Today's Topics:
are yellow plastic bags always made with cadmium for color
FW: Food and Food Processing Residuals Composting Workshop
Fwd: Help CA Recycling - Support Dr. Lee's Appeal
GreenYes Digest V97 #207
Looking for a summary of world solid waste laws
Looking for summary of world solid waste laws (2 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:48:02 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: are yellow plastic bags always made with cadmium for color
One of our local newspapers just started placing their paper in a
translucent yellow plastic bag. Does anyone know if yellow (and orange)
plastic bags always contain cadmium as the colorant? If so can you describe,
or tell me where to get more info about cadmium toxicity/pathways from the
mining through disposal/recycling. Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:28:32 -0700
From: Robin Salsburg <robin@mrwmd.org>
Subject: FW: Food and Food Processing Residuals Composting Workshop
Passing along this announcement about an upcoming conference.
Robin
----------
From: Greg Evanylo[SMTP:gevanylo@vt.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 2:17 AM
To: waste@cedar.univie.ac.at; wastemgt-mg@esusda.gov; ENVST-L@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Subject: WASTE: Food and Food Processing Residuals Composting Workshop
INTERESTED IN FOOD AND FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS COMPOSTING? DON'T
MISS THE SPECIALTY WORKSHOP AT THE 1997 VIRGINIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION'S
ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND TRADE SHOW AT THE OMNI WATERSIDE HOTEL IN NORFOLK,
VIRGINIA FROM NOVEMBER 16-19. THE COMPOSTING WORKSHOP WILL TAKE PLACE FROM
1:30-5:30 PM ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON, NOV 18. THE $80 REGISTRATION FEE FOR THE
WORKSHOP INCLUDES A TOUR OF THE SPSA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPOSTING
AND MULCHING SYSTEM ON WEDNESDAY FROM 8:30 AM TO 1 PM.
A special speaking appearance will be made by biologist, educator
and internationally acclaimed author of Worms Eat My Garbage, Mary Appelhof.
Known by many as the Worm Woman from Kalamazoo, Mary Appelhof's credits include:
* Author of Worms Eat My Garbage, which sold over 100,000 copies in 15
printings in as many years,
* Co-author of Worms Eat Our Garbage: Classroom Activities for a Better
Environment, which is used in thousands of classrooms in the U.S. and Australia,
* Worm Woman in the video Wormania!, demonstrating live worms at work,
* Presenter at international conferences in Phillipines, England,
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and
* Inventor of the Worm-a-way vermicomposting system.
Mary Appelhof has recently completed a revised and expanded edition
of Worms Eat My Garbage (Flower Press). She will address changes and
developments in vermicomposting during the 25 years in which she has been
involved. (Note: Due to her late addition to the program, Mary Appelhof is
not listed as a speaker in the registration packet.)
Other speakers and their topics include:
Part I: Food Waste Composting Processes
Moderator: Rosalie Green, USEPA Office of Solid Waste
Speakers: Pat Condon, New Earth Services - Composting seafood processing
residuals and the importance of quality control for producing a marketable
product; BobKerlinger, Earth Systems and Solutions Corp. - The use and
advantages of in-vessel systems for composting institutional food wastes;
Rhonda Sherman, North Carolina State University - vermicomposting programs
for schools and businesses; and Mary Appelhof.
Part II: Food Waste Composting Case Studies
Moderator: Archer Christian, Virginia Tech
Speakers: Clyde Brown, National Fruit Product Co. - Composting apple
processing wastes; Dave Adkins, Camp LeJeune Marine Base - Composting food
and other organics at a military base; and Cary Oshins, Rodale Institute -
Implementing a cafeteria waste composting program at a college.
Part III: The Future of Food Waste Composting
What's next? Listen to the prognostications from our panel of three food
waste composting experts.
Moderator: Greg Evanylo, Virginia Tech
Panelists: Cary Oshins, Pat Condon, and Mike Dieter, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality.
Registration for the workshop (plus a tour of the SPSA Integrated
Waste Mgt System on Wednesday from 8:30am-1pm featuring the composting and
mulching facility) is $80.00. For further information and a copy of the
registration packet, write to or call the Virginia Recycling Association,
2210 Mount Vernon Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22301; Ph: (703) 549-9263, Fax:
(703) 549-9254.
Additional information about the program or the sponsoring group,
the Virginia Recycling Association's Organics Recycling and Composting
Committee (ORCC) can be obtained from Greg Evanylo (540-321-9739; e-mail:
gevanylo@vt.edu), Archer Christian (540-231-9801; e-mail: archrist@vt.edu),
Bob Kerlinger (ORCC Chair; 757-868-3779), or Suzan Craik (ORCC Secretary;
804-751-4401; e-mail: ex041@vt.edu)
Greg Evanylo
gevanylo@vt.edu
Crop & Soil Environmental Sciences
421 Smyth Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0403
540/231-9739 (O)
540/231-3075 (F)
-
message sent by waste@cedar.univie.ac.at
to signoff from the list, send an email to
majordomo@cedar.univie.ac.at
the message body should read
signoff waste your@email.address
-
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:32:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: CRRA@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Help CA Recycling - Support Dr. Lee's Appeal
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
To: crra@aol.com, RicAnthony@aol.com, cdchase@qualcomm.com,
ncol0043@telis.org
CC: reindl@co.dane.wi.us, recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
Date: 97-08-22 14:00:11 EDT
THIS MESSAGE IS FROM BILL SHEEHAN
PLEASE POST TO INTERESTED FOLKS
[The following correspondence describes a one-man challenge that has as
much if not more *immediate* prospect of improving recycling economics in
California than most anything else I am aware of: make the competition
(landfilling) incorporate some full cost accounting. But one person will
not get very far alone; Dr. Lee needs some political back-up to win!
-- Bill Sheehan]
Bill,
You may recall that I am in the process of trying to get the state of
California Water Resources Control Board to address the issue of
allowing minimum Subtitle D landfills to be sited at geologically
unsuitable sites. I have previously brought to your attention a
review that I wrote on how such practices lead to inappropriate
landfill siting and artificially low tipping fees. I sent a copy of my
review on this topic to the State Water Resources Control Board
whose executive officer has recently responded, asserting that the
Board does not set tipping fees and that its policies do not control
siting. Attached are my comments on this response. While this is a
California issue, it has applicability to many other parts of the
country and may be of interest to your e-mail group since the same
kinds of issues will be applicable to most states. If you or others
have questions or comments on my comments, please contact me.
Fred G. Fred Lee & Associates
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (916) 753-9630 Fax (916) 753-9956
e-mail gfredlee@aol.com
web site: http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm
****************
August 19, 1997
Jorge A. Leon
Senior Staff Counsel
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Re: Petition A-1042, Order No. 96-228
Dear Jorge:
Please find enclosed copies of correspondence with Walt Pettit
concerning landfill siting and tipping fees. I am bringing these to
your attention in order to be incorporated into the record for my
Petition A-1042, Order No. 96-228 covering the adequacy of the
WDRs that the CVRWQCB issued for the University of California,
Davis proposed development of a fifth campus landfill. This
correspondence has direct application to the appropriateness of the
Schueller "position" on the adequacy of minimum Subtitle D liner
design in complying with Chapter 15's requirements of protecting
groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes
represent a threat. As you may recall, my amended Petition
included a specific request of the State Board to address the
technical validity and the appropriateness of the approach used for
the adoption of the Schueller "position." As you can see, and I am
sure there will be few others who do not agree with me, Mr. Pettit's
statements in his August 8, 1997 letter stating and/or implying that
the State Board policy/Schueller "position" on the implementation
of Chapter 15's requirements for groundwater quality protection
have significant impact on landfill tipping fees and landfill siting
are inappropriate. Further, as I have discussed in previous
correspondence, the Schueller "position" is strongly contrary to
waste reduction, recycling and reuse by allowing an initial cheaper-
than-real-cost garbage disposal through artificially low tipping fees.
If you have questions on the attached correspondence, please
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Fred
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
Copy to: J. Caffrey E. Schnabel W. Pettit G. Carlton L.
Vanderhoef
GFL:oh Enclosure
********************
August 19, 1997
Walt Pettit
Executive Director
CA Water Resources Control Board
PO Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
Dear Walt:
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1997 in which you discuss
several aspects of materials that I sent to Chairman Caffrey and the
other Board members concerning landfills and water quality issues.
Your letter raises some fundamental issues that need to be further
reviewed since it does not accurately and reliably discuss the
relationship between the implementation of the Board/staff
Landfilling Policy ("position") and tipping fees as well as the
influence of implementation of this Policy/"position" on landfill
siting.
You state in your second paragraph:
"Your letter addressed 'proper pricing of the landfilling of solid
wastes'. Although I am aware of your concern, the price set for
tipping fees for public disposal of waste to landfills is not within
the authority of the Board. As I am sure you are aware those prices
are determined at the local level."
I certainly did not imply that the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board or the State Water Resources Control Board
specifically set tipping fees. What I indicated, which was one of the
reasons for my July 4, 1997 letter to the Board, was that the State
Board Landfilling Policy and especially its implementation at the
regional board level controls tipping fees to a considerable extent.
There is no question that in today's landfill tipping fee
development, the requirements set forth by the regional boards in
WDRs play a major role in establishing tipping fees for a landfill.
The March 19, 1997 Schueller "position" memo stating that it was
"our" "position" that a minimum Subtitle D landfill liner system
complies with Chapter 15 requirements of protecting groundwaters
from impaired use by municipal landfill leachate for as long as the
wastes in the landfill will be a threat, allows public and private
landfill developers, through the approval by the regional boards
and with State Board approval through the Schueller "position," to
site landfills at geologically unsuitable sites where there is not
natural protection of groundwaters from pollution by landfill
leachate for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat.
This situation, in turn, allows landfill applicants to develop
cheaper-than-real-cost landfilling, in which only the initial cost of
waste deposition is included in the tipping fee. The ultimate
failure of a minimum Subtitle D landfill liner/cover system and
groundwater monitoring systems that are being permitted by
regional boards today at geologically unsuitable sites will
obviously not protect groundwaters from impaired use for as long
as the wastes represent a threat as required by Chapter 15.
Therefore, the regional boards and State Board are directly
controlling to a considerable extent tipping fees for landfills
through their approach for implementation of Chapter 15
requirements in the current Landfilling Policy.
An additional point of concern, as set forth in my July 4, 1997 letter
to the Board on these issues, is the situation with respect to the 3 R's
(recycling, reuse and waste reduction). There is no question that
the cheaper-than-real-cost landfilling that is now being allowed
under the State Board's landfilling "position" and the regional
boards' development of WDRs for landfills sited at geologically
unsuitable sites for a minimum Subtitle D landfill, is seriously
damaging to waste recycling efforts in the state. Counties, waste
management companies and others are abandoning waste recycling
efforts because their costs exceed the cost of dumping the waste
into a minimum Subtitle D landfill. Such initial costs, however,
ignore the long-term "Superfund"-like costs that will ultimately
have to be borne by the residents of the region when the landfill
liner cover and groundwater monitoring systems allowed under
current Subtitle D landfilling, as practiced by the regional boards
result in "Superfund"-like sites throughout the state where tens of
millions of dollars will have to be spent in cleaning up the
groundwater pollution for those landfills sited at geologically
unsuitable sites.
This situation is no different than what happened when the
regional boards staff, without public review, adopted the position
in 1984 with the implementation of Chapter 15 that a one foot of 10-
6 cm/sec compacted clay liner complied with Chapter 15
requirements for protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as
long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. It was obvious to
anyone who would make a simple Darcy's law calculation, then
and now, that such an approach is technically invalid. The same
situation applies to minimum Subtitle D landfill liner systems.
These systems, at best, only postpone when groundwater pollution
will occur for those landfills sited where there are usable
groundwaters hydraulically connected to the base of the landfill. It
is for this reason that the Board must overturn the Schueller
"position," or at least have this publicly reviewed as it should have
been before it was adopted. If that "position" is supported by the
public in a proper review, then it will be necessary to change the
overall groundwater protection requirements set forth in Chapter
15 of protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the
wastes represent a threat and stop this facade that has been
occurring since 1984 of claiming that the landfills that have been
developed since then and are being developed today comply with
Chapter 15 requirements.
Therefore, while the Board does not directly set tipping fees, Board
policy and how it is implemented at the regional board level does
establish the basis for tipping fees. If true groundwater quality
protection, as set forth in Chapter 15, were being implemented by
the State Board, which would require termination of the Schueller
"position," and require and a site-specific evaluation as to whether a
minimum Subtitle D landfill could be reasonably expected to
protect groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes
in the landfill are a threat, then the tipping fees would be raised
considerably and more properly reflect the actual cost of landfilling
at geologically unsuitable sites.
With respect to your second point on the Schueller memorandum
stating:
"Your letter also alleges a staff position that landfills can be sited
'anywhere in the state'. You seem to be referring to a March 19, 1997
memorandum from Mr. Schueller to Mr. Pinkos at the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the 1993
requirement for a composite liner for new landfills or landfill
expansions. That memorandum simply states that a composite
liner meets the Title 27 performance standards for containment
systems of Class II and Class III landfills. The March memorandum
does not discuss siting."
This is a narrow interpretation of the landfill siting situation. The
Schueller "position" does, in fact, have direct bearing on landfill
siting. Recently I received a letter from Mr. Pinkos dated July 8,
1997 indicating that it is the staff's position that since the US EPA's
Subtitle D regulations "Preamble" states that the Subtitle D
minimum composite liner will be protective even at poor sites, this
gives justification for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Board to adopt a minimum Subtitle D landfill liner system at a
geologically poor site where there is not natural protection of the
groundwaters from pollution by landfill leachate for as long as the
wastes in the landfill would be a threat. In my July 21, 1997
response to Mr. Pinkos I have discussed in detail what the US EPA
meant by "protective" when they made that statement. It is not the
same "protective" that is set forth in Chapter 15 of no impaired use
of groundwaters by waste-derived constituents for as long as the
wastes in the landfill will be a threat. I provided you with a copy of
my comments to CVRWQCB Chairman Schnabel on this subject.
It is obvious that it is not possible to separate landfill siting issues
from landfill design issues. The Schueller "position" has significant,
dominant implications for landfill siting. In fact, Betsy Jennings at
the Placer County Western Regional Sanitary Landfill review by the
CVRWQCB stated on the record that it was inappropriate for me to
raise questions about the adequacy of the WDRs for the proposed
expansion of that landfill with the CVRWQCB. My objections to
the adequacy of design relative to the characteristics of the site
where groundwater pollution had already occurred from existing
waste management units at that landfill should, according to her,
be taken to the State Board for review. At the time of the WRSL
hearing, I did not know of the Schueller "position" since this was
behind-the-scenes rulemaking that was not made public by the
State Board. Further, this "position" is strongly contrary to the
position taken by the State Board staff and Board on the Azusa
Landfill matter where it was concluded that even a single
composite liner with an additional FML was not adequate to
protect the groundwater resources of the San Gabriel Basin in
accord with Chapter 15 requirements.
Subsequently, when I learned of the Schueller "position" I
amended my Petition to the State Board on the adequacy of the
CVRWQCB's review of the WDRs for the proposed University of
California, Davis fifth campus landfill to include the specific review
of the Schueller "position" since, like the Western Regional Sanitary
Landfill expansion, the UCD fifth campus landfill site is a
geologically unsuitable site for a minimum Subtitle D landfill of the
type proposed by the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and
adopted by the CVRWQCB. The fifth campus landfill is to be
located immediately adjacent to the fourth campus landfill which is
already polluting groundwaters with a chloroform plume that
extends some undefined distance greater than a mile from the
landfill. Therefore, the site does not provide natural protection of
groundwaters, and the inevitable failure of a single composite liner
will mean that it is only a matter of time before groundwater
pollution occurs at the fifth campus landfill. Even UCD's former
solid waste manager admitted this at a public meeting.
According to the Schueller "position," all that needs to be done to
find a suitable site for a landfill in California that will satisfy the
groundwater protection requirements set forth in Chapter 15 is to
put in a minimum Subtitle D liner, because that will, according to
Schueller, in the "our" "position" statement, protect groundwaters
from impaired use for as long as the wastes represent a threat. It is
obvious, however, that Schueller et al. made a serious error in
adopting that position. I do not at this time know what was behind
this or why this was adopted without public review. I do know
that there was ample evidence at the time that it was adopted, post-
1993, to clearly show that it was a technically invalid position that
was motivated by factors other than science and engineering and
the protection of future generations' groundwater from pollution
by landfill leachate.
It is important for the Board to clearly recognize the connection
between establishing landfill containment design and groundwater
monitoring requirements and the siting of landfills; they are
intimately coupled. I personally know from my work with State
Board staff in the early 1980s in the development of Chapter 15 that
it was never intended that the minimum design requirements set
forth in Chapter 15 would be applicable to all sites where landfills
could be located in the state. The situation that developed, where
the regional boards staff and boards adopted a policy of allowing
minimum design to be considered equivalent to the mandated
groundwater quality protection set forth in Chapter 15 of protecting
groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes
represent a threat was of great concern to a number of the State
Board staff in the late 1980s, early 1990s. At that time, it was
recognized that the State Board had no authority to override the
adopted policy of the regional boards on the equivalency of a
minimum Chapter 15 design providing protection at any location,
unless a landfill WDRs were appealed to the State Board.
It was the regional boards' unofficially adopted equivalency policy
which led to the construction of a number of landfills and landfill
expansions in the state with the minimum of a one foot of 10-6
cm/sec clay liner from 1984 through 1993, which, as expected, have
polluted groundwaters. This pollution is sufficiently evident now
so that the WRCB SWAT results report of 1995 make it clear that
lining the landfill with the minimum design requirements set forth
in Chapter 15 did not prevent groundwater pollution. At best, it
slowed it down for about two months. Exactly the same thing is
going to happen with minimum Subtitle D composite liners for
those landfills sited at geologically unsuitable sites. Instead of
being a few months, it could be as long as a few decades until off-
site groundwater pollution is found. It will be found, and the
Schueller "position" will be recognized as a technically invalid,
highly short-sighted approach to managing municipal solid wastes
that continued allowing the disposal in such a manner as to lead to
groundwater pollution and causing significant harm to the efforts
being made by many individuals to improve waste reduction,
recycling and reuse.
If you or members of the Board have questions about these
comments, please contact me. Hopefully this Board, in the near
future, will address the significant deficiencies that have been
practiced since 1984 in the landfilling of waste where the minimum
prescribed design is assumed to provide protection of
groundwaters from impaired use in municipal solid waste landfills
sited where there are vulnerable groundwaters hydraulically
connected to the base of the landfill.
Sincerely yours,
Fred
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
Copies to: Members of WRCB Members of CVRWQCB
W. Attwater G. Carlton G. Liss, California Resources Recycling
Association J. Leon L. Vanderhoef
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: michele@raymond.com (Michele Raymond)
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #207
John
Didnt you know we publish Recycling laws International? I track 34 countries.
I only have one free article but there is also other stuff on my web site.
I can e mail the article ifthey e mail me at your request.
Good luck
Michele Raymond
Recycling laws International;
301 345-4237
Fax 345-4768
http://www.raymond.com/recycle
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:27:07 -0700
From: Caroline Brimblecombe <caroline.brimblecombe.pt@norfolk.gov.uk>
Subject: Looking for a summary of world solid waste laws
Why not try Michele Raymond's site
Recycling Laws International
http://www.raymond.com/recycle/
or
the World Resource Foundation (Warmer Bulletin)
http://www.wrf.org.uk/
maybe also useful -
European Commission DGXI
http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg11/dg11home.html
or the European Environment Agency
http://www.eea.dk/
the UK Environment Agency (responsible for waste regulation)
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
and the UK Department of the Environment
http://www.open.gov.uk/doe/envir/
and there is always Thomas, US Federal Info:
http://thomas.loc.gov
Cheers,
Caroline Truth Brimblecombe
>John Reindl 608-267-8815 wrote:
>
> A local company is writing a company newsletter article on solid waste
> laws in other countries. Their goal is to inform their customers of
> existing laws and trends around the world.
>
> Does anyone know of either a good magazine article, good publication or
> good resource that could help this firm out?
>
> Thanks much!
>
> John Reindl, Recycling Manager
> Dane County, WI
> reindl@co.dane.wi.us
> (608)267-1533 - fax
> (608)267-8815 - phone
-- Caroline Truth Brimblecombe Norwich, United Kingdom caroline.brimblecombe.pt@norfolk.gov.uk ctbrim@aol.com +44 (0) 1603 222243 - office +44 (0) 1603 223 219 - fax +44 (0) 1603 613806 - home------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:55:26 -0700 From: Caroline Brimblecombe <caroline.brimblecombe.pt@norfolk.gov.uk> Subject: Looking for summary of world solid waste laws
There is also
Envirobiz =
International Environmental Information Network=99 =
4801 W. 81st St. =95 Minneapolis, MN 55437 =95 Ph: 612/831-2473 Fx: =
612/831-6550
They have a web page entitled International Government Environmental Agencies Information and Links http://www.envirobiz.com/govpublic/govinfo.htm
>John Reindl 608-267-8815 wrote: > =
> A local company is writing a company newsletter article on solid waste > laws in other countries. Their goal is to inform their customers of > existing laws and trends around the world. > =
> Does anyone know of either a good magazine article, good publication or > good resource that could help this firm out? > =
> Thanks much! > =
> John Reindl, Recycling Manager > Dane County, WI > reindl@co.dane.wi.us > (608)267-1533 - fax > (608)267-8815 - phone
-- =
Caroline Truth Brimblecombe Norwich, United Kingdom caroline.brimblecombe.pt@norfolk.gov.uk ctbrim@aol.com +44 (0) 1603 222243 - office +44 (0) 1603 223 219 - fax +44 (0) 1603 613806 - home
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:34:00 +0900 From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop) Subject: Looking for summary of world solid waste laws
John Reindl asked:
>A local company is writing a company newsletter article on solid waste >laws in other countries. Their goal is to inform their customers of >existing laws and trends around the world. >Does anyone know of either a good magazine article, good publication or >good resource that could help this firm out?
John, & anyone else who may be interested,
Following is my summary of the most recent state-wide waste legislation passed in Australia. It is for New South Wales where Sydney is the capital. Sorry it gets a bit specific in parts - but it was originally written for Australian readers:
NSW WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 1995 - Summary By Peter Hopper, Waste Crisis Network
The NSW Parliament passed the Waste Minimisation and Management Act on 18 December 1995. The new Act has far-reaching implications for local government, industry, the community, and the environment.
On release of the Bill in November 1995 the Nature Conservation Council's Waste Crisis Network and the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW sought a large number of significant amendments. Many of these were achieved through the lobbying of Government, Opposition, Independent, Greens, and Democrat members.
The following is intended to give all those with an interest in waste minimisation and management a basic understanding of the implications of the Act for NSW.
State Waste Planning and Policy
A State Waste Advisory Council (SWAC) is established under the Act for the purpose of ensuring cross-sectoral input in the development and implementation of state waste planning and policy. SWAC consists of representatives of Local Government (2), the environment movement (2), consumer groups (1), the waste industry (1), other industry (2), and the EPA (1).
SWAC has the function of advising the minister and the EPA on such matters as waste reduction priorities and the need for legislative change. SWAC also has an advisory role on Industry Waste Reduction Plans, allocations from the Waste Planning and Management Fund, and the setting and variation of waste disposal levies under section 72.
Regional Waste Planning and Management
Perhaps the most significant feature of the new Act for local government is the need for any two or more councils to establish Waste Management Regions, Waste Boards, and Regional Waste Plans. This is a mandatory requirement of councils in the Sydney, Illawarra, and Hunter regions (although exemptions are possible) but optional, for the time being, for councils elsewhere in the state.
Eight Waste Management Regions were declared during 1996. These were the Inner Sydney, Southern Sydney, Western Sydney, Northern Sydney, Macarthur, Central Coast, Hunter, and Illawarra Waste Management Regions. Each Waste Management Region is directed by a Waste Board for that region. Each Waste Board of directors will consist of a general manager and up to 12 persons nominated by the constituent councils - but not more than one person per council. The functions of a Waste Board include establishing management and charging policies for the waste services provided by the constituent councils. The directors on the Regional Waste Board will employ a general manager and any other staff required.
A Waste Board must prepare and implement a regional waste plan approved by the minister and including proposed strategies and targets for managing and reducing waste. A Waste Board must report to the minister on the implementation of its plan and constituent councils must comply with the regional plan.
Industry Waste Reduction
The Act provides for the preparation and implementation of industry waste reduction plans (IWRPs). The minister will determine whether an IWRP is to be prepared (based on advice from SWAC and the EPA), although an industry can self-nominate. An IWRP may establish waste reduction targets and demand that certain requirements be met.
The first IWRP is to be for the dairy industry. The Act requires the IWRP for the dairy industry to include the setting of a target for the level of use of refillable milk bottles to be achieved by the end of 1996 and requires a comprehensive public education strategy to encourage the use and return of refillable milk bottles. The minister has separately indicated that IWRPs will be required for the packaging, used tyres, building materials, and demolition industries.
The EPA must give public notice that an IWRP is to be prepared and can require industry members to provide certain information. The EPA then provides a report to the minister on the scope of the proposed IWRP. An IWRP can then either be prepared by the industry concerned (based on a negotiation process) or by the EPA (without negotiation).
The Act enables regulations to be made which prohibit or restrict the sale of prescribed products, and which require the implementation of recycling, re-use, refundable deposit, or take-back and utilisation schemes.
Licences
Licences must be held by occupiers of controlled waste facilities and persons who transport waste (although the subsequent Waste Minimisation and Management Regulation 1996 set only limited licence requirements for waste generating premises and transporters and devolved much of the responsibility in this area to local government). Landfills which accept putrescible waste must be under the control of a public authority (council, Waste Board or Waste Service), but they may be operated by private companies. In this case, a supervisory licence must be held by the public authority and an operating licence must be held by the operator. This supervisory licence allows the public authority to set charges for the disposal of putrescible waste at that landfill. Licences will be administered by the EPA, and conditions will be specified consistent with the EPA Guidelines for Solid Waste Landfills (released in 1996). The EPA can amend licence conditions.
Waste Disposal Offences
The Act significantly broadens the powers of council employees regarding enforcement of the Act. These powers are conferred through the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act and the Local Government Act and give councils the power to impose fines for unlawful disposal of waste on land, allowing land to be used unlawfully for disposal of waste, failing to comply with a direction relating to transportation, collection, reception, treatment, reuse, reprocessing, storage or disposal of any waste, failure to provide information, failure to comply with a direction, failure to allow an officer to enter and inspect premises, failure to produce records, and the providing of false information. Fines for the above offences range from $200 to $600. Regional Waste Boards can apply for funding from the Waste Planning and Management Fund to employ waste compliance inspectors.
Financial Provisions
Operators and owners of facilities accepting waste will make levy contributions to the State Government under section 72. Regulations specify the ways in which the levies are imposed. The minister must consult with SWAC regarding the setting or variation of levies. The policy exempts from the contribution calculations any wastes that are recycled, reprocessed or reused.
A Waste Planning and Management Fund has been established from which waste minimisation and management expenditure is sourced. All such expenditure must be approved by the minister after seeking advice from SWAC.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #208 ******************************