Tomerong Tip- Part One- General Issues

Shoalhaven Greens have created a position paper in regards to the proposed Inert Waste Facility- otherwise known as Tomerong Tip. To make it easy to read in blog format I have seperated it into four parts The first part will deal with some of the general issues we have identified with the proposal.

Waste Management Issues in general


Waste, especially potentially toxic building waste, should be dealt with as close to its source as possible.

Local councils should work with all other levels of Government to minimise waste, not look for sites in other areas in which to dump it.

We find it morally unjustifiable for one community to dump its waste on another.

Every community should deal with its own waste.

It makes environmental sense to keep waste, especially toxic waste, operations small and close to source.

Reducing transport costs and the associated impacts must be a priority in waste management.

Additional freight on the inadequate south coast road network is untenable with unacceptable costs to amenity and to society in a general sense.

The issue of CO2 emissions from additional and unnecessarily long haul trucking has not been addressed in the application.

All levels of Government have an obligation to reduce CO2 emissions at every possible opportunity.

The argument that this proposal will extend the life of existing tips is indefensible.

Firstly the Shoalhaven already trucks its 4000 tonnes of building waste each year to the Illawarra; an appalling situation that puts our waste problems into another area when it should be dealt with here in the Shoalhaven at existing facilities.

Secondly if councils want to extend the lives of their tips they need to enforce adequate waste reduction measures on their communities and governments need to encourage manufacturers to reduce non-recyclable components in their products.

Taxing non-recyclable waste at source of manufactures would be an obvious step.

Leadership in regards to waste reduction is needed, innovation and new methods of manufacturing to reduce reliance on landfill will provide for more economic benefits to Australian people, through the creation of new jobs, compared to the current process of landfilling.

We find a potential conflict of interest in a State Government appointed panel determining this application when the same government will reap the reward of up to $50 a tonne in levies for the waste dumped in the near future and an undisclosed waste levy for outgoing years, two-thirds of which goes straight to Treasury.

If convenient holes in the ground are continually sought to dispose of waste there will never be an
incentive to eliminate waste.

Building waste should be recycled and any waste that is unable to be recycled at a municipal level should be returned to the manufacturer and dealt with at source.

The cost to the community of the Shoalhaven in receiving 100,000 tonnes of building waste to the
very centre of the city each year by road should be enough on its own to reject this proposal out-ofhand.

How will the company monitor loads dumped, ensure no inappropriate material comes in and collect and dispose of it if it does?

The Environmental Impact Statement says that they will but how?

We believe it to be inevitable that inappropriate toxic waste will be dumped on this site.

Impacts on other nearby local industries such as tourism is difficult to measure.

The Shoalhaven has invested significantly into its tourism product and should take a protectionist approach to maintaining its market share of domestic travel.

Part two deals with transport issues