DELIVERING ZERO WASTE
Ian Stupple - Auckland Council Andy Street - SLR Consulting
Auckland’s waste vision and targets
Zero waste to landfill 2040
Waste as a resource
30% less in-house waste by 2018
30% less domestic refuse by 2018
30% less total waste by 2027
To be a world class city
AUCKLAND’S WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND
MINIMISATION PLAN
Main focus of WMMP 2012
20% that Council influences
Consistent household services
Engaging communities in waste
Social & Environmental outcomes
Delivery of domestic waste target
16 KG
LESS
34 KG
LESS
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
201
8
201
9
202
0
202
1
202
2
202
3
202
4
202
5
202
6
202
7
202
8
202
9
203
0
203
1
203
2
203
3
203
4
203
5
203
6
203
7
203
8
203
9
204
0
Total waste to landfill in Auckland A growing gap
Outline of Brief
SLR appointed September 2016
Advise on future strategies and service delivery options to meet zero waste ambitions
Context of international best practice
Support the Waste Assessment
Inform the next WMMP 2018
Approach adopted by SLR Develop an understanding of the baseline position for Auckland; approaches in similar cities around the World recognised as leaders in environmental performance; and provide a high level assessment of the potential to apply key measures to Auckland in the context of:
policies to drive improved waste management;
infrastructure capacity and investment needs for recycling and organic and refuse processing;
optimisation of waste transfer mechanisms; and
the preferred approach to management of organic waste streams
Lessons Learned – high performing cities Cities selected based on similar populations to Auckland, high
environmental performance/commitments and the employment of varying approaches (e.g. landfill bans, landfill levies, introduction of treatment technologies, etc.)
Two lower performing cities also included
Lessons Learned KPI Key Lessons Learned
Landfill Costs Landfill disposal costs significantly higher than current Auckland rates
Payment System
Most adopt a user charge approach to payments
Two ‘lower performing’ cities (Brisbane& Birmingham) both adopt a flat user charge
Auckland plans to implement ‘pay as you throw’ (PAYT) measures
Service Delivery
Many high performers have a focus on diverting organic waste from landfill
All use either a contracted company or an authority controlled entity to deliver their collection services
Main exceptions are multi-occupancy dwellings (often commercial market)
Contract Structure
None have fully combined collection, treatment & disposal contracts
The same entity may be contracted separately for each service (e.g. San Fran)
Priorities of high performing cities
High priorities of high performing cities:
Environmental (waste minimisation, improving efficiency of resource use, improving management of household organic waste)
Socio-economic (opportunities for public involvement and engagement)
Operational (developing infrastructure / processes to maximise resource recovery)
Lesser considerations:
Cost (in isolation)
Deliverability / risks
Local transport impacts
Lessons from high performing cities
To divert waste from landfill and promote adoption of measures for waste reuse, recycling and treatment, it is imperative that the cost of landfill is sufficiently high to provide a competitive environment in which alternative approaches become viable
Without a sufficient financial incentive to reduce landfill, service delivery, payment and contractual structures become secondary considerations, unlikely to achieve the level of environmental performance that Auckland aspires to achieve
A commonly adopted approach to ensure that landfill costs increase at all sites is application of an appropriate level of landfill tax or levy. This and other ‘game changer’ policies have been applied in other international jurisdictions
‘Game Changers’ for high performing cities
Example ‘Game Changer’ - Seattle
Analysis – Waste Flow Model Forecast Total Waste Arisings and Management in tonnes by 2040
Informs estimation of future requirements for new waste management facilities, and also the potential costs of developing and operating required infrastructure
Scenario modelling (refuse) Using waste composition data and future waste arisings projections provided by
Council, SLR modelled three potential options for treatment of refuse:
Mechanical Treatment (MT)
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)
Energy from Waste (EfW)
Baseline scenario without any provision for refuse treatment also considered
Three recycling scenarios (low, medium and high capture rates for specific materials) were applied to estimate additional materials that could be diverted
Although Central Government’s drive to use renewable energy in New Zealand currently rules out use of Energy from Waste facilities, it was included to estimate relative landfill diversion performance and costs
Scenario modelling (refuse) Outputs – estimate of number and type of facilities needed at key
milestones, including - capital and operating costs, expected performance, employment opportunities created
Scenario modelling (organic waste)
More effective management of organic wastes (in particular food waste) fundamental to delivering an improved overall solid waste management strategy, and also meeting the wider environmental targets for Auckland
Options selected by Council for further assessment - secondary segregation of refuse (treatment by MBT), dedicated food waste collections, collection of food waste using split body vehicles or pods (all with treatment by AD)
Scenario Modelling (Organic Waste)
Scenario modelling (organic waste) Comparative Carbon Performance
Scenario modelling (organic waste) User charges need to be considered to incentivise segregation
Total costs associated with organic waste collection and treatment services vary
according to area type and a range of other sensitivities
Optimised service configuration could realise savings in other services, e.g. by reducing refuse collection frequencies (partially off-setting costs for organic waste)
Site optimisation study and detailed cost analysis required to identify the optimum solution (collection and transfer / treatment infrastructure) which best suits needs of Auckland
No ‘one size fits all’ solution for an effective organic waste management system
Conclusions Current cost of landfilling in Auckland is too low to drive the
development of alternative approaches to solid waste management
Based on SLR’s analysis, the current levy of $10 per tonne only incentivises diversion of recyclables and green waste from Domestic Waste. Levy should be increased to at least c.$50 per tonne and c.$125 per tonne respectively to make diversion of food waste and refuse financially preferable to landfill disposal
Investment and support for non-landfill facilities and clear financial incentives are required to drive behavioural change, particularly for Non Domestic Waste
Conclusions
Additional processing / treatment facilities needed to deliver landfill diversion targets, particularly for organic waste and refuse streams
Policy / legislative direction needs to be clearly established across all major waste streams. Clearly defined strategies required to provide a roadmap to achieve short, medium and long term targets
Strategy development should consider all waste streams holistically, particularly in the context of collection and treatment infrastructure requirements
Recommendations Policy Changes:
Landfill Levy should be reviewed and an increased rate implemented (national issue)
Mandatory use of SWMPs could be a useful tool for the construction / development sector
Full or partial ban on disposal of organic waste to landfill should be considered, following development of a complementary organic waste management strategy
Appropriate collection charging mechanisms should be introduced
Organic Waste Management Strategy:
Confirm preferred treatment solution (including consideration of renewable energy incentives and climate change aspirations)
Identification of optimal facility locations
Determine most appropriate organic waste segregation / collection system
Recommendations Refuse Management Strategy:
Aim - to minimise waste disposal to landfill
Confirm preferred refuse treatment technology (to achieve long term targets)
Identification of optimal treatment facility locations
Supporting Measures:
Provide waste transfer infrastructure to optimise collection and transport requirements
Consideration must be given to development of viable markets for waste treatment outputs
Council to confirm what ‘Zero Waste’ means in the Auckland context and the preferred route to achieving this (phased)
Council needs a clear understanding of all waste arisings (sources and types) to inform further strategies
What’s zero waste for Auckland?
International definition:
Encourages redesign of products
Materials are reused and recycled
No waste to landfills or incinerators
Option 1 - zero is the target, success is high diversion
Option 2 - absolute zero using current technologies
Proposed vision
Auckland aspires to be zero waste by 2040
taking care of people and the environment
and turning waste into resources
Priority actions to reduce domestic waste
Continue with consistent kerbside services
Weekly kerbside food waste collection from 2018
Develop the resource recovery network
Target of 110 kgs per person by 2020
Priority actions to reduce total waste
Advocate for a higher waste levy
Advocate for product stewardship
Address three priority commercial waste streams:
- Construction and demolition waste
- Organic waste
- Plastics
Target of 560 kgs per person by 2027
Thanks for listening
Ian Stupple 021 835 614 [email protected]
Andy Street +44 7771 905801 [email protected]
Top Related