A picture tells a thousand words. A clear depiction of the Copping Landfill’s proximity to the Carlton River. SWS consistently misleads Tasmanians through public assertions that the landfill is over 2 kms from the Carlton River. The picture, with its aftermath of blackened and burnt vegetation also reveals the potential for a wildfire catastrophe.
Recently, Tasmanian’s learned that the application to fund the ‘C’ cell landfill development at Copping , had passed the initial stage of the Regional Development Australia grants process.
This development pushed out such worthwhile projects as the Kangaroo Bay redevelopment and the Springs development on Mt Wellington.
However, what is most alarming to residents of the Sorell municipality is that Tasman council are listed as the proponent in relation to this grant, for a landfill in Sorell municipality. Southern Waste Solutions (SWS) , being a corporate arm of joint councils has exploited a loophole in the funding criteria to circumvent the fact that they would otherwise be ineligible to apply for such funding. And so SWS’s pitiful record of transparency, dodgy governance and community consultation continues.
Southern Waste Solutions (SWS) is nothing but a landfill business owned ultimately by unsuspecting ratepayers.
It does not collect waste from the front of your house or business, it simply offers cheap contracts to dispose of waste in their enormous landfill site adjacent to the Carlton River. Its disposal rates per tonne are widely regarded as below an acceptable market value charged by most landfill operators around the state in order to monopolise the waste management market. Furthermore, it operates its landfill in a market environment devoid of a meaningful waste levy (all other Australian jurisdictions have one). Such levies are designed to send a price signal to the market that underpins the Commonwealth’s National Waste Policy (More Resource, Less Waste), a policy which dictates that disposal to landfill is a last option after all other waste management options have been explored.
Indeed, the Tasmanian Resource & Waste Management Strategy mirrors the Commonwealth’s policy, yet our government simply pays it lip service and appears spineless in implementing it in any meaningful way. As a landfill business, SWS hopes to receive over 300 000 tonnes of waste to their landfill site annually for the next 100 - 200 years. The extension of their operation, with a proposed hazardous materials ‘C’ Cell, is simply a business opportunity to further monopolise the waste management market in Tasmania. This is clearly evidenced by SWS’s insistence that soil from the Macquarie Point redevelopment should be dug and transported to their site for disposal when all the evidence indicates that this site can be largely remediated insitu.
This evidence includes Pitt & Sherry’s original engineers report to Government in 2008, in lieu of the then proposed new Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) at Macquarie Point, that compared insitu versus dig & dump remediation options. It concluded in its recommendations to Government that insitu remediation was not only entirely feasible but the cheapest option for the site. It is also further evidenced by the fact that SWS wants all nations’ waste from Antarctica if it can possibly secure it, including the soon to be burgeoning Chinese operations on that continent. This is despite the Madrid Protocols and Basel Conventions dictating that countries repatriate their own waste from Antarctica. Previously, SWS had tried to court Nystar into dumping their industrial waste at the landfill site, when reprocessing options in South Australia clearly represented a better waste management outcome.
Critically, in relation to Antarctic waste, SWS would like to have this waste transported through regional and rural Tasmania without it being treated as quarantine waste (which all international waste is). For this waste to be correctly treated under quarantine protocols, it would require a facility such as an industrial autoclave to be constructed at the port of Hobart, or any other receiving port. If this waste were to be transported and deposited in Rural Tasmania without appropriate quarantine measures it would jeopardise Tasmania’s agricultural sector and its competitive advantage in this sector that is built around its quarantine and biosecurity record. Even after appropriate treatment, the Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service (AQIS) recommends against such waste being deposited in rural areas.
One of the most perverse aspects of SWS’s proposed ‘C’ Cell is highlighted by the courting of Nystar for its hazardous industrial waste. It shouldn’t be forgotten that SWS is a Joint Authority of four local councils in Southern Tasmania, effectively owned by ratepayers. Are ratepayers, especially those affected directly in Sorrel municipality, really comfortable with industry transferring its ongoing waste liability to local citizens at a cut price rate? Similarly, are those same ratepayers comfortable with taking waste generated from China’s, France’s and Russia’s Antarctic operations at a cut price rate and having that hazardous liability transferred to the local citizenry?
SWS (and their political supporters)state that Tasmanians are doing a great environmental service by accepting this waste, when really they are motivated by nothing other than the money that can be generated by operating a very large landfill. Again this is highlighted by a recent comments by Melbourne and Macquarie University researchers on the contaminated, now decommissioned, Australian Antarctic Base at Wilkes. These researchers stated that it is likely this site can also be successfully remediated insitu and there is no need to return bulk contaminated waste to Australia. Interestingly, they state that whether this happens or not is simply a policy question and less a question of the technical capability to do so. SWS is actively spruiking the Tasmanian government and the Australian Antarctic Division to have this waste liability transferred to the residents of Sorell municipality for no other reason than the money that can be made from accepting international hazardous waste. This is despite the fact that an expert report to the Southern Waste Strategy Authority (SWSA, not to be confused with SWS) in 2011 recommended that council should not be in the market of capturing waste streams to landfill, as a landfill owner/operator as it undermines better waste management alternatives.
Moreover, if hazardous industrial and Antarctic waste were to be disposed of in Victoria at such a facility it would incur anywhere from a $70 -$250/tonne waste levy to government outside of any gate fee and disposal charge applied by the operator. Little wonder then that Victoria diverts approximately 60% of its waste away from landfill to better waste management streams. Meanwhile, Tasmania languishes behind the rest of the nation with just 16% of its waste recovered and diverted from landfill, based on recently published figures on behalf of the Commonwealth’s Environment Department. Conversely, heavily populated and industrialised nations such as Germany divert over 95% of their waste from landfill and have a legislated landfill ban.
The recent devastating bushfires that impacted directly on the Copping landfill site, putting local residents at additional risk of masses of toxic gases, should serve as a warning as to the inappropriateness of the location of this landfill. This is in addition to the fact that the site fails to meet the criteria of the 2004 Landfill Sustainability Guide in the first instance. During the height of the fires the site had to be evacuated and was left entirely undefended. The last significant bushfire to impact this area was back in 1988. This is a relatively recent repetition of a potentially catastrophic event, especially in the context that the area will be a repository of an enormous volume of waste, such as plastics and other toxic materials, for perpetuity. Yet in relation to this risk the EPA environmental assessment of the proposed ‘C’ cell at this site is silent on bushfire risk and appropriate management.
Many within the Sorell municipality remain unaware that the Copping landfill site is slated to become a monster landfill for the bulk of Tasmania’s waste over many decades to come with truck movements to the site set to increase by 30 -50 per day by the time McRobies gully and Glenorchy landfill closes within 10 years.
Landfill should be perceived as nothing more than an infected abscess created on the dermal layers of the biosphere. An abscess that ultimately leaks its chemical toxins into the local groundwater and water courses, and breathes significant carbon into the atmosphere. This ultimately leads to a more diffuse environmentalillness. Furthermore, landfill encourages cheap disposal of otherwise valuable resources which should be reused. While historically landfill has been the cheap and easy option for burying the exorbitant amount of waste that a modern western society generates, there exists no excuse to rely on it in our modern age as the principle waste management tool when multiple other strategies, articulated in government policy and strategy exist and where those strategies can already be demonstrated to exist in practice in nations such as Germany.
SWS wants to capture the state’s municipal and industrial waste to landfill for the next 200 years as a crass means of generating income, and in so doing, undermining all the structural changes required to reform and advance Tasmania’s waste management strategy. The state government should use the recent bushfire experience that put the Copping landfill at unacceptable risk as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand on the overreliance on landfill and encourage a new dawn in Tasmania’s waste management practices.
Shane Humpherys lives in the Southern Beaches area. After many years working in the healthcare sector, shane pursued post graduate studies in journalism, with a particular interest in documentary film making. Shane is currently working on a short film addressing marine debris issues, he works for Environment Tasmania, is a member of the Southern Beaches Conservation Society, is President of the tasmanian branch of the Surfrider Foundation and is clearly unimpressed with Tasmania’s over-reliance on landfill which is neither Clean, Green or Clever!
Show Comments
Comments (18)
Waste disposal, an industry that will not go away, would seem to have a long life in Tasmania unless we can make waste an export product.
Therfeore it takes little thought but a lot of will to take the clean, green and clever approach and move to 100% recycling.
After all Premier Lara said as much in her speech to the National Press Club so only Hodgman and his band could object and promise to repeal a plans to move to such a process.
Step 1 is not to import someone elses problems.
Here, here!
According to the Commonwealth’s National Waste Policy, landfill is the last option for waste disposal and rightly so.
Where are Tasmania’s alternative facilities…..just as importantly, where is the full information detailing the decision making around the proposed Copping level C waste? What are the alternatives, their costings and environmental and social impact assessments? Why would Tasmania suddenly via the need for waste disposal and the added need to secure “customers”, downgrade it’s own biosecurity status?
Dr Alison Bleaney
Can you please explain where the alternative sites assessed in the Hobart City Council Report are, why they were rejected and what site you recommend Shane as an alternative to Copping?
I cant see how the proposed Copping tip poses a significant bushfire risk as all waste is to be buried?
Why defend an open space tip site without dwellings, persons and stock on the site?
The management practice of landfill may be outdated so isnt the issue about reprocessing/ incineration or other inovative solutions that are most likely practiced in highly developed nations, example West Germany!
#1 How is 100% recycling achieved? Cost/benefit analysis?
Today’s Examiner article about the dog nearly killed by a dip in the South Esk at Hadspen should put to rest any doubts about the vigilance of the Tas health authorities.
I’m still impressed with the speed with which officials determined that the toxin which flattened us couldn’t have come from the forestry helicopter spraying alpha-cypermethrin upwind and just across the river.
John Hayward
Emma Goldman’s point (#3) about the lack of facts in this article is a good one, especially for a student of journalism such as Shane.
Where are the facts to give Shane’s claims some semblance of credibility?
1) “This development pushed out such worthwhile projects as the Kangaroo Bay redevelopment and the Springs development on Mt Wellington” from the “Regional Development Australia grants process”.
So one project passes an initial stage of assessment while two others do not. Please provide facts to back up your claim that the C Cell application was directly responsible for the exclusion of the other two.
2) “Its disposal rates per tonne are widely regarded as below an acceptable market value charged by most landfill operators around the state in order to monopolise the waste management market.”
Please provide some facts about what is charged by other Tasmanian landfills as compared to Copping. And who is it in Tasmania that “widely regards” the fee charged by Copping to be “below an acceptable market value”?
3) “Victoria diverts approximately 60% of its waste away from landfill”
This is really interesting. How does Victoria manage that when they only recycle a few more numbers of plastic waste than Tasmania? Please provide some evidence to support this claim.
4) “...[waste management] strategies can already be demonstrated to exist in practice in nations such as Germany.” “...heavily populated and industrialised nations such as Germany divert over 95% of their waste from landfill and have a legislated landfill ban.”
Yes, but Germany relies on waste incineration. Are you saying that Tasmania should join Germany and incinerate our waste, or are you obscuring the fact that Germany relies on waste incineration? It is actually one or the other. “A number of other European countries rely heavily on incineration for handling municipal waste, in particular Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany and France.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration]
5) The bushfire.
Your basis for this entire article seems to be that the Forcett bushfire burned around the Copping tip. But that bushfire didn’t incinerate any toxic refuse, and it obviously wouldn’t have incinerated anything buried under fill on the same site. If you’re going to base an entire article on this premise, you really need to provide evidence that any new bushfire would incinerate buried toxic waste at the Copping landfill.
In an ordered response to Ben.
1) The RDA funding for round four selected only 3 projects from Tasmania. One from each region, south, north and north west. Therefore, only one of the mentioned projects in the south was to receive the funding. Money for landfill meant no money for the others. Furthermore, what actually occurred were attempts by councils who are members of the joint authority SWS trying to ‘double dip’ into the funding.
2) The long term contracts and market rates are covered in the 2007 LGA report into SWS and the 2011 Blue environment report to SWSA.
3) Victoria recycles 55% of its waste compared to just 15% in Tasmania. This is easily traceable facts from commonwealth environment dept. Recycling is only one means of diverting waste from landfill.
4) Germany incinerates waste that cannot be recycled, reused or reprocessed in waste to energy incinerators with gas recapture. Waste to energy is considered a preferable outcome to landfill under the waste management hierarchy endorsed by both the commonwealth and state government
5) The landfill contains thousands of tonnes of plastic. Plastic being oil has a high propensity to burn even in relatively anaerobic environments. But most critically in relation to the proposed C cell is the supporting infrastructure including the pumping facilities for leachate and groundwater management. Such plant is clearly vulnerable.
So in summary Ben all the facts are readily available if you could just be bothered to look! Your criticisms seemed based on ignorance rather than an alternate set of facts or a coherent alternate argument.
Thanks Shane, but:
1) How did Copping push out BOTH the other southern projects, if only one was ever to be selected? Without even thinking about your attribution of blame to a project that was fairly assessed by the RDA along with its competitors, something is wrong with your maths here.
2) You haven’t answered my questions - what is charged by other Tasmanian landfills as compared to Copping? And who is it in Tasmania that you claim “widely regards” the fee charged by Copping to be “below an acceptable market value”? You made this very specific claim, you need to back it up with evidence.
3) But HOW Shane? How does Victoria do so well compared to Tasmania? Are there any lessons there for us? I don’t want you to tell me that these facts are “easily traceable,” I want you to provide evidence to back up the claims that you make.
4) So you are advocating a waste incinerator for Tasmania instead of the Copping C cell? What if they build the waste incinerator at Copping instead of the C cell, what then? Are we really heading for this again?: http://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Global/134.pdf
5) Yes, the landfill contains thousands of tonnes of plastic. But as far as I’m aware none of those thousands of tonnes of plastic were burned in the January bushfire. And if you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest the pumping facilities will be destroyed in a future bushfire, you really need to provide it.
In summary Shane, you can’t just say any old sh*t and expect everyone else to lap it up. That’s propaganda, not journalism.
Nr 7 and 8. When they know they have nothing of value to say, when they know that they deliberately ignore Commonwealth and State policy, when they know that they have put their bets on a horse before they looked into its mouth, when they know they are acting against the broader interest of the Tasmanian population as a whole, when they know they have engaged in underhand deals, when they know they should back off, then they engage in nit-picking, concerted disinformation, grand standing, threats, association with malfeasants and lies.
But really it’s easy: acknowledge the false start, take the (very reasonable) policies as your guideline and redevelop a state of the art waste management plan and then implement it. Straight forward. As it is meant to be. Endorsed by national and state governments.
Meanwhile, stop the Copping development, stop wasting money on a dud and do as you are meant to by Government decree.
#9
Looks like you have set yourself some homework for tonight. You can reference the papers I have already mentioned as a starting point to get up to speed. Good Luck!
P.S. I have always oppossed a ‘spoon fed’ education!
Shane, our friend “Ben” is just trolling, trying to waste your energy and divert readers’ attention to the mental murk he dishes up.
I forgot “trolling” when I wrote my “When they know ...” comments (10). Sadly, trolling always works. They know that. It sucks energy away from those who intend to find real solutions to real problems.
Your work and clarity of thought is essential in this scandalous case. It needn’t have been scandalous if basic and honest planning by educated or at least educatable people had taken place.
Now they find it difficult to back down. Still, it’s clear - wrong way - go back!
Shane, ignoring the questions at 2# and 3# is the sort of reaction one expects from politicians who want to side step the real issues. These are some fundamental questions that underpin this whole debate and you need to answer them. No amount of campaign building with information overload can replace the need to discuss the issues raised in primary documents.
The community are fed up with the gatekeeping done by Departmental heads and spin doctors in Tasmania, but adopting the same behaviour is not a good look.
Just what sort of accountability do ET’s funding agencies require about the conduct of employees in the organisation or is there none?
Given that eNGO’s have left ET in droves it begs the question whether ET should continue to receive the funding it does when it does not represent the environment movement in Tasmania let alone competently at all?
#11; Excellent answer Shane!
It seems that employment has been found for some of the pulp mill “supporters”. The style is unmistakable!
Come on Shane, I query just some of the uncorroborated claims you make in your article, and you allege that my questions are based on ignorance, and then tell me to do your research for you?
While I could research the effect of burning thousands of tonnes of plastic in a waste incinerator, I don’t believe that anyone could research all the claims that you’ve made. That’s the point really. It’s your job, and if you can’t back it up, don’t include it, or make it clear that it’s your opinion, not a fact.
More power to your arm in your quest to massively increase recycling rates, I truly support you in that. But I think Tasmania will also require a landfill solution for some time to come, and you’re going to have to come up with something a whole lot better than the above effort if you want to convince anyone other than the converted.
For what it’s worth, it looks to me like Copping is the best waste management option for southern Tasmania on environmental, social, and economic grounds. Any other option will involve massive extra expense, or incineration, or both, and I don’t believe Tasmanians will put up with those alternatives, let alone pay for them.
Uh Peter #12 You’re the one who is trolling, not me; I’m asking legitimate questions about a published article. You’re doing something else:
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog…”
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)]
I know I shouldn’t respond to trolls, but he did get three out of three!; “inflammatory, extraneous, [and] off-topic”.
I’m not respondong again Peter. Don’t bother.
They were up to their eyeballs in poo
It was yellow and sticky like glue
Along came a troll
On an afternoon stroll
Who added one more to the brew
The idea of carting waste from all over the South of the state to Copping is destined to failure. Peak oil will see to that. It will not be economically possible to maintain this “wasteful” ( pun intended) method of waste disposal.
It would be beneficial if we had some input from people with knowledge of converting waste to heat and power. Then a drain on our resources could become a benefit.