Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study

Central Park Precinct Organics Management
Feasibility Study
Institute for Sustainable Futures
in collaboration with
Flow Systems, JLL, Active Research and Avac
About The Authors
The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) was established by the University of
Technology Sydney in 1996 to work with industry, government and the community to develop
sustainable futures through research and consultancy. Our mission is to create change toward
sustainable futures that protect and enhance the environment, human wellbeing and social
equity. For further information visit: www.isf.uts.edu.au
Flow Systems http://fowsystems.com.au
Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) http://www.jll.com.au/australia/en-au
Active Research http://www.activeresearch.com.au
Avac http://www.avac.com.au/about-us.aspx
Citation
Please cite as: Turner, A., Fam, D., McLean, L., Zaporoshenko, M., Halliday, D., Buman, M.,
Lupis, M., and Kalkanas, A. 2018, Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study
prepared for the City of Sydney by the Institute for sustainable Futures, University of Technology
Sydney.
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to thank all the collaborators on this project including representatives
from Cleanaway, JungleFy and the City of Sydney for their time and expertise on this project. All
comments and conclusions are those of the authors.
Research team:
Andrea Turner and Dena Fam (Institute for Sustainable Futures)
Lisa McLean and Max Zaporoshenko (Flow Systems)
Anna Kalkanas (JLL)
David Halliday (Active Research)
Marc Buman and Melanie Lupis (Avac)
Version Author Reviewed by Date
Draft AT DF 25/05/2018
Final Draft DF AT 22/06/2018
Final (Published) AT JD/DF 21/12/2018
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
i
About The Research
The ‘Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study’ has been
prepared by the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF), University of Technology
Sydney (UTS). The research, conducted by ISF, was funded through a
City of Sydney (CoS) Innovation Grant (2016) and Flow Systems (Flow) in
collaboration with JLL (retail managers at Central Park), Active Research
(anaerobic digestion specialists) and Avac (vacuum system specialists).
ISF and Flow Systems provided the core
investigative team for the feasibility study.
Active Research and Avac provided in-kind
support and expertise specifcally associated
with AD and vacuum technology with JLL
providing data on commercial waste fows
and commitment to trialling commercial food
waste collection with the food related retail
outlets throughout the project.
Project Partners
Flow Systems is a private multi-utility
business that provides potable water,
recycled water, wastewater and more recently
energy services to greenfeld and urban infll
communities.
The CoS, ISF, and Flow Systems are part
of the ‘Smart Locale’ group (http://www.
smartlocale.com.au), which has a mission
to accelerate the transformation of the
Ultimo-Pyrmont area local economy into an
internationally recognised showplace for
smart, safe, sustainable living by 2020.
The project supports various state and local government initiatives. The project strongly aligns with
the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy (WARR) 2014-2021, by providing
background information and data on the viability of innovative organic waste management systems
and the potential for new markets for recycled materials. By including an analysis of the feasibility
of recycling organic food waste (combined with organics in wastewater and trade waste), this
project explicitly supports WARR’s goal of diverting 75% of waste from landfll and increasing
recycling rates for municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial waste to 70% by
2021-22, of which organic food waste is a critical component. The project also provides direct
benefts to the CoS, by supporting the City to meet its strategic goals. These benefts are related
to the 2030 Sustainable Sydney Strategy and the Master Plans developed to support that Strategy
(especially the Decentralised Water Master Plan, in which ISF was centrally involved (with GHD))
and the Advanced Waste Treatment Master Plan.
Disclaimer
The authors have used all due care and skill to ensure the material is accurate as at the date of
this report.
INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES
University of Technology Sydney
PO Box 123 Broadway, NSW, 2007
www.isf.edu.au
© UTS December 2018
ii
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Abbreviations
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AD Anaerobic digester (or digestion)
A$ Australian dollars
BAU Business as usual
C&D Construction and Demolition
C&I Commercial and Industrial
CBD Central Business District
CoS City of Sydney
CTEP Central thermal electricity plant
CUB Carlton United Brewery
FOG Fats, oils and grease
FW Food Waste
GHG Greenhouse gas
GO Garden Organics
Ha Hectare
IoT Internet of Things
ISF Institute for Sustainable Futures
JLL Jones Lang LaSalle
kg Kilograms
kL Kilolitres
km Kilometres
L Litres
m Metres
ML Megalitres
MJ Megajoules
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MUDs Multi unit dwellings
NSW EPA New South Wales Environment Protection Authority
P Phosphorus
PUP Pyrmont-Ultimo precinct
SWC Sydney Water Corporation
t Tonnes
TW Trade waste
UCO Used cooking oil
URM United Resource Management
UTS University of Technology Sydney
WARR Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The ‘Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study’ has
involved conducting a high level assessment of the feasibility of organic waste
management using anaerobic digestion (AD) at One Central Park, Sydney.
The newly developed One Central Park site has been specifcally chosen due to the signifcant
potential to incorporate an AD system within its existing recycled water plant facility, the site’s
connection to the tri-generation central energy plant, and the ISF’s direct involvement and
experience in research in organic waste management.
Flow Systems manages the
A$13million, 1 ML/day, water
recycling plant at One Central
Park, the largest water recycling
facility in the basement of a
residential building in the world.
As a private utility pioneer, Flow Systems is
interested in pursuing the feasibility of energy
generation through a building scale AD to assist
in on-site organic waste management and
expansion of their private multi-utility business
model.
As the utility manager of One Central Park, Flow Systems are uniquely placed to investigate
a building scale AD system in a dense urban setting in combination with their existing world
leading on-site water recycling facility and central energy plant. They are keen to investigate the
feasibility of piloting an AD plant at Central Park to demonstrate on-site organics management
and associated socio-cultural and technological innovations such as minimising contamination
of food waste streams through vacuum systems and the generation and utilisation of energy
on-site.
There are currently very few successful examples of organic waste management (e.g. food
waste, sewage and trade waste) systems at a single large building/precinct scale using AD.
While technologies already exist to manage organics in more sustainable and benefcial ways,
signifcant gaps in knowledge exist in closing the loop on organic waste streams through on-site
AD in a dense urban setting. These gaps include, for example, identifying the:
â–ª volume and type of organics available for an on-site AD plant in a mixed-use dense urban
setting,
â–ª volume and type of organics required for such a system to operate efciently,
â–ª range of costs and benefts of AD to residential and commercial customers,
â–ª preferred technical options for Central Park in particular.
With Sydney expected to grow from 5 to 8 million people over the next 30
years, on-site treatment of organic waste using anaerobic digestion (AD)
unlock signifcant potential in both retroft and new developments.
1
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Waste Management at One Central Park
The Central Park precinct is built on the former Carlton United Brewery (CUB)
site next to Central Station on the southern edge of Sydney’s CBD and directly
adjacent to Ultimo, currently, the densest urban area in Australia, with some
15,100 people/km2 (ABS 2016). One Central Park, on the western edge of
the development, with its distinctive East and West towers draped in green
vegetation, is the focal point of this feasibility study.
For the feasibility study, current waste management systems and practices were investigated for both
the residential and commercial areas at One Central Park. Figure 1 below illustrates the various waste
streams along with the management and treatment of each waste stream, including garden organics
(GO), food waste (FW) (residential & commercial/retail), UCO, FOG, sewage and trade waste (TW).
A more detailed assessment of the volume of waste containing organics was developed to assist in
assessing the potential of an AD system on-site at One Central Park. Volumes of individual streams
containing organic waste are shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the current waste stream routes and
destinations highlighting the fragmented nature of organic waste management and signifcant potential
impacts.
Residential Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Commercial/Retail Solid Waste
Woolworths Food Waste
Woolworths Solid Waste
Used Cooking Oil (UCO)
Fats Oil and Grease (FOG)
Waste Water Sewage
(diverted to sewer bypassing the recycled water plant)
Trade Waste sludge (TW)
(discharged to sewer from the recycled water plant)
Garden Organics (GO)
(from green walls and parks at Central Park)
Figure 1
One Central Park waste streams (excl. recyclables) containing organics in kL/annum based
on 2017 data (through assumed and actual data collection)
Waste streams and management at One Central Park (excl. recyclables)
Figure 2
2
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Waste from One Central Park
requires approximately 100,000 km
of truck and rail movements each
year.
Indication of waste stream routes and destination
points for treatment and disposal
Figure 3
3
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Organics vs. Potential energy production for each option.
Technological Options
The study revealed that there is currently limited food waste and other organics
source separation occurring at One Central Park, yet there are potentially
signifcant volumes of organic waste available and, if captured and combined,
can be used as a feedstock for an on-site AD system. Such opportunities are
amplifed due to the specifc characteristics of the site, including sludge produced
from the on-site waste water recycling plant and potential connection to the
central energy plant. Figures 4 & 5 show estimated organics available with and
without sewage and trade waste sludge while Figure 6 shows the organics vs.
potential energy production for each of the options.
All options include commercial/retail food waste, Woolworth’s food waste, UCO,
and FOG but excludes GO.
Options 1 to 4 include varying volumes of residential food waste (from
15% to 75%) from the 623 fats at One Central Park plus all trade waste sludge.
Option 5 excludes residential food waste and includes only 50% of trade
waste sludge.
Option 6 excludes both residential food waste and trade waste sludge
representing a more commercial/retail focused example of precinct scale
development.
The options were analysed for potential biogas production revealing that Options
3 and 4 provide the highest energy potential.
A total of six potential options were identifed for assessment
which took into consideration a spectrum of opportunities
relevant to retroftting One Central Park but also new precinct
scale developments.
Estimated organics
waste streams with
Trade Waste Sludge
Estimated Organics
waste streams w/o
Trade Waste Sludge
Figure 4 Figure 5
The potential energy versus the quantum of organics needed to
generate the energy highlights the signifcant opportunities of waste
streams such as food waste, UCO, and FOG compared to trade
waste sludge
Figure 6
4
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
As the Central Park precinct has
a tri-generation central energy
plant located on-site, there is the
opportunity to use the energy
generated from the AD plant to
either contribute towards the needs
of electricity or hot water for the
residential fats on-site. Figure 7
provides a comparison summary of
the six options.
Comparison Summary of the
six technological options
Figure 7
Options 3 and 4 have the
potential to capture the
largest volume of organic
waste on-site which could
provide sufcient renewable
energy for about 20% of
the 623 fats at One Central
Park for electricity or
approximately 50% of fats
for hot water per annum.
5
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Capital Costs & Potential Benefts
Whilst the costs of incorporating AD and the associated collection/
transportation systems at One Central Park vary, the potential for
annual avoided cost benefts are signifcant. This combined with
grant funding opportunities and the involvement of a progressive
private multi-utility business such as Flow Systems, provide a
major opportunity to set up a world leading AD system at One
Central Park.
Whilst dry vacuum costs are
high, well designed wet vacuum
systems in new buildings have
real potential. All the non vacuum
retroft options assessed have
a viable business case with a
payback period of approx. 5
years.
The costs of the options vary
signifcantly with Option 3 – ‘dry
vacuum system’ high compared to
the other options with little or no
additional organics capture compared
to Options 1,2, and 4. If wet vacuum
systems were retroftted for residential
and commercial/retail or ftted in a
new build, major cost savings could
be made.
The AD system costs do not vary signifcantly despite the size diferences between
the Options. A large component of the cost of the system is for pre-treatment,
that is, removal of plastics and metal contamination to protect the AD plant and
minimise maintenance issues.
Estimated benefts are also summarised in Figure 8. These are high level
estimates and require more detailed assessment. There are signifcant quantifable
annual benefts, including the avoidance of approx. 20% of current BAU waste
management costs and production of renewable energy leading to reduced costs
for hot water OR electricity costs for fats. Non-quantifable annual benefts include,
for example, reduced greenhouse gases from truck movements and landfll.
Summary of AD and estimated upfront capital costs and annual avoided
costs excluding operational costs.
Figure 8
The estimated upfront/capital costs of the retroft systems are summarised in Figure 8.
These costs are high level estimates and require further detailed assessment. (Note
with both Woolworths and the commercial/retail areas already separating food waste
through kitchen caddies and bins, no additional costs have been considered.)
6
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Issues for Consideration
& Recommendations
In assessing the volume of organics
available on-site and the associated
costs and benefts of introducing an
AD system at One Central Park, this
feasibility study has highlighted a
range of challenges, opportunities
and issues for considerations.
Summary of Issues for Consideration and
Recommendations
Figure 9
These have been assessed using a social,
technological, environmental, economic and
political (STEEP) analysis. While the STEEP
analysis provides insights specifcally for One
Central Park many of the insights can be
considered more broadly for managing organic
waste and developing AD systems in dense
urban settings. Figure 9 provides a summary
of the issues for consideration and associated
recommendations.
7
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Project Roadmap
There is currently signifcant
opportunity and momentum to trial
and demonstrate AD in Sydney,
specifcally at One Central Park.
By using a collaborative approach,
leveraging the research conducted
to date, and conducting further
investigations as indicated, the
CoS, Flow Systems, and other
project partners involved have the
opportunity to provide national
and international leadership on AD
Organics Management.
Project Roadmap
Figure 10
8
Executive Summary | Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study | December 2018
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
ABBREVIATIONS iv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Aim 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Project partners 2
1.4 Layout of the report 2
1.5 Approach 3
2 THE WASTE CHALLENGE 4
2.1 The challenge 4
2.2 Potential solutions 4
3 OVERVIEW OF CENTRAL PARK 7
3.1 The Central Park precinct 7
3.2 One Central Park 7
3.3 Current waste management at One Central Park 8
3.3.1 Residential 8
3.3.2 Commercial/retail 8
3.3.3 Used cooking oil (UCO) 8
3.3.4 Fats, oils and grease (FOG) 8
3.3.5 Wastewater and trade waste 8
3.3.6 Garden organics (GO) 9
3.3.7 Pet waste 9
3.3.8 Summary 9
4 ORGANIC WASTE STREAMS 11
4.1 Overview of organic waste streams at One Central Park 11
4.2 Data on organic waste streams 13
4.2.1 Full potential scenario 13
4.2.2 Data and assumptions 13
5 POTENTIAL OPTIONS 17
5.1 Socio-technical options 17
5.2 Renewable energy options 19
6 COSTS AND BENEFITS 21
6.1 Business as usual costs 21
6.2 Option costs 22
6.3 Benefits 23
7 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25
7.1 Discussion 25
7.1.1 Socio-cultural dimensions 25
7.1.2 Technological dimensions 25
7.1.3 Environmental dimensions 26
7.1.4 Economic dimensions 27
7.1.5 Political/institutional dimensions 28
7.2 Recommendations 28
8 REFERENCES 30
APPENDICES 31
Appendix A – Site plans & typical cross sections of One Central Park 32
Appendix B – Organics waste stream assumptions 33
Appendix C – AD technology & vacuum & caddy collection & transportation
systems 34
Anaerobic digestion 34
Vacuum systems 35
Caddies 36
Appendix D – Australian food load test 37
Appendix E – Knowledge sharing, transfer and dissemination 38
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This project the “Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study”
has been developed by the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF), part of the
University of Technology Sydney (UTS), in collaboration with Flow Systems, JLL,
Active Research and Avac. The project has been funded under the City of Sydney
(CoS) Environmental Performance – Innovation Grants program1 (2016-17 Round 4).
1.1 Aim
The aim of the study has been to investigate innovative approaches to the
management of organics waste streams in the heart of Sydney. Specifically, the study
focusses on determining the feasibility of using vacuum and anaerobic digestion (AD)
technology to transport and process food waste and other organic waste materials (i.e.
used cooking oil, fats, oils and grease from grease traps and sewage sludge from the
recycled wastewater treatment plant) on-site at Central Park to generate:
• biogas as a renewable energy for use on-site; and
• nutrient rich digestate for beneficial reuse to land.
Due to the sheer size and complexity of the Central Park precinct development, the
investigation has focused on the main building, One Central Park, which first opened
at the end of 2013. This main building sits within the 5.8 hectare Central Park precinct
development which encompasses a total of 11 buildings. Construction of the entire
development will be completed by the end of 2018.
By investigating the Central Park precinct development, the study aims to inform
(where feasible based on available data) the potential for both retrofitting existing
buildings and incorporating innovative organic waste management systems and
practices in new buildings. This includes investigation of:
• different types and volumes of organic waste streams;
• organic waste treatment;
• biogas, energy and digestate generation and usage;
• management arrangements; and
• costs, benefits and pricing arrangements.
1 http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/community/grants-and-sponsorships/environmentalgrants/innovation-grant (accessed 27/02/18
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
1.2 Background
This project stemmed from discussions within the Smart Locale2 initiative, which brings
together agencies, organisations and businesses in the Pyrmont-Ultimo precinct (PUP)
with an interest in implementing sustainability initiatives in the Pyrmont-Ultimo corridor,
which encompasses the iconic Central Park. Smart Locale organisations include for
example: UTS, Flow Systems, JLL, the City of Sydney (CoS), Sydney Water
Corporation (SWC), the Pyrmont Ultimo Chamber of Commerce, TAFE, the Total
Environment Centre, Sydney Fish Markets, the Powerhouse Museum and the Star
(casino and entertainment hub).
Several of the organisations within the Smart Locale initiative were involved in the
SWC and NSW EPA funded project, “Pyrmont-Ultimo Precinct (PUP) Scale
Organics Management Scoping Study” (Turner et al 2017), which investigated the
range and volume of organic waste streams within the PUP corridor and potential
innovative options for managing these waste streams more sustainably. On completion
of the PUP scoping study, Smart Locale members, in particular, Flow Systems and the
CoS, were interested in progressing a feasibility study to investigate AD to manage
organic waste and produce energy on-site at Central Park with the ultimate aim of
installing a pilot/demonstration site at One Central Park in the future.
2 https://www.smartlocale.com.au (accessed 27/02/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 2
1.3 Project partners
The key partners in the project are summarised in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 – Project partners
Project
responsibilities
Organisation Details
Project funder City of Sydney (CoS) Funder under Environmental
Performance – Innovation Grants program
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/com
munity/grants-andsponsorships/business-grants/innovationgrant
Research consultants
and project managers
(data collection and
analysis)
Institute for Sustainable
Futures (ISF),
University of Technology
Sydney (UTS)
https://www.uts.edu.au/research-andteaching/our-research/institutesustainable-futures
Project funders,
manager of on-site
water recycling plant
and data provider
Flow Systems https://flowsystems.com.au
Manager of
commercial retail
outlets and data
provider
JLL http://www.jll.com.au/australia/en-au
Anaerobic digestion
specialist
Active Research http://www.activeresearch.com.au
Vacuum system
specialist
Avac http://www.avac.com.au
1.4 Layout of the report
The report layout is as follows:
Introduction
Provides a summary of the aims and objectives of the project, background
information on the feasibility study, an overview of the partners involved, their
roles and responsibilities in the study and the overall study
approach/methodology.
The waste challenge
This section provides a brief background on the waste challenge in Sydney
and the potential for innovative waste management solutions, originally
identified in the PUP scoping study.
Overview of Central Park
A brief overview of the Central Park precinct development is provided
concentrating on One Central Park as the focus of the investigation. Current
waste management arrangements are also discussed in this section.
Organic waste streams
An overview of waste management and specifically organic waste streams
and volumes at One Central Park is represented including used cooking oil
(UCO), fats, oils and grease (FOG), food waste (FW) – residential and
commercial/retail, garden organics (GO) and trade waste (TW).
Potential options
Based on the modelling of organic waste streams conducted in this project, a
suite of potential options have been identified.
Costs and benefits
A high level analysis of the quantifiable and non-quantified costs and benefits
of the suite of options identified is presented.
Discussion and recommendations
Finally, a short discussion on the final outcome of the project and
recommendations on the feasibility of AD in a dense urban setting is
presented with reference to Social, Technical, Environmental, Economic and
Political considerations.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 3
1.5 Approach
The approach adopted for this study required an inception meeting and eight discrete
and overlapping areas of inquiry, with two tasks unable to be completed within the
project timeline (refer to Figure 1.1)
Figure 1.1 – Study approach/methodology
The key tasks included:
An inception meeting with all partners was conducted at the commencement of the
project and team meetings scheduled at key milestones throughout.
1. Baseline data collection
• Organic waste flows: Existing and assumed data on volumes of organic
waste streams at Central Park was collected. This included investigating
volumes of food waste (residential & commercial/retail), UCO, FOG, trade
waste sludge, sewage and GO.
• Costs and management arrangements: In parallel to collecting data on
organic waste flows, the project aimed to identify the costs and management
arrangements of each organic waste stream. Where possible, the
organisation involved in managing the waste stream and costs were
identified.
2. Technical options: The project proposed to:
• Identify treatment, transport and collection options: Based on data collected
in the previous task, a suite of potential options was identified.
• Identify energy generation system options based on AD: Calculations were
conducted on the potential energy generated from the suite of options.
3. Reuse options (incomplete): While the original proposal aimed to identify potential
reuse options both for (1) digestate created from AD and (2) energy use options for
utilising energy produced through AD (both on-site and off-site), this task was not
achieved within the timeframe of the project. The significant amount of time required to
identify actual and assumed volumes of organic waste streams at Central Park and the
costs and management arrangements of these waste streams meant these tasks were
only partially achieved – this is an opportunity for further research.
4. Costs and benefits: A preliminary high level assessment of the quantifiable and
non-quantifiable costs and benefits was conducted for the suite of technical options
identified (see: Task 2). This task was limited by the data available.
5. Licensing and management (incomplete): The original proposal aimed to identify
alternative licensing and management arrangements and potential business models to
support AD as an approach to manage organic waste streams on-site at Central Park.
In reality, gaining insight into the costs and licensing arrangements of waste
contractors was an unexpected hurdle and meant this task was unable to be
completed within the project timeline.
6. Preferred options: Based on the modelling and analysis of costs and benefits, a
preferred configuration of technical options for Central Park was identified.
7. Final reporting: Presentation of project results was provided to the CoS with draft
and final reporting submitted after feedback from the CoS.
8. Knowledge sharing, communication and dissemination: A key requirement of
this project is knowledge sharing, communication and dissemination. At the end of the
report an overview of the communications, workshops and conference presentations
undertaken both in Australia and internationally, which demonstrate sharing the results
of this research, is provided. Further sharing will occur, after the project has been
completed, through various fora. In addition, to these research outputs the final stage
of the project involved surveying the project team to determine lessons learned
throughout the project. Refer to Appendix F for details on knowledge sharing and the
project team survey results.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 4
2 THE WASTE
CHALLENGE
2.1 The challenge
Sydney currently has a population of over 5 million (ABS 2016). This is expected to
grow to over 8 million by the middle of the century, predominantly through urban
densification (GSC 2017). With the city growing at such a rapid pace, it will be
essential to transition from the highly siloed and traditionally centralised, linear model
of water and waste service provision, where resources are imported into the city and
waste exported out, towards a more circular economy that includes more decentralised
systems of waste management. That is, a system where waste is considered a
resource and where waste streams generated locally are recovered, treated and
reused locally where it makes sense to do so.
A key issue of concern facing the city is the generation of organic waste streams.
Millions of tonnes of organic waste are currently generated every year by the
residential and commercial sectors. The majority of this material is sent to landfill
producing leachate and methane gas, a greenhouse gas (GHG) estimated to be 25
times more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (Parliament of Australia
2008), resulting in significant environmental impacts.
In an attempt to curb waste generation and increase avoidance of waste and recycling
rates, the NSW government have committed to the NSW EPA Waste Avoidance and
Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy. The latest WARR Strategy 2014 – 2021 defines
clear actions and targets to 2021 (NSW EPA, 2014) including:
• avoiding and reducing the amount of waste generated per person in NSW;
• increasing recycling rates to 70% for both Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and
Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste and 80% for Construction and
Demolition (C&D) waste; and
• increasing the volume of waste diverted from landfill to 75%.
To support these objectives, the NSW EPA uses proceeds from the landfill levy,
currently A$ 141/tonne3, to provide funds and incentives for waste management
initiatives. The ‘Waste Less, Recycle More’ fund specifically targets organic waste
diversion, incentivising new technology and behaviour change programs4 that support
councils and the private sector to manage food waste more sustainably and to create
new markets for processed outputs.
3 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/waste/waste-levy (accessed 13/08/18)
2.2 Potential solutions
In 2016/17, ISF modelled and mapped the volumes of food waste (and other organic
waste streams) in the PUP corridor and conducted a comprehensive review of national
and international innovative organic waste management solutions that could potentially
be used to manage organic waste streams in the precinct. The study “Pyrmont-Ultimo
Precinct (PUP) Scale Organics Management Scoping Study” (Turner et al 2017)
was funded by SWC and the NSW EPA and therefore, not only focused on reducing
food waste from the residential and commercial sectors sent to landfill, but also, took
into consideration other potential organic waste streams in the urban environment
including:
• Food Waste (FW);
• Used Cooking Oil (UCO);
• Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) from grease traps at commercial sites;
• Sewage;
• Trade Waste (TW); and
• Garden Organics (GO).
This holistic view of organic waste streams in the city enabled consideration of
innovative solutions for local capture, treatment and use of organic materials to not
only divert organic waste such as food waste from landfill but to also provide
opportunities for various scales of treatment and reuse. Table 2.1 lists some of the
potential management solutions, or “illustrative” options, considered in the PUP
project. Figure 2.1 indicates the intensity of organics in the PUP and specific locations
where the illustrative options could be implemented in the precinct.
Building on the PUP project, the aim of this study has been to specifically explore the
feasibility of AD in a dense urban setting. Whilst AD is a common process in the
wastewater sector, and has been trialled for food waste in various locations, such as
Federation Square (Turner et al 2017; Victoria State Government 2016) and the Pixel
Building (Sustainability Victoria, 2012) in Melbourne, AD located in the basement of an
urban building is still an unexplored opportunity for managing organics waste in urban
Sydney. Such localised collection and treatment provides an opportunity for the CoS to
investigate new waste management solutions for the increasing challenges associated
with bin space availability due to urban densification.
4 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-and-reuse/waste-less-recycle-more
(accessed 25/05/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 5
Table 2.1 – Illustrative organics waste options identified in the PUP study (Turner et al, 2017)
No Focus Waste Scale Collection>transport Treatment
1 Low rise residential Food
waste
Neighbourhood Kitchen caddies > door pick-up by bike with trolley Localised: pre-processing (compost,
decomposer, dehydrator or AD)
Centralised: AD
2 Low rise residential
& commercial cafes
Food
waste
Neighbourhood Kitchen caddies & small commercial bins > door pick-up
by bike with trolley
Localised: pre-processing or AD
Centralised: AD
3 Low & high rise MUDs
& commercial
Food
waste
Whole of precinct One waste contractor for residential & commercial
properties
Centralised: AD
4 High rise multi-unit
dwellings (MUDs)
Food
waste
Building Kitchen caddies > chutes > basement On-site: pre-processing or AD
Centralised: AD
5 High rise MUDs Food &
pet waste
Building Kitchen caddies & pet waste bags > chutes > basement On-site: AD
Localised: AD
Centralised: AD
6 High rise MUDs
(NEW)
Food
waste
Precinct In-sink-erator in kitchen > pipe to basement On-site: AD
Centralised: AD
7 High rise MUDs
(NEW)
Food
waste
& sewage
Precinct Kitchen bench food waste vacuum + vacuum toilet
> vacuum to basement
On-site: AD
8 Commercial cafes Food
waste
avoidance
Neighbourhood Café > App > collection by end user Food waste avoidance & redistribution
9 Commercial cafes Food
waste
Neighbourhood Small commercial bins > door pick-up by bike with
trolley
Localised: pre-processing or AD
Centralised: AD
10 All commercial Food
waste
Whole of precinct Policy: Zero food waste to landfill Various methods
11 Commercial cafes Food
waste
Precinct Café vacuum inlet > vacuum to basement On-site: AD
Localised: AD
Centralised: AD
12 Commercial cafes/market
(NEW)
Fish Markets
Food
waste
Precinct Café vacuum inlet > vacuum to central location on-site On-site: AD
Localised: AD
13 Education centre Food
waste
avoidance
Neighbourhood Students with spare food/meal > App > students share
meal
Food waste avoidance &
redistribution/sharing
14 Education centres Food
waste
Neighbourhood Cafes > commercial bins On-site: decomposer/dehydrator
15 Education & large
government organisations
Food
waste
Neighbourhood One waste contractor for multiple sites Centralised: AD
16 Council Parks Pet waste Council parks Owners use bags > deposit in park collection point Localised: AD
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 6
Figure 2.1 – Mapping of the organics waste and illustrative options developed as part of the PUP study (Turner et al, 2017)

Total surveyed organic flows at mesh block scale [kg]
0 500m
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
Option 1 – Residential Low Rise
Food waste bike collection
Option 2 – Mixed use
Residential & commercial food
waste bike collection
Option 3 – Mixed Use
Single waste contractor for low-rise
household & commercial food waste
contractor of food waste collection
Option 4 – Residential MUDs
Household food waste for onsite
treatment or tank to off-site AD
Option 5 – Residential MUDs
Food waste + animal waste for onsite AD or tank to off-site AD
Option 6 – Residential MUDs
(New build) Insinkerator & tank to offsite AD
Option 8 – Commercial
Cafes food waste avoidance App
Option 9 – Commercial
Cafes food waste bike collection
Option 5 – Residential MUDs
Central Park food waste & animal
waste for onsite AD (Pyrmont also)
Option 10 – Commercial
Zero food waste to landfill policy
Option 11 – Commercial
Central Park vacuum to on-site AD
Option 12 – Commercial
Sydney Fish Markets (new build)
vacuum & on-site AD
Option 13 – Institutional
UTS student housing food share App Option 14 – Institutional
UTS+TAFE shared dehydrator
Option 15 – Institutional
UTS + TAFE + ABC joint tender
for waste contractor
Option 16 – Institutional
Parks animal waste collection for
on-site AD (Central Park also)
Option 7 – Residential MUDs
(New build) Vacuum food & sewage
waste to on-site A
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 7
3 OVERVIEW OF CENTRAL
PARK
This section provides a brief overview of the Central Park precinct development, the
context for this study. This includes, the layout of the site, the specific area being
investigated and current waste management arrangements.
3.1 The Central Park precinct
The Central Park precinct is built on the former Carlton United Brewery (CUB) site next
to Central Station on the southern edge of Sydney’s CBD and directly adjacent to
Ultimo, currently the densest urban area in Australia, with some 15,100 people/km2
(ABS 2016). Refer to Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 – Central Park precinct development (Frasers Property Australia &
Sekisui House)
The A$ 2 billion, 5.8 hectare, 5 star Green Star
development, when finished in 2018, will have 11
buildings, 33 heritage items, a 6,400 m2 public park
and 1,200 m2 of green walls consisting of 35,000
plants from 350 different species. The 255,500 m2
gross floor area covers residential (58%), commercial
(30%) and retail (12%) with approximately 5,300
residents and 1,750 workers (White et al 2018). Figure
3.2 shows the extent of the precinct.
5 https://apac.bgis.com/au/about-us.htm (accessed 22/05/2018)
Figure 3.2 – Site map of the Central Park precinct development
3.2 One Central Park
One Central Park, on the western edge of the development, with its distinctive East
and West towers draped in green vegetation, is the focal point of this feasibility study.
One Central Park has over 600 apartments, managed by BGIS5, a subsidiary of
Brookfield, on behalf of the original developers Frasers and Sekisui House. There are
currently over 50 active retail spaces with over half allocated as food establishments
ranging in size from a large supermarket (Woolworths) on the lower ground floor to
smaller food outlets and restaurants spanning several levels of the retail area and food
court. The new Palace Cinema on Level 3, with food supplied from within One Central
Park, opened in late 2017. The retail space and general food outlets are managed by
the retail manager JLL.
Within the basement of One Central Park resides a A$ 13 million, 1 ML/day capacity
water recycling plant, currently the largest in the basement of a residential building in
the world (White et al, 2018). Flow Systems, the private utility managing the plant, part
owned by Brookfield, provide water, wastewater and water recycling services across
the entire Central Park precinct development. Enwave also owned by Brookfield,
provide the energy services through the on-site A$ 80 million tri-generation central
energy plant located in the basement beneath the old brewery yard adjacent to One
8
Central Park. The highly efficient plant provides both electricity as well as hot water
and chilled water for cooling to the residential flats and commercial/retail buildings
adjacent including the large refrigeration units within the supermarket (White et al
2018).
Refer to Appendix A for site plans and typical cross sections of One Central Park.
3.3 Current waste management at One Central
Park
The multiple waste streams, from both residential and commercial sites at One Central
Park are managed by a range of different organisations.
3.3.1 Residential
The waste for the 623 apartments at One Central Park is managed by
BGIS/Brookfield. Bin rooms are located on each floor for depositing recyclables and
providing access to the municipal solid waste (MSW) chutes. The bin rooms are
managed by a cleaning contractor on behalf of BGIS/Brookfield. All residential waste
goes to the two main east and west bin rooms on level B1. The Sky penthouse
residents have an additional separate main collection bin room.
Food waste is not currently separated or collected from the residential apartments and
is, therefore, currently disposed of as MSW which is collected and transported off-site
by the contractor, URM, three days a week as part of the Council of the CoS
obligations. This material is transported to the SUEZ Transfer Station at Artarmon and
then to the Alternative Waste Treatment facility and landfill site at Kemps Creek or
Eastern Creek, some 50 km west of Central Park.
Recyclables are currently collected by URM once a week.
3.3.2 Commercial/retail
The waste from the main retail space and food outlets is managed by a cleaning
contractor through a contract with the retail manager JLL. Two bin rooms are located
on Level B1. There is currently no official food waste separation for the retail food
outlets except for a trial instigated as part of this feasibility study (refer to Section 4.2.2
for details) to assist with more accurate data collection. The waste contract for the
commercial/retail solid waste and recyclables is currently with Cleanaway. The
commercial/retail solid waste is removed daily and typically taken to the SUEZ
Transfer Station at Artamon (pers com Cleanaway representative) and then on to
Lucas Heights for final disposal, some 35 km to the south of Central Park.
6https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/media/Latest_News/Woolworths_to_send_zero_food_wast
e_to_landfill_with_OzHarvest_partnership (accessed 13/08/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
The retail space includes Woolworths supermarket which manages its own waste
streams in a separate waste collection area on Level B1. Food waste is currently
separated from commercial/retail solid waste and recyclables. Woolworths also has an
arrangement with Oz Harvest to collect and distribute edible food waste as part of its
commitment to eliminate food waste sent to landfill by 20206. Unavoidable food waste
is currently collected by Cleanaway three days a week and transported off-site to
EarthPower, 25 km west of Central Park, where it is treated via large scale AD to
generate green renewable energy and nutrient rich digestate which is used as a
fertilizer by the agricultural and horticultural sectors7. Woolworths’ commercial/retail
solid waste is collected by Cleanaway and transported to the Veolia Banksmeadow
Transfer Station and then onto the Woodlawn facility, near Goulburn, by train, 200 km
to the south of Central Park. Recyclables are also collected by Cleanaway.
3.3.3 Used cooking oil (UCO)
UCO is transported by individual retail outlets to Level B1 where it is stored in a
holding tank ready for collection and the individual oil tins crushed on-site. UCO is
collected each month by Scanline, a NSW EPA approved and licensed UCO manager.
It is taken to their NSW Riverstone Depot, over 55 km north west of Central Park,
where depending on the quality of the material, it is processed and recycled for
biodiesel, stockfeed and/or pet products8 on-site or at other appropriate treatment
facilities. Waste by-products generated as part of the treatment processes are used for
agricultural soil injection where appropriate (pers com Scanline representative).
3.3.4 Fats, oils and grease (FOG)
There are three 15,000 L and one 5,000 L grease traps for One Central Park. The
grease traps are emptied approximately every two months by Cleanaway and treated
off-site at the Cleanaway Treatment Plant at Padstow, over 20 km to the south west of
Central Park, where the grease waste is dewatered and the concentrated grease sent
to the agricultural sector for soil injection, and the water component discharged to
sewer for further treatment before discharge (pers com JLL representative).
3.3.5 Wastewater and trade waste
In the basement of One Central Park, the 1 ML/day capacity wastewater recycling
plant, managed by the private utility Flow Systems (part owned by Brookfield), treats
both residential and commercial/retail wastewater flows.
For the residential component, the plant treats standard end uses (i.e. toilets, showers,
washing machines and bathroom and kitchen sinks). The plant treats the wastewater,
returning high quality recycled water for toilet flushing and cold water washing machine
use (White et al 2018).
7 https://earthpower.com.au/the-technology/ (accessed 07/05/18) 8 http://www.aeoscanline.com.au (accessed 11/03/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 9
For the commercial/retail customers, the plant treats the wastewater from the toilets
and bathroom and kitchen sinks etc. The treated recycled water is used for flushing
toilets, cooling towers and irrigation of the precinct parks and green walls (White et al
2018).
A by-product of the wastewater recycling plant process is the generation of sewage
sludge. This is discharged by Flow Systems to the existing sewer system managed by
SWC through a trade waste agreement. The volume of sludge currently produced will
increase as the plant treats recycled water for the entire Central Park development
when completed at the end of 2018. On completion, recycled water will be exported to
UTS and used for toilet flushing and the cooling towers in a new campus building
currently being constructed (White et al 2018). During the interim period excess
sewage, together with the sludge from the water recycling plant, is discharged to
sewer for treatment by SWC.
3.3.6 Garden organics (GO)
The green walls and planters installed at the Central Park precinct development,
including One Central Park, produce significant volumes of GO. All GO produced onsite is maintained by JungleFy910 through a management contract with Brookfield (who
facilitate the contract on behalf of Central Park Strata, Parklane 1, 3, 5, 8 and The
Mark Strata and JLL). The public park situated at the centre of the Central Park
precinct development has been handed back to the CoS and is managed by a
maintenance contractor (pers coms JungleFy representative). Waste from
maintenance of the 1,200 m2 vertical green walls and One Central Park planter boxes
is collected fortnightly by the CoS contractor, URM, and transported to a designated
composting facility managed by Veolia at Kemps Creek, 50 km west of Central Park,
and processed for compost.
3.3.7 Pet waste
Residents at Central Park are permitted to have pets (i.e. up to two cats or two dogs or
a combination with a combined weight of up to 20 kg). Pets must be registered with
BGIS/Brookfield under the strata management agreement. There are currently 47
registered pets at One Central Park (pers com BGIS representative).
The waste from domestic animals is not collected separately and is therefore assumed
to be within the MSW in residential bins and general waste bins situated in the public
park at the centre of the Central Park precinct development. This material currently
goes to MSW through the residential and park waste streams respectively. Some
animal waste may be disposed of by residents in apartment toilets. This requires
further investigation.
9 https://junglefy.com.au (accessed 11/03/18)
3.3.8 Summary
In summary, this project has identified the current waste management arrangements
for multiple waste streams in both the residential and commercial/retail sectors. Figure
3.3 (a) and (b) summarise the organisations currently managing these various waste
streams.
Figure 3.3 – Organisations currently managing waste streams at One Central
Park
(a) Residential (b) Commercial/retail and other
Figure 3.4 provides a visual summary of the organic waste streams from One Central
Park and their current destinations for treatment and or disposal, highlighting the highly
fragmented treatment/disposal arrangements and significant transport distances
covered, in some cases on a daily basis.
10 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/peregrine-falcons-frogs-and-bees-move-into-sydneyscentral-park-in-unprecedented-natural-growth/news-story/268cbde1fde18b4ce4b4d69d2322b113
(accessed 11/03/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 10
Figure 3.4 – Indication of waste stream routes and destination points for treatment/disposal
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 11
4 ORGANIC WASTE
STREAMS
This section analyses the volumes/weights of organic waste streams generated at One
Central Park to assess the potential of an on-site AD plant and the associated sizing,
costing and potential energy and digestate production.
Volumes/weights of food waste and other organic waste streams are rarely collected
and considered in a holistic way. When data is collected, for example for food waste,
this is typically conducted using a visual assessment (i.e. Bin Trim audits for the C&I
sector11). For this study, where actual volumes/weights of organic waste streams onsite are known, this data has been used to assist in the calculations. Where unknown,
the best available data and assumptions have been used.
4.1 Overview of organic waste streams at One
Central Park
To assist in assessing the potential of an AD system on-site at One Central Park
individual streams of organic waste have been calculated. These streams are
illustrated in Figure 4.1, inclusive of garden organics (GO), food waste (FW)
(residential & commercial/retail), used cooking oil (UCO), fats oils and grease (FOG),
trade waste and sewage.
Table 4.1 provides an indication of the volumes of waste streams collected/discharged
from One Central Park in 2017 based in litres/annum (L/annum), excluding recyclables
but including MSW and commercial solid waste in which a proportion of organic waste
will be contained. These volumes are converted to weights using appropriate
conversion factors in subsequent sections of the report. Table 4.1 provides a snap
shot and comparative scale of various waste streams. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 provide a
graphic representation of these volumes. Figure 4.3 has been represented without the
significant volumes of sewage and sludge discharged via sewer, to enable comparison
of the other smaller streams of waste.
11 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-and-reuse/business-governmentrecycling/bintrim (accessed 25/05/18)
Figure 4.1 – Organic waste streams managed, treated/removed at One Central
Park
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 12
Table 4.1 – Overview of volumes of waste streams collected/discharged from
One Central Park in 2017
Waste stream 2017
L/annum
Comments
Residential
Municipal
Solid Waste
(MSW)
3,350,880 Approx. estimate of total volume of 240 L & 660 L red bins
collected in 2017 (i.e. volume of actual waste will be less)
Commercial/
retail
Food Waste
(FW)
Retail food waste contained within red bin commercial
solid waste figure below (except for recent trial
commencing in mid December 2017).
Commercial
Solid Waste
4,105,860 Approx. estimate of total volume of 660 L red bins
collected over 2017 (i.e. volume of actual waste will be
less)*
Woolworths
Supermarket
Food Waste
(Oz Harvest)
Data not provided
Unavoidable
Food Waste
(EarthPower)
193,740 Approx. estimate of total volume of 240 L and 660 L bins
removed in 2017 (i.e. volume of actual food waste will be
less)
Commercial
Solid Waste
882,400 Approx. estimate of total volume of 1,100 L and 240 L
(organics contaminated) bins removed in 2017 (i.e. volume
of actual waste will be less)
Used
Cooking Oil
(UCO)
12,000 Approx. 1,000 L of UCO collected every month (actual
volumes per month recorded)
Fats Oils &
Grease (FOG)
300,000 Approx. 3 x 15,000 L and 1 x 5,000 L of FOG collected
from the grease trap tanks every 2 months. Figure
includes total volume removed (i.e. concentrated FOG,
water and food waste detritus caught in the system)
Wastewater
System
Wastewater
(discharged/
diverted)
62,050,000 Currently approx. 75% of wastewater is treated through
the on-site water recycling plant (i.e. 500 kL/day treated &
& 170 kL/day discharged/diverted). Excess wastewater
discharged to sewer will decrease in future when the plant
is fully operational & treating greater levels of wastewater
for recycled water end uses at the completed Central Park
development & new UTS building opposite.
Trade Waste
(sludge
discharged)
4,380,000 Approx. estimate of 12 kL/day of sludge is discharged to
the sewer. This volume is likely to increase in future when
the plant is fully operational.
Garden
Organics
(GO)
332,800 Approx. estimate of 35 x 240 L & 4 x 1,100 L bins collected
every 2 weeks (i.e. volume of actual waste will be less)
Figure 4.2 – Estimated volumes of waste streams containing organics (L/annum)
for 2017
Figure 4.3 – Estimated volumes of waste streams containing organics (L/annum)
for 2017 excluding wastewater and sludge discharged via sewer
As shown in Table 4.1 and represented in Figure 4.2, a large proportion of the
wastewater collected from the Central Park development is currently diverted before it
is treated by the on-site water recycling plant. This wastewater passes straight to
sewer. This large volume of wastewater has not been included in the investigations, as
it is anticipated that most of this stream of organic waste will eventually be treated by
the Central Park water recycling plant when the new adjacent UTS building is
completed and additional recycled water is exported to UTS in 2019 (refer to Section
4.2.2 for details).
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 13
4.2 Data on organic waste streams
4.2.1 Full potential scenario
To determine the feasibility of on-site AD at One Central Park, the volume and
availability of each organic waste stream has been calculated (excluding the excess
diverted wastewater passing straight to sewer).
Figure 4.4 provides an overview of the range of organics waste streams generated in
kg/week. The “full potential” scenario assumes that all organics waste generated onsite could potentially be used for an AD plant not withstanding existing contracts,
collection logistics (i.e. how much food waste/organic waste can realistically be
obtained from the residential sector) or combined treatment feasibility (i.e. compatibility
of various waste streams in an on-site AD plant).
Figure 4.4 – “Full potential” scenario in kg/week
As identified, trade waste sludge generated from the water recycling plant dominates
the data. Figure 4.5 therefore provides an overview of the full potential scenario,
excluding trade waste from the graph to assist in providing insight into the availability
and proportion of the other smaller organic waste streams.
Figure 4.5 – Organic waste streams under full potential scenario in kg/week
(excluding trade waste)
4.2.2 Data and assumptions
The volumes/weights of each organic waste stream collated for this study use a
combination of measured and assumed data. Details are provided below. For more
detailed assumptions and calculations, refer to Appendix B.
Residential food waste
Actual volumes/weights of food waste from the 623 apartments within One Central
Park is not available as this waste stream is currently combined with general MSW.
Therefore, an estimate has been made as to the assumed weight of food waste in the
MSW bins.
Based on assumptions (refer to Appendix B), residential food waste in the CoS area is
113 kg/person/annum. Therefore, the total volume of food waste for the estimated
population of 1,045 residents at One Central Park is assumed to be 118 t/annum
(2,270 kg/week).
Commercial/retail food waste
There are approximately 50 retail outlets at One Central Park with currently
approximately 25 generating food waste.
The food waste component of the data collected has been separated into:
• Food waste – commercial
• Food waste – Woolworths
14
A Bin Trim assessment of the retail outlets at One Central Park (excluding Woolworths
supermarket) was conducted in 2015 (Cleanaway 2015). This included a visual
inspection of food waste within the commercial solid waste bins assessed. Due to the
significant volumes of food waste identified in the Bin Trim assessment, estimated at
over 281,000 kg/annum (770 kg/day) during the Bin Trim assessment period, a food
waste measurement trial was set up as part of this feasibility study to help validate the
Bin Trim data. Figure 4.6 provides daily weights of the food waste collected from the
participating retail outlets (excluding Woolworths) during the food waste trial.
Figure 4.6 – Food waste trial total daily measured results (kg/day)
Twenty two of the 27 retail food outlets operational at One Central Park participated in
the trial, which commenced in mid-December 2017. One additional retail outlet was
vacated part way through the food waste assessment trial. Food waste from
Woolworths supermarket was excluded from the trial as it is collected separately (see
Section 3.3.2). The five retail outlets that did not participate in the trial have the
potential to contribute significant volumes of food waste but have not been
documented. Therefore, the weights collected in the trial are an underestimate of the
potential food waste collected from the retail outlets at One Central Park. The average
weight of organic waste collected during the trial from the stable period at the
beginning of January to 25th March 2018 was on average, approximately 115 kg/day.
Based on the average volumes documented, it is assumed that there is the potential to
collect approximately 42 t/annum (802 kg/week).
With UTS campus located directly opposite One Central Park, it is expected that
University terms and holiday periods will influence the volume of food waste collected
over the period assessed. In March, when the autumn semester commenced, there
was approximately a 10% increase in food waste collected compared to the January
and February period.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
A common weekly pattern can be observed in the food waste collected with the least
amount of food waste generated on Sundays.
The trial only measured the weight of pre-plated food waste occurring in the
preparation of food generated within the kitchens of each of the retail outlets studied.
This stream of food waste was identified as relatively uncontaminated compared to
post-plated food waste which is commonly associated with higher contamination rates.
Figure 4.7 provides a comparison of the 2018 measured retail food waste (FW
commercial), 2015 Bin Trim estimates and estimates of food waste from the
Woolworths supermarket (FW Woolworths). As identified, the Bin Trim data is high
compared to the food waste measured from the retail food waste trial. This is likely to
mean a combination of:
• an over-estimation of food waste in the Bin Trim visual assessment;
• an over-estimation of the weights of food waste calculated in the Bin Trim
assessment;
• the Bin Trim assessment may have been successful in behaviour change by
the retailers involved thereby assisting in reducing retail food waste after the
2015 Bin Trim assessment;
• a significant portion of food waste is in the general waste bins.
Figure 4.7 – Measured versus Bin Trim assessed food waste together with
Woolworths estimated food waste (kg/day)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 15
As of mid 2018 JLL, the retail manager of the commercial/retail space at Once Central
Park, is also considering how it might expand the trial to capture additional
commercial/retail food waste (i.e. collection of additional post-plated food waste in the
food court).
As discussed previously, the food waste generated by Woolworths supermarket is
collected separately but not measured. From 2017 records, the total number of bins of
unavoidable food waste from Woolworths (in L) has been factored at 75% of bins (i.e.
the food waste bins will not be full) and multiplied by a standard food waste density
conversion factor (refer to Appendix B). The estimated 2017 weight of Woolworths
food waste collected and taken to EarthPower is approximately 62 t/annum (1,188
kg/week). This excludes food waste recovered through donation to Oz Harvest for
which data is not currently available.
Used cooking oil (UCO)
UCO, collected by Scanline, was measured to be approximately 11 t/annum (213
kg/week) in 2017. Figure 4.8 provides a monthly profile of oil collected, predominantly
over 2017, showing the seasonal profile and maximum collection during the winter
months.
Figure 4.8 – UCO collected from December 2016 to November 2017 showing
seasonal variation (L/month)
Fats, oils and grease (FOG)
At One Central Park there are three 15,000 L and one 5,000 L grease traps. The total
volume of FOG removed by Cleanaway per year (on a regular two monthly cycle) is
approx. 270 t/annum (5,192 kg/week). This is a significant quantity of FOG. However,
due to the potential over sizing of the grease traps the proportion of fats, oils and
grease assumed to be within the materials collected (i.e. concentrated FOG, water and
food waste detritus) has been factored down for this study. That is, the proportion of
water is assumed to be higher than typical estimates in order not to overestimate the
possible biogas potential.
Wastewater
Approximately 25% of the total wastewater generated on-site is not treated by the onsite water recycling plant at Central Park but rather discharged to the sewer. While this
excess wastewater is not accurately measured, it equates to approximately 62,050
t/annum (1,190,000 kg/week).
The Central Park precinct development will be completed by the end of 2018. The
water recycling plant will then provide recycled water up to 1 ML/day to the precinct.
By the end of 2019 the new campus building at UTS opposite Central Park will be
complete with recycled water exported to the UTS building for end uses such as toilet
flushing and use in cooling towers.
As the wastewater discharge is likely to be reduced when these remaining
developments are connected, the diverted wastewater stream has been excluded from
the feasibility study at this stage. It should be noted, however, that as the capacity of
the recycled water plant increases from current levels, the sludge generated will also
increase (see further details below).
Trade waste (TW)
As identified in Figure 4.4, the volume of trade waste generated on-site is significant.
Trade waste is currently discharged to sewer under a trade waste agreement with
SWC. The sludge discharged is not measured, however, estimates by Flow Systems
indicates that approximately 12 kL/day of sludge is discharged to sewer. This equates
to approximately 4,380 t/annum (84,000 kg/week). At full potential (i.e. when the plant
is fully operational), this volume is likely to increase. The 12 kL/day sludge estimate is
based on the water recycling plant running at approximately half capacity (0.5 ML/day).
Estimated capacity in the near future (i.e. by 2019) will be approximately 0.7 ML/day
when the Central Park precinct development and UTS building are on-line (i.e. still not
the full 1 ML/day capacity of the recycling plant). This will equate to approximately 15
kL/day of associated sludge (pers com Flow Systems representative). Therefore, it has
been assumed that the trade waste sludge discharged to sewer by the end of 2019 will
be approximately 5,475 t/annum (105,000 kg/week).
16
Garden organics (GO)
GO from planter boxes and trimmings from
vertical walls at One Central Park is not
measured. The volume of the green GO bins removed on a fortnightly cycle by URM
has, therefore, been used to establish a GO estimate for this study. Approximately 77
t/annum (1,478 kg/week) of GO was removed in 2017 using a standard GO density
conversion factor
(refer to Appendix B).
The relatively large volume/weight of GO produced at One Central Park
is in part due
to the characteristics of the site. Therefore, this waste stream
has been
excluded from
the final analysis of feasibility of AD at Central Park. This is, in
part, due to the
exceptional
characteristics of the site compared to other similar precincts, which do not
include green walls and a precinct public park, but also as GO is
less effective in AD
due to the cellulose and lignin
characteristics of the waste stream. Such waste lends
itself more to traditional composting approaches.
Pet waste
There are approximately 47 registered cats and dogs at One Central Park
(pers com
Strata Manager, BGIS). The public gardens surrounding the Central Park precinct
development ar
e a popular inner-city space for dog owners to walk their dogs and,
therefore, there are likely to be many additional dogs visiting the site on a daily basis in
addition to the 47 registered animals living on-site.
While animal waste
has
not been measured, a rough estimate of the registered
animals alone would indicate that approximately 4.3 t/annum (82 kg/week) of animal waste is produced. Whilst significant in terms of weight, this waste stream has not
been included in
the analysis as further research is required (i.e. determining the
numbers of dogs frequenting the public park at Central Park) and because
it is a
relatively small waste stream compared to the other organic waste streams on-site.
This kind of waste stream
lends itself to particular strategies such as educational AD
plants
located in parks/dog parks where the energy from
t
he waste has the potential to
be
used in a specialised AD plant with for example an attached street lamp to provide
education
on
biogas and energy generation from organic waste. Such
examples can
be found in
the UK, Canada and the US (Turner et al 2017). This is a recommended
strategy to be explored.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
17
5 POTENTIAL OPTIONS
As identified in the previous section, there is currently limited food waste separation
occurring at One Central Park, yet there are potentially significant volumes that could
be captured from both the residential and commercial/retail areas. There are also
significant volumes of other organics waste streams currently managed by a range of
contractors through various management arrangements that if combined with available
food waste could provide the opportunity to be a feedstock for an on-site AD system at
Central Park. Such opportunities are amplified due to the specific characteristics of the
site, including sludge produced from the on-site water recycling plant. This study, to
determine the feasibility of AD at One Central Park, is not generalisable but potential
options have been chosen to assist in making the research relevant to both Central
Park in terms of a retrofit and other precinct scale sites in dense urban settings (both
retrofit and new developments). Potential opportunities are discussed below in terms
of socio-technical, renewable energy and digestate reuse options.
5.1 Socio-technical options
The options presented in this project take into consideration both technical and social
dimensions associated with the feasibility of an AD system. The underlying premise of
‘socio-technical thinking’ is that the design of a system should take into account both
the social “and“ technical factors that influence the functionality and use of that system.
Appendix C provides a brief description of AD technology and provides reference to
both social and technical options for implementing a functional AD system. For
example, this includes the collection and transport of the food waste streams reliant on
either kitchen caddies (a socially dependent option to transport food waste) or dry or
wet vacuum systems (a technically dependent option to transport food waste). A brief
description of these transport systems is also provided in Appendix C.
The suite of socio-technical options analysed for this study are summarised in Table
5.1.
None of the options include GO or excess wastewater (as discussed in Section 4). GO
is excluded due to the currently atypical context of green walls at One Central Park
and because such materials are less compatible with smaller scale AD (as discussed
in Section 4). The excess wastewater has also been excluded due to the scale of
wastewater produced on-site and its high water content. (Further discussion on
wastewater opportunities are available in Section 7).
Table 5.1 also summarises estimated volumes, sizing and digestate production for
each of the Options considered. As can be seen the size of the AD plant varies
depending on the substrates used as feedstock. For example, halving or removing
12 In-sink-erators or kitchen waste disposal units are devices installed in the kitchen sink that are used to
macerate food before discharge to a drainage system. Such systems are typically electrically powered
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
trade waste sludge (Options 5 and 6 respectively) as a feedstock significantly reduces
the size of the AD plant required. In comparison, the proportion of residential food
waste included as feedstock makes relatively little difference to the sizing of the
system. Decisions on which substrates to include is highly dependent on the costs,
benefits and feasibility/logistics (as discussed in Sections 6 and 7).
It should be noted that Option 4 is assumed to use a wet vacuum system for food
waste transport to the AD plant. It assumes the use of an ‘in-sink-erator’12. Such
technology is normally linked to the sewer system, however, in this option it is
assumed it links as a separate system directly to the AD plant. This, of course, would
be highly expensive and logistically difficult to consider as a retrofit but should be
considered for new buildings as discussed in Section 7.
The in-sink-erator requires 4 L of water to be flushed through the system for every kg
of food waste. Therefore, the volumes for food waste in this option have been factored
into the sizing of the AD system to allow for the additional water component. Tests
conducted by Avac Australia (project collaborator) in 2018 determined that the in-sinkerator, as a kitchen top pumping mechanism connected to a wet vacuum system,
needs approximately 3 L of water to pass 1 kg of food waste in approximately 60
seconds. Avac recommendations have been to allow 4 L/kg for conservative
calculations (see Australian Food Load Test by Avac in Appendix D).
and require water to assist in the maceration and drainage process. The waste is normally discharged to
the wastewater system but can be directed to a separate system for collection.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 18
Table 5.1 – Summary of options
Options & waste streams
Streams included in option AD volume
required
(L)
AD size
dia. (m), height (m)
Digestate
produced each day
kg/day
Comments
Option 1 (realistic)*
FW residential 15% of residential FW 56,000 D=3.8
H=5
1,000 Option 1 targets all viable waste streams at One
Central Park and assumes a “realistic” volume of
food waste can potentially be collected from
residential apartments based on studies in Sydney
using caddy systems (i.e. Randwick and Leichhardt
Councils – refer to Appendix B).
FW commercial (part measured) Yes
FW Woolworths Yes
UCO Yes
FOG Yes
TW sludge Yes
Option 2 (best practice)*
FW residential 50% of residential FW Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 but assumes that 50% of food
waste is recoverable from residential apartments
through ‘best practice’ with residents using caddy
systems as the transportation mechanism for food
waste. Based on study in Milan – refer to Appendix
B)
FW commercial (part measured) Yes
FW Woolworths Yes
UCO Yes
FOG Yes
TW sludge Yes
Option 3 (vacuum – dry)*
FW residential 75% of residential FW Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 but assumes a higher volume of
food waste recoverable from residential apartments
by using a dry vacuum system as a transport
mechanism for food waste.
FW commercial (part measured) Yes
FW Woolworths Yes
UCO Yes
FOG Yes
TW sludge Yes
Option 4 (vacuum – wet)*
FW residential 75% of residential FW Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 Similar to Option 1 but assumes a higher volume of
food waste is recoverable from residential
apartments by using a wet vacuum system as the
transport mechanism for food waste.
FW commercial (part measured) Yes
FW Woolworths Yes
UCO Yes
FOG Yes
TW sludge Yes
Option 5
FW residential No 22,000 D=2.5
H=4.5
500 Option 5 excludes residential food waste as a feed
stock due to the potential for high rates of
contamination at One Central Park. Option 5 also
assumes only 50% of trade waste sludge is used as
feedstock to test the potential of reducing AD plant
size and associated costs.
FW commercial (part measured) Yes
FW Woolworths Yes
UCO Yes
FOG Ye
TW sludge 50%
Option 6
FW residential No 10,000 D=1.8
H=4
65 Option 6 excludes residential food waste and trade
waste sludge and is more aligned to the
characteristics of precinct developments which may
not have residential apartments or a water recycling
plant onsite.
FW commercial (part measured) Yes
FW Woolworths Yes
UCO Yes
FOG Yes
TW sludge No
* with respect to residential waste with assumptions on percentages of food waste potentially collected and collection/transportation mechanism for food waste
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 19
5.2 Renewable energy options
The biogas and associated energy produced from substrates used as feedstock for AD
can vary significantly. Figure 5.1 illustrates the significant variation of energy produced
from various organic waste streams.
Figure 5.1 – Example of biogas produced from various waste substrates (Al
Seadi et al, 2008)
To assess actual biogas potential of various substrates, laboratory testing should be
undertaken. Laboratory testing is outside the scope of this feasibility study therefore,
available literature and expert knowledge have been used to estimate possible biogas
production and associated renewable energy potential.
Figure 5.2 provides an indication of the estimated annual renewable energy potential
for each substrate for Option 1 together with the relative annual organics volume to
produce that energy. The graph illustrates the significant differences between each
substrate. For example, despite the trade waste sludge being such a large volume, the
value of that substrate, in terms of energy potential, is less than the food waste
produced by Woolworths supermarket.
Figure 5.2 – Organic waste and potential energy generation for Option 1
Figure 5.3 provides estimated renewable energy for each substrate for Option 4. This
graph illustrates how by using a wet vacuum system for food waste the volume of
organics increases due to the additional water content in the substrate. Assuming a
vacuum system assists in attaining a higher waste capture rate for the residential
apartments, this substrate increases from the lowest to highest potential energy
contributor.
Figure 5.3 – Organics waste and potential energy generation for Option 4
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 20
Table 5.2 summarises the estimated organics, biogas production and energy
production for each substrate for each of the six options considered.
Table 5.2 – Summary of organics, biogas and energy generation for each option
* Note: In Option 4, food waste, organics and biogas have been factored to take into account the
extra volume of water required of a wet vacuum system (i.e. 4 L of water per kg of food waste).
Options 3 and 4 provide the highest energy potential with an estimated 2.70 million
MJ/annum produced. Option 6 which excludes both the residential food waste and
trade waste sludge provides the lowest energy potential with an estimated 1.6 million
MJ/annum produced.
As the Central Park precinct has a central energy plant located on-site, there is the
opportunity to use the energy generated from the AD plant to either contribute towards
the needs for electricity or hot water for residential apartments on-site.
Table 5.3 presents the approximate energy potential of each option and how this
energy might contribute to the supply of either electricity or hot water for the equivalent
number of flats at One Central Park.
Table 5.3 – Equivalent number of flats that can be provided for by the potential
AD energy produced
Option Potential
energy
generation
MJ/annum
(millions)
Equivalent
no. of flats
(electricity)
% of flats
(electricity)
Equivalent
no. of flats
(hot water)
% of flats
(hot
water)
1 2.18 96 15 249 40
2 2.48 109 18 282 45
3 2.69 118 19 307 49
4 2.69 118 19 307 49
5 1.81 80 13 206 33
6 1.56 69 11 178 29
Assumes each flat uses on average 2,400 kWh/annum for electricity and 8,778 MJ/annum for gas
for hot water.
Options 3 and 4 have the potential to capture the largest volume of organic waste onsite which could provide sufficient electricity for approximately 20% of the flats or hot
water for approximately 50% of flats at One Central Park per annum.
21
6 COSTS AND BENEFITS
To implement any new technology, assessment of the costs and benefits of that
system, both quantifiable and non-quantifiable, compared to business as usual (BAU),
is essential. This section aims to begin to assess the costs and benefits of the AD
systems considered in order to inform decision-making on whether to further
investigate AD at Central Park and if so what the preferred option/s might be. Due to
difficulty in obtaining data, this has been challenging.
6.1 Business as usual costs
As identified throughout this report, the acquisition of data has been difficult.
Therefore, establishing the BAU situation has only been conducted at a cursory level
and requires more detailed assessment with the correct stakeholders involved.
The BAU considers current:
• Residential MSW bin rental and lift costs
• Commercial/retail solid waste bin rental and lift costs for both the retail area
and Woolworths
• Food waste bin rental and removal costs for Woolworths and the new
commercial/retail trial
• GO bin rental and lift costs
• UCO removal costs
• FOG removal costs
• Trade waste sludge discharge costs.
The BAU costs based on 2017 figures are summarised in Table 6.1 along with the
assumptions for bin numbers, sizes, collection frequency etc. which have been drawn
from multiple sources. The bin rental and lift rates are not specifically based on the
Central Park contracts, but an average rate, drawn from several similar contracts. This
is also the case for the FOG collection rate. The trade waste sludge fee, which is not
based on a volumetric rate, is directly sourced from Flow Systems.
The cost of removing various waste streams from One Central Park in 2017 was
around A$ 380k. With the new commercial/retail food waste trial sending food waste to
EarthPower, waste removal at One Central Park will be closer to A$ 400k/annum
going forward. These costs do not include the significant cost associated with the
recycled water plant (except the sludge disposal component) nor the cost of
discharging the excess sewage to sewer.
The sewage sludge disposal charges, in the case of Central Park, are low due to the
special arrangements made with SWC due to the novelty of the water recycling system
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
when it was first implemented. This “grandfathering” arrangement is no longer
available for new developments. Hence, for new developments with such a water
recycling system, considering the use of AD for combined treatment of food
waste/organics and sewage sludge, there are likely significant cost savings to be made
in reducing discharge to sewer. Whilst these savings are not available to One Central
Park they need to be determined in any assessment of cost and benefits for future
developments.
Due to the shifting policy environment, the BAU is likely to change in the medium term.
For example, as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), SDG 12 indicates
a target of halving food waste by 2030 (UN undated). In Australia, the Federal
Government has committed to halving food waste by 2030 (Commonwealth of
Australia 2017) and many Councils, including the CoS (CoS 2017), are setting
strategies and action plans towards zero waste to landfill by 2030. Hence, current BAU
may only be possible in the short-term. Therefore, the BAU costs of waste
management at One Central are likely to increase over time, especially if there is a
move to set more stringent targets or even ban organics passing to landfill through
regulation as in many other jurisdictions internationally (Turner et al 2017).
22
Table 6.1 – Summary of estimated BAU waste management costs
Item Bin hire
A$
Collection/
treatment/
disposal
A$/pick-up
Bins/collection
frequency
Estimate
d cost
for 2017
A$
Residential
– MSW (bin hire &
collection/treatment/di
sposal)
A$ 1/
week/bin
A$ 15/240L bin
A$ 25/660L bin
20 x 240L bins 3
times/week
18 x 660L bins 3
times/week
47,840
71,136
Commercial
– FW (bin hire &
collection/treatment/di
sposal)*
A$ 1/
week/bin
A$ 20/120L bin
A$ 27/240L bin
1 x 120L bins
5 times/week
2 x 240L bins
5 times/week
5,252
14,144
– commercial solid
waste (bin hire &
collection/treatment/
disposal)
A$ 1/
week/bin
A$ 25/660L bin 6,221 total in 2017 156,253
Woolworths
– FW (bin hire &
collection/treatment/di
sposal)
A$ 1/
week/bin
A$ 27/240L bin
A$ 60/660L bin
40 x 240L bins
total in 2017
277 x 660L bins
total in 2017
1,184
16,724
– commercial solid
waste (bin hire &
collection/treatment/
disposal)
A$ 1/
week/bin
A$ 40/1,100L bin 818 x 1,100L bins
total in 2017
32,928
GO A$1 /
week/bin
A$ 10/240L bin
A$ 25/1,100L bin
36 x 240L bins
fortnightly
4 x 1,100L bins
fortnightly
11,232
2,808
UCO Zero cost as
collected for free
0
FOG 0.10 c/L 300,000L total
collected in 2017
30,000
Sludge Trade waste
sludge fee A$
9,000 per year
5,475,000 L/a by
end 2018
9,000
Total 379,105
* The retail/commercial food waste trial became operational in mid-December 2017. It has not
been included in the 2017 costs but will be a BAU cost from 2018.
6.2 Option costs
Six organic waste management options involving AD and transportation systems (i.e.
caddies or wet or dry vacuum for food waste and pipe networks for other organics)
have been considered in this feasibility study.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
Option costs include:
• Estimated costs for transport mechanisms (i.e. caddies or wet or dry vacuum
systems).
• Estimated cost of the AD system and associated pre-treatment (i.e. metal and
plastics screening), electronics, basic odour control, AD vessel and posttreatment.
• Estimated additional costs such as linkage to the central energy plant for
beneficial reuse of the biogas produced.
The costs do not include the additional costs of managing an on-site system in terms
of both the cleaners on-site who will be required to assist in organics waste collection
each day or the running and maintenance of the AD (or vacuum system). These will
need to be assessed at the detailed feasibility/design stage.
The estimated up-front/capital costs of the retrofit systems are summarised in Table
6.2. Note with both Woolworths and the commercial/retail areas already separating
food waste through kitchen caddies and bins, no additional costs have been
considered.
Table 6.2 – Summary of estimated up front/capital costs
Estimated up front/capital costs (A$)
Item Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
Option
4
Option
5
Option
6
Residential –
collection/trans
port
– campaign 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
– caddies 10,000 10,000
– wet vac 1,200,000
– dry vac 13,000,000
Commercial &
Woolworths –
collection/trans
port
– caddies/bins
– wet vac
– dry vac
AD Treatment
– input
pipework/conn
ections
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 10,000
– pre-treatment 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
– AD unit 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 350,000 300,000
– posttreatment
35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
– output
pipework (gas)
50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total 710,000 710,000 13,700,000 1,900,000 560,000 495,000
23
As can be seen the costs of the options vary significantly with the residential dry
vacuum system (Option 3) being an extremely high cost compared to the other options
with little or no additional assumed increase in organics capture compared to Options
1, 2, and 4. However, benefits could be potentially accrued to other waste
management systems (i.e. recycling). If vacuum systems were retrofitted as a
combination system (i.e. residential and commercial/retail) or in a new build
development significant savings could be made. Refer to Table 6.3 for comparisons.
Table 6.3 – Estimated cost comparisons between wet and dry vacuum systems
and retrofits versus new developments (Avac)
Type of Use
Vacuum system
(wet) cost
estimate (A$)
Vacuum system
(dry) cost estimate
(A$)
One Central Park
(retrofit) Residential 1,210,000 13,000,000
One Central Park
(retrofit) Commercial 700,000 3,000,000
One Central Park
(retrofit)
Residential &
commercial 1,600,000 14,000,000
New development
(623 apartments) Residential 1,000,000 12,000,000
New development
(similar retail space to
One Central Park)
Commercial 450,000 2,500,000
New development
(623 apartments &
similar retail space to
One Central Park)
Residential &
commercial 1,200,000 13,000,000
If a wet vacuum system combined food waste collection with sewage collection in a
new development (not considered here), further significant waste transportation and
treatment savings could be harnessed. Refer to Section 7 for further discussion.
In Table 6.2. the AD system costs do not vary significantly across the options despite
the size differences between Options 1 to 4 and Options 5 and 6 which are much
smaller. A large component of the cost of the system is for pre-treatment, that is,
plastics and metal contamination removal to protect the AD plant. The addition of this
technology is primarily due to experience relating to the AD plant at Federation Square
in Melbourne, which was decommissioned after three years due to unresolved
contamination issues (pers com Active Research representative) causing ongoing
maintenance issue to the AD plant.
6.3 Benefits
The benefits of the six organics management options considered will be both
quantifiable and non-quantifiable. These have been assessed at a cursory level to aid
decision making (refer to Table 6.4). Option benefits, which accrue to various
stakeholders include:
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
• Avoided waste disposal costs
• Avoided trade waste disposal costs
• Energy generation for on-site electricity or hot water use to offset residential
energy costs or alternatively operational energy costs of the water recycling
plant
• Capture and recycling of nutrients
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Table 6.4 – Estimated annual avoided costs and benefits of the options
considered
Estimated annual benefits (A$)
Item Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
Option
4
Option
5
Option
6
Avoided waste and trade waste disposal costs
Residential –
collection/transport
3,480 11,640 17,440 17,440 N/A N/A
Commercial & Woolworths –
collection/transport
– retail/commercial 19,396 19,396 19,396 19,396 19,396 19,396
– Woolworths 17,908 17,908 17,908 17,908 17,908 17,908
GO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
UCO 0 0 0 0 0 0
FOG 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
TW sludge* 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Sub total 70,784 78,944 84,744 84,744 67,304 67,304
Avoided apartment hot water
costs
65,461 74,385 80,760 80,760 54,244 46,853
(OR)
Avoided apartment electricity
costs
64,489 73,281 79,561 79,561 53,439 46,158
Other non-quantifiable benefits
Capture & recycling of
nutrients
ž ž ž ž ž ž
Greenhouse gas emissions
from vehicle movements

Greenhouse gas emissions
from landfill

* Assumes TW discharge to sewer is still required for other wastes from the water recycling plant
such as brine when the new AD plant is installed. Due to grandfathering arrangements for Central
Park, these costs (and thus opportunities for avoided costs) are negligible in the case of Central
Park but likely to be significant for other new developments.
24
As is evident from this brief assessment there are significant potential
annual benefits,
both
quantifiable and non-quantifiable, of incorporating AD at Central Park. These
costs and benefits will require more detailed assessment and verification in
consultation with
the stakeholders involved during a detailed feasibility/design study to
find the preferred option
and move towards piloting.
The benefits of avoided organi
c
s waste and trade waste disposal (refer to Tables 6.1
and 6.4) indicate that the avoided costs are approximately 20% of current BAU waste
disposal costs and depend on
the option
considered. Adding the benefits of avoided
apartment electricity or
hot water costs significantly increase the benefits of
incorporating AD on
site, although operational
costs need to be considered. Other
benefits such as the value of capturing and recycling nutrients, reduced greenhouse
gases from
waste vehicle emissions and landfill, are more difficult to assess, but, have
the potential to provide additional
major quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits.
Many can be quantified with
further detailed assessment and consultation with
appropriate stakeholders.
The costs of incorporating AD and the associated collection/transportation
systems at
One Central Park vary considerably (refer to Table 6.2). However, with the potential
annual avoided cost benefits, highlighted in Table 6.4, potential current funding
opportunities through, for example, CoS and NSW EPA grants, and involvement of a
progres
sive private multi-utility such as Flow Systems, there
is real potential to set up
an AD system at Central Park. This is despite the system potentially having a relatively
long payback period, which will be dependent on more detailed assessment of costs
and benefits, how
those costs and benefits accrue to individual stakeholders and
opportunities for grant contributions.
With Central Park already providing an international
exemplar of sustainable urban
development and demonstration
site for the
largest water recycling plant in
the
basement of a residential
building in
t
he world, there is a major opportunity to test and
demonstrate the feasibility of
AD in a precinct scale development at Central Park.
However, a decision
on whether to proceed
a
nd which is the preferred option requires
consideration of factors beyond the costs and benefits. Other factors such as social
and technical barr
iers are equally important. These along with ot
her challenges and
opportunities are discussed in
the following section along with
recommendations for
next steps.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 25
7 DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Discussion
In assessing the management arrangements of waste at One Central Park (Section 3),
volumes of organics available (Section 4), potential options and biogas production
(Section 5) and associated costs and benefits of introducing an AD system on-site
(Section 6), this feasibility study has unveiled a range of challenges, opportunities and
considerations. These are discussed below using a STEEP (Social, Technological,
Environmental, Economic and Political) analysis. While the STEEP analysis is context
specific and provides insights specifically on the research findings from Central Park,
many of the issues raised can be considered more broadly in managing organic waste
and developing AD systems in urban settings.
7.1.1 Socio-cultural dimensions
The social and cultural dimensions determining the feasibility of AD at Central Park are
associated with the complex arrangements for different organics waste streams and
the need for changes in socio-cultural practices in effectively managing such waste
streams. Socio-cultural behaviours and practices relate to individual residents and
retailers, to centralised management, and to the issue of broader knowledge transfer
of AD within Australia. These issues are discussed below.
• Need for behaviour change to separate and collect food waste and minimise
contamination
To collect uncontaminated food waste from residential and retail sites requires
significant changes in behaviour and practices. For residents, this includes their
behaviour and practices along with: the creation of a supportive system that takes
into consideration socially acceptable collection vessels for food waste (i.e.
caddies) designed for everyday practices; engaged and well-trained cleaning and
operations staff removing the waste on a daily basis; and a strategic, long term
communication and education campaign to ensure residents are aware of the
value of alternative waste collection and treatment options. Similar issues are
relevant for the commercial/retailers on site. With a culturally and linguistically
diverse community residing and working at One Central Park, with relatively high
turnover of staff and residents, socio-cultural practices in food waste management
will need specific consideration. However, there are numerous best practice
residential examples in Australia and internationally to turn to, and with respect to
the retailers, those at One Central Park have already demonstrated that it is
feasible to collect uncontaminated food waste (with the assistance of JLL,
Cleanaway and Millennium – the cleaning contractor).
• Requirement for ongoing buy-in from retail outlets to separate and collect
food waste
Retail outlets change and vary in response to varying economic conditions and
trends. Within the timeframe of this project, there were two major changes in
occupancy of the retail outlets studied: (1) the opening of the Palace Cinema; and
(2) the closing of a bakery, which had the potential to create significant volumes of
bread waste and therefore biogas. While a consistent volume of food waste from
retail outlets can never be guaranteed, a first step in ensuring that as much food
waste is collected as possible, is to ensure leasing arrangements mandate food
waste collection from all retail outlets in new leases at Central Park, in line with
other progressive retail precincts such as Barangaroo. JLL are already
considering modifying the leasing arrangements at One Central Park to mandate
food waste collection.
• Fragmented collection and management of organics waste streams
As identified throughout this project there are an array of different organisations
and contractors managing each organic waste stream with their own collection,
transport and treatment/disposal arrangements. This fragmented collection and
management of the waste streams together with lack of transparency in regard to
the volumes/weights of waste generated and the costs of collecting, transporting
and treating each waste stream is a major barrier to assessing the viability of onsite AD treatment and associated reuse. With organisations such as the CoS and
JLL paying for waste services, there is significant opportunity for these large
organisations to require, as part of ongoing contracts with waste service providers,
the transparent and accurate measurement and costing of waste to assist in
assessing the viability of AD on-site compared to BAU at One Central Park.
• Lack of precedents of AD systems in dense urban Australian settings
AD has been extensively used in the wastewater industry sector internationally, in
wastewater and food waste treatment in Australia, and for specific food waste
applications. It is technically feasible for AD to treat multiple organic waste
substrates in a dense urban setting, however, there are a lack of longitudinal case
studies in Australia, and more importantly, a lack of in-depth evaluation of failed
systems. For example, both the Pixel Building and Federation Square in
Melbourne have implemented AD (Turner et al 2017; Turner and White 2017).
However, neither system is now in operation and there are no documented
evaluations or lessons learned to assist in improving such systems. Such case
studies and the associated post implementation evaluations are invaluable in
aiding AD to overcome multiple barriers and become more acceptable as a
distributed system within a dense urban environment.
7.1.2 Technological dimensions
Even though AD systems have been used extensively both nationally and
internationally for both food waste and wastewater applications for several decades,
the lack of small scale, onsite systems in Australia and in dense urban settings
internationally presents several technological challenges to overcome.
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 26
• Retrofitting an existing building versus installing AD in a new building
Figure 7.1 (a) shows a small building-scale AD plant and Figure 7.1 (b) shows the
top floor of the existing water recycling room at One Central Park (which is directly
beneath one of the main bin rooms in Central Park) and in which an AD plant
could potentially be located. In this particular situation, the scale of AD plants
being considered for One Central Park (refer to Table 5.1) can potentially fit within
the existing water recycling plant room due to the significant head room available
and logistical issues already considered for the existing water recycling plant (i.e.
large plant access doors). However, consideration of the associated
interconnecting pipework, pre and post-treatment equipment and the structural
integrity of the floor will need to be assessed. The size and weight of the largest
AD system option (Option 4) may not be feasible structurally or may require
investment in structural modifications of the plant room.
Figure 7.1 – (a) Building scale AD plant formerly located at Federation
Square in Melbourne (Active Research) and (b) Top floor of the water
recycling room at One Central Park (Flow Systems)
(a) (b)
• Adaptive AD systems to deal with variations in both the quality and quantity
of substrates
The nature of collecting organic waste streams from the residential and leased
commercial/retail areas means that there will be potential variations over time in
both the quality and quantity of substrates collected. This is particularly the case
for the retail areas. For example, within the period of this feasibility study, there
have been retail outlets that have newly opened (i.e. Palace Cinema), and closed,
(i.e. a bakery) at Central Park. As retail outlets open and close over time they may
not only produce varying quality and quantity of food waste but also varying
volumes of UCO and FOG which may potentially influence the biogas potential
and efficiency of the AD system installed. Therefore, any AD system installed will
need to have the capacity to deal with variations in substrate quality and quantity.
To assist in sizing an AD plant, laboratory testing of available substrates would be
necessary during the next detailed feasibility/design stage to assess viability and
quality of potential biogas. In addition to accessing food waste from Central Park,
13 Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
there is also the potential of accessing food waste, UCO and FOG from adjacent
sites such as Spice Alley consisting of over 30 food retail outlets. Tapping into
such a concentration of potential additional food/organic waste could increase the
financial viability of AD at Central Park.
• Remote management and operational control requirements
As is now typical with modern distributed systems the existing water recycling
plant is unmanned and has a sophisticated SCADA13 systems to aid in that
remote management. Hence any AD system installed would also need remote
control functionality if installed at Central Park. Such functionality is now common
practice for equipment such as AD, however, the skills to manage the system if a
fault is detected are less common. Back-up systems and maintenance and fault
crew will need to be carefully considered.
• Smart/Internet of Things (IOT) Technology opportunities
In the Smart Locale area encompassing Central Park, there is significant
opportunity to use advanced technology, such as the Internet of Things (IoT)
using low power wide area network systems (e.g. LoRaWAN) to collect data. With
Flow Systems staff leading the Open Cities14 initiative, there is also significant
opportunity to use Central Park to take advantage of such technologies to
advance the capture and analytics of water, energy and waste streams to improve
sustainability outcomes. These converging opportunities need further exploration.
7.1.3 Environmental dimensions
Environmental issues also need to be considered.
• Management of potential odour and vector issues
The final system installed to collect, transport and treat organic waste, in particular
food waste, will need to be designed to ensure odour and vector issues are
effectively managed. One potential option is to manually collect waste from
residential and retail sites through a caddie system on each residential floor and
food court area of Central Park. For this option to be viable over the long term,
collection and transport of food waste would need to be managed daily, if not
twice daily, which would increase the costs of cleaning and operations staff. In
addition, odour and vector control in the water recycling centre needs to be
considered and potentially mitigated. Flow Systems have taken specific steps to
manage odour within the water recycling centre, as have several water recycling
centres within urban buildings in recent years, such as the Darling Quarter
scheme in Sydney (ISF 2013). As the Central Park water recycling centre is used
as an exemplar of water recycling for international visitors, odour control
associated with food waste and other organic waste streams passing to the AD
system will need to be carefully managed.
14 http://www.opencities.net.au/about.html (accessed 25/05/18)
27
• Energy and greenhouse gas trade offs
As with many local smaller-scale technologies, an AD plant at Central Park would
need energy to run the plant, which will need to be taken into consideration in the
overall costs and benefits of the system during the next more detailed assessment
of options. In the case of vacuum systems, to potentially increase food waste
collection opportunities, this would also need to be considered, noting that dry
systems, due in part to the diameter of the transport network system, typically use
more energy than the wet system alternative. In any existing or new development,
the scale of food and organic waste material available to produce biogas versus
the energy intensity and greenhouse gas implications of collecting, transporting
and treating that waste needs to be considered against BAU.
• Capturing nutrient opportunities
AD digestate has the potential to provide valuable nutrients for agriculture,
including phosphorus and nitrogen, depending on the substrates input, the type of
AD process used and post handling methods. Depending on the bioavailability of
those nutrients and application processes used these nutrients have the potential
to provide significant benefits to plants as shown in Figure 7.2. The nutrient
potential and most appropriate post handling methods used will need to be
investigated as part of the next more detailed stage of assessment.
Figure 7.2 – An example of cover crops with and without digestate use15.
7.1.4 Economic dimensions
As with the implementation of any new technology, the economic viability of that
technology against BAU is essential to take into account as well as the nonmonetisable benefits.
15 https://www.slideshare.net/EasternOntarioCropConference/christine-brown-spoils-for-soils (accessed
16/08/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
• Lack of transparency and availability of data on waste volumes and costs
One of the most significant challenges in determining the feasibility of AD at
Central Park has been the lack of transparency on both volumes/weights of
organics and current costs for managing/treating/removing organic waste streams.
The majority of data on organic waste streams collected throughout the project
was assumed by waste contractors, rather than accurately measured or
calculated through weight-based/volume-based calculations (as discussed in
Section 4), with existing quality, accuracy and overall accessibility of this data
lacking. One way this project sought to access “actual” data for commercial/retail
food waste was to conduct a trial to weigh the commercial/retail food waste
produced at One Central Park (see Section 4 for further details).
As a result of a lack of transparency on volumes of organic waste streams
generated and costs for managing these waste streams, an accurate calculation
of the costs and benefits of AD for Central Park has not been possible within the
timeframe of the study. A high-level preliminary assessment has been made of the
upfront capital costs, potential energy generation benefits and possible waste
avoidance costs. However, further detailed measurement of individual waste
streams (with appropriate automated measuring technologies), subsequent
analysis and involvement of all relevant stakeholders to ensure the most viable
options are considered and assessed against BAU is required along with
assessment of accrual of costs and benefits to various stakeholders. So too are
the implications of grandfathering costs for existing developments versus new
developments (i.e. grandfathering of trade waste sludge discharge costs reduces
the viability of tapping into avoided costs when the sludge is added to a potential
AD system at Central Park).
• Varying costs of vacuum system options
While vacuum systems installed in both residential and commercial sites have the
potential to be cost prohibitive, this study has offered a range of options. In
calculations for installing vacuum systems at Central Park, costs differed
significantly (i.e. A$ 700k for a retrofit of the commercial outlets (wet vac) to A$ 14
million for the retrofit of both the commercial and residential sites (dry vac)). There
are obvious cost savings with planning for vacuum in new buildings as opposed to
a retrofit such as Central Park. The configurations and costs between wet and dry
vacuum systems differ considerably as detailed in Table 7.1 below.
Although the costs for retrofit in Central Park are prohibitive, it is worth considering
an option including the use of a lower cost wet vacuum system in the commercial
areas and/or some of the lower floors of the residential apartments to act as a
pilot/demonstration site in a high profile building for potential knowledge transfer
opportunities.
28
Table 7.1 – Spectrum of costs for wet and dry vacuum systems for retrofit
and new development applications for a site similar to One Central Park
Type of Use Vacuum
system (wet)
cost
estimate (A$)
Vacuum
system (dry)
cost
estimate (A$)
One Central Park (retrofit) Residential 1,210,000 13,000,000
One Central Park (retrofit) Commercial 700,000 3,000,000
One Central Park (retrofit) Residential &
commercial
1,600,000 14,000,000
New development (623 apartments) Residential 1,000,000 12,000,000
New development (similar retail space
to One Central Park)
Commercial 450,000 2,500,000
New development (623 apartments &
similar retail space to One Central
Park)
Residential &
commercial
1,200,000 13,000,000
• Vacuum systems for wastewater and organic waste
Whilst the retrofit of a combined wastewater and food waste vacuum and AD
system is not a viable option for Central Park, such systems have the potential to
revolutionise waste management in new precincts. In urban areas undergoing
significant urban densification, such as that under the jurisdiction of the CoS, there
is a real opportunity for councils to take leadership and advocate the use of such
systems with developers of new precinct developments being considered.
• Financial incentives for waste-to-energy systems
Due to current policy support of waste-to-energy technologies, discussed further
in “political/institutional dimensions” below, there is currently significant
government funding to assist new niche technologies such as AD to be trialled in
Australia and specifically in Sydney, NSW. Whilst such incentives may detract
from the long-term viability of AD in dense urban contexts, they provide the bridge
needed to assist new technologies to go through initial “teething problems” and
fund demonstration sites to assist in knowledge transfer of lessons learned. These
current national, state and local government funds available for technologies such
as AD make it an ideal time to invest in the Central Park AD plant.
• Non-quantifiable benefits
Many of the environmental benefits discussed in “environmental dimensions”
above, such as reduced greenhouse gases, are difficult to monetise due to their
associated externalities but are essential to take into consideration when deciding
whether to progress new alternative systems such as AD and vacuum. So too are
the benefits to a business such as Flow Systems and a Council such as the CoS
taking the progressive steps needed to install an AD plant on-site in a precinct
scale development which, as with the existing water recycling plant, showcases a
new and emerging system of waste management and application. In terms of
industry leadership, this is invaluable. To assist in decision-making of the
options/preferred options both the quantifiable and non quantifiable costs and
16 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed
28/08/2017)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
benefits need to be considered in a suitable decision-making framework for the
various stakeholders involved.
7.1.5 Political/institutional dimensions
As with many of the other STEEP dimensions, political/institutional dimensions can
provide both significant barriers and opportunities.
• Increasing awareness and support for food waste management
The increasing awareness and policy support for food waste management at
multiple levels of government provides a major opportunity for co-digestion of
organic waste streams using AD. Nationally this has been in the form of the
Australian National Food Waste Strategy, a framework to support collective action
towards halving Australia’s food waste by 2030. The strategy contributes toward
global action on reducing food waste by aligning with Sustainable Development
Goals in which a sub aim is to halve food waste by 203016. At state and local
levels, the NSW EPA and many council policies and associated investment is
being focused on diversion of food waste and garden organics from landfill. This
current policy environment has meant significant interest in the findings of this
project and potential opportunities for AD from a wide range of stakeholders from
technology providers to state government representatives, providing a supportive
“window of opportunity” for piloting emerging technologies such as AD and
vacuum systems.
• Regulatory barriers
On the other hand whilst policy supports innovation such as AD, regulations
around using the resulting digestate may prove to be a barrier due to the novelty
of the material produced, its various potential uses and risks associated with
potential pathogens and human contact etc. This will require research into
digestate use in international case studies, laboratory testing and application to
land.
7.2 Recommendations
Through this project it has become apparent that various recommendations for further
action are required across multiple dimensions and scales. Using the STEEP
framework these recommendations are summarised below and aim to help fill
knowledge gaps to assist in transitioning to the next phase of inquiry, detailed
feasibility/design of precinct scale AD (and potentially vacuum), and piloting precinct
scale AD in Sydney. Key recommendations include:
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 29
Socio-cultural
➢ SC#1 – Conduct a residential food waste trial at One Central Park ensuring
social practices across the entire system (i.e. residents, cleaners, strata
managers, contractors) are taken into consideration, including collation of best
practice national and international examples and actual measurement of food
waste generated. To minimise costs the trial could be conducted on a restricted
number of floors in the building.
➢ SC#2 – Evaluate lessons learned from the current retail food waste trial and
collate best practice examples nationally and internationally to assist in industry
knowledge transfer and continuous improvement for the retailers at One Central
Park.
➢ SC#3 – Modify all retailer leasing arrangements at One Central Park to
mandate food waste collection including separation and collection of pre and post
plate food waste.
➢ SC#4 – Negotiate contract arrangements with current waste management
providers to include more transparent and accurate measurement and costing of
waste to be able to compare alternatives like AD with BAU
➢ SC#5 – Collate lessons learned on urban AD examples locally and
internationally to improve and support industry knowledge transfer, and avoid
repeating mistakes.
Technological
➢ T#1 – Conduct detailed feasibility assessment into the various AD, vacuum,
energy and digestate reuse options taking into consideration detailed
assessment of the interconnecting pipework, pre and post-treatment equipment
and the structural integrity of the water recycling plant room.
➢ T#2 – Conduct laboratory testing of the various substrates to inform detailed
feasibility/design and assist in more accurate assessment of the potential biogas
production and flexibility to deal with variations in substrate quality, quantity and
compatibility including the potential of using the Active Research mobile AD
system or similar.
➢ T#3 – Conduct due diligence on appropriate AD (and vacuum) systems in
Australia and appropriate remote monitoring, maintenance and back-up systems
and crew for emerging technologies.
➢ T#4 – Investigate opportunities to use smart/Internet of Things (IOT)
Technology due to physical accessibility to the local LoRaWan and Flow
Systems connection to the Open Cities initiative.
Environmental
➢ En#1 – Conduct detailed feasibility/design assessment of management of
potential odour and vector issues from collection and transport through to
treatment within the water recycling plant room and production of digestate.
➢ En#2 – Conduct detailed assessment of operational energy requirements
and greenhouse gas emissions for all AD and vacuum options to compare
against detailed BAU assessment.
➢ En#3 – Collate national and international information on relevant AD
digestate use and regulations to assess the most appropriate post handling
methods to maximise nutrient recovery and beneficial use (including discussions
with the NSW EPA).
Economic
➢ Ec#1 – Conduct detailed assessment of costs and benefits of options
against BAU as part of detailed feasibility/design study including detailed
measurement of individual waste streams (using appropriate automated
measuring technologies), accurate assessment of BAU, waste avoidance costs,
capital and operating costs of all options and potential energy generation benefits
– with full assistance from all stakeholders (i.e. signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding or similar).
➢ Ec#2 – Conduct full assessment of costs of AD and vacuum options taking
into consideration retrofit versus new build development and the specific
additional costs associated with retrofitting (and piloting a new emerging
technology) to assist in potential grant funding assistance.
➢ Ec#3 – Investigate and advocate the potential for combined food/organic
waste and wastewater vacuum systems in new dense urban developments
through discussions with developers – CoS/Flow Systems
➢ Ec#4 – Seek potential national, state and local government grant funding as
well as private collaborator funding to assist in the detailed feasibility and piloting
of AD (and potentially vacuum) at One Central Park to provide a demonstration
site for knowledge transfer.
➢ Ec#5 – Use an appropriate decision-making framework as part of the detailed
feasibility study that enables both quantifiable and non quantifiable costs and
benefits to be taken into consideration, not just the financial costs and benefits,
and assess the accrual of costs and benefits to various stakeholders to assist in
sharing of those costs and benefits.
Political/institutional
➢ P#1 – Actively share knowledge on the current study findings and future
detailed feasibility study/design and pilot broadly at national, state and local
fora with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to assist in knowledge transfer and the
opportunity to achieve higher policy aims of halving food waste by 2030.
➢ P#2 – Work closely with regulators such as the NSW EPA during the detailed
feasibility stage to work through potential regulatory barriers such as the local use
of digestate to land.
As can be seen, there is currently significant opportunity and momentum to trial and
demonstrate AD in Sydney, specifically One Central Park. By using a collaborative
approach, leveraging the research conducted to date and conducting further
investigations as indicated, the CoS, Flow Systems and others involved in One Central
Park have the opportunity to provide national and international leadership in AD. This
will further contribute to much needed knowledge on innovation in organics
management as we grapple with how to manage organic waste streams in our growing
cities and maximise beneficial use.
30
8 REFERENCES
Al Seadi, T., Rutz, D., Prassl, H., Kottner, M., Finsterwalder, T., Volk, S., Janssen, R.,
2008. Biogas Handbook
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016. Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2016.
3218.0 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3218.0 (accessed 15/02/18)
City of Sydney 2017, Leave nothing to waste: managing resources in the City of
Sydney area. Waste strategy and action plan 2017-2030.
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/291690/Leavenothing-to-waste-strategy-and-action-plan-20172030.pdf (accessed 25/05/18)
Cleanaway 2015. Bin Trim Activity Report Central Park. Report prepared by
Cleanaway for Central Park Shopping Centre
Commonwealth of Australia 2017 National Food Waste Strategy: Halving
Australia’s food waste by 2030
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4683826b-5d9f-4e65-
9344-a900060915b1/files/national-food-waste-strategy.pdf (accessed
15/02/18)
Critchley, V. and White, S. (2008) ‘Frasers Broadway: key sustainability initiatives’
report prepared by Elton Consultants and the Institute for Sustainable Futures,
University of Technology Sydney for Frasers Property
Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: home consumption, material culture and everyday life.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Felix J., 2016, Suck it up, Plumbing Connections, Winter 2016
Greater Sydney Commission 2017, Our Greater Sydney 2056 – A metropolis of three
cities: overview – connecting people, draft Greater Sydney Region Plan, October 2017
https://gsc-public-1.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/gsrp_overview_web.pdf (accessed
15/02/18)
Institute for Sustainable Futures (2013), Darling Quarter Case Study; Building Industry
Capability to Make Recycled Water Investment Decisions. Prepared by the Institute for
Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney for the Australian Water
Recycling Centre of Excellence. http://waterrecyclinginvestment.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/ISF019_AWRC_D1_DarlingQuarter_4-2.pdf (accessed
25/05/18)
NSW EPA, 2014, NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-
2021, prepared by NSW EPA http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/wastestrategy/warr.htm
(accessed 15/02/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
Parliament of Australia 2008 Greenhouse Gases
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliam
entary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/ClimateChangeold/theBasic/greenhouse
(accessed 15/02/18)
Sustainability Victoria, 2012 Carbon Neutral Offices: The Pixel Building Case Study
Turner, A., Fam, D., Madden, B and Liu, A. 2017, Pyrmont-Ultimo Precinct (PUP)
Scale Organics Management Scoping Study prepared for Sydney Water Corporation
and the NSW Environment Protection Authority by the Institute for Sustainable
Futures, University of Technology Sydney.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080982_PyrmontUltimo_Precinct_PUP_Organics_Management_Scoping_Study (accessed 07/05/18)
Turner, A., and White, S. 2017 Urban Water Futures: Trends and Potential
Disruptions. Report prepared by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of
Technology Sydney, for the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA)
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/77441/1/WSAA-ISFURBAN%20WATER%20FUTURES-2017-01-31.pdf (accessed 15/02/18)
United Nations, undated, Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production
patterns. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumptionproduction/ (accessed 15/02/18)
Vacuum Toilets Australia, n.d. Melbourne Water Headquarter – How to save 24,420
litres of water a day, Vacuum Toilets Australia, Accessed 28 September 2016 at
http://www.vacuumtoiletsaustralia.com.au/projects.html
Victoria State Government, 2016. Victorian food organics recycling – A guide for smallmedium food services organisations. Health and Human Services
https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B64FEFC4E-D275-4387-B0D7-
7F17E979E904%7D (accessed 25/05/18)
White, S., Turner, A., and St Hilaire, J., 2018, Pushing the boundaries of sustainable
development – The case of Central Park, Sydney. [In Ruming K, 2018 Urban
regeneration in Australia: policies, processes and projects of contemporary urban
change, Routledge]
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 31
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site plans and typical cross sections of One Central Park
Appendix B – Organics waste stream assumptions
Appendix C – AD technology and vacuum and caddie transportation systems
Appendix D – Australian food load test (Avac)
Appendix E – Knowledge sharing, transfer and dissemination
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 32
Appendix A – Site plans & typical cross sections of One Central
Park
33
Appendix B – Organics waste
stream assumptions
Residential food waste
• 623 apartments at One Central Park, 1005 bedrooms (pers com Frasers
representative)
• Assumed population 1045 based on CoS occupancy rates17
• Food waste per person assumed to be 113 kg/person/annum based on NSW
EPA 2014/2015 kerbside report Appendix A18
Commercial/retail food waste
• Standard food waste density factor = 0.425 kg/L (Zero Waste SA: Solid waste
and recycling reporting template)
Used cooking oil
• UCO collected at Central Park is approximately 1027 L/month
• Standard density factor for oil = 0.9 kg/L19
Fats, oils and grease
• According to SWC data for the Pyrmont-Ultimo area only approx. 16% of the
material removed from grease traps is grease and 17% is solids (pers com
SWC representative)
• Due to anticipated oversizing of the grease traps at One Central Park an
estimate of 5% grease and 10% food waste/solids has been used (pers com
FOG/UCO industry representative)
• Standard density factor for FOG = 0.9 kg/L
Wastewater
• Density conversion factor = 1kg/L
Trade waste
• Density conversion factor = 1kg/L
Garden organics
• Standard garden organics waste density factor = 0.231 kg/L (Zero Waste SA:
Solid waste and recycling reporting template)
17 http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/259001/Occupancy-rates-to- determine-net-population-increase.pdf (accessed 21/08/18)
18 http://www.cityofSydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/259001/Occupancy-rates-to- determine-net-population-increase.pdf (accessed 21/08/18) (accessed 21/08/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
Pet waste
• Assume half the registered pets at Central Park are dogs and half cats
• Average dog poo per day = 0.33 kg/day20
• Assume average cat poo per day equals half = 0.17 kg/day
19 http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a16491f5-6697-4f1b-bba0-
074963e78957/files/hazardous-waste-unit-conversion-factors.pdf (accessed 21/08/18) 20 http://www.poopower.com.au/index.html and https://www.petpooskiddoo.com/blog/showing-muchanimals-poop-fruit/ (accessed 21/08/18)
34
Appendix C – AD technology &
vacuum & caddy collection &
transportation systems
Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process involving the breakdown of organic matter into
carbon dioxide, methane and water by microorganisms and bacteria in the absence of
oxygen. It has been used extensively in the wastewater industry for several decades,
especially in Europe and more recently to treat food waste in isolation or combination
with wastewater/sludge. The two main types of AD are thermophilic (reaching
temperatures of up to 60 deg C) and mesophilic (typically 35 to 40 deg C). The
process produces biogas, a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide, that can be used
for energy production. The biogas can be burned to produce heat and electricity or the
methane injected into the gas grid or used as a vehicle fuel. Additional by-products of
the process are water and digestate, rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, that can be used
as a fertiliser.2122
AD is less common in Australia but is being used by wastewater utilities, private waste
contractors and food waste manufacturers. For example, Sydney Water Corporation
was the first utility to implement a waste-to-energy trial (in 2016) using locally sourced
food waste to assist in powering a wastewater treatment plant23. EarthPower was the
first Australian regional food waste-to-energy facility, opened in 2003, now processing
up to 50,000 t/annum of food waste and organics. Also, large food manufacturers such
as Warrnambol, producing cheese and butter in Victoria, process their organics waste
and generate heat.24
There are limited examples of AD being used in the urban environment on a small
scale in Australia. Active Research25 designed and ran the 5,000 L AD unit at
Federation Square in the heart of Melbourne from 2014 to 2017. The plant shown
below, with a 5,000 L AD reactor, was located in a loading dock. The plant which
operated 24/7 treated up to 800 kg of food waste per day from the precinct’s
restaurants and cafes producing up to 14,400 L of gas per day used as an energy
source to heat boilers (Victorian Government 2016; pers com Active Research
representative).
21 http://adbioresources.org/about-ad/what-is-ad/ (accessed 10/06/18) 22 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/anaerobic-digestion-1 (accessed 10/06/18) 23 http://wastemanagementreview.com.au/utility-first-food-waste-to-energy-plant/ (accessed 10/06/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
The technology used by Active Research at Federation Square and similar AD
systems is a high rate fixed film anaerobic digestion, enhanced reactor technology
including constant mix, insulated reactors, scum removal, heating, retentive thickening
and remote management capability through the utilisation of best practise electronic
monitoring equipment. A typical process schematic is shown below (Active Research).
24 https://batchgeo.com/map/2fb1cc9f27a39cb7b37562b95c32bcf4 (accessed 10/06/18) 25 http://www.activeresearch.com.au/index.htm (accessed 10/06/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 35
A key feature of the system is the rapid retention time (i.e. a hydraulic retention time
(HRT) of only 7 days versus the typical 30 days in European systems with larger
footprints). In addition, other key features include: the maceration and emulsification
which reduce the particle size of the feedstock to enable the rapid access of the
microbes to the substrate; and a slightly higher operating temperature which facilitates
rapid HRT and higher biogas yields. An additional benefit of the rapid HRT, and
additional oxygen injection at an appropriate point in the process, enables a reduction
in the production of hydrogen sulphide and odour (pers com Active Research
representative).
An important part of the pre-treatment process which has become evident is the
removal of metal objects such as cutlery which can be removed by magnets and
plastic bags and packaging which can be removed by technology currently sourced
from Europe. The plastics removal technology and product produced, which in Europe
is used as a boiler fuel feed stock, are depicted below (Active Research).
The digestate produced at the end of the process, depending on the feedstock, can be
high in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. De-watered digestate post
digestion is shown in the figure below together with illustrative photos of crops grown
with and without digestate (Active Research).
26 www.taifun.fi/vacuum_conveying/index.php.en/ (accessed 21/08/18)
Vacuum systems
Vacuum systems have been used for sewage/wastewater transportation extensively in
the aeronautical and marine environments since the 1960s. They have also been used
in correctional facilities since the 1990s and in locations with difficult topography and
high water tables for decades (Felix J 2016). Such “wet” systems are also used to
transport food waste in food production sites such as poultry and fish processing and
large professional kitchens and supermarkets. A typical “wet” system for food waste is
shown in the figure below including kitchen station food waste funnel and associated
vacuum system26.
36
In Europe vacuum systems have also been used for solid waste removal, with
Hammerby, in Sweden27, being an example of a “dry” vacuum system where waste is
deposited by householders in individual inlets at central points, which then transport
combustible waste, organic waste and newspaper underground to central sorting
areas. This is illustrated in the figure below.
Despite numerous examples of vacuum systems being used in Europe for both wet
and dry systems for sewage and food and other organic waste there has been limited
application in Australia. Vacuum systems have been used for difficult terrains for
sewage but only in limited mainstream residential and commercial applications in food
waste or for “dry” solid waste removal. In 2011, the nine-storey Melbourne Water
Headquarters in the Docklands was opened with 72 vacuum toilets, using only 0.8
l/flush, servicing 1,100 people (Vacuum Toilets Australia n.d). In Sydney, vacuum
technology has been used for toilets in the conversion of a heritage listed property,
Legion House (Vacuum Toilets Australia n.d). A key example of a dry system in
Australia, the first of its kind installed in a CBD, is the A$ 21 million, 6.5 km system
being installed in the Maroochydore City Centre with the first phase to be completed by
the end of 2018.28
27 http://www.solaripedia.com/files/719.pdf (accessed 10/06/18) 28 https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Council/Planning-and-Projects/InfrastructureProjects/Automated-Waste-Collection-System (accessed 10/06/18) 29
https://compostrevolution.com.au/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMItaz5vej_3AIV1gcqCh3m6A9ZEAAYASAAEgJ5
Y_D_BwE (accessed 21/08/18)
30 https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/live/waste-and-recycling/less-waste/food/food-waste-and-recycling- service (accessed 21/08/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
Caddies
Kitchen caddies are used both in the residential and commercial sectors, typically to
collect and store food waste during the food preparation process. They can be used
within the kitchen environment as a low cost and convenient means of collecting and
storing waste for a variety of treatment processes. For example:
• home worm farms and composters29,
• local council food organic (FO) services such as in parts of Inner West
Council30 or food organic garden organic (FOGO) collection services such as
provided in Byron31,
• commercial scale rapid food waste decomposers/dehydrators such as at
UTS32,
• city scale food waste collection for AD as implemented in Milan, Italy33
There are an array of sizes and styles of caddy (i.e. vented and non-ventilated) and
associated liners (i.e. paper, compostable)34.
Avoidance of potential odour and vector issues is dependent on many socio-technical
practices such as frequency of removal of the food waste, the type and use of liners,
frequency of cleansing etc. Such issues are also highly dependent on ambient and
seasonal temperatures.
31 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/wastegrants/18p0682-byron_shirefogo-case-study.pdf (accessed 21/08/18) 32 https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/institute-sustainable-futures/ourresearch/food-futures/food (accessed 21/08/18) 33 https://pocacito.eu/sites/default/files/FoodWasteRecycling_Milan.pdf (accessed 21/08/18) 34
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/HH_food_waste_collections_guide_section_4_caddies_and_liner
s.pdf (accessed 21/08/18)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 37
Appendix D – Australian food
load test

1
Australian Food Load
For the purposes of consistency in testing Avac Australia developed an
“Australian Food Load” to be used in consistent testing and sizing calculations
for waste pipeline systems and associated equipment interface.
Specification
Item Description Weight (g)
1 Chicken Breast (cooked) 200
2 Potato (cooked) 100
3 Orange Peel 100
4 Pasta Salad 100
5 Cauliflower (raw) 100
6 Banana skin 80
7 Pineapple skin 50
8 Iceberg lettuce 50
9 Carrot (raw) 50
10 Corn kernels (raw) 50
11 Cabbage rough cut (raw) 40
12 Lamington 40
13 Onion ends (raw) 20
14 Apple Core 20
TOTAL 10
38
Appendix E – Knowledge
sharing, transfer and
dissemination
The project aimed to enhance knowledge of the feasibility of AD and various
collection/transports systems (e.g. vacuum, source separation) to manage organic
waste (i.e. food waste, sewage and trade waste) in a large mixed-use commercialresidential multi-storey building to produce energy and biosolids for:
• project partners (CoS, private retailer, building operations manager, AD &
vacuum suppliers)
• extended project partners (e.g. Smart Locale group and EPA)
• selected businesses in the Smart Locale area through the Pyrmont-Ultimo
Chamber of Commerce (Smart Locale partner)
• broader industry audience
These goals were achieved and demonstrated through two main pathways:
• Publication and presentation of research & results through local, national
and international forums, and
• Surveying project partners to determine new knowledge gained from the
project which is expected to be shared with associated networks.
Publication and presentation of research & results 35
The list below details the range of conferences and public media outlets where the
research has been published targeting multiple audiences including industry and
business partners in the local precinct.
• Waste Water Summit 2018 (October, 2018)
Andrea Turner & Dena Fam ‘Convergence of the waste & water sectors’ (Invited
presentation), Wastewater Expo 2018, Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre,
3rd & 4th October 2018
https://www.wasteexpoaustralia.com.au (expected participation by 1,500 participants)
• South Sydney Region of Councils (SSROC) – Food Waste Forum (June,
2018)
Andrea Turner and Dena Fam, ‘Collecting Food Waste on a Precinct Scale – The
Pyrmont-Ultimo Precinct & Central Park Studies’ Wednesday 13th June, 9.30-2.00,
Redfern Community Centre (approx. 35 participants – waste experts, sustainability
managers and council representatives)
35 Further communications will be conducted at the completion of the project including an academic
journal article, local/national radio programs (i.e. 2SER and Radio National) and national waste industry
magazines (i.e. Waste Management Review)
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018
• Waste 2018 Conference (May, 2018)
Andrea Turner & Dena Fam, 2018, ‘Innovation in precinct scale food and organic
waste management: Opportunities for the futureɉ۪, Opal Cove Resort, Coffs Harbour,
NSW, 8-10 May 2018 (approx. 650 participants)
• TWENTY65: Bringing the water sector together – Conference (April, 2018)
Dena Fam & Andrea Turner, 2018, ‘Water and beyond: Innovation and the
convergence of the water and waste sectors’, TWENTY65: Bringing the water sector
together, 17-18 April 2018, Hilton Hotel Manchester, UK. (approximately 120
participants)
• Alt Media (November 2017)
Article by Anna Freeland ‘Bright idea for leftovers’ http://www.altmedia.net.au/brightidea-for-leftovers/128548 (Altmedia has a readership of approx. 25,000 residents from
Inner West of Sydney)
• ISF Newsletter (October 2017)
Dena Fam and Andrea Turner: Central Park Precinct Organics Management
Feasibility Study, October 2017. https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/ourresearch/institute-sustainable-futures/our-research/resource-futures43?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=october_2017_wrap
&utm_content=central_park_organics (the ISF newsletter is sent out to approximately
3000 individuals, organisations and businesses)
Surveying project partners – Lessons learned
In addition to the communications and knowledge transfer listed above team members
for this project actively sought to collate the lessons learned through an end of project
survey, identifying knowledge gained throughout the project, unexpected insights and
experiences that were seen as important to share with others planning on
implementing AD systems in multi-storey buildings (see below for survey questions
and answers by the research team)
The survey questions for this research are based on the inquiry into the feasibility of
AD at One Central Park and a requirement of the CoS (i.e. to survey project partners
to determine how knowledge has been enhanced as a result of the feasibility study of
AD and various collection/transports systems (e.g. vacuum, source separation) to
manage organic waste (i.e. food waste, sewage and trade waste) at Central Park).
Questions for partner/participants in the Central Park Organics Management
Feasibility Study
1. What knowledge have you gained as a result of being involved in the Central Park
Feasibility Study? How does this knowledge relate to:
a. Operations and management required for AD? i.e. policies, costs,
behavioural change to support source separation etc.
b. Collection/transport systems for AD? i.e. vacuum systems, residential
and commercial food waste collection etc.
c. Processing systems for AD? i.e. the feasibility of technological
components of the system
Central Park Precinct Organics Management Feasibility Study – December 2018 39
d. Beneficial reuse of processed waste from AD? i.e. for the production
of energy and/or soil conditioner
2. Were there any unexpected insights gained into the feasibility of AD systems at
Central Park throughout the project?
3. What other insights would you like to share with others involved in planning,
designing and/or implementing AD in multi-storey mixed-use sites such as Central
Park?
4. Were there any other comments you’d like to share about the project and
knowledge gained?
Key themes emerging from the survey
Illustrative quotes are presented to provide context for the themes highlighted below
which range from the practicalities of purchasing small scale AD systems and ancillary
components in Australia to the political/regulatory environment enabling the
emergence in innovation in organic waste management.
LACK OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON AD SYSTEMS IN AUSTRALIA
People don’t understand AD, what it is and the volumes needed for a plant. It is therefore
needed when installing AD to help people have a better understanding what AD is and
volumes needed because it is so unclear.
INDUSTRY & GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IS REQUIRED TO GROW THE AD MARKET
The difficulty is there is nowhere you could buy the AD equipment in Australia, the systems
are imported from the EU. There is a need for a roundtable with EPA and Sydney Water to
discuss small scale AD systems and how they might be supported…It’s an untapped market…
MYTHS ABOUT ACCEPTABLE CONTAMINATION RATES FOR AD SYSTEMS
Common attitude is that no contaminants are needed in organic waste streams to be used in
AD systems. Mixed organic waste can be processed with the packaging so contaminants are
fine and not a problem. Myths are a big problem. This is the biggest myth….
REDUCING COSTS THROUGH AD
There is a huge potential of AD to reduce costs associated with carparks and cost reduction
will have a massive impact and flow through to housing affordability because it’s something
developers struggle with. Carpark and infrastructure costs are huge e.g. cement, ventilation
and space for waste storage and collection. There is also much better amenity if you have
automated central collection which is away from everything instead of huge bin rooms which
create potential for pests and rodents.
In a retail market, any offtake into the sewer is a real driver to find a solution for the nutrient
load for a waste recycled water scheme. If it didn’t cost anything to do that there isn’t
incentives for AD…
What was exciting was that the AD system and kit is 90% the same infrastructure, so for Flow
immediately there is a synergy already, we haven’t found out the details yet but its all there!
That was a basic but exciting operational revelation and how [AD] gets combined is a systems
solution and that could be integrated with costs savings!
ACCESSIBLITY AND AVAILABLITY OF WASTE DATA IS KEY
It continues to surprise me that good data is difficult to find. Data is the key. Even in other
fields as well i.e. solar. There’s always a struggle with data, even people collecting the waste
don’t know the data on volumes collected.
The ‘Dark arts’ aren’t good enough. We need to track our waste and know a lot more about
what’s in there, volumes and what’s not accounted for, it’s not understood and therefore we
don’t know the full range of opportunities for us…
EARLY PLANNING IS NEEDED
It has to be done from the onset, you can’t do retrofits for AD but on the flipside, it would be a
walk in the park if you installed AD from the beginning and would not be any different from
putting in your plumbing. The costs wouldn’t be prohibitive if you see the benefits.
Get onto it early! Going back into Central Park to install AD as a retrofit presents cost hurdles
PLANNING WITHIN EXISTING GREEN PRECINCTS SUCH AS CENTRAL PARK
The Central Park community, business and rentals, JLL, owners and the body corporate are
all engaged in the benefits of green infrastructure. They are looking to make it better and you
can do that when you build from scratch and can adapt to the culture in a precinct such as CP
rather than one single building…
Once you’ve got, multiple green engineered solutions that are working together then it’s easier
to get community engaged.
AD COULD BE SUPPORTED THROUGH CO-FUNDED BUSINESS MODELS
For developers, they will need to collaborate with organizations like Flow who could sell the
gas and we could recoup the capital for the AD plant through the sale of the gas and
electricity. It’s hard for developers to justify the costs but a co-funded structure would work i.e.
similar for what’s happening in solar.
AD REQUIRES REGULATORY DRIVERS
We need councils to get on board with this, to support source separation, it’s not a big thing for
them to stipulate, but it would be a key driver helping to get AD off the ground
There are 2 ways to deal with the [prohibitive] cost of AD and vacuum systems:
1. Penalize food waste to landfill with legislation and apply pressure to legislators to make this
happen and
2. We need to come up with a cheaper solution
UNEXPECTEDLY HIGH ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM THE FEASIBLITY STUDY
Originally I was sceptical of the gas produced but the numbers say it’s a justifiable quantity
and there’s enough there to warrant a step to putting this system in…Overall the more I got
involved the more I realised how big this idea of AD for waste is for Australia to manage our
waste…
A DEMONSTRATION SITE IS NEEDED FOR MANAGING WASTE, WATER & ENERGY VIA
AD
There’s a real opportunity for water and waste management, the synergies are great and
infrastructures should work for organic waste as well as water/sewage. We need to give
priority for that. A city(s) should be committed to get these integrated systems up [and
installed].
Let’s design a theoretical project from a clean slate with the cheapest money possible and be
clear about what the goal is…What is the real goal that sits behind decision making so we
need to be more open and transparent.
DEVELOPERS NEED TO BE OPEN & TRANSPARENT ABOUT ACCEPTABLE COSTS
FOR AD
Business perspective need to talk to developers about how the business case stacks up at the
beginning of the conversation, they need to monetise what they think can work…They are
usually guarded about expenditure and any business case. People aren’t open enough to
share costings. You can change the world by thinking outside the box but it’s not an open
discussion…
Openness is the key

---

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently

 

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

• When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
• We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

• The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
• We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
• Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment  Help Service Works

1.      Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2.      Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3.      Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4.      Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

---