Upper Eastern Eyre Peninsula

Combined Councils Waste Strategy

March 2007

Council Composition

• Whyalla• Franklin Harbour• Cleve• Kimba

Regional Data

• Council Population Area(sq km) Rate Revenue• Whyalla 22000 1030 $7.8M• DCFH 1350 3283 $785,000• Kimba 1200 3975 $850,000• Cleve 1913 4803 $1.5M

Early Regional Objectives and Strategies

• Maximise waste reduction

• ID viable or revenue-neutral options for recycling

• Green waste management options

• Recognising key factors re implementation costs, tech feasibility and triple bottom line impacts on community

Main Issues

• Financial impact of guideline implementation to councils• Waste quantities generated• Burning clean paper and cardboard• Is recycling worth the $ invested –is it profitable?• Increased kerbside collection costs• Lack of reliable data• Communication issues• Viable options to move forward• Whose obligations are they anyway?

Financial Impact - Influencing Factors

• Requirements in guidelines for landfill construction• Tyranny of distance• Small revenue base and populations, large area• Cost shifting and level of government financial support• Drive to recycle and close landfills• Market for recyclable materials• Waste recovery industry players preparedness to

participate – too small potatoes• Cost to purchase land for sites

Burning Issues

• Cost to change methodology from burning to collection and transport

• Argument that supports burning as cleaner than burning stubble and less polluting

• Burning is low cost and provides long landfill life

Profitability of Recycling

• Cost to establish transfer stations and collection points – currently costs communities nothing

• $ returns for sales of product

• Cost to transport to major centres

• Willingness of industry players to get involved

Kerbside Collection

• Increased cost to provide kerbside collection with 2 bins

• Unwillingness of industry players to service a few rural communities

• Capital expenditure required to set up a shared kerbside collection service between councils

Data Reliability

• URS Report data seemed suspect

• What is the quality of information provided by councils for the report?

• Service provider information is also suspect

• Councils need to run trials to establish accurate data for planning appropriate strategies to move forward

Communication Issues

• EPA and councils need to communicate more honestly and openly

• Government needs to listen and be prepared to support effectively

• Rural communities need to share issues and solutions

Viable Options to Move Forward

• Options need to be cost effective• Need to have group support• Need to be financially supported to some degree by

government• Industry players should be prepared to look at options

that meets the broader community needs• Evaluate landfill vs transfer• Combine recycling pickups and transport• Infrastructure funding• Recycled materials processing

Whose Obligations?

• Councils need to establish what their service levels will be

• What rightly should be contracted out?• What is the role of State and Federal Government in

supporting the drive to reduce landfills and recycle?• What is the role of the EPA?• What funding opportunities are available?• What is adequate funding?• What infrastructure is required and who provides?

Current Status

• The group has met regularly in the last year.• There is broad consensus on the issues and the

items we need to examine to move forward• Lot of scope to examine options• Need positive input from the EPA and industry to

map out the best strategy for the long term• Consensus on closing landfills over time – still

need to ensure that we can operate under existing licenses while introducing change – may need special conditions past 2010 if necessary

Group Objectives (February 2007)• Kerbside Collection• Objective 1: To investigate common collection contracts as a means of cost reduction• Kerbside Recycling• Objective 2: To negotiate to market our recyclables as a Group when the opportunity arises• Landfill Sites• Objective 3: To explore further, the potential benefit of a regional landfill site albeit retaining

existing landfill sites where appropriate.Objective 4: To retain existing landfill sites whilst exploring the possibilities created by transfer stations.

• Special Wastes• Objective 5: To address issues relating to the management of special waste streams in the

region, particularly green wastes, steel, tyres, concrete and hazardous wastes.• Funding• Objective 6: To pursue funding opportunities to assist with waste management wherever

possible to support the group’s initiatives.• Regional Pickup• Objective 7: To explore the opportunities for integrated transport and logistics for the

movement of waste and recyclable materials within the region for cost effectiveness.• Burning• Objective 8: The group examine the issues associated with burning or incineration of

wastes and to keep its options open.• Section 43 Regional Subsidiary• Objective 9: The group establish a Section 43 regional subsidiary and all member councils

contribute the sum of $3000 per annum for this purposes.

Testing Possible Options

Work in Progress

• Forming a Regional Subsidiary Waste Management Group under Section 43 of the Act

• Whyalla and Pt Augusta are tendering for establishment of transfer stations

• Consensus is that shipping out putrescibles is the preferred option provided that unlined inert cells can be retained

• Whyalla is still evaluating whether to retain putrescible waste disposal.

• Active campaign to get best value as a group for recycled materials• All councils will establish transfer stations• All councils are sharing a baler• Whyalla is providing a waste education officer for the region• The group members support each other in grant applications

Strategies Under Review – (more work to do)

• Long term closure of landfills for the group and waste transfer – using existing licenses to buy time

• Further examine other shared processing equipment ie compactor, crusher/screening plant, trailers

• Shared processed materials ie mulch, concrete etc• Shared transport to major landfills ie milkrun• Infrastructure to stockpile recyclables• Mixed loads – what is right mix for transport economies?• Cost of shared transport/ mixed product vs landfill operation and cell

construction (don’t believe recycling in itself is profitable but offsets landfill costs)

• How does the proposed levy increase affect the communities?

Closing Comments• All councils in the group are positive and proactive in

waste reduction, and seeking joint solutions• Communities are all supportive in participating on the

recycling initiatives• Waste education and solid community communication

well ahead of time has provided a good kick start to the implementation phase as evidenced by the high early participation rates

• As a group, we have a greater opportunity to succeed in funding applications and a better voice on regional issues that make landfill reduction difficult

• Resource sharing works!• Open communication works better!