• The Toxic Truth public information evening, Wednesday 7th November from 7 to 9pm, Forcett Hall, Arthur Highway, Forcett (More details below)
We continually hear from Southern Waste Solutions (SWS), that the Carlton River Hazardous Waste Landfill proposal is an ‘environmental victory’ for Tasmania. The facts are that if it proceeds this business proposal, premised entirely on a market opportunity, will lock Tasmania into a landfill future that already has Tasmania languishing behind the rest of Australia, and most of the developed world, when it comes to waste management practice. While the national average for landfill diversion sits at around 65%, here in Tasmania we struggle to reach 25%. In heavily populated and industrialised countries such as Germany, landfill bans exist leading to diversion to landfill of well over 90%. Alternative waste management, including hazardous waste, leads to significant infrastructure projects supporting recycling, reuse and reprocessing along with waste to energy schemes. This infrastructure leads to far greater levels of investment and employment than landfill, with the hazardous waste cell set to employ just two full time employees once constructed.
All levels of government play an important role in the regulation and oversight of waste management.
The Commonwealth has created a policy framework that underpins effective waste management and informs good practice. The State government provides the legislative framework for waste management and local government actively involves itself in residential waste collection, transfer and disposal. All levels of government are guided in principle by the waste management hierarchy, yet the Tasmanian state government and especially local governments are often poorly placed to provide waste recovery, reprocessing and recycling infrastructure that effectively diverts waste from landfill as is dictated by any genuine adherence to the waste management hierarchy. A new paradigm in waste management requires that waste itself is seen as a resource and not something that has no economic value. Under such a perspective, discarding waste to landfill should be avoided unless and until all other options have been explored.
The Commonwealth Government released the first incarnation of a national waste policy in 2009, titled National Waste Policy: Less Waste, More Resources. This policy represents a significant milestone in waste management in Australia.
The policy established an Australian waste framework over the next 10 years with the following aims;
• To avoid the generation of waste, reduce the amount of waste (including hazardous waste) for disposal, manage waste as a resource and ensure that waste treatment, disposal, recovery and reuse is undertaken in a safe, scientific and environmentally sound manner; and
• To contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation and production, water efficiency and the productivity of the land.
The key central plank in the policy which informs much of the stated strategies is the Waste Management Hierarchy. Figure 1.1 below illustrates the underpinning management goals of the Waste Management Hierarchy.
Established in 2001, prior to the 2009 National Waste Policy, the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) of Australia and New Zealand is tasked with addressing national policy issues relating to environmental protection. The EPHC utilises National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPMs) which outline agreed national objectives for protecting the environment.
Specifically, there exists two NEPMs in relation to waste management, namely a) Movement of controlled waste between states and territories, and b) Used Packaging materials. Of particular interest to a) above, the National Waste Policy 2009 strategy states that; agreed national principles, guidelines and standards to remove impediments for effective markets for potential wastes, is necessary to deliver on the policy’s overall aims. It is clear the National Waste Policy 2009 supports the transboundary movement of waste where economies of scale permit management of waste according to best practice under the waste management hierarchy.
SWS constantly maintains that it is untenable that approximately 10, 000 tonnes of hazardous waste is exported from Tasmania annually. However, the bulk of this material is likely paragoethite from Nyrstars Hobart Zinc Smelter, sent to Port Pirie S.A. for reprocessing. Surely a better outcome than placing it in an environmentally questionable landfill in Tasmania. Meanwhile much of SWS business case for the Hazardous waste landfill relies on shipping 100 000’s of tonnes of hazardous waste across the vast and treacherous southern ocean from Antarctica.
Figure 1.1 Waste Management Hierarchy
The main statutory instrument for environmental protection, including issues arising over waste management, in Tasmania is the Environmental Management & Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). In 2008 the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) was established to take statutory responsibility of the EMPCA in conjunction with the Environment Division of the Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE).
In June 2009, the State Government introduced the Tasmanian Waste & Resource Management Strategy. The strategy established a framework of objectives for solid waste management and resource recovery. The strategy guiding principles were heavily influenced and informed by the National Waste Policy 2009 and include;
• Managing waste in line with the Waste Management Hierarchy;
• Environmental Stewardship to reduce adverse impacts;
• The Precautionary Principle;
• Life Cycle assessment;, and
• Polluter Pays / User Pays Principle.
A further outcome of the introduction of the Tasmanian Waste & Resource Management Strategy 2009, was the concurrent establishment of the Waste Advisory Council (WAC). Industry and Government representatives sit on the board of this poorly defined entity. The role of WAC is to oversee implementation of the strategy, report on progress and achievements of the strategy and provide relevant recommendations to the Sstate Government. WAC reports to the EPA.
In order to provide statutory control, monitoring and enforcement of general and controlled waste in Tasmania, an amended version of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations, passed into legislation in 2010. Accompanying these waste management regulations, Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations also passed into legislation in 2010. They are designed to monitor movement of hazardous waste from point of generation to final location of waste management. The State Government first foreshadowed these regulations in 2004. They were drafted in 2007, passed through Pparliament into legislation in 2010. These regulations were to be supported by the establishment of a Controlled Waste Tracking System, administered by the EPA . This program has been subsequently been exempted and has not come into force due to budgetary restraints within the EPA, leaving proper auditing and tracking of controlled waste in Tasmania poorly monitored.
In 2008, the Department of Economic Development released a draft report on Controlled (Hazardous) Waste in Tasmania by Sustainable Infrastructure Australia (SIA). The report assessed the current status of controlled waste management and discussed a business case and feasibility study for controlled waste management facilities in Tasmania. It made a number of recommendations in relation to specific waste management facilities and technologies that would divert waste from landfill in line with the waste management hierarchy. The government never formerly responded to the report.
Historically, solid waste both residential and commercial has been a responsibility of local government. This responsibility in relation to the commercial and industrial sector diminished a number of decades ago, leaving residential municipal solid waste (MSW) as local governments’ primary concern.
As is typical in Tasmania, three regional local government authorities have been established to facilitate integrated regional strategic planning and implementation of waste management strategies.
The Southern Waste Strategy Authority (SWSA) was established in 2001. It is comprised of 12 member councils from the southern region. SWSA states publicly that’s its waste management strategy is underpinned by the waste management hierarchy.
The Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority trading as Southern Waste Solutions (SWS) is a local government authority established in partnership by Tasman, Sorell and Clarence Councils in 2001. Kingborough Council joined the business enterprise in 2009, however the 3 original councils remain the owners of the Copping landfill site. The rules of the authority commit the participating councils to use the Copping landfill as their principle waste management facility. Total lifespan of the landfill is thought to be around 200 years.
Southern Waste Solutions (SWS) also operate a clinical waste treatment plant at Lutana in greater Hobart. The waste treated here, by shredding and the addition of lime, is then transported to Copping for disposal at the pre-existing class ‘B’ landfill at Copping.
SWS is the sole proponent of the class ‘C’ (Categorised ) hazardous waste cell at the Copping site. The initial facility is set to accept up to 300, 000 tonnes of ‘spadable’ category 3 hazardous waste, much of it heavy metal laden. Preliminary approval for an equivalently sized cell adjacent to the first has been granted.
SWS has a financial interest in maximising revenue by maximising waste disposed to landfill. This is in opposition to the waste minimisation and waste management hierarchy espoused by the National Waste Policy and the Tasmanian Waste & Resource Management Strategy.
In 2009 the Tasmanian State Government released its Waste & Resource Management strategy. As noted earlier in this paper, this strategy broadly mirrors the National Waste Policy and is seems to be primarily informed by it.
Unfortunately, it would seem that almost no subsequent decisions by government in relation to waste management, including its stated position on the SWS proposal for a Hazardous Materials Landfill is informed by its own Waste Management Strategy. The subsequent development of a Waste Advisory Council, seems to have had little impact on waste management practices in Tasmania.
Furthermore the EPA’s role in overseeing and enforcing legislation in relation to hazardous waste has had little additional support from government as evidenced by the exemption of the Control Waste Tracking System due to budgetary constraints.
The State Government needs to act urgently to address the worst waste management practices in the nation. The following policies and legislation needs immediate government attention:
• A waste levy for waste to landfill disposal needs to be introduced forthwith to send a price signal to the market and deter disposal to landfill. Waste levies, charges, fees etc. collected by the State Government should be reinvested to support resource recovery activities;
• State government should introduce its own regulatory framework that helps underpin the national product stewardship regulations;
• The State Government should develop a comprehensive and systematic approach to the collection, collation, storage and dissemination of waste management and resource recovery data;
• The State Government needs to ensure the EPA is funded appropriately to be able to conduct its full functions in relation to hazardous waste management and enforcement regulations;
• The State Government should develop a regulatory framework around the Waste and Resource Management Strategy and formalise it in policy; and
• The State Government should consider regulation that supports a landfill ban on any future landfill development and a moratorium on all currently proposed landfill developments including the Copping ‘C’ Cell until all the above recommendations are met.
Local government should continue to manage MSW within government regulatory frameworks and guided by commonwealth and state waste management policy and strategy. Local government should not, however, own and operate large regional MSW and Hazardous waste landfill or other significant waste management facilities.
In an independent report commissioned by SWSA, of which the four councils comprising Southern Waste Solutions are members, the Authors found the following critical conclusions;
Local government should play a role in planning for waste and recovery facilities at a regional level. However, it should not conduct the core business itself. It is therefore important that local government is seen as independent by proponents in the waste/recovery industry. Private enterprise proposing waste management developments will be deterred from engagement in the state if local government is seen to be competing in their core area of business. Private sector business being undermined by local government operations will likely lead to private sector disengagement from waste management and subsequent devolvement to local government of C&I waste and hazardous waste material management with reduced opportunities for material recovery, higher commodity risks for recovered materials and higher costs.
Furthermore, if local government revenue is partly reliant on operating a waste disposal facility, such as a landfill, that does not deliver on core waste minimisation principles, then its ability to engage its community in waste minimisation programs would be significantly undermined.
All of the above principles applying to local government involvement in the business of waste management is amplified in the case of hazardous material waste management where the additional issue of potential liabilities are poorly accounted for by local government, whom a largely fiscally restrained and under constant financial pressure. Rate payers and taxpayers alike would ultimately be underwriting financial liabilities for these projects, when the hazardous material is predominantly produced by industry.
Legislated landfill bans exist in multiple jurisdictions around the world. Motivated by the poor environmental record of landfill and the intrinsically wasteful practice of discarding material that can be reused, recycled or reprocessed, landfill bans recognise the importance that targeted regulation by government can have on modifying poor waste management practice, usually utilising both a combination of disincentive and incentivised regulation. Without going into any depth some examples of Landfill Bans and their outcome on diversion from landfill are as follows;
Figure 3.1. Waste Diversion to Landfill post Landfill Ban Regulation
N.B. All jurisdictions had already achieved admirable landfill diversion rates prior to Landfill ban Regulation relative to Tasmania.
Landfill bans in most jurisdictions that entertain them are accompanied by, or have had instituted prior to their implementation, waste levies on waste to landfill to send a significant price signal to the market and shift the economics of waste management away from discarding waste to landfill.
The Commonwealth, State and Local governments all state that their approach to waste management practice and regulation is underpinned by the central plank of the Waste Management Hierarchy. In Tasmania, it would appear little more than lip service is paid to the guiding principles of the Waste Management Hierarchy.
Tasmania continues to have the worst diversion to landfill rates in the nation, some 40% behind the national average of approximately 65% at around 20%. This figure is in line with figures commonly experienced in developing nations and nothing short of embarrassing compared to near 100% diversion rates experienced in other jurisdictions around the developed world.
The recent permit to allow a council joint authority to further develop a landfill for hazardous waste material at Copping is condemning Tasmania to continue its poor record of waste management. It is a project that is likely to have poor environmental outcomes into the distant future and one that undermines the economics of alternate waste stream pathways to better outcomes such as reuse, recycling and reprocessing by creating a cheap means of disposal of industrial waste to ultimately become a responsibility of local ratepayers.
The Tasmanian Sstate Government has the responsibility of lifting Tasmania’s waste management practices from a distant last in the nation to at least matching the rest of our nation by implementing strong and decisive policy and regulation that shifts waste into a resource and creates an end to landfill disposal.
• THE TOXIC TRUTH: The Southern Beaches Conservation Society (SBCS) is hosting a public information evening …
… on behalf of the Dump The Toxic Dump campaign.
When – Wednesday 7th November from 7 to 9pm
Where – Forcett Hall, Arthur Highway, Forcett
MC for the evening will be Peter Derkley from the Sorell Roundabout newspaper with a variety of speakers covering such pertinent topics as –
•The Sorell Council Petition
•Environmental impacts & who is responsible for them
•Failed toxic waste cells
•Science, engineering & alternative waste management options
•Where to from here?
•Questions from the public
“The intention of the evening is to balance the debate and provide the information that Southern Waste Solutions don’t want anyone to know about,” said president of the SBCS, Angela Marsh.
