]]
Publications
A discussion paper prepared by a joint Steering Committee of ANZECC and ARMCANZ, June 1997
1. Setting the Scene
2. Scope of the Unwanted Chemicals Issue
3. Some Coordination Options for Making it Happen
4. Operational Aspects of Managing Unwanted Farm and Household Chemicals
5. Future Management of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals
6. Conclusions
Appendix A: National Collection Storage and Destruction Scheme Steering Committee Membership
Appendix B: Possible Institutional Relationship between a Coordinating Body and other National Chemicals Collection Scheme Players
Appendix C: Chemical Collection Program Case Studies
There are clear environmental, public and occupational health, and international trade reasons why Australia should safely manage and destroy its unwanted stocks of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and other unwanted farm and household chemicals. Some of these, particularly OCPs, are renowned for being long-lived, of high environmental and human hazard. Monitoring of land and aquatic environments, and of human tissue and breastmilk5 have, from time to time, revealed levels of OCPs above acceptable standards.
Previous use of OCPs on farms and subsequent uptake into primary produce has already resulted in multimillion dollar trade losses. To illustrate the significance of the primary produce trade market that could be affected, the Weekend Australian estimated that Australia's beef export market is worth between $2 and $3 billion6. Australia's beef trade with Japan alone is estimated to be worth $1.6 billion7 and the production of beef is just one primary produce sector that could, in the future, be affected by chemical residues.
As will be discussed later in this Paper, collection of OCPs and other pesticides have been undertaken before. The only national chemical collection scheme occurred in 19878 and this removed some OCPs from farms. This occurred after the US Government detected OCP residues in Australian beef. Commonwealth, State and Territory governments were keen to retain the good image of Australia's agricultural industries and in addition to collecting unwanted OCPs, they have restricted or prohibited the use of most OCPs, particularly DDT. Accurate consolidated national figures are not available on the financial impact of the 1987 OCP contamination trade embargo, but it must be in the order of several hundred $million. In terms of the cost of collecting the OCPs, it is estimated9 that the OCP buy-back scheme and the chemical testing program cost approximately $50 million. Although the risk associated with any remaining stocks of OCPs finding their way into the food chain is less than it was 10 years ago, it is still possible. Should this occur, these figures are indicative of the magnitude of possible future losses should contamination occur.
The above illustrates how pesticide contamination of primary produce has and could still result in trade restrictions and that associated costs to Australia would be very high. Stocks of other unwanted farm and households chemicals are also a potential source of such contamination with the risks of contamination increasing over time through container deterioration or misadventure. On the other hand, risks and costs are also associated with the collection and transport of unwanted farm and household chemicals to new storage sites or destruction facilities. All risks and costs will need to be assessed and balanced in designing a scheme for the management of unwanted farm and household chemicals.
The development of an OCP management plan is part of a wider national effort to safely manage organochlorine wastes through ANZECC's National Strategy for the Management of Scheduled Wastes. In 1993, ANZECC agreed that the issue of persistent organochlorine wastes should be tackled through nationally-agreed management plans. Since Australia started to implement the National Strategyin April 1994, governments have endorsed two management plans, one for polychlorinated biphenyls and one for ICI Australia's hexachlorobenzene waste. A third plan for OCP waste is being prepared in parallel with the development of a proposal for the collection and destruction of unwanted farm and household chemicals.
Whereas the other two management plans deal with scheduled wastes that belong to holders who will need to take responsibility for destruction of their own waste, the OCP management plan deals with wastes held by a much more diverse group, including farmers and householders. Collection and destruction of OCP wastes therefore presents an added level of complexity if these wastes are to be safely destroyed; for example, who will pay for destruction. ANZECC has asked that advice be developed on the scope of the problem and possible solutions.
This discussion paper aims to generate discussion on both the scope of the problem and possible solutions. In doing this it suggests that a collection program could have several key building blocks which include safe on-site storage, the various options or models for collection, the infrastructure needed to collect and consolidate the waste, transport considerations, waste destruction or management (if some of the waste is to be recycled), and public accountability and reporting. As part of each key building block, there are many issues that will require discussion. Some of these are summarised in Figure 1 which also presents some idea of the chronology of a collection scheme and possible links between the various key building blocks.
Transparency and public reporting are two features of the National Strategy which have underpinned its success. To gain public confidence and support, transparency, public accountability and reporting are seen as important features of any collection scheme. Given their importance, this discussion paper treats them as being part of a separate building block. Likewise transport, while a feature of the whole process, is also treated as a separate building block.
The National Strategy for the Management of Scheduled Wastes, endorsed by ANZECC in 1993 and reproduced subsequently in the management plan being developed for OCPs, provides a useful starting point for establishing the scope of a national collection, storage and destruction scheme for unwanted farm and household chemicals.
The relevant organochlorines listed on ANZECC's schedule X are:
| Aldrin | Hexachlorophene |
| Isodrin | Lindane and its isomers |
| Dieldrin | Pentachloronitrobenzene |
| DDT | Pentachlorophenol |
| Endrin | Chlordane |
| 2,4,5-T | Heptachlor |
The schedule X organochlorines, DDD, DDE and Heptachlor epoxide may be found in collected unwanted chemicals as breakdown products.
While the emphasis in this discussion paper is still on the above Scheduled OCPs, its scope has been broadened so as to include 'unwanted farm and household chemicals' such as the non-scheduled OCPs mirex, toxaphene, methoxychlor, and isobenzan. In so broadening the scope, this paper recognises that all types of chemicals were surrendered through past chemicals collection programs. For the purpose of workshop discussions, this paper proposes that priorities be in the following order:
Figure 1: Considerations in the collection, storage and destruction of unwanted farm and household chemicals
| KEY BUILDING BLOCKS | ISSUES REQUIRING DECISION | |
|---|---|---|
| Safe on site storage |
|
|
| Models for collection |
|
|
| Collection Points and Consolidation stores 10 |
|
|
| Transport |
|
|
| Destruction |
|
|
| Public accountability and reporting |
|
|
Given that schedule X OCPs will thus be a major focus of any national collection scheme, this discussion paper draws on issues raised by the OCP Management Plan.
The issues of designing and running a collection scheme and who should take responsibility for such, are complex. Resolution of these issues will require cooperation and coordination between various parties, including:
Without prejudicing or pre-empting how this might be achieved, this paper considers three possible coordination options.
Under the third option, the coordinating body could be responsible for designing the detailed operational aspects of a collection scheme such as:
Likely community expectations for which the coordinating body could also be accountable are also listed in Appendix B.
In considering the possible role of a coordinating body, a range of issues would need to be resolved:
Operational issues that will need to be considered if Australia is to successfully address the issue of unwanted farm and household chemicals will now be outlined. Figure 2 is a diagrammatic representation of these operational issues. It is by no means an exhaustive examination and the contribution of new issues and possible solutions by workshop participants is encouraged by the Steering Committee. The section concludes with a discussion of the major impediments to the successful management of unwanted farm and household chemicals.
Irrespective of whether a national collection scheme proceeds, and up to the time unwanted pesticides are collected, safe on-site storage of unwanted farm and household chemicals needs to be encouraged. This is important for environmental, health and international trade reasons. It would be helpful if the chemicals are readily identifiable and safe to handle at the time of collection. This should reduce the costs of consolidation and maximise the opportunities of destroying the wastes safely and effectively.
A guidance document on the safe on-site storage of unwanted farm and household chemicals is now being developed by the NCSDS Steering Committee, drawing on advice published by government and non-government organisations. The document is expected to draw on principles presented in the draft National Strategy for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals.
This guidance document will cover the following topics or principles for good management of chemicals:
4.2.1 Issue 1: Ownership of Waste
The issue of ownership of the chemical waste is complex. At present, the holder is clearly the owner of the waste and has a duty of care to ensure that the waste is safely managed and handled. As the waste is collected, consolidated, transported and finally destroyed or treated, the ownership of the waste will be transferred. During each stage of a collection scheme, various participants will need to have a clear understanding of responsibilities and liabilities.
Ownership may be assigned to:
In the case where a company storing, transporting or destroying chemical waste becomes insolvent, and this is a real possibility given previous experience, reassigning ownership will be necessary. Ownership could remain with the coordinating body from the point of collection through to destruction or disposal or be assigned to other individual participants in the collection program.
Several mechanisms exist for dealing with the liability issue, including:
Despite these potential sources of funds, liability for the waste is an issue that will need to be dealt with.
4.2.2 Issue 2: Previous Experience
A number of case studies of well established chemicals collection programs (presented in more detail at Appendix C) are summarised in Figure 3. They are presented to highlight some of the ways in which collection programs have been conducted. The national 1987 OCP recall, conducted in a number of States/Territories, is not summarised, but is described in detail in Appendix C.
| COMPONENT | CASE STUDY 1 Queensland |
CASE STUDY 2 Western Australia |
CASE STUDY 3 - Victoria 1 | CASE STUDY 4 - Victoria 2 | CASE STUDY 5 - Hunter Water Corporation | CASE STUDY 6 - Sydney Water Board | CASE STUDY 7 - South Australia |
| No. of collection programs | Demand driven - continuous | 2 finite programs | Regular | 3 finite programs | Demand driven - continuous | Annual - continuously | 2 finite and 1 regular programs |
| Material targeted | Household chemicals | Household chemicals | Household chemicals | Farm chemicals including OCPs | Household chemicals | Household chemicals | Farm and household chemicals |
| Collection program period | At least since 1992 | 1990 and 1991 | Two periods 1987-94 and 1995- | 1989-1992 | 1989 to present (on-going) | 1989 to present | Finite rural programs in 1992 and 1995 Regular metro program 1990- |
| Period of individual collections | Demand driven | 1 day | 1 day | 1-3 day stays | Demand driven | Weekend | 1 week but dependent on size of region |
| Quantity collected | Not indicated | 1990 - 2.5 tonnes | 498 tonnes | 455 tonnes | 123 tonnes | 257 tonnes - incl. 15 tonnes of OCPs | 50 tonnes |
| Type of collection | House to house | Point | Point | Point | House to house | Suburb to suburb | Point and regional |
| Collection area | Metropolitan | Metropolitan | Metropolitan | Rural at N-central, NE, Gippsland and SW Vic | Hunter water catchment | Sydney suburbs | Rural at Lower SE and Riverland Metropolitan |
| Towns visited | Brisbane region | Not indicated | 47 | 47 | Newcastle region | Sydney suburbs | Two regions of SA with at least 5 major centres. |
| Cost per tonne of waste collected | Not indicated | Not indicated | $4,210.00 | $3,250.00 | Not determined | Not determined | Not determined |
| Advertising | Not indicated | Through local councils | Through local councils | Local paper, regional ABC radio, letterbox drops, posters | Consumer driven | Not indicated | Local paper, regional ABC radio, letterbox drops, posters |
4.2.3 Issue 3: Possible Options for a Scheme
Based on these case studies, a series of possible options for unwanted farm and household chemical collections are canvassed below. Apart from Option 1, which addresses not having a NCSDS, Options 2 to 4 focus on a range of capacities for ongoing collections; that is, Option 2 is a one-off collection and Option 4 looks at indefinite ongoing chemical collections.
In considering any of the options, a range of questions need to be asked including:
Also, consideration needs to be given to collections from other holders of unwanted chemicals such as pest control operators, government agencies (such as primary industry, defence and transport), pesticide manufacturers, suppliers and retailers, water authorities and research organisations such as CSIRO.
Option 1: Do not conduct a NCSDS.
Governments, industry and chemical holders may consider that action over unwanted farm and household chemicals should be restricted to safe on-site storage of the chemicals. This would require a judgment that leaving the chemicals in their current location poses little threat to international trade, the environment or public health and would avoid the potential multi-million dollar cost of conducting a NCSDS.
The current holder of the chemicals would still have the option of paying for off-site storage and disposal. The costs of storage and disposal have tended to discourage this practice.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 2: A one-off nationally co ordinated collection program
A one-off collection program could involve visiting regional locations once to collect surrendered unwanted farm and household chemicals and transporting those wastes to a designated storage area. No infrastructure, brought in for collections, would remain for ongoing receipt of unwanted chemicals.
A one-off collection would not necessarily involve simultaneous collections across the country, but more likely at different times across the country targeted to regional preferences.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 3: A one-off nationally co ordinated collection program with limited opportunity for follow-up collections.
This third option would build on option 2 and could involve a one-off collection program featuring one collection for a region, augmented by a follow-up collection during the next 18 months or so.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 4: A one-off nationally co ordinated collection program followed by a mechanism for ongoing collection.
This option focuses on providing ongoing capacity for collections rather than the temporary nature of the previous options for a NCSDS. The scope of any on-going collection program would depend primarily on desired outcomes, available funding and the nature of the community being served. Ongoing collections of wastes could include a chemical drop-off point, staffed on an ongoing basis.
Establishing chemical collection points with the capacity for ongoing collections may require facilities staffed on a part or full-time basis to allow the community to surrender unwanted farm and household chemicals at their convenience. The advice of local communities on whether ongoing chemical collections were desirable would be an important consideration; ongoing collections for a limited period may be more suitable to some communities.
Of the three NCSDS options, this option is most likely to require the establishment of an ongoing coordinating body to develop the required infrastructure, coordinate ongoing collections and oversee the other operational aspects of a NCSDS which include, handling, storage, consolidation, transport and destruction.
Advantages
Disadvantages
4.2.4 Issue 4: Promotion Education
Experience shows that the success of any collection program is heavily dependent on its promotion in the wider community. In turn, effective promotion depends on potential hindrances being addressed early in the planning of any collection program like putting in place effective communication strategies.
The case studies illustrate some of the different ways in which messages can be conveyed and people motivated to participate. Strategies include promotional activities through:
The merits and costs of these and other promotional strategies need to be considered. Workshop participants may wish to consider the need for tailoring promotional and educational activities to the target area or region to maximise participation rates.
The draft final OCP management plan introduces the concept of consolidation stores to handle and consolidate OCP waste. The OCP waste would be brought to the consolidation stores from collection points, most of these being of a temporary nature. The functions of a consolidation store could include handling, identification, analysis if required, packaging and storage of unwanted farm and household chemicals once they have been handed in or collected.
The following questions and issues are among those that would need to be considered:
4.3.1 Handling (including identification of chemical wastes)
The following questions and issues are among those that would need to be considered:
One of the objectives of initial identification and segregation is to reduce the later need for chemical identification and analyses. Based on past experience, chemical identification and/or analysis of the material likely to be collected is a particularly expensive component of the process.
The cost of identification and analyses could be significantly reduced by ensuring, that during collection, unlabelled or poorly labelled containers are identified, where possible, by the person surrendering the chemicals and, during repackaging, only like farm and household chemicals are combined.
4.3.2 Storage
Previous experience shows that the cost of storage and redrumming of collected waste can be a major component of the overall cost of a collection scheme. Strong concerns have also been raised by State/Territory government agencies on the cost of handling and re-handling collected and stored unwanted chemicals that are awaiting destruction or treatment. Storage costs will depend on the availability of adequate destruction facilities. If none are available long-term chemical waste storage, and its associated high cost, may be required.
The following questions and issues are among those that would need to be considered:
The issue of transport will be strongly influenced by how the collection, handling and storage components of a NCSDS are to be managed.
Farmers and householders may possess containers that are in a poor condition. For example, the containers may be rusting, they may have lost their lids or caps and their labels may have fallen off or become illegible. This all adds to the risk associated with transporting the waste from the farm or home to the collection point. Ways of minimising these risk need to be discussed and factored into any national chemical collection scheme.
A key issue for many regions of Australia, and one that could well have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of any collection program is the distance that waste holders would need to travel to a collection point. For some areas, this is likely to be considerable.
After being collected, the chemical waste will then need to be transported to the consolidation stores and then on to the destruction facility. Consequently, there are two components of transport which should be addressed. These are:
The following questions and issues are among those that would need to be considered:
The National Manifest System for the Transport of Hazardous Wastes could play an important regulatory role in tracking interstate movements of the collected waste and in providing to governments and the community with an assurance that the waste is moved from the consolidation facility to the destruction or treatment facility. This ability could be aided by a National Environment Protection Measure which is currently being developed for the transport of wastes across State/Territory borders.
As discussed in Section 2 (Scope of the unwanted chemicals issue), even though targeting hazardous unwanted farm and household chemicals, a NCSDS is likely to result in the collection of a range of chemicals.
Given this scenario, it will be important that any national chemical collection program have available options for managing the range of wastes collected. These could include recycling, reuse, chemical and/or physical treatment, fixation in concrete and disposal to controlled landfill. Government agencies have indicated that, with the exception of some types of scheduled waste, there appear to be an adequate range of outlets for most categories of chemical wastes likely to be collected.
Scheduled wastes is one group for which particular attention has been given to establishment of appropriate and suitable means of destruction and this issue is discussed in more detail below.
Scheduled waste
There are currently three known commercial-scale scheduled waste treatment/destruction facilities in Australia.
These are:
Of the three operational facilities in Australia, the Ecologic plant in WA has demonstrated a capability for treating known OCP wastes, including those wastes collected in Western Australia through the 1987 OCP recall. In 1995/96, the facility treated 40 tonnes of organochlorine pesticides12. The Brisbane BCD facility has received regulatory approval to treat a range of organochlorine pesticides but has treated only limited OCPs commercially. In addition, BCD is currently constructing a new facility which is to incorporate a Plascon plant, with initial use for concentrated PCBs and subsequently for OCPs.
Experience indicates that Australia may have the capability to treat the known non-organochlorine pesticide wastes such as organophosphate pesticides, and other hazardous chemicals and that it has limited capacity to treat the known organochlorine pesticides. However, it is clear that we would not have the capability, without further development, to treat arsenic and mixed pesticide/ arsenic wastes or the unknown wastes that may be collected.
Moreover, those responsible for implementing the National Strategy for the Management of Scheduled Wastes are now questioning if our current capacity to treat polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes within a reasonable time is adequate. Adding OCPs to the backlog of PCB wastes awaiting treatment, would extend the delay before those wastes are destroyed. Therefore, there are two destruction issues that need to be tackled in developing any national collection program: capability and capacity.
Research and Development
There needs to be a strong focus on research and development for the treatment of arsenicals and other difficult to treat waste. Experience demonstrates that the treatment/disposal of arsenic-based pesticides appears to be causing the most problems in finding a suitable treatment technology. Destruction costs will be an important component of overall cost of any collection program and these will be difficult to estimate where treatment technologies are currently unavailable for some chemical waste types. This uncertainty may delay the commencement of a NCSDS.
The storage cost estimates will need to take into account that companies, which might be interested in developing suitable technologies, may defer research and development until a sufficiently large market is guaranteed by having a "critical mass" of farm and household chemicals in storage and ready for destruction. Thus, delaying a collection program in the expectation that technologies would be developed may not reduce the storage costs involved.
Given concerns for the lack of appropriate treatment technologies for some chemical waste streams, government involvement in promoting research and development to establish new waste treatment technologies may be required.
Export
In 1993, the Commonwealth Environment Minister adopted a policy that permits for the export of scheduled waste would not be issued while technologies for its destruction in Australia were being developed. In 1996, amendments to the Hazardous Waste Act 1996, were passed under which exports of hazardous wastes for final disposal may only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. For example, export may be permitted when keeping the wastes in Australia presents an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, and in addition, suitable and environmentally sound overseas destruction facilities must be willing to accept the waste for treatment.
Because of present and likely future limitations on the capability and capacity of Australia's treatment facilities, further consideration may need to be given to exporting part of the collected waste for treatment in overseas facilities. However for this to happen, significant socio-political difficulties would need to be addressed and any export would, of course, need to be done in accordance with the amended Hazardous Waste Act.
Some Issues for Discussion
The following questions and issues would need to be considered:
ANZECC's scheduled waste strategy is founded on the principles of openness, fairness and equity and the safe management of OCPs is an integral part of that strategy. The development of trust between all interested parties during the process to develop scheduled waste management plans has been nurtured by openness and easily comprehensible information and processes. The Steering Committee believes these principles should be extended to any collection program that may be developed to remove unwanted farm and household chemicals.
In this discussion paper, the option of a coordinating body has been suggested to provide the focus for the operational aspects of any collection scheme. The accountability of such a Coordinating Body to governments and the community, and the public accessibility to information, are considered to be essential features of any collection and destruction program.
Public reporting
It is considered desirable that the community have full access to information to ensure that trust is developed and maintained. Among the parties involved, communities should have ready access to information on inventories of collected chemical, and on treated/ destroyed/ export/ recycled chemicals, to be confident that chemical wastes are being managed appropriately. The requirements for public reporting should be consistent with those specified in the draft OCP management plan.
The following components of a collection and destruction program would need to include clear public reporting of information related to:
Public accountability
Any coordinating body would need to be accountable to governments through a number of processes which may include contractual requirements to develop corporate, strategic plans and annual reports. They would also need to comply with regulatory requirement in terms of relevant occupational health and safety, dangerous goods, environment protection, public health, and export control legislation.
In considering the future management of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, and consistent with the objectives of the National Strategy for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, the following questions would need to be asked:
This discussion paper attempts to convey the nature of issues that need to be resolved in developing a national scheme for managing unwanted farm and household chemicals.
The national workshops being run by the National Advisory Body on scheduled wastes in July and August of 1997 provide an ideal opportunity to bring forward new and creative ways for addressing these issues.
The options in this Discussion Paper provided, while based on previous experience, may or may not be appropriate to the vastly different regions across Australia. The workshops will provide an opportunity to help identify the best options to put to governments, so that the most cost-effective options are implemented for Australia, taking into account regional differences.
Appendix A: National Collection Storage And Destruction Scheme Steering Committee Membership
| Jurisdiction | Nominee | Agency type |
|---|---|---|
| ACT | Peter McDowall | Environment/ Agriculture |
| Commonwealth | Ray Jeffery | agriculture |
| New South Wales | Mark Gorta | Environment |
| Northern Territory | Brett Struck | Environment |
| Queensland | Gary O'Connor | Environment |
| South Australia | Geoff Sclare | Environment |
| Tasmania | Patrick Deprez | Environment |
| Victoria | John Hogan | Environment |
| Western Australia | Peter Rutherford | Agriculture |
Figure 4 illustrates a possible relationship between a coordinating body, governments and each part of the collection process. It is envisaged that a coordinating body would be responsible for administering a collection scheme and ensuring that the collection, storage and destruction actually occurs, but it would not necessarily perform all of the tasks.
A coordinating body could sub-contract components, components or parts of the components in a competitive manner and thereby avoid a private monopoly. If there is no effective commercial option for a coordinating body to utilise, eg. destruction, then a coordinating body could look at performing this role. It is important that a coordinating body, whilst operating in a commercial field, does not have an unfair advantage arising from its being the result of a government-created monopoly (refer to the Hilmer Committee Report on National Competition Policy).
Figure 4: Possible relationship between governments, a coordinating body and a national chemicals collection scheme.
Community expectations for a NCSDS
In setting performance goals for a NCSDS body, a range of issues will need to be considered, including:
Appendix C: Chemical Collection Program Case Studies
Case Study 1: 1987 OCP Recall
The last national chemical collection scheme was the Commonwealth-funded collection of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). This took place in 1987 in response to the detection by USA of contamination of exported beef and gave expression to the desire to retain the good image of Australia's agricultural industries.
All States/Territories of Australia restricted or prohibited the use of most organochlorine pesticides particularly DDT.
Victoria
In Victoria all uses of DDT were prohibited in June 1987 and to avoid farmers using up their excisting stocks of DDT, a buy-back program was instigated by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. This buy-back period lasted three months from June to September 1987. During this period 85 kilolitres of liquid and approximately 5 tonnes of powdered DDT was brought in for disposal. A further 20 tonnes of DDT was handed in over the next year.
In May 1988, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, as the Victoria's Industrial Waste Disposal Authority, arranged for the collection and disposal of this DDT, via export to Rechem International Pontypool South Wales, by high temperature incineration. At the completion of export process, approximately 115 tonnes of DDT had been collected.
Queensland
The Queensland Government enacted legislation prohibiting the use of certain organochlorine pesticides in agriculture in mid 1987. The Queensland Rural Pesticide Recall Program commenced on 8 October 1987 with a Ministerial direction to all local Authorities, Government members and Department of Primary Industry officers setting out the details of the program and advertisements placed in the rural media. During the following six months to April 1998, 180 tonnes of OCPs were collected.
The OCP waste was disposed of by high temperature incineration at Rechem International.
During this recall, 16 tonnes of arsenic waste was collected, of which 11 tonnes was sent to May and Baker, United Kingdom and 5 tonnes to Rhone Poulenc. The latter was returned and remains stored in Queensland.
Western Australia
The Western Australian Government enacted legislation in mid 1987 to prohibit the agricultural use of organochlorine pesticides. Subsequent to this, the Department of Agriculture conducted two pesticide recall programs where 180 tonnes of OCPs and 20 tonnes of arsenic waste were collected. To date a further 20-30 tonnes of OCPs and arsenicals have been surrendered.
Unlike the eastern states who exported their OCP waste for high temperature incineration, Western Australia placed their material into storage awaiting the establishment of a suitable local treatment facility. EcoLogic have been contracted to treat this stored OCP waste at their Kwinana site. The arsenic waste has been encapsulated in concrete and placed in the secure landfill site at Mt Walton.
The Department of Agriculture has provided the following approximate costs to collect and store the above material: administration ($137,000), transport ($28,500), buy-back of chemicals ($342,000), consolidation storage ($37,500), initial waste handling and maintenance ($110,000), redrumming and further handling ($165,000), totalling $820,000.
Case Study 2: Queensland
Household Chemicals Collection Programs
The Brisbane City Council (BCC) have been collecting small quantities of unwanted household chemicals at their transfer stations for some years, most of which is taken by local waste disposal contractors or deposited in their landfill sites. Currently, BCC collects waste from residents on request, although this has an expensive exercise. BCC are now considering running collections on a suburb by suburb basis at some stage in the future.
The Department of Environment and Heritage indicated that several municipalities have also run household chemical collections, usually as an annual event, and include Maroochy Shire , Beaudesert Shire and Gold Coast City. The quantities collected were not provided but are known to be relatively small.
Case Study 3: Metropolitan Western Australia
Two Household Hazardous Waste collection days were held in 1990 and 1991 in Western Australia, organised by the Western Australian Municipal Association.
The 1990 collection, which involved opening 25 collection sites for one day, resulted in 2.5 tonnes of chemical waste being collected.
In the absence of further organised Household Hazardous Waste Collection days, several Councils established collection services, which include a 'drop-off' point and storage shed at their respective transfer stations or landfill sites.
Western Suburbs (Perth) Environmental Health Officers Group held a Chemical Collection Day in 1996 where they collected approximately 40 kilograms of pesticides from 104 vehicles. A similar collection was held in 1995 where 35 people attended. This collection was advertised in the local paper and staffed by a chemist from the Waste Management Division of the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Health Officers from the participating councils.
Cockburn City Council collects household chemical wastes at a storage shed at their landfill site. This initiative is promoted in the council's newsletter, through a pamphlet entitled "Removing Risky Rubbish" available in council offices and via council noticeboards. As a result of this collection program, 360 kg of pesticides have been collected.
Case Study 4. Metropolitan Victoria
After the 1987 OCP collection, two pilot chemical collections were conducted in 1987/88, followed by a series of regular collections that continued until the end of 1994 and resulted in 299 tonnes of material being handed in for disposal.
Concern over the cessation of these collections resulted in the formation of a Household Chemicals Working Group (HCWG), comprising representatives from the Environment Protection Authority, regional waste management groups, waste management associations, the Plastics and Chemicals Industry Association, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Melbourne Water. The HCWG commissioned a survey of 400 households throughout the metropolitan area, to explore the demand for a Household Chemicals Management Program. The survey found significant use of household chemicals with about 30 percent of households requiring a disposal service for at least one chemical product category out of 41 categories surveyed.
As a result of this report, the Waste Management Council, now EcoRecycle Victoria, conducts chemical collection days once a month. On average 250 people hand in chemicals, which total nearly 8 tonnes of material, on each collection day. A total of 189 tonnes of chemical wastes have been collected since 1995.
Case Study 5. Rural Victoria
As a result of the 1987 OCP collection, it was found that farmers had other unwanted chemicals they wished to dispose of. To address this problem, a pilot rural collection program was developed for the northern part of central Victoria. It involved visiting 9 towns to collect unwanted chemicals, resulted in the collection of over 55 tonnes of material, handed in by a total of 923 farmers.
The response in this pilot program resulted in a second collection program involving 25 towns in north-eastern Victoria where over 163 tonnes of material was handed in by 1798 farmers. A third rural collection covered 7 towns in the Gippsland area, and 6 towns in the South West portion of the state resulting in 824 farmers handing in 120 tonnes of chemicals for disposal.
The rural chemical collection program consisted of 1-3 day stays at the various towns. The collection team would set up and await delivery of unwanted chemicals by farmers and town residents. The community had been informed by way of advertising in various media before the collection team arrived at a particular town.
The EPA advertised the collections through postal dumps of brochures or flyers a few weeks before the collection day, advertisements in local papers running over three consecutive issues, utilising free time on ABC regional radio, placing posters around shopping areas and pubs, using the Department of Agriculture to provide lead articles to the local papers, and having the collections mentioned in the CFA fire reports. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) found the most effective media for advertising the rural collection were the local paper and regional radio such as the ABC.
Case Study 6. NSW - Hunter Water Corporation
In 1989, and due to concern with the disposal of pesticides and other chemicals to its sewers, the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) commenced a free chemical collection service. This service continues to collect from small industrial premises on a fee for service basis.
HWC has opted for a pick-up service of chemicals from the householder, in preference to holding chemical collection days or providing a drop off point. Householders with unwanted chemicals contact HWC and request the chemical pick-up service. Householders are required to provide information on the type and quantities of chemicals and their contact details. HWC schedules a chemical collection for a particular area when there are sufficient householders requiring the pick-up service to ensure that the program remains cost effective. HWC has found that the householders are prepared to wait until the collection service is undertaken in their area.
Once collected, the chemicals are transported to a licensed HWC storage facility located at Shortland Wastewater Treatment Plant. The storage facility has an EPA licence. The storage facility acts as a temporary transfer depot where, after a period of six months, a contractor is employed by HWC to transfer the chemical waste to appropriate treatment/disposal facilities.
HWC can refuse to collect some chemicals in certain circumstances, if this material causes a breach of its EPA licence, or if it is hazardous to transport. The decision as to whether to accept or refuse chemicals is solely at the discretion of HWC. Some of the chemicals that may be refused include leaking chlorine containers, diesel fuel with fertiliser, and mixed chemicals.
The program has been running since 1989 and has resulted in the collection of 123 tonnes of unwanted chemicals. Of this total, approximately 20.5 tonnes were herbicides and pesticides.
Hunter Water Corporation has indicated that it will continue to undertake the chemical collection program as a service to its customers.
Case Study 7. Sydney Water Board
Sydney Water Board commenced conducting Household Chemical Collections in 1989, as part of their campaign to improve the quality of their sewer discharge.
Collections are conducted continuously, usually on weekends, and operate out of transfer stations and landfill sites. The collection team has a caravan, other vehicles and equipment that are moved from site to site.
The total quantity of household chemicals collected over the period from July 1990 to December 1996 was 257 tonnes and comprises 15 tonnes of organochlorine pesticides, 1.2 tonnes of chlorinated Solvents, 10 tonnes of heavy metal pesticides, 11 tonnes of other pesticides and 219 tonnes of other material.
Sydney Water dispose of most of the material, that cannot be recycled or accepted at local landfill sites, through a local specialist disposal company, who have arranged the storage of OCPs and arsenicals at the Commonwealth Storage site, Oaklands NSW.
Case Study 8. South Australia
The Environment Protection Authority in South Australia (SAEPA) has undertaken the responsibility of managing the chemical collections program. The program was commenced due to public requests and the need to minimise chemical discharges to sewer and the environment. In 1992, a major collection was held in the Lower South East followed in 1995 with a similar collection in the Riverland.
In 1990 the SAEPA opened a chemical collection facility at Dry Creek , near Adelaide. The facility opens the first Tuesday of every month and enables householders and farmers to bring along their unwanted chemicals and leave them at the depot. This is a free service to the householder and farmers. No chemicals are accepted from industry or government agencies.
Between 1990 and 1995 five suburban collections were held around Adelaide. Apart from these collections, no other programs have been conducted. At present the Dry Creek drop off point is the only chemical collection program being undertaken by the SAEPA.
The collection day at Dry Creek has been advertised so people are aware of the day on which they are able to drop off their chemicals.
Some special arrangements are made for rural residents that are some distance away from the depot. These arrangements include opening up the depot on other occasions to receive the load, or actually arranging to have the chemicals collected.
There has been a total of approximately 50 tonnes of chemicals collected. Of these approximately 15 tonne represent pesticides. The SAEPA have not scheduled any further collections for South Australia. It will however continue to operate the Dry Creek facility for households and farmers.
Case Study 9. Tasmania
The Northern Midlands Council, which comprises mainly farming communities, undertook a survey of all residents in their region to assess the extent of unwanted chemicals in the community.
Although the community response was poor, the Council believed that there were sufficient unwanted chemicals to warrant collection. Chemsal Pty Ltd was engaged to collect the 182kg of chemicals, comprising organochlorine, organophosphate, arsenical and other pesticides, from the 14 properties where farmers had indicated having unwanted chemicals.
1 Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) consists of Commonwealth, State and Territory Environment Ministers.
2 Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) consists of Commonwealth, State and Territory Agriculture and Resource Ministers
3 Established by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) in 1994.
4 Standing Committee for Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) consists of senior officials from Commonwealth, State and Territory agriculture departments.
5 Quinsey, P., Donohue, D., and Ahokas, J. (1995), Persistence of organochlorines in breast milk of women in Victoria, Australia, Fd. Chem. Toxic., v33, no1, pp49-56. & Thompson, G., Chapman, J. and Richardson, B. (1992), Disposal of Hazardous Wastes in Australia: Implications for Marine Pollution, Marine Pollution Bulletin, v25, 5-8, pp155-162.
6 A Special Report - The Australian Beef Industry, Weekend Australian, January 18-19, 1997, p 29.
7 The Australian, 21 November 1994.
8 This scheme was funded by the Commonwealth Government.
9 Agriculture Department representatives on the NCSDS Steering Committee.
10 Consolidation store is defined as a location to where materials are moved for medium-term storage prior to destruction. This definition is derived from the draft OCP Management Plan.
11 Export of scheduled wastes is technically possible for those wastes that cannot be treated in Australia but significant socio-political difficulties would need to be overcome to make this happen. For example, in the past Australia exported PCBs to the UK for high temperature incineration but the UK has recently banned the import of wastes for incineration.
12 Appropriate technologies for treatment of scheduled wastes (Environment Australia), Review Report Number 3, August 1996.