Upper Eastern Eyre Peninsula

1. Upper Eastern Eyre Peninsula Combined Councils Waste Strategy March 2007

2. Council Composition • Whyalla • Franklin Harbour • Cleve • Kimba

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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

15. 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.

16. Testing Possible Options

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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!