NSW waste infrastructure – decision time
By Frank Klostermann, with input from Ron Wainberg, Technical Director, MRA Consulting Group
Under the recently published NSW Waste and Circular Economy Infrastructure Plan, the government will establish an advisory committee to guide the strategy’s implementation.
The industry has long requested this repeatedly. As described in Frank’s recent article the reason is simple: neither the NSW government nor the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) have a good understanding of what infrastructure is required or where or when it needs to be built. The government uses external consultants to tell it what’s needed.
The government has told us who will be represented on the committee: local government, the waste and resource recovery (WARR) industry, and technical experts.
We also know the committee’s role:
- sharing local knowledge and perspectives on infrastructure needs
- identifying “pain points” preventing planning, investment and development
- exploring opportunities to accelerate industry investment in WARR infrastructure
- providing feedback to the government on the implementation risk of the plan.
Easy.
What do you do? You discuss these things when you are in this industry. What did I do? I sat down with another grey haired fellow, my old colleague Dr Ron Wainberg, and had a yarn. What would we do?
We would start with paraphrasing Rudyard Kipling: Who does what when, where, why, and how?
On paper, this looks easy. But how does it work in practice?
The “why” is pretty clear. As the infrastructure plan clearly states, and as we all know, we are running out of places to take our residual waste. The plan clearly stipulates the purpose of the committee: support the government in decision making.
The “who” is not our cup of tea; the minister will appoint whoever she will appoint. Where they come from is spelled out above. Although it might be a good idea to have people in there who are willing to speak their mind and have relevant knowledge and experience.
The “when” is also clear: it is urgent, we are running out of time. So, the answer is: now! The plan says: late 2025. Well, that’s now.
What’s left to ask are the “what”, “where” and the “how”.
What’s the “what” then?
It should be clear to everyone that the waste crisis is first and foremost in relation to residual waste. That’s the stuff we put into our red-lidded bin, and that’s taken to landfills at the moment. Landfills are running out of space.
Of course, we also want to increase resource recovery and recycling.
The introduction of food and garden organics (FOGO) collections, to be rolled out by 2030, will make a big difference to the amount of residual waste going to landfill, although not as quickly as the government would wish, as the infrastructure needed isn’t there yet. That’s a story for another day.
But let’s concentrate on the issue that’s most pressing: residual waste.
The government has an infrastructure needs analysis study, which unfortunately has not been published, and should therefore know what the waste quantities we have to deal with are and what infrastructure is missing.
In fact, the government told us in its 2021 Guide to Infrastructure Needs.
We know landfills are the solution of last resort, and the plan stresses that as well. However, do not listen to the “idealists” that we can do away with landfills. We can’t.
What will the yardsticks be for assessing which solution to put where?
Both Ron and I are thinking that’s pretty clear, too.
The yardsticks are environmental impacts to land, water and air. Equally important are community acceptance and commercial viability. Important considerations are also the reliability and longevity of the solution(s).
The waste hierarchy also gives us a little hint. As landfill comes last, energy recovery is a preferred option to landfilling. Energy recovery or energy from waste (EfW) clearly outperforms landfills in environmental impacts. It’s reliable and has longevity. The main issues are community acceptance and commercial viability.
The issue of commercial viability is reasonably clear cut and with the need to get finance, each such EfW facility will have to go through a rigorous process to prove its commercial viability; otherwise, there will be no finance.
The issue of community acceptance is a “bit” more complicated. I have written about social licence here before. To cut a long story short, the government has to take the lead and educate the community much more (I personally think the government has contributed to the fear factor), and “bite the bullet” in the sense of making a decision independent of community angst. But based on best available science, because waste services are an essential service, as acknowledged by the government.
We have to overcome the NIMBY syndrome (not in my back yard), otherwise absolutely nothing will get built anywhere near anything. And we don’t want to become a banana republic, do we?
In promoting EfW, the government has good quality science on its side. The “idealists”, who are against EfW, offer no alternatives, as there are none, and they should not be allowed to blackmail the silent majority into inferior or unsustainable solutions or risk a “Neapolitan” crisis arising in Greater Sydney.
“Where”, then?
The yardsticks for “where” ought to be clear, too. Good traffic connections so trucks can get there in a reasonable time—ideally, a rail connection. Reasonable buffer zones will be protected by legislation. An existing grid connection, because building new ones costs a lot of extra money, as we are finding out with the energy transition.
It turns out that current or previous locations of coal fired power stations are the ideal locations for such EfW facilities. Alternatively, current or previous landfill locations may be suitable, subject to the yardsticks above.
The government has silently agreed to this by choosing the old Wallerawang power station site to be gazetted for an EfW location. There is no reason why such an EfW facility cannot be built adjacent to an existing coal fired power station.
So, now that the “where” is clear enough, what about the “how”?
This is the point where there is still some confusion, in our opinion. The government seems to think it just needs to gazette a piece of land and “they will come”.
Do we agree? Nah!
In our view, the government has to be a lot more proactive. How much more proactive exactly is a question to be explored rather than answered. But proactive it has to be.
Supporting the social licence story is another big ticket item. The government needs to not only calm the “idealists” down, but it also needs to help do genuine education based on best science.
Access to land is another thing the government can provide. So is security from urban encroachment. We currently have a great example on the eastern seaboard: the ARRC (Advanced Resource Recovery Centre) project of the City of Gold Coast. The council is creating a whole precinct for waste and resource recovery facilities to secure its city’s future infrastructure needs in waste management. Exemplary!
New South Wales, unfortunately, does not have councils of the size of Queensland but too many small-ish councils, making collaboration much more difficult. Ron and I know, waste is a volume game. If you go to the market and ask for solutions for 400,000 tonnes of residual waste, you will get payable solutions. If you do the same with 40,000 tonnes, you will get expensive band aids.
We don’t need to amalgamate more councils, although that might be a good thing. What the government can do is run the procurement process. Leaving local government to fend for itself doesn’t solve anything. Having done so in the past, when it sold Waste Service NSW to a private bidder, the state government can earn its respect back by genuinely helping local government as described above: provide the land, secure the planning perimeter, and organise or facilitate the supply contracts.
Here we go, advisory committee, you have got your work set out for you. Easy? Get busy!
This article has been published by the following media outlets:
