On Monday this week two representatives of Southern Waste Solutions went on ABC 936 radio [i]Mornings[/i] with Leon Compton to discuss that company’s hazardous waste dump to be located on Blue Hills Road off the Arthur Highway between Forcett and Copping.
The pitch was about how a hazardous waste dump located at Copping was ‘consistent with Tasmania’s image of being ‘clean and green’. [Reference: SWS pamphlet – Controlled Waste Facility Copping April 2012]
But it seems for this company, funded by local government, community consultation is mere tokenism. So when the Mercury made the Copping ‘Toxic Dump Site’ front page news, SWS had to respond.
According to CEO for SWS, Christine Bell, ‘community opposition stems from a scare campaign based on inaccuracies and poor reporting’. The Mercury was identified as the culprit!
But SWS kept the notification to the statutory minimum ofcouncil letters to 4 or 5 adjoining land owners and a notice buried in the Public Notices section of the Mercury.
What to do? Attack the best form of defence?
SWS CEO, Christine Bell says: ‘with hindsight… we should have done more’. ‘We made the obviously erroneous assumption that the community was clearly well educated and had done their research and were comfortable with the project.’
Leon asked the CEO, on air, whether that meant that the community were not well educated on this proposal. ‘That seems to be the case, and they’re being captured by a misinformation campaign’, the CEO told the ABC southern Tasmanian audience.
Leon Compton asked: Who’s spreading that misinformation?
Christine Bell: Well, I would suggest that one of the instigators is one of the people who actually responded during the public comment period. And there were two of those people and I met with both of them. And negotiated with both of them and we agreed to change some of the ways that we would operate and both those people went away satisfied with our concessions. Apart from one [person] who insisted on receiving [b]money[/b]. Ahhm… he wanted to be compensated, in case at some time in the future, his land value went down. And that was the only thing I couldn’t satisfy him about. And he was clearly not prepared to be satisfied – without [b]money[/b]. Ahhm… that’s, I think, one of the underlying motivators for this campaign.
By this stage in the interview, I’m really feeling the love… the Copping community is definitely this company’s best friend!
A little later on ‘one of the instigators’ called in.
Leon Compton: Let’s go to Paul Reardon, Paul lives very close to the property site [Copping landfill] – 75 meters, I think his fence line comes to the proposed site. Good to talk to you this morning.
Paul Reardon: Gidday Leon, how are you going?
Leon Compton: Your question for our guests?
Paul Reardon: Just regarding Christine’s first comment about a scare campaign and also the request for money. Now, I presume she’s talking about me; she might confirm that?
Leon Compton: Yeap… were you talking about Paul?
Christine Bell: If he wants to put his hand up. Yes.
Paul Reardon: Well, I absolutely refute that I ever requested money. However I did ask the question of compensation. Is that not fair and reasonable to ask that question?
Apparently not Paul!
A wee while later and Karen rings in….
Leon Compton: Karen is in Tea Tree.
Karen: Christinehas made a few references to the residents… the closest residents that are 2½ kilometres away. I’m just wondering whether she knows what their views are and whether she had contact with them?
Christine Bell: Ah… yes, we have spoken with them.
Karen: And their views?
Christine Bell: They were satisfied with the response that they received.
Karen: Ah… no, they weren’t because that’s us. And we weren’t.
Christine Bell: Who am I speaking to, sorry?
Karen: You’re speaking to Karen.
Christine Bell: Oh! Karen, right, yes… sorry.
Karen: We weren’t made aware until it was in the newspapers because there were no letters sent out and we’re not a neighbouring property. There is a property between ours and the dump. And my understanding is that we don’t want it.
Christine Bell: That’s fine. I understand that that’s your understanding. Thanks Karen.
Leon Compton: OK, well so Karen says she doesn’t want it. What are the prospects that this goes back to the drawing board; that it doesn’t happen, Christine Bell?
Christine Bell: The prospects are zero. Ahhm… we have a permit and we can start construction once we’ve had the detailed design undertaken. If we back down from this particular development, based on a minority of noisy people, making a lot of fuss about… oh, based on inaccuracies, there will be no development ever go ahead – ever – in this State. When is a permit, not a permit? When is approval, not approval?
So there you have it. Cop it sweet Copping because they mean [b]Business[/b] with a capital B!
Reference:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/tasmania/2012/09/copping-waste-q-and-a-session.html?site=hobart&program=hobart_mornings
• Peter McGlone, Tasmanian Conservation Trust: Copping toxic dump uproar highlights Tasmania’s lack of a hazardous waste strategy
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust today stated that the public uproar over the proposed Copping hazardous waste disposal site highlights the embarrassing situation where the Tasmanian Government does not have a specific strategy for managing high level hazardous waste.
“It may be necessary to build a hazardous waste dump somewhere in Tasmania but before doing so the government must put in place a strategy to assist and possibly compel producers to reduce the production of hazardous waste and to reuse, recycle or treat it,” said TCT Director Peter McGlone.
“The government must have a strategy that guarantees that dumping hazardous waste into a landfill site will be an absolute last resort, only used after all other options have been exhausted.
“If the Copping dump is built in isolation from other measures then disposing of hazardous or toxic waste into landfill may become the preferred option for industries and may discourage more environmentally sound approaches.”
The TCT calls on the State Government to develop a state-wide hazardous waste strategy for Tasmania, similar to what was recommended in the ‘Current and Future Controlled Waste Practices in Tasmania Draft Report’, which was written for the Tasmanian State Government in 2008 by Sustainable Infrastructure Australia.
The SIA report is available from the EPA web site at:
http://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/Controlled_Waste_Management_Strategy_Draft_Report_January_2008.pdf
“The SIA report actually includes a draft hazardous waste strategy for Tasmania but it has never been endorsed or acted upon by the state government,” Mr McGlone continued.
“The SIA report makes detailed recommendations on hazardous waste management which should be used as the basis of a state government endorsed strategy.”
The SIA report recommends a number of alternatives to dumping hazardous waste into land fill, which may also be financially viable, such as incineration, high temperature sterilization, rendering, composting, neutralization and chemical decomposition through heating.
“Apart from having legislation to ensure hazardous waste is handled and transported safely, the state government does little to ensure that our most dangerous waste is dealt with in the most environmentally sound way.
“Both NSW and Vic both have specific policies concerning hazardous waste and it is about time Tasmania caught up in this most important area of environment management”, Mr McGlone concluded.
