations (eg. Easter, Christmas) and the impact of weather events (eg. high rainfall
leading to grass growth and larger amounts of organic waste) may change waste
generation over time. Thus, the results of this audit should be treated with due caution
when analysing this report or comparing it to reports based on data taken at different
times of year.
Representative sample: The sample for this audit is necessarily small due to the high
per capita cost and resource-intensive nature of waste auditing. There is always a
small probability of inadvertently collecting waste from atypical households, resulting
in non-representative data. APC audits are carried out using strict random sampling,
stratified by geographic area, to minimise the chance of this situation occurring.
Weight-based analysis: The collection of data for this audit was recorded by weight.
This type of collection may cause some materials to appear to be present in quite
small proportions due to their comparatively low densities (eg. plastic beverage
containers) however they can and do consume large amounts of volume. Weightbased analysis has been used in this audit because it is a standard procedure and is the
most accurate way to collect data on a number of different types of materials.
Limitations of sample size: All surveys carry an element of sampling error which is
the mathematical error associated with using a sample to represent a total population.
Sampling error can be reduced by taking larger samples. The sampling error involved
in waste audits is usually small and can be tabulated by producing estimates
augmented by upper and lower confidence intervals.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 16
Regional Waste Audit
5
SSROC
RESULTS
All data in this section is weight-based unless otherwise stated. The results of the
audit have been graphically represented in charts and tables, which show the various
characteristics of the waste stream with detailed explanations. Some percentages have
been rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore some figures and
descriptions may not add up to 100%.
The results have been divided into sections:
 Overall findings –samples collected, presentation rates and bagged waste
 General waste composition
 Recycling composition
 Garden organics composition
 Bin utilisation by volume
 Comparison with previous audit results
The main findings and analysis have been summarised in the following section ‘Key
Findings’. Details of data used in composition charts are available in Appendix C.
5.1
5.1.1
Overall findings
Samples collected
The table below shows the number of samples collected by waste stream for each
council. The proportion of MUDs and SDs collected directly correlates with the
proportion of MUDs or SDs that make up the councils housing demographics. Overall
6,869 samples were collected with 63% of all properties sampled were SDs and 37%
were MUDs.
Table 8 - Sample collections
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
Total SSROC
Suburbs
sampled
4
12
5
11
9
9
5
7
7
14
16
9
8
116
No. of general
waste bins
SDs
MUDs
127
108
191
36
147
69
144
81
164
60
145
86
168
59
139
81
110
120
144
75
175
52
90
131
104
114
1,848
1,072
No. of recycling
bins
SDs
MUDs
127
108
191
36
147
61
144
81
164
60
145
86
168
59
139
81
110
120
144
75
175
52
90
131
104
114
1,848
1,064
No. of organics
bins
SDs
MUDs
47
12
97
18
72
12
79
25
91
0
81
40
29
13
59
32
48
0
0
0
75
30
26
16
51
84
755
282
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 17
Regional Waste Audit
5.1.2
SSROC
Presentation rates
As well as recording the number of properties presenting bins, sample collectors also
recorded the number not presenting bins. The presentation rates in Table 9 were
calculated by dividing the total number of selected properties passed during the
collection by the number of properties recorded as presenting bins. The Guidelines
required that matched pairs were collected so if a property presented only one of the
two streams the bins were left and the next property was audited.
The accurate calculation of participation rates should be made by sampling a large
number of households over several weeks of the general waste, recycling and garden
organics collection cycles. The presentation rates in this table are based on bins
presented at the time of sample collection and may not reflect the true presentation or
participation rates.
Figure 1 and Table 9 outlined the bin presentation rates by waste stream overall and
by council. The highest presentation rates were generally for MUDs where each of the
selected properties presented bins. For SDs the average presentation rate for general
waste were 72% and for recycling 69%. Garden organics was the stream with the
lowest presentation rate for both MUDs (33%) and SDs (32%).
Figure 1 Bin presentation rates
100%
98%
98%
86%
90%
81%
72%
79%
79%
80%
70%
85%
69%
68%
69%
58%
60%
SDs
50%
MUDs
40%
33% 32%33%
Overall
30%
20%
10%
0%
General waste Co-mingled
recycling
Containers
recycling
Paper / card
recycling
Organics
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 18
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Table 9 - Presentation rates
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC average
Dwelling
type
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
SDs
MUDs
Overall
General
waste
59%
100%
74%
79%
100%
83%
74%
100%
82%
80%
100%
87%
71%
100%
79%
68%
95%
78%
86%
100%
90%
71%
100%
81%
78%
100%
89%
65%
100%
76%
66%
100%
73%
67%
100%
86%
72%
80%
76%
72%
98%
81%
Comingled
recycling
55%
100%
71%
77%
100%
81%
72%
88%
77%
80%
100%
87%
67%
100%
76%
66%
95%
77%
Containers
recycling
Paper /
card
recycling
49%
100%
62%
80%
76%
79%
63%
79%
72%
61%
80%
71%
58%
86%
68%
66%
100%
86%
61%
80%
71%
69%
85%
79%
70%
100%
80%
78%
100%
89%
63%
100%
74%
66%
100%
73%
69%
98%
79%
Organics
19%
0%
12%
42%
50%
43%
35%
17%
30%
44%
31%
39%
43%
43%
46%
39%
43%
14%
25%
17%
27%
40%
31%
32%
32%
31%
49%
34%
29%
12%
19%
36%
58%
47%
33%
32%
33%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 19
Regional Waste Audit
5.1.3
SSROC
Bagged vs unbagged waste
The Guidelines require that each bag is pre-sorted to determine the weight of items in
each bin that are bagged. This is defined as any items that are in a tied shopping bag
or general waste bag. It does not include items in plastic wrap, bread bags or other
smaller bags.
The purpose of the pre-sorted bagged waste is to determine the component of each
waste stream that would need pre-treatment in a waste processing facility. For
example, in an Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) facility, bagged material may need
to be processed through a bag opener. In a garden organics composting operation or
MRF, bagged material would be treated as a contaminant and removed.
Table 10 outlines the proportion of bagged vs unbagged material for each material
stream. General waste was the only stream comprising significant amounts of bagged
material. Of all general waste 67% was presented in shopping or rubbish bags. This
ranged from 55% to 84% in individual councils.
Interestingly very little of the recyclables were presented in bags. Most councils had
less than 1% of recyclables in bags. One council had 3.6%, the majority of which
appeared to be general waste resulting from overfull general waste bins.
Garden organics bins also had an insignificant proportion of bagged material 0.2% on
average. The highest was 1.3%.
Table 10 – Proportion of bagged material in each waste stream
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC average
General
waste
57.0%
65.2%
56.5%
54.9%
73.8%
76.8%
63.9%
62.4%
78.0%
55.6%
83.7%
73.4%
69.8%
67.0%
Co-mingled
recycling
1.3%
1.7%
0.9%
0.4%
0.2%
1.0%
Containers
recycling
Paper / card
recycling
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.4%
3.6%
0.0%
1.0%
Organics
0.4%
0.3%
1.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 20
Regional Waste Audit
5.2
5.2.1
SSROC
General waste composition
Overall consolidated general waste composition
Figure 2 shows the composition of the general waste stream from all dwellings
audited consolidated into some key categories.
The methodology required that bagged material be weighed separately prior to
sorting. The proportion of bagged material in the general waste stream is 67%. The
bags were then opened and the contents sorted with the rest of the unbagged waste.
Figure 2 shows the composition of the waste including all the bagged material.
The largest proportion of the stream is food waste, 37%. Of the general waste stream,
19% was material which could be recovered through the existing garden organics or
recycling systems.Hazardous waste is less than 1%. E-waste and metals are both 1%
of the waste stream. 18% is residual material that would not be recoverable through
any method other than thermal treatment. A detailed composition chart is provided on
the page Error! Bookmark not defined..
Figure 2 - Overall consolidated general waste composition
Garden
Organics, 6.1%
Recyclable
Containers,
6.4%
Residual, 18.3%
Metal, 1.3%
Hazardous,
0.6%
E-waste, 1.2%
Food, 37.4%
Recyclable
Paper, 6.2%
Other Organic,
22.5%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 21
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Table 11 shows the proportion of recyclable material in each council’s bin. The
average for the region for paper and cardboard is 6.2%, for recyclable containers 6.4%
and garden organics 6.1%.
Three of the five councils with over 7% paper/cardboard, and two of the three
councils with more than 7% containers, in their general waste stream have separate
paper and container recycling systems.
Garden organics had the biggest range of recovery potential. Rockdale provide a two
bin system, general waste and recycling, encouraging residents to place garden
organics in the general waste stream for mixed AWT processing and therefore have
the highest garden organics component at 23%. Ashfield provide an opt-in garden
organics service and have the second highest level at 16%. All other councils provide
an ‘opt-out’ garden organics service. Excluding Ashfield and Rockdale the average
garden organics in the general waste stream is 2.9% showing that many councils are
maximising their recovery potential of garden organics.
Table 11 - Percentage of recyclable material in the general waste stream
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC average
Recyclable
paper / card
5.9%
5.6%
5.5%
7.2%
5.3%
4.9%
7.2%
5.9%
7.9%
5.0%
4.9%
8.2%
8.1%
6.2%
Recyclable
containers
6.0%
5.4%
6.2%
6.6%
5.8%
6.7%
6.6%
5.3%
8.0%
5.4%
6.1%
8.7%
7.1%
6.4%
Garden
organics
16.2%
1.6%
7.2%
1.5%
1.1%
4.3%
3.5%
2.6%
1.3%
22.6%
5.1%
1.3%
2.1%
6.1%
Total
recyclable
28.1%
12.6%
18.9%
15.3%
12.2%
15.9%
17.3%
13.8%
17.2%
33.0%
16.1%
18.2%
17.3%
18.7%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 22
Regional Waste Audit
5.2.2
SSROC
Overall detailed composition of the general waste stream
Figure 3 shows the detailed composition of the general waste stream from all
dwellings audited. It shows 20 of the most common materials found in the general
waste stream with all other materials grouped in the ‘Other’ category. After food
(37%), contaminated paper (8%) and nappies (7%) and vegetation (6%) make up the
largest proportions. Plastic film and containerised food and liquid each make up 4%
of the general waste stream. A more detailed breakdown is provided in Appendix C.
Figure 3 - Overall detailed composition of the general waste stream
Plastic Film, 3.8%
Composite (mostly
plastic), 1.3%
Steel Packaging, 1.0%
Ceramics, Dust, Dirt,
Rock, Inert, 2.5%
Containerised Food &
Liquid, 3.7%
Plastic Bags, 2.3%
Other, 11.7%
Other Plastic, 1.3%
Other Packaging Glass,
1.2%
Newspapers, 1.1%
Glass Drink Containers,
1.5%
Corrugated Cardboard,
0.7%
Magazines, 1.3%
Flat Cardboard, 1.6%
Textile/Carpet, 3.4%
Office Paper, 1.1%
Other Putrescible, 2.0%
Composite (mainly
paper), 0.5%
Vegetation, 6.1%
Nappies Disposable,
6.6%
Food, 37.4%
Contaminated Paper,
7.9%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 23
Regional Waste Audit
5.2.3
SSROC
Number of hazardous and electronic waste items
Table 7 identifies the quantity of particular items found during the audit. It should be
noted that one household may have presented multiples of each item, which is the
case for dry cell batteries which were the most prevalent with 95 batteries on average
per council, or 1,229 across the region or 43% of all households.
Electrical items were also very common with 41 items, or 19% of households
disposing of an electrical item each week. Electrical items ranged from small items
such as leads and plugs to larger items such as vacuum cleaners, DVDplayers and
speakers.
Fluorescent globes and toner cartridges averaged 7 items per council audited, or 3%
of households disposing of these materials weekly. Computer equipment including
peripherals such as a keyboards and mouse was similar with 2% of the population
disposing of items.. Few mobile phones were disposed of by 0.6% of households.
Sharps such as epi-pens and syringes were identified in most councils. Those councils
with the highest number of sharps tended to have 2-3 household disposing of multiple
sharps per week. Generally 3% of households disposed of sharps.
Asbestos is not a very common material with 0.3% of households disposing of
material likely to be asbestos . It is likely that all councils have some asbestos illegally
disposed of throughout the year however due to the nature of the snapshot audit this
was only identified in only a small number of councils.
Only two car batteries and no gas bottles were identified across the entire audit.
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC total
Average/ Council
% of hhlds
disposing of item
Possible
asbestos
Sharps
Electrical
items
Mobile
phones
Computer
equipment
Toner
cartridges
Vehicle
batteries
Dry cell
batteries
Gas bottles
Council
Fluorescent
globes
Table 12 - Number of items
8
8
3
5
5
14
5
3
6
16
8
3
2
86
7
66
155
59
132
114
169
61
47
94
65
124
86
57
1,229
95
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
10
4
0
5
7
13
2
20
2
10
4
6
87
7
2
11
4
2
0
4
10
2
2
2
10
14
3
66
5
0
3
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
4
1
1
0
17
1
58
42
34
45
47
26
36
62
37
34
39
32
41
533
41
5
3
12
11
13
0
3
10
0
1
10
3
2
73
6
0
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
10
1
3.0%
43.0%
0.1%
0.0%
3.0%
2.3%
0.6%
18.6%
2.6%
0.3%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 24
Regional Waste Audit
5.2.4
SSROC
Weight of general waste in SDs and MUDs
The average household produces 9.7kg of general waste per household per week. Of
this 11.2kg is produced per single dwellings household and 7.1kg per multi-unit
dwelling. Figure 4 shows that the amount of materials found in the general waste
stream was greater in SDs than in MUDs for all components except for recyclable
paper, containers and e-waste. Overall the general waste produced per household per
week from SDs was 4.1kg more than that produced from MUDs.
Figure 4 - Weight of general waste in SDs and MUDs
12
11.22 kg
Kilograms per hhold per week
10
9.72 kg
2.05
0.61
8
E-waste
1.78
0.80
Hazardous
7.12 kg
0.62
Metal
0.59
6
4.31
1.32
Residual
0.63
Recyclable Containers
0.23
Garden Organics
3.64
4
Food
2.49
2
Other Organic
Recyclable Paper
2.55
2.19
1.56
0
0.58
0.63
0.60
SDs
MUDs
Total dwellings
Note: quantities less than 0.2kg/hhld are not labelled.
Table 13 outlines the amount of material produced per household per week for each
council.
Table 13 - Average weight of garbage per household per week (kgs) – all dwellings
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC average
Recyclable
paper / card
Recyclable
containers
Garden
organics
Food
Other
material
Total
material
0.56
0.67
0.57
0.83
0.46
0.46
0.59
0.52
0.65
0.71
0.44
0.65
0.70
0.60
0.57
0.64
0.63
0.77
0.51
0.62
0.54
0.47
0.65
0.77
0.55
0.69
0.61
0.62
1.54
0.18
0.74
0.18
0.10
0.40
0.29
0.23
0.11
3.20
0.46
0.10
0.18
0.59
3.30
4.74
3.78
4.91
3.66
3.93
3.19
3.22
3.11
4.17
3.28
2.74
3.26
3.64
3.57
5.66
4.57
4.95
4.07
3.92
3.58
4.39
3.66
5.32
4.26
3.74
3.85
4.27
9.55
11.90
10.29
11.64
8.80
9.33
8.19
8.83
8.17
14.17
9.00
7.92
8.60
9.72
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 25
Regional Waste Audit
5.3
SSROC
Recycling composition
5.3.1
Overall consolidated composition of the recycling stream
Figure 5 shows the composition of the recycling stream from all dwellings audited
consolidated into some key categories including bagged material. Recyclable paper
and cardboard represent the largest proportion at 54%, with recyclable containers at
33%. Non-recyclable contamination comprises 13%, of which 1% is bagged material.
This was mainly made up of contaminated soiled paper, food and kitchen waste and
other plastic. For a more detailed analysis of contamination refer to section 5.3.4
Figure 5 - Consolidated composition of the recycling stream –inc bagged material
Other material,
12.0%
Bagged, 1.0%
Recyclable
Paper, 54.2%
Recyclable
Containers,
32.8%
Figure 6 shows the recycling composition with the bagged material dispersed into
each category for comparison with previous audit years.
Figure 6 - Consolidated recycling composition –bagged material dispersed
Contamination,
11.2%
Recyclable
Paper, 54.5%
Recyclable
Containers,
34.2%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 26
Regional Waste Audit
5.3.2
SSROC
Overall detailed recycling composition
Figure 7 shows the composition of the recycling stream from all dwellings audited.
The largest component of the stream is glass drink containers (23%) followed by
newspaper, at 21%, magazines, brochures (14%) and corrugated cardboard (9%) also
forming a significant proportions.
Figure 7 – Detailed recycling composition
Food, 0.7%
Glass Drink Containers,
Other Packaging Glass,
22.7%
3.5%
Composite (mainly
paper), 1.8%
Glass Fines, 0.4%
PET Drink Containers,
2.2%
PET Packaging, 0.5%
Office Paper, 4.8%
HDPE Drink Containers,
1.3%
Liquid Paperboard, 0.6%
HDPE Packaging, 0.7%
Disposable Paper
Products, 0.4%
Other Plastic, 1.0%
Steel Packaging, 1.7%
Flat Cardboard, 4.9%
Aluminium Drink
Containers, 0.4%
Corrugated Cardboard,
9.1%
Containerised Food &
Liquid, 1.0%
Other, 7.5%
Magazines, 14.2%
Newspapers, 20.7%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 27
Regional Waste Audit
5.3.3
SSROC
Consolidated recycling composition by weight
Figure 8 shows the weight of recyclables found per household per week in single
dwellings, multi-unit dwellings and overall. The amount of contamination in SDs was
higher than MUDs; 0.8kg and 0.5kg respectively. Overall the recycling produced per
household per week from SDs (6.2kg) was almost twice that produced from MUDs
(3.4kg).
Figure 8 - Consolidated recycling composition by weight
7
Kilograms per hhold per week
6
6.16kg
0.03
0.74
5.23kg
0.05
0.63
5
2.03
4
3.44kg
3
0.09
0.41
Bagged
1.72
Contamination
Recyclable Containers
Recyclable Paper
1.10
2
3.36
1
2.84
1.83
0
SDs
MUDs
Total dwellings
Table 14 shows the average weight of recyclables and contamination for each council
compared to the total for the region.
Table 14 - Average weight of recycling per household per week (kgs) – by Council
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC average
Recyclable
paper / card
Recyclable
containers
Contamination
Total material
3.08
2.71
3.02
2.46
2.88
2.87
2.85
2.70
2.68
2.41
3.82
2.33
3.68
2.88
1.93
1.54
1.68
1.40
1.62
1.47
1.92
2.20
1.76
1.37
2.36
1.80
2.49
1.81
0.60
1.12
0.70
0.79
0.73
0.57
0.26
0.44
0.41
0.60
0.38
0.43
0.66
0.59
5.61
5.37
5.38
4.65
5.23
4.91
5.03
5.34
4.85
4.38
6.56
4.55
6.83
5.29
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 28
Regional Waste Audit
5.3.4
SSROC
Recycling contamination rate
The recycling contamination rate is higher than in previous years due to the inclusion
of magazines and paper wrapped in plastic, bagged material and containerised food
and liquids as contaminants as well as the more detailed plastic categories. This
should more accurately reflect the contamination rate indicated by the MRF as many
of the stated materials are disposed of as contaminants even though they could be
recycled if presented correctly.
Figure 9 shows a breakdown of the main contaminants. The main contaminants
include composite paper such as magazines and newspapers wrapped in plastic and
paper bags with rope handles. This is followed by other plastics containerised food
and liquid and contaminated paper such as food contaminated paper and used tissues.
Figure 9 – Main recycling contaminants
Disposable Paper
Products, 3.5%
Other material,
17.5%
Composite (mainly
paper), 16.9%
Containerised Food
& Liquid, 9.7%
Contaminated
Paper, 8.9%
Electrical Items and
Peripherals, 4.1%
Food, 6.5%
Ceramics, Dust,
Dirt, Rock, Inert,
Ash, 3.8%
Wood/Timber,
2.1%
Plastic Film, 4.5%
Textile/Carpet,
5.5%
Composite (mostly
plastic), 3.9% Other Plastic, 9.8%
Other Glass, 3.3%
A detailed list of contaminants is provided in Table 15.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 29
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Table 15 - Detailed breakdown of contaminants
Material Category
Disposable Paper Products
Composite (mainly paper)
Nappies Disposable
Contaminated Paper
Food
Vegetation
Wood/Timber
Textile/Carpet
Leather
Rubber
Other Glass
PET Other
PP Other
EPS Packaging
PS & EPS Other
Other Plastic
Composite (mostly plastic)
Plastic Bags
Plastic Film
Composite (mostly ferrous)
Aluminium Other
Non – Ferrous (specify)
Composite (mostly non-ferrous)
Paint
Ceramics, Dust, Dirt, Rock, Inert, Ash
Computer Equipment
Electrical Items and Peripherals
Containerised Food & Liquid
Other material
Total
Amount (kg/hhold/wk)
0.019
0.093
0.007
0.049
0.036
0.007
0.012
0.031
0.004
0.003
0.018
0.002
0.005
0.007
0.002
0.054
0.022
0.009
0.025
0.008
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.021
0.002
0.023
0.053
0.030
0.552
Per cent
3.5%
16.9%
1.2%
8.9%
6.5%
1.3%
2.1%
5.5%
0.8%
0.5%
3.3%
0.4%
1.0%
1.2%
0.4%
9.8%
3.9%
1.7%
4.5%
1.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
3.8%
0.4%
4.1%
9.7%
5.4%
100.0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 30
Regional Waste Audit
5.4
SSROC
Garden organics composition
5.4.1
Overall garden organics bin composition
Figure 10 shows the composition of the garden organics stream from all dwellings
audited. The largest component of the stream is vegetation at 97%, with small
proportions of, food/kitchen (1.1%) and “other contamination,” accounting for 2%.
Figure 10 - Overall garden organics bin composition
Other
Putrescible,
0.1%
Wood/Timber,
0.8%
Ceramics, Dust,
Dirt etc, 0.5%
Other material,
0.5%
Newspapers,
0.1%
Vegetation,
96.9%
Food, 1.1%
5.4.2
Garden organics bins weights
The weight of the garden organics bins for the SDs and MUDs is shown in Figure 11.
The average household produces 2.8kg of garden organics, of this 4kg is from SDs
and 0.5kg is from MUDs
Figure 11 - Weight of garden organics bins
4.5
4.03kg
4.0
0.09
Kg / hhold / wk
3.5
2.80kg
3.0
0.08
2.5
Other material
2.0
3.93
Vegetation
1.5
2.72
1.0
0.47kg
0.03
0.5
0.45
0.0
SDs
MUDs
Total
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 31
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
5.5 Recovery rates
Recovery rates can by calculated by specific material, or overall. For example the
amount of aluminium cans found in the recycling bin, divided by the total amount of
aluminium cans found in both the general waste and recycling bins. They are useful
for determining materials that should be the focus of education initiatives.
Recovery rates are calculated as shown below.
Recovery
rate
=
Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + garden organics in the
garden organics bin
=
(Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + weight of garden organics
in garden organics bin + weight of recyclables & garden organics in
general waste bin)
x100
If the percentage is high (ie. more than 90%) it means that the Council is maximising
the recovery for that material. If the rates are low (ie less than 60%) then these
materials should be the focus of education efforts to raise community awareness that
those materials are recyclable.
5.5.1
Recovery rates all dwellings
Figure 12 shows the recovery rates for SDs, MUDs and overall. The overall recovery
rate was 79%. For SDs paper, glass and garden organics were the best performers.
Liquidpaperboard, other plastics, steel and aluminium were consistently the lowest
performers for most councils in both SDs and MUDs with recovery rates below 60%.
For MUDs paper and glass were the only two materials with over 70% recovery.
30%
78.9%
81.6%
54.7%
43.8%
53.1%
66.0%
70.4%
56.8%
64.7%
75.0%
82.8%
86.8%
79.9%
81.3%
75.8%
71.2%
60.7%
49.7%
36.3%
46.8%
40%
26.2%
22.3%
25.6%
50%
49.0%
60%
58.9%
70%
53.2%
42.8%
51.7%
80%
79.5%
90%
63.3%
100%
87.6%
74.6%
84.8%
Figure 12 - Recovery rates
SDs
MUDs
Overall
20%
10%
0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 32
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
5.6 Diversion rates
The diversion rates are helpful for understanding the total amount of waste diverted
from landfill. This is calculated as follows
Diversion rate
(proportion of waste
diverted from landfill)
Weight of recyclables in the recycling bins +
vegetation in the organics bin minus contaminants
=
x 100
(Weight of the contents of the general waste bins +
weight of the contents of the recycling bins +
weight of contents of the organics bins)
The diversion rate may be slightly different to that calculated by Council using the
overall general waste, recycling and garden organics tonnages generated during the
year. This is because the audit is conducted as a snapshot of that particular time period
and it does not factor in seasonal fluctuations or other annual trends.
The chart shows the actual diversion rate for single dwellings, multi-unit dwellings
and all dwellings, as well as potential diversion rates if certain other materials were
recovered. The diversion rate for single dwellings (44%) is significantly higher than
for MUDs (28%). Overall diversion is 41%. A detailed breakdown of the proportions
shown in Figure 12 is available in Table 16.
Figure 13 - Diversion rates
100%
90%
80%
13.1%
13.8%
16.2%
70%
20.2%
21.0%
60%
50%
40%
3.8%
3.1%
3.5%
2.1%
3.7%
5.9%
3.6%
44.1%
Garden Organics
Recyclable Containers
Paper and Cardboard
6.3%
30%
20%
Food
23.5%
2.9%
Other Organics (AWT)
40.8%
Current diversion rate
28.0%
10%
0%
SDs
MUDS
Overall
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 33
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
The analysis provides an indication of the additional diversion potential through either
modified collection or processing systems or by increasing education. However it
should be noted that maximum diversion rates are based on 100% participation rates,
100% correct presentation of materials and 100% recovery of the materials at the
processing facilities. Therefore these are maximum theoretical diversion rates.
Councils may realistically aim to achieve 60% of the additional potential diversion for
any of the targeted streams.
The detailed diversion rates shown in Table 16 can be used to show the potential for
additional landfill diversion by focusing on recovery of particular waste streams. Most
councils could divert an additional 11% using existing collection systems giving a
maximum diversion of 46-60%.
With additional foodwaste diversion, assuming a 60% recovery rate, most councils
would divert 64% falling just short of the 66% diversion target.
The paper, cardboard, foodwaste and other organic material not currently captured in
the existing waste systems could be diverted through an AWT process providing a
diversion rate of approximately 72%.
Table 16 - Detailed diversion rates
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC average
Current
diversion
rate
If all
recyclables
recovered
If all
garden
organics
recovered
If 60% of
all food
recovered
If 60% of
all other
organics
recovered
Possible
diversion
rate
40.5%
39.7%
43.7%
38.1%
44.1%
41.8%
39.3%
44.8%
40.8%
19.7%
49.0%
37.4%
51.0%
40.8%
7.0%
6.4%
6.3%
8.1%
5.7%
6.6%
8.3%
6.1%
9.1%
8.7%
5.6%
10.7%
8.2%
7.3%
9.1%
0.9%
4.1%
1.0%
0.6%
2.4%
2.1%
1.4%
0.7%
17.5%
2.5%
0.8%
0.9%
3.5%
11.6%
13.3%
11.6%
14.8%
13.1%
14.0%
13.8%
11.5%
13.0%
13.8%
10.7%
12.4%
10.3%
12.6%
7.2%
8.4%
7.6%
9.5%
8.3%
8.1%
8.9%
8.4%
8.1%
9.4%
7.1%
9.2%
7.4%
8.3%
75.3%
68.8%
73.3%
71.4%
71.9%
72.8%
72.4%
72.2%
71.7%
69.0%
74.9%
70.5%
77.9%
72.5%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 34
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
5.7 Extrapolation of waste tonnage
Annual waste generation has been approximated using the rates of waste generation
per household/week for each stream multiplied by the number of households in the
Council (see Table 17). This may not be exactly the same as Council’s records for
waste generation per annum as it doesn’t take into account seasonal fluctuations.
Figure 14 shows the waste generation per household per week for each stream.
Table 17 - Extrapolation of annual waste generation
Tonnes per year
Council
Ashfield
Bankstown
Burwood
Canterbury
Hurstville
Kogarah
Leichhardt
Marrickville
Randwick
Rockdale
Sutherland
Waverley
Woollahra
SSROC total
General Waste
8,476
38,656
5,439
26,789
11,942
8,904
10,249
12,898
19,059
24,215
34,115
9,392
8,752
218,886
Recycling
4,985
16,835
2,858
10,703
7,099
4,688
6,298
7,793
11,313
7,488
24,847
5,398
6,945
117,251
Garden
Organics
1,810
14,006
2,132
8,883
4,116
2,715
835
3,946
3,537
0
11,076
1,028
3,654
57,739
Total waste
stream
15,271
69,497
10,430
46,375
23,158
16,307
17,381
24,637
33,909
31,703
70,037
15,819
19,351
393,875
Figure 14 shows the waste generation per household per week for each waste stream.
The average household produces 17.5kg of waste per week. SDs produce 21.5kg and
MUDs produce 11.1kg/hhld/week.
Figure 14 - Waste generation per stream per week
25
Kg / hhold / week
Total 21.5 kg
20
3.7
15
6.5
Total 17.5 kg
2.5
Total 11.1 kg
11.3
7.6
Garden Organics
Recycling
0.4
3.2
10
5
5.3
General Waste
9.7
0
SDs
MUDs
Overall
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 35
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
5.8 Bin capacity utilised
The figures below show bin capacity utilised for each waste stream in each council. A
variety of container types and sizes have been used across the councils. The
calculations are based on the capacity used regardless of the container type or size.
5.8.1
Single dwelling bin capacity utilisation
Figure 15 shows the mean volumes of general waste bins used in single dwellings for
each council. The mean for the region was 72%. For recycling (Figure 16) the mean
was 74%.
Figure 15 – Average (mean) volume of SD general waste bins utilised
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
74% 75% 75%
30%
64% 68%
74%
81%
64%
70%
76% 74% 81% 72%
61%
Unused
Used
20%
10%
0%
Figure 16 – Average (mean) volume of SD recycling bins used
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
72%
81%
78% 75%
78% 74%
72% 75% 77% 69% 76% 69% 73%
66%
Unused
Used
20%
10%
0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 36
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
For garden organics the mean bin utilisation for the region was 72%.
Figure 17 – Average (mean) volume of SD organics bins used
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
90%
73% 72% 72% 72%
67% 72%
73%
60% 64%
71% 72% 72%
Unused
Used
20%
10%
0%
5.8.2
Multi-unit dwelling bin capacity utilised
Figure 18 and Figure 19 shows the volume filled of general waste bins and recycling
for each council. The average (mean) for the region for both streams was 73%.
Figure 18 – Average volume of general waste bins utilised in MUDs by council
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
74% 74%
86%
81%
67%
61%
79%
81%
77%
67%
64%
75%
67%
73%
Unused
Used
20%
10%
0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 37
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Figure 19 – Average volume of recycling bins utilised in MUDs by council
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
91%
81%
87% 90%
79%
82% 78%
68% 69%
30%
64%
58%
54%
73%
51%
Unused
Used
20%
10%
0%
The average volume of garden organics bins utilised for MUDs by the councils that
offered a garden organics service was 72%.
Figure 20 – Average volume of garden organics bins utilised in MUDs by council
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
95%
95%
61%
30%
20%
10%
89%
83%
40%
75%
82%
72%
60%
48%
Unused
Used
30%
0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 38
Regional Waste Audit
6
SSROC
COMPARISION WITH PREVIOUS AUDIT DATA
Data in this section has been compared to previous audit results where relevant data
was available. Slightly different methodologies and categories have been used in each
audit that can account for some of the differences in the results.
Error! Reference source not found. shows the consolidated composition of the
eneral waste stream found in 2011 compared to previous audits. Food is the largest
component of the general waste stream each year however in 2011 it is 6% less than
the 2005 and 2008 levels. The amount of recyclable containers in the general waste
stream has decreased each year from 2001. The amount of recyclable paper has
fluctuated but is significantly less in 2005-2011 than in 1999 and 2001. The amount of
garden organics in the general waste stream has halved since 1999 but is slightly more
in 2011 than it was in 2008.
Figure 21 - Consolidated composition of general waste – previous audits
100%
90%
29.0%
24.8%
25.6%
36.6%
80%
43.9%
70%
12.1%
17.3%
16.3%
60%
50%
Other material
7.2%
12.1%
11.2%
5.8%
7.5%
6.4%
Recyclable containers
6.2%
Recyclable paper
40%
30%
Food
31.8%
37.6%
43.0%
43.3%
37.4%
Garden organics
20%
10%
15.0%
9.1%
9.3%
5.3%
6.1%
2001
2005
2008
2011
0%
1999
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 39
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Error! Reference source not found. shows the consolidated composition of the
ecycling stream found in 2011 compared to previous audits. Contamination has
gradually increased each year since 1999. This is mostly attributed to the more
detailed sorting categories and slightly different methodology used in 2008 and 2011.
It is also attributed to slightly different councils participating in the 2011 regional
audit. Further explanation is provided on pg 29.
The amount of recyclable paper in the recycling stream has decreased gradually over
the past five audits. This is partly linked to the more detailed sort categories and also
affected by the wider range of containers accepted in the recycling stream. The
amount of recyclable containers in the recycling stream has been fairly steady with
slight variations over the five audits.
Figure 22 - Consolidated composition of recycling – previous audits
100%
90%
30.3%
80%
33.3%
36.7%
34.0%
34.3%
70%
60%
Recyclable containers
50%
40%
Recyclable paper
58.5%
54.5%
4.1%
7.5%
11.2%
2005
2008
2011
66.7%
64.1%
59.2%
3.0%
2.6%
1999
2001
30%
Non-recyclable contamination
20%
10%
0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 40
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Error! Reference source not found. shows the weight of general waste, recycling
nd garden organics generated per household per week for all dwelling types. The
amount of general waste produced per household per week in SDs has stayed fairly
steady between 9kg and 10kg per household per week over the past four audits. There
has been a slight increase in 2011 (9.7kg) compared to 2008 (9.3kg).
The amount of recyclables in MUDs is also fairly steady between 4.5kg to
5kg/hhld/wk. There has been a slight increase in 2011 (5.3kg) compared to 2008
(4.5kg).
The amount of garden organics has fluctuated with generation being particularly low
in 2011 due to the different waste audit methodology used.
Figure 23 - Weekly weight of waste stream by household – previous audits
20
18
4.1
16
4.5
4.9
2.5
Kilograms
14
5.1
12
4.5
5.3
4.5
Garden organics
10
Recyclables
8
Garbage
6
4
8.9
9.6
9.3
9.7
2
0
All dwellings - All dwellings - All dwellings - All dwellings 2001
2005
2008
2011
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 41
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Figure 24 shows the volume filled of general waste, garden organics and recycling
bins at different dwelling types for the previous audits in which volume was recorded.
In both the MUDs and SDs the volume of the general waste, recycling and garden
organics containers utilised has decreased since 2008. In 2011 the mean for all
streams is very similar between 72-74%.
Figure 24 - Volume of bins used – previous audits
72%
76%
73%
85%
73%
83%
72%
78%
82%
74%
80%
72%
90%
78%
100%
70%
60%
50%
40%
2008
30%
2011
20%
10%
0%
SDs SDs garbage recyclables
SDs garden
organics
MUDs MUDs MUDs garbage recyclables garden
organics
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 42
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Error! Reference source not found. shows the recovery rates from all dwellings in
revious audits. The amount of aluminium cans, steel, HDPE, liquidpaperboard,
cardboard and glass being recovered has increased. The amount of PET and garden
organics is slightly decreasing. The overall recovery rate has decreased slightly since
2008 due to the decrease in recovery of the slightly heavier materials such as garden
organics. .
50%
40%
30%
31.2%
34.3%
83.2%
83.9%
78.6%
86.9%
79.8%
61.8%
50.9%
51.4%
60%
28.3%
53.3%
70%
42.4%
40.9%
46.6%
80%
66.1%
69.2%
70.3%
65.5%
69.8%
60.8%
90%
75.1%
75.1%
75.9%
81.0%
81.8%
82.0%
100%
88.4%
83.7%
84.7%
Figure 25 - Recovery rates – all dwellings – previous audits
2005
2008
20%
2011
10%
0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 43
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Error! Reference source not found. shows the actual diversion rate for single
wellings in 2011 and for previous audits, as well as potential diversion rates if certain
other materials were recovered. The diversion rate for single dwellings is similar to
2005 but down from 2008 levels as a result of the weight of garden organics that year.
The potential for additional diversion is fairly consistent between 2005 and 2008. The
potential to capture more garden organics is 4%, only slightly more than 2008 (3%).
The potential to recovery more food waste is similar to 2008 at 20%.
Figure 26 - Diversion rates – SDs - previous audits
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
23.4%
24.5%
11.7%
5.2%
5.6%
5.5%
If all food recovered
4.0%
7.1%
If all garden organics recovered
If all recyclables recovered
Actual diversion rate
13.4%
44.8%
20%
10%
3.0%
9.2%
40%
30%
20.3%
22.1%
6.7%
50%
20.7%
51.2%
43.2%
36.0%
26.3%
0%
1999
2001
2005
2008
2011
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 44
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Error! Reference source not found. shows the actual diversion rate for multi-unit
wellings in 2011 and for previous audits, as well as potential diversion rates if certain
other materials were recovered. The current diversion rate for MUDs is similar to
2005 but higher than 2008. The amount of garden organics available for additional
recovery is similar to previous years at 2.3%. Additional recyclables available for
recovery has also been fairly consistent for the past three audits at 13%.
Figure 27 - Diversion rates – MUDs – previous audits
100%
90%
80%
70%
26.2%
60%
50%
40%
2.7%
20.6%
27.7%
2.9%
17.6%
26.1%
30.2%
22.6%
2.6%
2.1%
2.3%
13.1%
12.5%
14.4%
If all food recovered
If all garden organics recovered
If all recyclables recovered
Actual diversion rate
30%
20%
28.9%
29.2%
31.9%
1999
2001
2005
10%
27.1%
31.8%
0%
2008
2011
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 45
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Error! Reference source not found. shows the actual diversion rate for all dwellings
n 2008 and for previous audits, as well as potential diversion rates if certain other
materials were recovered. The diversion rate for all dwellings is 40% which is similar
to 2005 but lower than 2008. The decrease since 2008 is largely as a result of the SD
diversion resulting from high garden organics generation in 2008.
Figure 28 - Diversion rates – all dwellings – previous audits
100%
90%
80%
70%
24.9%
60%
50%
23.6%
22.3%
20.9%
23.3%
2.8%
5.7%
9.6%
4.5%
7.3%
7.3%
If all food recovered
3.6%
8.6%
11.2%
40%
15.3%
10%
If all recyclables recovered
Actual diversion rate
30%
42.2%
20%
If all garden organics recovered
46.8%
34.6%
40.4%
26.9%
0%
1999
2001
2005
2008
2011
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 46
Regional Waste Audit
7
SSROC
KEY FINDINGS
General waste generation – Households produced between 7.9 and 14.1kg of general
waste per week with an average of 9.7kg across the region. This is an increase from
9kg per household in 2008, and 8.6kg in 2005.
Composition of general waste stream – Food is the largest component of the general
waste stream in all councils averaging 37%, this is slightly less than 42% in 2008.
There are less recyclables in the general waste stream in 2011 with 6.2% recyclable
paper and card, compared to 7.8% in 2008; and 6.4% containers compared to 7.7% in
2008.
Vegetation in the general waste stream – The proportion of vegetation in the general
waste stream has increased slightly in 2011 to 6.1%, compared to 5.7% in 2008.
General waste-bin capacity – The average (mean) volume of general waste bins used
in single dwellings in was 72%. This is down from 78% in 2008.
Recycling generation – The amount of recycling generated from the average single
dwelling household was 5.3kg per week up from the 4.5kg produced in 2008.
Composition of the recycling stream – The recycling stream comprised 55% paper
and cardboard, slightly less than the 58% in 2008. Containers comprised 34% the
same as recorded for the 2008 audit.
Contamination – Contamination in the recycling system was 11% the significantly
higher than 7.5% in 2008 as a result of the different sort categories used in 2011.
Recycling-bin capacity – The average volume of recycling bins used in single
dwellings in 2011 was 74% compared to 82% in 2008.
Garden organics generation – The amount of garden organics generated was 2.8kg in
2011 compared to 4.9kg in 2008. This difference is partly attributed to the different
audit methodology used in 2008.
Garden organics bin capacity - The average bin capacity used in SDs was 72% in
2011 and 78% in 2008.
Garden organics contamination – The garden organics contamination rate was 3.1%
in 2011 compared to 1.8% in 2008.
Recovery rates – Overall recovery in 2011 was 79% compared to 84% in 2008.
Diversion – The diversion rate of 40% is down from 47% recorded in 2008. The
potential additional diversion possible if all garden organics and recyclables were
recovered is 12.2%.
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 47
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
Containerised food and liquid: Bottle or takeaway container with food and liquid still in it
that would be considered a contaminant in a recycling or waste treatment facility.
Contaminant: Item that is not accepted for processing in the bin it is placed in.
Comingled collection*: Pick up and transportation of mixed dry recyclable materials
Diversion rate: The percentage of the total kerbside waste stream diverted from disposal not
including clean up collections, loose vegetation collections and drop off systems
Diversion rate
(proportion of waste
diverted from landfill)
Weight of recyclables in the recycling bins +
organics in the organics bin - contaminants
=
(Weight of the contents of the general waste bins +
weight of the contents of the recycling bins +
weight of organics in the organics bins)
x 100
Recyclable*: Able to be recovered, processed and used as a raw material for the manufacture
of useful new product through a commercial process.
Recycling stream: Material source separated for the purposes of recycling.
Recovery rate*: The amount of material recovered from a product group as a percentage of
overall consumption
Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + organics in the organics bin
Recovery
rate
=
=
(Weight of recyclables in recycling bin + weight of organics in
organics bin + weight of recyclables & organics in general waste
bin)
x100
Segregation: Keeping the components of an assorted waste stream separated
Source separation*: Physical sorting of the waste stream into its components at the point of
generation
Total waste stream: The combined waste, recycling and organics streams.
Waste composition*: Component material types by proportion of weight or volume.
* Source: AS/NZS 3831:1998
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 48
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
APPENDIX B - SORTING CATEGORIES
AWD
Code
A01
A02
A03
A04
A05
A06
A07
A08
A09
A90
A092
B01
B02
B03
C01
C02
C03
C04
C05
D012
D012
D02
D050
E01
Material type
PAPER
Newspapers
Magazines
Paper Packaging
Corrugated Cardboard
Flat Cardboard
Liquid Paperboard
Disposable Paper Products
Office Paper
Composite (mostly paper)
Nappies
Contaminated Paper
ORGANIC
(COMPOSTABLES)
Food
Vegetation
Other Putrescible
OTHER ORGANIC
Wood/Timber
Textile/Carpet
Leather
Rubber
Oils
GLASS
Glass Drink Containers
Other Packaging Glass
Other Glass
Glass Fines
PLASTIC
PET Drink Containers
E01
E01
E02
E02
E02
E03
E03
E03
E04
E04
E05
E05
PET Packaging
PET Other
HDPE Drink Containers
HDPE Packaging
HDPE Other
PVC Drink Containers
PVC Packaging
PVC Other
LDPE Packaging
LDPE Other
PP Packaging
E06
E06
EPS Packaging
E06
E08
PS Packaging
E072
E073
Plastic Bags
Plastic Film
FERROUS
Steel Drink Containers
F01
PP Other
PS & EPS Other
Composite (mostly plastic)
Material items
Newspapers, newspaper-like pamphlets
Magazines (glossy and non-glossy), pamphlets, brochures
Wrapping paper, labels, paper packaging (no plastic or wax coatings)
Cardboard with corrugation
Cardboard without corrugation (glossy and non-glossy), cereal boxes, business cards
Soy milk cartons, some fruit juice cartons, UHT/long-life milk
Hand towels, coffee cups, paper napkins, paper food bags (unsoiled)
A4 document paper, writing pads, letters, envelopes, books
Composite paper items for which the weight of the paper is estimated to be greater than the
weight of the other materials
Used disposable nappies
Paper not suitable for recycling, mixed and other paper, used tissues, soiled paper
Vegetable scraps, meat scraps, animal food, leftover food.
Grass clippings, tree trimmings/prunings, flowers, tree wood (< 20 mm diameter)
Animal excrement, mixed compostable items, cellophane, kitty litter
Milled wood/timber, children’s wooden toys, wooden skewers, garden trees (> 20 mm
diameter)
Wool, cotton and natural fibre materials
Leather clothing, craft leather, some shoes, belts with belt buckle
Rubber bands, rubber toys, Shoes, latex gloves
Used car oil, motor
Recyclable (all colours) - Beer bottles, wine bottles, spirit cider/fruit based, flavoured water,
fruit juice, sports drinks, plain water
Non-beverage containers (all colours) – sauce bottles, jam jars, vegetable oils, other food
containers
Plate glass (window and windscreen), Pyrex, mirror glass, Corning ware, light globes,
laboratory and medical glass, white opaque glass (eg., Malibu alcohol bottles)
Mixed Glass or glass fines < 4.75 mm
(Polyethylene) - Soft drink, flavoured water, fruit juice, sports drinks, plain water
(carbonated/non-carb)
Food containers, mouth wash containers, detergent bottles
Pillow and sleeping bag filler, laminated sheets, carpet fibres
(High-density polyethylene) milk and flavoured milk bottles,
bleach bottles, oil containers, food containers
Buckets, rigid ag pipe, crates, pallets, bins, rigid moulded products
(Polyvinyl chloride) Clear cordial and juice bottles,
detergent bottles
Electrical conduit, plumbing pipes and fittings, garden hose, shoe sole, tubing, rain wear
(Low-density polyethylene) squeeze bottles
general waste bags, general waste bins
bottles and containers
Appliance parts, crates and boxes, toys, houseware/kitchenware, furniture, plant pots,
mouldings, irrigation fittings
Meat and poultry trays, vending cups, fragile item packaging
Panel insulation, refrigerator bins and crispers, moulded products, office accessories,
spools, rulers, video cases, building and picture frame mouldings, cutlery
yoghurt and dairy containers, vending cups, clam shells
Cigarette butts, composite plastic items for which the weight of the plastic is estimated to be
greater than the other material items.
Plastic shopping bags
Plastic film
Alcoholic sodas and spirit based mixers, beer, soft drink
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 49
Regional Waste Audit
AWD
Code
F01
F02
F03
G01
Material type
Material items
Steel Packaging
Steel Other
Food cans, pet food cans, aerosols, industrial cans, clean/empty paint cans
100% ferrous items that are not cans/tins/packaging materials, any other steel
Beer bottle tops, jar lids, composite ferrous items for which the weight of the ferrous metal
is estimated to be greater than the other material items
Composite (mostly ferrous)
NON-FERROUS
Aluminium Drink Containers
Aluminium Packaging
Aluminium Other
G02
G03
H01
H02
H03
H03
H04
H05
H061
H07
H08
H00
I50
10
Y571
Non – Ferrous (specify)
Composite (mostly nonferrous)
HAZARDOUS
Paint
Fluorescent Tubes
Non Rechargeable Batteries
Rechargeable Batteries
Vehicle Batteries
Household Chemicals
Asbestos
Clinical
Gas Bottles
Hazardous Other
BUILDING WASTE
Building Materials
EARTH-BASED
Ceramics, Dust, Dirt, Rock,
Inert, Ash
E WASTE
Computer Equipment
TVs
Mobile Phones
Electrical
Items
&
Peripherals
Toner Cartridges
MISCELLANEOUS
Containerised Food & Liquid
XX00
SSROC
Other
Alcoholic sodas and spirit-based mixers, Beer and soft drink
Food cans, pet food cans, aerosols, industrial cans
Foils 100% aluminium items that are not cans/tins/or packaging materials, any other
aluminium
Copper/brass/bronze items, other metals (not ferrous/aluminium)
Composite non-ferrous metal items for which the weight of the metal is estimated to be
greater than the other material items.
Containers containing Paint (dry or wet)
Fluorescent tubes; compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)
Common batteries, AAA, AA etc, single-use
Common batteries (rechargeable), AAA, AA etc, rechargeable
Large batteries used in vehicles or other machinery
Containers containing Bleach, cleaning products, unused medical pills
Asbestos and asbestos containing products or building materials
Sharps, human tissue, bulk bodily fluids and blood, any blood-stained disposable material
or equipment.
Gas bottles
Any other hazardous material
Building materials (not included in other material categories) includes plasterboard,
composite fittings, etc
Ceramic cups, bowls, pottery items, vacuum bag contents, soil, rocks, dirt, concrete, ash
Keyboard, monitor, hard drives, printers, etc.
TV’s
Mobile phones, phones, pads, charges, car kits, bluetooth
Radio, Ipod, gameboys, stereos, speakers, VCR, DVD players, powertools, wiring and
cables, small electrical items (toaster, blender, etc), computer discs, cassettes, DVDs, CDs
Printer and toner cartridges
Any rigid container including food & liquid heavier than the container ie drink bottle
containing water, takeaway container with food, vegetable oils, shampoo, liquid soaps
Other, please specify
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 50
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
APPENDIX C - OVERALL DETAILED WASTE COMPOSITION
Table 18 - All dwellings general waste stream
Material category
Newspapers
Magazines
Paper Packaging
Corrugated Cardboard
Flat Cardboard
Liquid Paperboard
Disposable Paper Products
Office Paper
Composite (mainly paper)
Nappies Disposable
Contaminated Paper
Food
Vegetation
Other Putrescible
Wood/Timber
Textile/Carpet
Leather
Rubber
Oils
Glass Drink Containers
Other Packaging Glass
Other Glass
Glass Fines
PET Drink Containers
PET Packaging
PET Other
HDPE Drink Containers
HDPE Packaging
HDPE Other
PVC Drink Containers
PVC Packaging
PVC Other
LDPE Packaging
LDPE Other
PP Packaging
PP Other
EPS Packaging
PS & EPS Other
PS Packaging
Other Plastic
Composite (mostly plastic)
Plastic Bags
Plastic Film
Steel Drink Containers
Steel Packaging
Amount
(kg/hhold/wk)
0.112
0.124
0.010
0.066
0.159
0.026
0.025
0.103
0.051
0.642
0.765
3.639
0.593
0.190
0.121
0.330
0.027
0.035
0.006
0.143
0.118
0.045
0.006
0.039
0.046
0.001
0.014
0.028
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.060
0.013
0.026
0.008
0.027
0.122
0.124
0.222
0.371
0.005
0.102
Per cent
1.1%
1.3%
0.1%
0.7%
1.6%
0.3%
0.3%
1.1%
0.5%
6.6%
7.9%
37.4%
6.1%
2.0%
1.2%
3.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
1.5%
1.2%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
1.3%
1.3%
2.3%
3.8%
0.1%
1.0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 51
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Material category
Steel Other
Composite (mostly ferrous)
Aluminium Drink Containers
Aluminium Packaging
Aluminium Other
Non – Ferrous (specify)
Composite (mostly non-ferrous)
Paint
Fluorescent Tubes
Single use batteries
Rechargeable batteries
Vehicle Batteries
Household Chemicals
Asbestos
Clinical
Gas Bottles
Hazardous Other
Building materials
Ceramics, Dust, Dirt, Rock, Inert, Ash
Computer Equipment
TVs
Mobile Phones
Electrical Items and Peripherals
Toner Cartridges
Containerised Food & Liquid
Other
Total
Amount
(kg/hhold/wk)
0.052
0.034
0.014
0.009
0.028
0.003
0.007
0.015
0.002
0.011
0.001
0.005
0.012
0.007
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.181
0.241
0.015
0.000
0.001
0.095
0.003
0.362
0.054
9.722
Per cent
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
2.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
3.7%
0.6%
100.0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 52
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Table 19 - Overall recycling stream composition
Material category
Newspapers
Magazines
Paper Packaging
Corrugated Cardboard
Flat Cardboard
Liquid Paperboard
Disposable Paper Products
Office Paper
Composite (mainly paper)
Nappies Disposable
Contaminated Paper
Food
Vegetation
Other Putrescible
Wood/Timber
Textile/Carpet
Leather
Rubber
Oils
Glass Drink Containers
Other Packaging Glass
Other Glass
Glass Fines
PET Drink Containers
PET Packaging
PET Other
HDPE Drink Containers
HDPE Packaging
HDPE Other
PVC Drink Containers
PVC Packaging
PVC Other
LDPE Packaging
LDPE Other
PP Packaging
PP Other
EPS Packaging
PS & EPS Other
PS Packaging
Other Plastic
Composite (mostly plastic)
Plastic Bags
Plastic Film
Steel Drink Containers
Steel Packaging
Steel Other
Composite (mostly ferrous)
Amount
(kg/hhold/wk)
1.097
0.751
0.018
0.484
0.261
0.032
0.019
0.255
0.093
0.007
0.049
0.036
0.007
0.001
0.012
0.031
0.004
0.003
0.001
1.210
0.187
0.018
0.023
0.115
0.024
0.002
0.068
0.038
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.023
0.005
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.054
0.022
0.009
0.025
0.005
0.092
0.016
0.008
Per cent
20.7%
14.2%
0.3%
9.2%
4.9%
0.6%
0.4%
4.8%
1.8%
0.1%
0.9%
0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
22.9%
3.5%
0.3%
0.4%
2.2%
0.5%
0.0%
1.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.5%
0.1%
1.7%
0.3%
0.2%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 53
Regional Waste Audit
SSROC
Material category
Aluminium Drink Containers
Aluminium Packaging
Aluminium Other
Non – Ferrous (specify)
Composite (mostly non-ferrous)
Paint
Fluorescent Tubes
Single use batteries
Rechargeable batteries
Vehicle Batteries
Household Chemicals
Asbestos
Clinical
Gas Bottles
Hazardous Other
Building materials
Ceramics, Dust, Dirt, Rock, Inert, Ash
Computer Equipment
Mobile Phones
Electrical Items and Peripherals
Toner Cartridges
Containerised Food & Liquid
Other
Total
Amount
(kg/hhold/wk)
0.023
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.021
0.002
0.000
0.023
0.001
0.053
0.019
5.285
Per cent
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.0%
0.4%
100.0%
Table 20 - Overall garden organics stream composition
Note: 71 sort categories were used; however materials not present in this waste
stream have been deleted from the table.
Material category
Newspapers
Magazines
Corrugated Cardboard
Food
Vegetation
Other Putrescible
Wood/Timber
Textile/Carpet
Other Plastic
Plastic Bags
Plastic Film
Steel Other
Ceramics, Dust, Dirt, Rock, Inert, Ash
Other
Total
Amount
(kg/hhold/wk)
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.028
2.426
0.003
0.019
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.012
0.003
2.503
Per cent
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
96.9%
0.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.1%
100.0%
_____________________________________________________________________
2010-87 – SSROC Draft V1
Page 54