2. Waste Management in Sydney: Now & the Future Planning policy & laws Destiny of Sydney’s waste Putrescible (Class 1) waste Alternative Waste Technology facilities Gate Fees Class 2 waste Way forward

3. Planning 1. Wright Findings Waste gen rate for MSW is 1.2% & 4.2% for C&I Predicted 200K t shortfall in permitted Class 1 capacity in 10/11, increasing to 1 Mil t in 17/18 Annual inflow caps unnecessarily restrict use of available capacity; (DoP: caps to be removed in 2014) Annual levy increases mean will be cheaper to use AWT rather than landfill by 2014

4. Planning 2. Infrastructure SEPP Change Cl 123 amended July ’10 Applies to new/modified landfills ‘Justifiable demand’ criteria deleted; now focus to resource recovery & better environmental outcomes

5. Planning – SEPP change a)Is there a ‘suitable’ level of resource recovery by using AWTs/composting SO THAT THE AMOUNT OF WASTE IS MINIMISED BEFORE IT IS PLACED in the landfill? b)Is the LF on degraded land eg old mine? c)Are transport links ‘optimised’ to reduce impacts of hauling waste to the LF?

6. Planning 3. Waste Levy Introduced in 1993 @ $4.20/t; now $70.30 To double by 2015 Increases by $10/t + CPI per yr Generates > $260 Mil; about 90% to consolidated revenue

7. Planning 4. Waste Avoidance & Resource Recovery Strategy Set in 2003 No increase in total waste generated for next 5 years By 2014, increase resource recovery: -In MSW to 66% -In C&I to 63% -In C&D to 76%

8. THE DESTINY OF SYDNEY’S WASTE (Mil t; estimated) MSW ( household ) C&IC&DTOTAL (Mil) Generated2.04.04.310.3 Disposed1.2 (60%)2.0 (50%)1.3 (30%)4.5 Class 1 LF (putrescible waste)1.10.5------1.6 Class 2 LF (dry waste)0.11.51.32.9 Recovered0.8 (40%)2.0 (50%)3.0 (70%)5.8 Green0.20.5-------0.7 AWTs0.2----------------------0.2 Kerbside Recyclables0.4------------- 0.4 C&I-----------1.5--------------1.5 C&D----------------------3.0

10. Waste Scene - Pute Waste LFs Woodlawn (Veolia): Mod DA for inflow to 1.13Mil tpa (extra 600K from Sydney). Currently 360K + 90Kt E Ck: Mod DA approved for additional 1.6 Mil t capacity (extend life to 2017 @ 550K tpa). Currently 500Kt + 50Kt Lucas Hts: 575Ktpa Belrose: 60K tpa South Windsor (Hawkesbury Council): 26K tpa Remaining consented capacity: 29 Mil t (Woodlawn 22 Mil t & WSN 7 Mil t) ~ 17 yrs supply

11. AWT’s – pute waste Earthpower (TPI & Veolia): $70 Mil plant; 80K tpa. Commercial food waste UR-3R (Global Renewables): processes MSW for WSN; $100 Mil plant (187K tpa) SAWT (Sita): $60 Mil plant (80K tpa MSW & 40K tpa food/green) ArrowBio (WSN): $90 Mil plant (90K tpa); MSW

12. AWTs AWT industry: - still learning by doing - not meeting resource recovery & financial expectations - new facilities not being built fast enough - saleable product? - feedstock quality?

13. Councils & AWT Contracts Don’t believe the spin of service providers Assume the technology does not work Have provider PROVE their res recovery claims No. 1 Priority: Due diligence on the technology – use those who have operational experience Don’t think you can contract the risk away. When the technology fails you still carry the can Don’t fall for the trap of tightly defining the waste feedstock; it will ALWAYS vary. You will pay more later if you do

14. MSW Gate Fees Pute LF: $70 - 90/t + $70 levy AWT: $100/t is not sustainable. Need $150-$230. Facility pays levy on residue to LF (might be 50% of inflow) When will AWTs be the cheapest way to go? And at what gate fee?

15. Waste Scene – Class 2 LF 49 Mil t capacity remaining; ~ 16 yrs supply Lighthorse LF approved in Nov 09 (14 Mil t capacity) Economically unattractive for recovery from C&I

16. How to improve the resource recovery rate Have state Govt zone land for waste facilities/integrated eco parks Implement EPR schemes Have Govt policies that support thermal applications & use of RDF Keep increasing landfill levy but give funds to good performing Councils Apply a carbon price