I find it hard to believe that it is now almost 25 years since I was a fresh University of Newcastle graduate and I secured my first role at the Newcastle office of the NSW EPA.

During my time with the EPA, I visited many sites for inspection – including visits to mine sites in places that I had never heard of!

Looking back, I recall reading the regulations and conditions in place for many mine sites. Even though I had environmental qualifications, I remember thinking the conditions were tough and comprehensive. I was naïve.

The conditions for mines are far more arduous now than they were in the early 90s. Assessment agencies, regulators, shareholder, stakeholders, and the general community now expect (and demand) so much more in environmental compliance and social responsibility. This will only continue.

This expectation (and demand) is further highlighted by the Queensland Government Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) bill, which is primarily designed to create a pool of funds for longer-term rehabilitation. Whilst there is some disagreement between Industry and Government with regard to finer details of the Bill, I am sure it will be passed in some form.

Within the industry, there is still very much a school of thought that environmental regulation and management is just a cost. Yes, compliance is a financial expense, and often a condition of operation. However, it can be also a revenue source.

The vast majority of mines purchase water from a state water agency under a licence arrangement. In Queensland, mine sites purchase water from Sunwater at $4000 per megalitre. This water is used and then discharged, yet another expense.

Recently, several operating mines have investigated options to recycle the purchased water. This enables the operating costs to be lowered. The New H2O Resources is currently working with several mining companies investigating options to dramatically reduce the cost of water through efficient recycling. It is certainly not a “one size fits all” approach, as there is some science to the calculations. However, in many cases, significant funds can be saved.

In many cases, we have found that mines are left with an excess of water after they recycle. This creates an opportunity for mines to sell the recycled water to nearby agricultural enterprises and other businesses. We are currently receiving strong interest from farmers and industry groups for the purchase of recycled water, a much cheaper solution than purchasing directly from Sunwater.

This means that discharging water can become a revenue source for mines, rather than a cost. The New H2O Resources solution is proving to be of interest to CEOs and CFOs of mining enterprises.

How to provide a responsible and efficient recycling service (that doesn’t cause you angst!)

I was recently at a friend’s BBQ when I was asked about recycling.  Many were concerned, even angry, expressing that the government was not doing enough about recycling.  There were comments and questions like “Councils should do more to stop landfilling”; “why can’t we recycle plastic?”; “surely we can recycle more” and “there needs to be a change in mindset!”

When I suggested that individuals may actually have to pay more in their rates for rubbish charges, the response was very different. Another friend of said that it was great news that a waste levy was being introduced. However, her enthusiasm rapidly evaporated when I said to her that the skip bin she uses for her house renovation would dramatically increase in cost from March.

It seems that people are keen for a change, as long as it doesn’t involve paying more! If you think this is an over-reaction, I suggest that you ask some of the staff at Woolworths and Coles after the 15 cents per plastic bag charge was introduced.

The waste industry needs to be clear in their messaging and implement efficient programs to ensure that recycling is undertaken in a way that provides environmental benefits while showing evidence of value for money.

However, for local governments and private operators, implementing recycling solutions to reduce landfill isn’t always simple. While there are many companies pedalling systems to reducing waste to landfill, how they integrate into existing operations and contracts is another matter entirely.

For instance, I have been advised of an operation that can heat putrescible waste that reduces 80% of what is landfilled.  The product seems very cost effective with a low initial capital outlay.  There are several add-ons that are not noted in the brochures.  These include:

• How the waste is removed from the waste collection vehicle into the machine. Obviously, a hard stand area would need to be constructed and a front-end loader would need to be used daily;
• Other annual operating costs (especially staff) as well as maintenance;
• The cost of landfilling the residual by-product

All of these additions alter the financial assessment of the project.

However, the biggest concern I have is that for such an operation/infrastructure to be employed there must be a contract variation with the existing landfill management provider.  Councils cannot demand an existing contracted landfill manager (service provider) to employ new technology, change staff levels or implement other controls without expecting a hefty contract variation. This contract variation may result in an increased cost to ratepayers

Management Approach To Ensure Cost-Effectiveness

However, with a thoughtful management approach, both increased recycling and compliance whilst ensuring a business approach (cost-effectiveness) can occur.

• Firstly, the waste solution must be proven elsewhere. I often joke that every Council wants to be innovative, but no-one wants to be first! This is particularly relevant for infrastructure.  I find that it is always worthwhile to do some research and speak to other project managers about how they implemented a solution on their site. A few simple phone calls and a short site visit is it all takes to find out what works and what doesn’t, and this valuable information has paid dividends for several of my clients.
• Secondly, getting the contract documentation and understanding the implications is critical. Most collection contracts are seven-plus years in duration and most site management contracts are five years plus.  Thus, integrating any new system or infrastructure into existing arrangements is needed to avoid an adversarial approach in the day to day management of any site plus any obscene legal fees in contract variations.
• Thirdly, undertaking an accurate assessment of the full cost pricing is paramount. While financial outcomes do not always outmaneuver environmental outcomes, it is far easier to “sell” an environmental cause if a rigorous commercial assessment has been undertaken. It should be noted that the commercial assessment needs to include both the capital expense and operating costs. This includes what a provider will charge and internal Council staff time (and supporting infrastructure).  Some recent clients of mine have undertaken this process with very positive implementation results.  It means that generally, there are no cost surprises further down the line.
• Finally marketing and communication really need to be undertaken carefully. I am sure most readers will agree that you can never do too much in this area. Expectations in recycling are very high, so communicating the cost-effective achievements to residents as well as elected representatives is important to ensure the ongoing success of any program.

Finding and then securing sources of funding can be a difficult task.  It is worth noting that whilst Stream One of the Queensland Government Resource Recovery Industry Development Program is now closed, Stream Two is still open. This may provide an opportunity for your business or Council. Having said that there are several other funding options available that are not waste related that can be a source of funds.

We are currently managing several projects that involve reviewing operations to include more recycling that encompasses cost savings.  We may be able to provide you with some acquired knowledge.Keiran Travers is a Director of Harbak and UTL Utilities.  Both companies are providing waste management advice in relation to the Queensland market. UTL Utilities provides infrastructure strategy, procurement, economic modelling and business operational advices in the fields of waste management primarily for the local government sector. Contact Keiran at keiran@utl-utilities.com.au.

Over the coming summer months, my small backyard will be filled with fallen vegetation and my next-door neighbours are undertaking some renovation work.

We have discussed ordering a skip bin to take our waste which will be most likely ordered in late February.

The skip bin will then be delivered and filled with mixed green and construction and demolition waste and then picked up and taken to a transfer station. This waste will most likely reside on the waste transfer floor for a few days, before it is transferred to a landfill. By the time our waste is taken to landfill, it will be after the 4th of March and the Queensland Waste levy will be implemented.

Luckily for me, I will have ordered the skip bin pre-levy, so the cost of the skip bin will be reasonable. However, as the waste will be taken to landfill post-levy, the waste company I ordered the skip bin from will be forced to pay for the levy ($70 per tonne) which will be a heavy loss for the company.

This is a financially dangerous situation for all organisations (in both the private and public sectors) involved in the transportation and receiving of waste. Failure to adequately manage this situation means that your expenses in March 2019 could far exceed what you had envisaged. This however can be mitigated with good planning in the leadup to the levy being implemented.

Firstly, waste management staff need to be made aware of the changes to the recording of waste data. Yes, everyone knows the start date of March 4th however, do your staff really know what to do when this date occurs? Are the financial systems ready? Are the weighbridges ready to record the data? Do the site staff know what to do? Staff training is essential in the lead-up to this.

The skip bin analogy at the start of this article can be avoided with well thought out logistical management. This involves ensuring customers are not charged for the levy before March 4th however, are well notified of the incoming levy. Customers need to know that there will be an additional cost for their landfill disposal to ensure they can adequately accommodate for the increased costs.

More importantly, it will be necessary for all waste transfer stations to be cleared of waste during the weekend of March 2 and 3 with all stored waste transported to landfill. However, this will not be an easy process. Like many others in the waste industry, I predict that many customers (waste generators) will be rushing to get works finished before the levy is implemented. As a result, the volume of waste at transfer stations in the lead-up to March 4th will be much higher than usual. Thus, extra staff may be needed to manage this waste to ensure the floor is clean before the levy is implemented.

I have been asked by some in the waste industry if state agencies will be fairly relaxed in the first few weeks and errors will be accepted with regard to collecting levy revenue. It’s not uncommon for new systems to have teething problems, however, I have yet to ever witness the Treasury of any government miss out on revenue. Therefore, it’s important to start preparing for the levy this side of Christmas to ensure you are adequately prepared.

I fear for local governments that have unsupervised (thus unprotected) bin stations. It’s just too easy for an annoyed skip bin operator who failed to take the new levy into consideration when pricing a project, to feel the need to “illegally” use these bin stations. Having said that there may be some waste that could appear say 500 metres up the road from a private landfill to avoid paying extra levy fees. For instance, a 20 tonne truck will incur $1,400 in landfill levy fees…

It’s a time to be vigilant in your operations to avoid damage to your bottom line as a result of the waste levy.

Whilst the levy was initially portrayed to combat the volume of trucks transporting waste from NSW into Queensland, it will no doubt provide a great opportunity for the state to embrace recycling and to create opportunities for some organisations to increase revenue whilst others may see it slowly evaporate. There are definite risks for both councils and private operators who own and/ or manage Queensland’s landfill facilities. Nevertheless, these risks can be managed providing that some thought and action is undertaken before the introduction.

Waste Disposal Systems and Landfill Infrastructure

Firstly, waste disposal companies will become revenue collectors for the government. Therefore, the systems (including IT, security and compliance), as well as the landfill infrastructure (such as weighbridges), must be in good order. It is noted that the Queensland Government has provided $5M in grant funding for local authorities to become “levy ready.” Whilst this is welcomed, it will be insufficient to cover every need, thus some infrastructure spend coupled with organisational training will be required to ensure the data is captured and recorded.

It is also noted that the State has advised that agencies will regularly audit waste disposal facilities to ensure levy compliance (to ensure that they are getting their money). A component of this audit will be accurate measurement and reporting of void space so that the change in the volume corresponds with the actual tonnage collected at the site. Thus, the accuracy of data and the systems around it is critical. There is an opportunity for surveying and drone businesses to position themselves to secure work in this field.

Unmanned Bin Stations

Another risk in the levy implementation (for local councils) is unmanned bin stations. Whilst some of these facilities can provide an easy to reach service for rural landholders, every waste manager knows that they can easily become an eyesore and can almost be impossible to keep tidy. The difficulty of management of these bin stations could be further amplified as this will become relatively easy targets for those skip bins or commercial operators that want to avoid paying the levy. This is a significant risk for councils.

Only a more rigid rein of these bin stations or even closure will need to be considered. Having said that, the communication to those affected by the closure of any bin station will need to be carefully managed or an expensive upgrade to a supervised facility is the alternate option. State Government assistance is not going cover every bin station, so Councils need to be aware of their plans post-March 2019.

Transport of Waste

One of the key issues of the waste levy that has not appeared in recent articles is the transport of waste.

This is relevant in two areas:

• Firstly, for any recycling project to be commercially viable in the longer term, the financial analysis must consider the costs of transporting waste to the facility. I am aware that a regional Queensland Council has been approached by a private company to enquire about taking Council’s waste. However, the deal involves Council transporting its’ waste to the facility (over 100kms in distance) and then the costs of the actual recycling are comparable to the funds saved by not landfilling. Unfortunately, the draft proposal misses the transport point and the viability of the project in Council’s eyes will be marginal at best. This case may be repeated in many regional areas of Queensland. Therefore, it is imperative the cost of the transport of waste is identified in any business case.
• Secondly, I am not alone in believing that the transporting of waste from NSW into Queensland (albeit at a lower quantity) will still occur. The cost of landfilling in NSW is generally more expensive than in Queensland, plus the price difference between a Sydney/ Newcastle levy will still make it commercially attractive to use the Pacific or New England Highway. This practice will continue to provide waste disposal companies revenue and the Queensland Government levy funds.

Post-Levy Implementation Issues

Finally, any system that is developed and implemented will have some teething problems and I expect there will be some operational and financial matters to be sorted and rectified post-levy implementation. It is important to be aware of the risks and potential opportunities for your organisation.

With growing consumer awareness in relation to both the sourcing of products and services and the environmental and waste management industries, consumers are changing their habits as they see how specific behaviours affect other people, the environment and the economy.

These changes are evident in the current social and political landscape which can be seen by:

• The push for the removal of plastic bags
• A strong interest in the War on Waste program
• An ongoing interest in solar projects
• Increased adoption of composting

However, despite the push from consumers, businesses have been slow to get on board. Coles has faced significant backlash after fumbling the removal of plastic bags from their stores, and state-run utilities have a focus on fiscal, short-term milestones that make sustainable energy production less appealing than older, cheaper technologies.

While local and state governments look towards sustainable solutions, proof of concept is difficult to establish. With new or emerging techniques and procedures, it is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness and longevity of many modern, and sustainably focused, service providers.

This push towards sustainability from both consumers and from a state and federal angle means that service providers are also beginning to move towards environmentally friendly services. Though this swing is only just beginning, the successes of these environmentally focused businesses is significant both socially and economically.

Harbak and UTL Utilities have recently worked alongside local governments and private businesses in providing sustainable solutions including:

• Reassessing waste infrastructure, and scaling up recycling processes
• Examining procedures for mining operations at the end of their operation, which can lower environmental impact and financial involvement
• Re-use of green waste on sites

Both Harbak and UTL Utilities always ensure they consider the social, environmental and sustainability implications when investigating options for future infrastructure and waste services. If you would like some more information on this, please contact me.

Keiran Travers is a Director of Harbak and newly formed waste management company, UTL Utilities. UTL Utilities provides infrastructure strategy, procurement, economic modelling and business operational advices in the fields of waste management primarily for the local government sector. Contact Keiran at keiran@utl-utilities.com.au.

Waste has become a hot topic, with New South Wales transporting their rubbish to Queensland to avoid landfill levy’s and China banning the importation of 24 types of scrap, including waste plastic and unsorted scrap paper as of January 1, 2018.

However, before now, most of us probably don’t think too much about where our recycling rubbish goes after we put it in the yellow bin. However, after the recycling bin, there is a long process line before our plastic rubbish can be broken down and recycled. Prior to 2018, countries including Australia, the United Kingdom, European Union, the United States and Japan were shipping their waste products to China to process and recycle.

China’s Waste Ban

China’s ban on rubbish will hit Australia hard – approximately 619,000 tones worth $523 million will be impacted. Traditional recyclers are expected to be affected the most, as they will now have to find somewhere else to get rid of the plastic bottles, cans and other recycling materials they collect, at a cost to them. Ratepayers may be the ones footing the bill for their recycling services as companies struggle to offload the material.

So now that this has stopped, the real question, however, is what are we going to do?

China’s global dominance in manufacturing means that many countries have relied on one market to solve their waste and recycling issues. Some people may see this as a way to force Australians to take responsibility for their own rubbish, but Tom Szaky of recycling company TerraCycle said: “it’s not good for sustainability as many plastic products are made in China and it is the main market for recycled plastic”.

Creating a Circular Economy

Australian waste managers are looking towards creating a circular economy through sustainable development. A circular economy keeps resources in use for as long as possible, extracting the maximum value from them whilst in use; then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life. Countries like Singapore have already implemented a waste-to-energy plant, which has reduced the city’s waste volume by 90%.

Harbak has over 20 years’ experience in the waste management industry, including preparing tenders and strategies for councils across Queensland in both major cities and regional towns. Harbak is able to objectively analyse and consider the available options; be it either transport, recycling or landfill to recommend the most appropriate course of action based on the specific project at hand.

For example – Harbak was recently engaged to ascertain the most appropriate (financial and environmental) waste recycling option for a large organisation. This involved undertaking market research in Queensland and Northern NSW to obtain detailed financial arrangements for waste transport recycling and disposal. In some instances, the least expensive option was not chosen due to several key risks; including longer-term commercial viability and the need to reduce the risk of environmental harm in surrounding areas. Nevertheless, our research identified several key opportunities and potential commercial advantages. The risks were clearly identified and well communicated by the client internally, then the risk to value outcome calculated.

Good waste management can result in safe, secure and compliant operations. However, not understanding or failing to recognise your risk can lead to a long-term debacle including financial heartache for years to come.