Sustainability Guide for Energy from Waste (EfW) Projects and Proposals/media/resources... ·...

WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA NATIONAL OFFICE: PO Box 994, ROCKDALE NSW 2216

Tel: 61 2 9599 7511 Fax: 61 2 9599 6032 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wmaa.asn.au

Energy from Waste Division

Sustainability Guide

for

Energy from Waste (EfW) Projects and Proposals

Completed with significant sponsorship from

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals Page i Edition 1 - 22/12/03

First Draft For Review by Reference Group 1/07/03Discussion Draft For Review by Reference Group 3/07/03Final (AGO) Draft For Review by Reference Group 10/11/03Plain English Draft 1 For Submission to AGO 10/12/03Plain English Draft 2 For Submission to AGO 19/12/03Edition 1 For Publication 22/12/03


Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals Page ii Edition 1 - 22/12/03

Preface The Sustainability Guide for Energy from Waste (EfW) Projects and Proposals is an initiative of the EfW Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA). The EfW Division has also developed a Code of Practice for the EfW Sector in Australia to support the Sustainability Guide. These two documents form the first and second parts of the WMAA Energy from Waste Sustainability Project. Together they provide the fledgling EfW industry with a widely accepted protocol, process and strategic framework for assessing EfW projects and proposals. The vision of the Energy from Waste Sustainability Project is for a sustainable Australia with our systems, facilities and infrastructure working to avoid and minimise waste, recover valuable resources and energy and close the loop on urban resource consumption. The Sustainability Guide is intended to help the community, government and industry stakeholders know when it is acceptable to conserve materials presenting as urban "wastes" in something close to their original form and when to convert them to energy through a variety of processes. The Sustainability Guide recognises the crucial role played by the community in any EfW project or proposal. In effect, the community act as arbiters of sustainability on behalf of current and future generations. It acknowledges that without broad community agreement to an EfW project, or a "community' licence to operate," an EfW project cannot go ahead. The document is framed to keep the community actively involved, fully informed and engaged regularly and transparently in order to facilitate an outcome that provides for sustainable resource use in the interests of current and future generations. Although the Sustainability Guide does discuss some EfW technologies, a deliberate decision has been made to focus on outcomes rather than being prescriptive in terms of technology, process or methodology. The document presents a number of project scoping principles stakeholders can use to assess whether a project or proposal falls within the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The Code of Practice supporting the Sustainability Guide is intended to demonstrate the EfW industry's commitment to operating within the framework of ecologically sustainable development. By signing up to the Code members of the EfW industry are publicly stating their commitment to act for the recovery of the highest resource value from secondary resource materials, ensure transparency in their decision-making processes, meet all legislative requirements and continuously improve in all the aspects of their operation over which they have control. The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice are living documents that derive their functionality and credibility from their inclusiveness, continual improvement and interaction with stakeholder requirements, as accommodated against a founding philosophy of sustainable resource use. They were developed over three years from November 2000 to December 2003 and involved extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders (see Appendixes A, B, C and D). The Australian Greenhouse Office provided significant sponsorship for the project, as did a wide range of government and industry parties (see Appendix C).


Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals Page iii Edition 1 - 22/12/03

Signatories to the Code and their current compliance status will be kept on the WMAA EfW Division website at www.wmaa.asn.au/efw. The EfW Division of the WMAA and its state-based Working Groups will regularly produce updated editions of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice in a culture of continuous improvement and in the face of changing circumstances and needs. Edition 2 of the Sustainability Guide is due for completion at the end of 2004. Structure of the Sustainability Guide Section 1 of the Sustainability Guide is intended for first-time readers only. It provides a broad overview of the issues involved and the rationale for the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice. It also outlines how the document was developed and gives guidance on how it is to be applied. Section 2 gives a consolidated summary of the issues and drivers as a context and rationale to many of the principles and outcomes adopted in the Sustainability Guide. Much of this material originated from early discussion groups, the deliberations of the Working Group and the matters raised during the stakeholder consultation. The section will be useful where the interpretation of related, collateral or contingent issues arise in any future project assessment. Section 3 provides a set of project scoping principles (PSPs). These are the principles that have been developed to best address the complex issues surrounding sustainable energy recovery from urban wastes. The section will be particularly useful in the qualitative assessment of proposed or actual projects. Section 4 is the assessment roadmap tool. This consists of a process that is recommended to analyse and evaluate the impacts of a project in the context of ESD.


Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals Page iv Edition 1 - 22/12/03

Contents

Section 1: Introduction 1

1.1 The Initial Conditions and Context 1

1.2 Energy Recovery: A Binary Decision 4

1.3 The Potential Impacts of Energy Recovery from Urban Wastes 5

1.4 Origins of the Sustainability Guide 7

1.5 Development of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice 8

1.6 The Purpose of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice 9

1.7 Key Stakeholder Groups 10

1.8 Applicability to Individual Stakeholder Requirements 11

1.9 Editorial Focus and Sustainability Guide Formats 12

Section 2: Background and Context 14

2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) as the Primary Determinant 14

2.2 The Nature of the Waste Considered 16

2.3 Broad Characteristics of Residual Urban Wastes 17

2.4 Community Perceptions of Energy Recovery Projects 18

2.5 Energy Recovery Systems and Technologies 20

2.6 Interaction with the Community 25

2.7 Issues to be Evaluated and Assessed for a Successful Project 27

Section 3: Project Scoping Principles for EfW Projects 29

3.1 Introduction to the PSPs 29

3.2 Profiling EfW Projects and Proposals 32

3.3 PSP1: Best Use of the Available Materials 33

3.4 PSP2: Selection of the Optimum Conversion Pathway 37

3.5 PSP3: Control of Environmental Impacts and Outcomes 42

3.6 PSP4: Control of Social Impacts and Outcomes 46

3.7 PSP5: Assurance of Project Commitments 50

3.8 PSP6: Management of the Commercial Interface 53

Section 4: The Assessment Tools 57

Section 5: Glossary 58


Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals Page v Edition 1 - 22/12/03

Section 6: Appendixes 61

Appendix A – Working Group Members 62

Appendix B – Reference Group Members 63

Appendix C – Sponsors 65

Appendix D – Stakeholder Workshops and Results 66

Appendix E – Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development 89

Appendix F – Literature Review 90

List of Tables

Table 3-1: PSP1 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ........................................................................ 36 Table 3-2: PSP1 Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................. 36 Table 3-3: PSP2 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ........................................................................ 41 Table 3-4: PSP2 Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................. 41 Table 3-5: PSP3 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ........................................................................ 44 Table 3-6: PSP3 Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................. 45 Table 3-7: PSP4 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ........................................................................ 49 Table 3-8: PSP4 Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................. 49 Table 3-9: PSP5 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ........................................................................ 52 Table 3-10: PSP5 Evaluation Matrix........................................................................................... 52 Table 3-11: PSP6 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ...................................................................... 56

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Assessment Roadmap of Project Scoping Principles .................................................. 31 Figure 3-2: PSP2 – Iterative review process .................................................................................. 38 Figure 3-3: PSP3 – Iterative review process .................................................................................. 44 Figure 3-4: PSP4 – Iterative review process .................................................................................. 48


Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals Page 1 Edition 1 - 22/12/03

Section 1: Introduction This section provides an overview of the main issues that relate to the complex topic of energy recovery from society’s urban waste streams. It introduces the structure of the Sustainability Guide and outlines the process of its development. (Many of the issues touched on in the introduction are explored in more detail elsewhere in the document and referenced accordingly. The section may only be of value to first-time readers of the Sustainability Guide.)

1.1 The Initial Conditions and Context The wastes in question

1.1.1 One unintended consequence of the rapid economic

development in OECD countries is the unsustainable use and consumption of natural resources, both renewable and finite (non renewable).

1.1.2 Sustainability in this context, or ecologically sustainable

development (ESD) in general, refers to the concept of managing the use of resources in a way that improves our quality of life today and allows future generations to improve their own quality of life, with an underlying focus on maintaining the ecological processes upon which life on Earth depends. Within this concept, sustainability can also be described in terms of the ability of the natural environment to sustain impact (see 2.1.5).

1.1.3 This Sustainability Guide focuses on the sustainable use of the

resources that currently present as the three main urban waste streams, comprising:

i) the spent, surplus and discarded materials that originate from households that are usually managed by local government, called municipal solid waste (MSW) (see 2.2.1 i)

ii) the spent, surplus and discarded materials that originate from commercial, industrial and manufacturing operations that are usually managed by private waste contractors, called commercial and industrial (C&I) waste (see 2.2.1 ii)

iii) the discarded or waste materials that originate from the construction, engineering and building demolition sectors that are generally managed by private contractors, called construction and demolition (C&D) waste (see 2.2.1 iii).



1.1.4 In addressing society’s urban waste streams from a

perspective of sustainability, a number of strategies can be adopted:

i) efforts can be made to avoid the materials being initially produced, consumed or in such a way that they never present as wastes

ii) strategies can be employed to limit or minimise the amounts of materials that eventually present as wastes

iii) spent, surplus or secondary materials can be managed as by-products for future reuse or recycling in their original form or in a degraded form, or they can be reprocessed for some equally valid re-application of their resource potential.

One potential but irreversible reprocessing option for these materials may be to recover the energy or "calorific" value of the waste through an Energy from Waste (EfW) project.

1.1.5 This Sustainability Guide seeks to address and define those elements in the urban waste streams that are suitable for EfW projects and to present protocols for their conversion from waste to energy.

1.1.6 These potential sources of energy could be described as

materials that satisfy the following two conditions:

i) they have no further practical value or market for reuse, recycling or reprocessing to recover their inherent resource value

ii) they have a net calorific value that could be recovered and would otherwise be lost through disposal to landfill.

1.1.7 In terms of ecologically sustainable resource application, the

crucial issue is to know when to conserve materials in something close to their original form and when to convert them for their calorific value. This Sustainability Guide has been developed to help determine:

i) whether the materials in question are suitable for conversion to energy

ii) whether the immediate impacts of the conversion activity are acceptable: i.e. will the benefits be optimised and the disbenefits minimised or eliminated?

1.1.8 Urban waste is an important community issue and concern.

The Sustainability Guide provides a structure for the community to regain more ownership of the issues and the potential solutions.



1.1.9 Currently, fractions of urban wastes that present as potentially sustainable sources of energy as described in 1.1.6 above are being lost to landfill disposal because:

i) there are few, if any, facilities available to recover the energy in Australia

ii) energy recovery facilities are not being developed in Australia because there are no generally accepted standards, protocols or strategic planning frameworks that could support the necessary investment decisions.

1.1.10 This Sustainability Guide provides the strategic framework

needed to evaluate EfW projects and their social, environmental and economic impacts.



1.2 Energy Recovery: A Binary Decision

1.2.1 Because the EfW process is irreversible, the decision to

reprocess urban wastes for the primary purpose of energy recovery has implications for sustainable resource use.

1.2.2 On the one hand, the recovery of the calorific value of the

waste and its corresponding benefits may be preferable to losing the potential for energy recovery to landfill disposal.

1.2.3 On the other hand, the irreversible consumption of a resource

for energy alone may not fully acknowledge the more sustainable resource use of that material, by reuse, recycling or reprocessing for the inherent material recovery and the greater embodied energy value (see 2.1.7).

1.2.4 Such resource decisions are of vital interest to the broader

community as we consider our collective responsibility to future generations. This highlights the need for community consent for projects that seek to recover energy value from urban waste. In order to gain this consent it is important for the potential impacts, both positive and negative, to be properly identified and understood in order to determine the suitability of an EfW project.



1.3 The Potential Impacts of Energy Recovery from Urban Wastes

The potential benefits The potential disadvantages

1.3.1 The benefits of energy recovery from urban wastes can

include the following:

i) a higher value resource management outcome than to lose the same materials through landfill disposal

ii) the biomass or lignocellulosic content of urban wastes can present as a renewable source of energy

iii) the hydrocarbon-based content (high calorific plastic-, textile- and fossil-fuel-based fraction) of urban wastes can present as a source of alternative or supplementary energy

iv) use of certain urban wastes for energy recovery can deliver a reduced greenhouse gas impact when compared to directly applied fossil fuels or the landfill alternative where organic material is not collected separately and diverted

v) a reduction in volume of the solid waste that is consigned to landfill

vi) appropriate conversion of certain urban wastes for energy recovery close to the potential markets for this energy can demonstrate significant transport and transmission advantages

vii) processing urban wastes for energy recovery can demonstrate significant public health, hygiene and public amenity advantages over many alternative applications such as landfill disposal1.

1.3.2 Like any waste management option, inappropriate energy

recovery from urban wastes can produce significant disadvantages such as:

i) wasted resource value from a once-off application for energy from materials that had ongoing or higher resource value applications available

ii) direct impacts of polluting emissions (including health impacts), odours, dust and noise

iii) maintaining a demand for the creation of waste, rather than avoiding waste, simply to satisfy the needs of the EfW facility.

1 Landfill disposal itself has a range of problems including leachate and the generation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. These impacts can be difficult to manage because of the indeterminate boundaries of landfill impact. Furthermore, landfilling the materials may not recover the highest resource value for the material.



Better information exchange is needed to promote community confidence in EfW projects

1.3.3 An objective of sustainable development is to ensure optimum benefits within a framework that eliminates or minimises the potential disadvantages.

1.3.4 Some EfW projects have had a chequered history; too often

realising many of the disadvantages with too few of the benefits. The lack of a commonly adopted standard or strategic planning framework has led to the current situation where the development of sustainable and well conceived projects are often prevented due to the difficulty of obtaining a licence to operate from the community. This has stemmed from poor information exchange between stakeholders and a lack of community confidence in EfW projects.



1.4 Origins of the Sustainability Guide

A national strategic planning framework was needed

1.4.1 In November 2000 the EfW Division of the Waste Management

Association of Australia (WMAA) was initiated by a group of experienced practitioners in the area of waste management and sustainable resource use. The group identified the need to develop a nationally accepted approach and strategic planning framework for EfW projects.

1.4.2 The EfW Division developed a discussion paper to

conceptualise the group's ideas and launched the project to develop this Sustainability Guide and its supporting Code of Practice. The project attracted major sponsorship from the Australian Greenhouse Office and significant additional sponsorship and support from a wide range of government and industry parties (see Appendix C).

1.4.3 This Sustainability Guide and its supporting Code of Practice

are the outcomes of this project.



1.5 Development of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

1.5.1 The key steps in the development of this Sustainability Guide

and Code of Practice have featured an ever-broadening involvement of stakeholders so that the final product can be adopted with confidence.

i) Following the formation of the WMAA EfW Division an initial discussion paper was prepared.

ii) Increasing membership of the EfW Division led to the preparation of a revised and refined discussion paper and to the identification of the need for a Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice.

iii) A project proposal was developed to produce the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice. This proposal received funding from the Commonwealth through the Australian Greenhouse Office, the environmental agencies in most states and private sector contributors (see Appendix C).

iv) An expert Working Group was established to manage the project and maintain editorial control (see Appendix A).

v) Workshops were advertised and conducted in all state capitals and many regional centres to address the complexities of the debate and to inform the production of subsequent documents (see Appendix D).

vi) The first drafts of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice were prepared from the workshop outputs and reviewed by the Working Group. They were then put out to a much wider Reference Group for peer review (see Appendix B).

vii) First Editions of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice were then developed for distribution. A structure of state-based Working Groups (including non-industry representatives) reporting to the National EfW Division was established for the regular and ongoing updating and maintenance of the documents.

1.5.2 The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice are living

documents that derive their functionality and credibility from their inclusiveness, continual improvement and interaction with stakeholder requirements, as accommodated against a founding philosophy of sustainable resource use and the agreed principles outlined in Section 3.



1.6 The Purpose of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

Why do we need an EfW sustainability guide and code of practice?

1.6.1 The Sustainability Guide has been produced to provide a

widely accepted protocol, process and strategic framework that will:

i) help potential EfW projects to be conceived, scoped and structured to optimise the potential of sustainable energy recovery from the appropriate fractions of urban waste, whilst ensuring that the potential environmental, social, health and economic impacts are rigorously evaluated in a transparent and publicly accountable manner

ii) provide a common reference for the evaluation of potential projects and for projects that are evaluated positively

iii) provide a pathway toward the granting of a “licence to operate” from the community and assistance for regulators in granting project approvals

iv) provide an integrated and structured reference for the ongoing assessment and monitoring of a project or facility that does acquire a “community licence to operate”.

1.6.2 Whilst the Sustainability Guide has been developed to inform

and facilitate the scoping and initiation of sustainable EfW projects, the companion Code of Practice has been produced to evidence stakeholders’ long-term and ongoing commitment to the principles and philosophies of the Sustainability Guide. This enshrines a platform of continuous improvement for all stakeholders directly involved in a potential project.

1.6.3 It is hoped that the Sustainability Guide will assist sustainable

EfW projects to emerge that gain consent, approval and the confidence of all stakeholders.

1.6.4. The Sustainability Guide in no way seeks to provide

guarantees or assurances of success during a formal consent or approval process. However, it can help both applicants and consent authorities understand the complex issues surrounding EfW projects.

1.6.5. Since a formal application may well require the expenditure of

considerable time and money, some project profiling and screening techniques have been provided that are designed to limit expenses for projects and proposals that appear to be unsustainable rather than attempting to justify them.



1.7 Key Stakeholder Groups

Wide consultation improves an EfW project's chances of success

1.7.1 There is a wide range of individual stakeholder and special

interest groups with whom consultation is an important factor in gaining acceptance and approval for a development. These groups can be loosely categorised as community, government and industry and encompass the following stakeholders:

i) community a) neighbouring residents, workers, businesses and

sensitive landuses such as schools, community centres and aged care facilities

b) the electorate (local, state, federal)

c) environmental NGOs

d) special interest groups

ii) government a) local government

b) state governments and their individual agencies

c) federal government and its individual agencies

iii) industry a) project developers and proponents

b) waste generators, suppliers and collectors

c) technology developers and vendors

d) energy wholesalers and retailers

e) energy consumers

f) specialist consultants and advisors

g) ancillary suppliers.



1.8 Applicability to Individual Stakeholder Requirements The Sustainability Guide helps the community, government and industry decide which projects are acceptable

1.8.1 The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice have been

developed for both the general community and the specialist stakeholder groups involved to promote informed decision-making processes and sustainable resource use.

i) Community groups can use the Sustainability Guide to become better informed about the issues related to EfW and to understand the complexities and inter-relationships between the various issues and outcomes. In the face of specific proposals, community groups can use the Sustainability Guide to evaluate, critique and, if appropriate, approve certain projects or initiatives, confident that the documents have been developed in an informed, impartial and inclusive manner.

ii) Government politicians and their bureaucracies can use the Sustainability Guide for evaluating and approving projects, drafting consent conditions and developing public policy and strategy. For example, it will assist local government to make waste management decisions where alternative technologies are being considered.

iii) Industry can apply the principles, philosophies and project assessment framework in the Sustainability Guide for scoping and developing projects that are more likely to receive a community licence to operate and the regulatory consents and approvals that are required.

1.8.2 The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice are designed to

be beneficially adopted by community representatives, government and project proponents in equal measure.



1.9 Editorial Focus and Sustainability Guide Formats

1.9.1 The issues of resolving the interests of both current and future

generations within the field of sustainable resource use and the appropriate role for energy recovery from selected urban wastes have generated different opinions and defined some individual objectives. In the first editions of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice certain issues have been agreed and/or acknowledged, including:

i) the community’s involvement in and acceptance of EfW projects is essential. The core focus during the development of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice was to facilitate not only a greater level of understanding of the issues by all stakeholders, but to provide a transparent and practical framework for appropriate and sustainable EfW projects to achieve the broad community licence to operate. However, it must be recognised that the framework itself may be limited and should not exclude consideration of other sustainability issues raised by stakeholders

ii) whilst this project was developed under the supportive umbrella of the WMAA and its principles and constitution, it has also been a public policy development activity for the broadest possible adoption. A wide range of stakeholders have been actively involved in the project to this point including those listed in Appendixes A, B and C and all those who attended the consultative workshops (see Appendix D). This active involvement provides the credibility for widespread application of the outcomes

iii) the WMAA will have an important role in providing a structured forum for ongoing input, review and comment through the Working Groups in each state and feeding into the National EfW Division. The EfW Division of the WMAA will regularly produce updated editions of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice in a culture of continuous improvement in the face of changing circumstances and needs

iv) the Sustainability Guide will be published in the following forms to accommodate different requirements:

a) the Complete Sustainability Guide with all sections as the background reference document

b) a Concise Sustainability Guide with little background and context and more emphasis on the project scoping principles (PSPs) and the assessment tool

c) a Condensed Sustainability Guide with only core principles and a graphic of the assessment process.



1.9.2 All documents will be developed and issued by the National EfW Division of WMAA.

1.9.3. The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice will be updated every few years or more frequently if events require it.

1.9.4 The EfW Division of the WMAA is the peak national body, with Working Groups in most states of Australia. These Working Groups will submit editorial suggestions or factual modifications to the national body for assessment in the regular updating and review process.



Section 2: Background and Context This section gives more detail and background to the issues and drivers that must be addressed and resolved in the evaluation of sustainable energy from waste (EfW) projects. It is designed as a reference guide for the evaluation and assessment of related, collateral or contingent issues or projects.

2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) as the Primary Determinant

Establishing the benchmark What is sustainability? The Sustainability Guide looks to avoiding, minimising, reusing, recycling and reprocessing waste before considering the potential of EfW projects kicks in.

2.1.1 The management of urban wastes is an issue that goes to the

heart of the social, environmental and commercial debate over the impact modern civilisation is having on the biosphere and its natural systems.

2.1.2 The framework adopted by the Working Group for the

assessment and prioritisation of options is derived from Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (see Appendix F).

2.1.3 The definition of ecologically sustainable development (ESD)2

adopted in this strategy is:

A pattern of development that improves the total quality of life both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends.

2.1.4 The overarching concept adopted in the Sustainability Guide is

as follows:

Society’s resources are to be managed in a way that improves our quality of life today without compromising the ability of future generations to improve their own quality of life.

2.1.5 This concept of sustainability accepts that all human and

natural activity has an impact, but advocates that the biosphere must be capable of sustaining or absorbing these impacts. Human activity that causes impacts which natural systems cannot repair is unsustainable. This unsustainability can be assessed by intensity and rate.

2.1.6 The Sustainability Guide has been developed to support and

complement higher order strategies of avoidance, minimisation, reuse, recycling and reprocessing (facilitated through source separation) for inherent material recovery. It seeks to promote these outcomes before the step is taken to recover the calorific value through EfW projects (see 1.1.6).

2 Note that the terms "ecologically sustainable development" and "sustainable development" are used interchangeably.



1.1.2 The destruction of finite resources for energy recovery alone

can have lasting impacts on future resource availability and is not encouraged by this Sustainability Guide. The impacts of this are exacerbated when these materials still have the practical ability to furnish other higher value societal needs in substantially their current form or slightly degraded form.

Embodied energy needs to be considered

2.1.8 The importance of embodied energy needs to be considered at this point.

i) The embodied energy in an item or material is the energy expended to create the item or material and the energy that will need to be expended again if the material is to be replaced. Tthis energy value is seldom reflected in the single calorific value that would be recovered by a traditional thermal energy recovery process (see 2.5.1 iv). For example, a textile made with a standard plastic will represent only a basic calorific value in a traditional thermal EfW process. However, this outcome will not reflect the energy expended to form the basic polymers or compounds from the original hydrocarbon source, nor will the energy expended in designing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing the product be recovered or recognised by the simple EfW end-of-life fate.

ii) The overarching interests of sustainable resource use place considerable importance on measuring and conserving embodied energy values. This is reflected in the preference given in the Sustainability Guide to higher order outcomes such as reuse, recycling and reprocessing for inherent resource value recovery (see 2.1.6).

iii) The balancing factor for the retention of embodied energy recovery is the effort, energy or resources required to actually reuse, recycle or reprocess the particular item that is presenting in an urban waste stream.

2.1.9 The principles of ESD have been adopted as a primary

determinant for issues and options during the development of the Sustainability Guide since they establish a framework to balance social, environmental and commercial issues with the needs of both current and future generations.

2.1.10 These issues discussed in 2.1.1-2.1.9 above have been

addressed in the preparation of PSP1 (see3.1).



2.2 The Nature of the Waste Considered

The Sustainability Guide deals with the residuals of three urban waste streams

2.2.1 The urban waste streams that are the focus of the

Sustainability Guide originate from the following three main sources:

i) municipal solid waste (MSW) — the material generated by individual households and some small businesses. It represents the post-consumer spent and surplus materials traditionally discarded and disposed of

ii) commercial and industrial (C&I) waste — the spent, surplus or unwanted materials that arise in the course of the primary productive activity. For the purposes of the Sustainability Guide this waste stream does not include by-products that also emanate from these productive enterprises. These will be applied as process inputs into some other activity since it is assumed that they will be channelled to some higher order application before presenting as a potential fuel

iii) construction and demolition (C&D) waste — the products of building demolition or alterations and the spent or surplus materials generated by building and engineering activity.

2.2.2 By their nature, the materials from these three waste streams

present as mixed or heterogeneous. This is a direct product of the circumstances of their discard and will greatly affect how the materials might later be used if they are not to be simply discarded for landfill disposal.

2.2.3 Where the materials can be presented in defined or

homogeneous streams, their ability to be reused or recycled is much enhanced, as is the case with kerbside recycling of domestic containers and paper, source-separated garden waste or source-separated wood, metals, glass and plastics from C&I or C&D waste.

2.2.4 The focus of this Sustainability Guide is the flow of residual

urban wastes after higher order options have been thoroughly explored or those materials that, although homogeneous in nature, can be most sustainably used for energy recovery.

2.2.5 The Sustainability Guide has been developed as an

assessment tool for urban wastes presenting for appropriate energy recovery as an option of last resort for materials that otherwise would be disposed to landfill.



2.3 Broad Characteristics of Residual Urban Wastes

The viability of an EfW project depends on the properties of the materials, their location and the energy recovery pathway or infrastructure

2.3.1 Although the materials in residual urban wastes are by

definition indeterminate, in aggregate they demonstrate some broad characteristics. Generally these wastes will contain:

i) a moist organic fraction — this material comes from food residuals, soiled paper and garden organics and is predominantly lignocellulosic biomass in origin (renewable)

ii) a biologically slow or inactive high calorific fraction — this material consists of plastics, textiles, footwear and some wood, cardboard and paper and is predominantly hydrocarbon material of crude oil origin with some carry-over of lignocellulosic material

iii) metals — this consists of ferrous (iron and steel) and non ferrous (aluminium, copper and lead) materials. Metals can be extracted from the original waste material

iv) an inert fraction — this includes materials such as ceramics, dirt, grit, broken glass and rubble. These materials can be readily separated from the original waste material.

2.3.2 It is anticipated that a level of cross-contamination will occur

between the four fractions identified. 2.3.3 Carry-over cross-contamination is addressed by the principles

and protocols contained in the Sustainability Guide. 2.3.4 The location or geography of a potential source of urban waste

is an important characteristic in assessing the potential for an appropriate energy recovery pathway. Issues of transport for aggregation to create viable volumes and the transmission of any electricity to be generated are both characteristics to be evaluated in determining the ultimate viability and sustainability of the EfW project.

2.3.5 The Sustainability Guide focuses on three urban waste

streams: municipal solid waste (MSW), commercial and industrial (C&I) waste and construction and demolition (C&D) waste.



2.4 Community Perceptions of Energy Recovery Projects

The Sustainability Guide promotes EfW when all other resource recovery options have been exhausted, not WtE as a by-product of incineration

2.4.1 Incinerating urban wastes as an alternative to landfill disposal

has been practised widely for many years around the world, and still is. Increasingly incineration operations are retrofitting energy recovery capabilities and flue gas treatment systems to their facilities or replacing old plants with new facilities that seek to optimise the energy recovery in the form of heat or power as a valuable by-product of the primary operation. For ease of description we term these facilities "waste to energy" or "WtE."

2.4.2 Modern WtE facilities are one possible approach to the

sustainable energy recovery from urban waste streams, especially in the light of recent technology improvements and the effort that is being directed to engineering out their potential negative impacts. However, the limits to these technological solutions must be recognised and considered in a transparent manner.

2.4.3 The current community perceptions of this form of energy

recovery from urban wastes could be coloured by past events and impacts. The business profile for these facilities tends to feature the following:

i) the core business is based on the disposal of the community’s wastes. Energy recovery is an option or by-product of the core activity

ii) the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the facility is closely dependent on waste volume and constant levels of throughput which have a tendency to require a large and dedicated catchment to provide supply for such a significant investment

iii) the wastes provided as feed to the facility are by definition indeterminate and of no fixed or certain origin or quality, even though they tend to demonstrate certain broad generic characteristics (see 2.2.2, 2.3.1). This lack of consistency could reflect a commensurate lack of control of the emission and ash quality from the facility and even certain operational impacts. Whilst many of these issues can now be managed by improved technology and engineering, these controls come at a cost.

2.4.4 The term "energy from waste" or "EfW" used in this

Sustainability Guide is a simple terminology intended to promote projects and facilities that demonstrate a markedly different business profile from the WtE facilities outlined above. The business profile for EfW projects tends to feature the following:



i) the core business is the efficient recovery of energy from those fractions of the urban waste stream that have been identified as having no higher resource value other than energy recovery

ii) EfW provides the systems, facilities and infrastructure to recover energy efficiently without creating an incentive to generate waste or disrupt the flow of waste materials to their highest net resource value

iii) the immediate environmental consequences of EfW must demonstrate assured levels of control and management of impacts such as noise, pollutants, air and ash quality, as well as odour and traffic (see 3.5). Given the indeterminate nature of the original urban wastes, if fuel preparation is not to be the primary strategy for controlling environmental impacts, the project would need to demonstrate post-conversion engineering and technological solutions that give the same or higher levels of confidence.

2.4.5 Whilst WtE and EfW facilities may deliver substantially similar

results and outcomes most of the time, it is perception and confidence issues that so concern the community.

2.4.6 Once urban wastes have been determined to have no higher

resource value than energy recovery3 the circumstances of their availability should inform the selection of the most appropriate conversion pathway.

3 Note that the Sustainability Guide does not preclude the use of monofill as a long-term storage option. This would simply become one of the technology options to assess when considering highest resource value.



2.5 Energy Recovery Systems and Technologies

Generic approaches for unsorted urban wastes

2.5.1 Detail on each technology is provided in Appendix H.

Generic systems and technologies to recover energy from non-source separated or unsorted urban wastes include:

i) conventional landfill with methane recovery — the biogas that is recovered from landfill can be converted to heat, steam or electricity. The conventional landfilling of unsorted urban wastes generates methane or "biogas" through anaerobic degradation. Biogas is a significant, potentially explosive pollutant and greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide. Its recovery or extraction from traditional landfills is as much a pollution protection and safety measure as an energy recovery objective. However, even with today’s best landfill practices, there are potential inefficiencies in biogas recovery including incomplete gas capture and greenhouse gas emission4

ii) landfill designed to optimise biogas recovery — the recovered biogas that is recovered from landfill can be converted to heat, steam or electricity. The landfill design and filling process can be done to optimise

a) the anaerobic, biogas generating activity

b) the systematic recovery of the biogas. Less gas is likely to escape to atmosphere over time, minimising the risk of a significant greenhouse emission impact from the biogas4

iii) in-vessel anaerobic digestion (AD) — the recovered biogas can be converted to heat, steam or electricity. Rather than rely on the relatively indeterminate boundary limits of a landfill, the same anaerobic digestion can be better controlled in a dedicated vessel or container. This allows the process to be conducted "wet" in a fully aqueous (added water) environment or "dry" using the inherent moisture in the material itself (perhaps 55% moisture). In either case, gas control can be absolute and gas generation rates optimised. The digestate will present for future treatment, beneficiation or processing to produce secondary products if required4

4 In the three generic systems and technologies set out in i, ii and iii above it is only the organic biomass fraction of the urban wastes that is altered or converted by the process. The metals and inert materials remain substantially unchanged. A biologically stable organic fraction will result from the digestion for future processing, application or disposal. The primary outcomes of these systems or technologies are volume reduction, biochemical stabilisation and some calorific energy recovery.



iv) mass burn — the heat evolved can be used directly or converted to steam or electricity. This approach can use a range of hearth configurations but the similar conditions of intense thermal oxidation aim to achieve complete "burn out" of the organic molecules to achieve complete mineralisation of the urban wastes which will present as heat evolved, ash and resultant gases. The gases that result must then be cleaned up or controlled before emission to the locally prevailing limits or standards. The ash must be similarly managed for reuse, recycling or disposal in accordance with local circumstances.

v) advanced thermal processes — these include pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc (see Annexure H for more detail).

In general these advanced thermal processes and technologies are unsuitable for unsorted or non pre-treated urban wastes (see 2.5.2 iii below).

Generic approaches for selected urban wastes

2.5.2 Generic systems and technologies to recover energy from selected or source-separated fractions of urban waste are set out below. By definition, the following systems or technologies require and assume that the preferred fraction has been selected from the mixed and indeterminate urban waste feedstocks and pre-treated, screened or selected:

i) in-vessel anaerobic digestion (AD) — as for 2.5.1 iii above. However, where the moist organic fraction referred to in 2.3.1 iii above is processed without the other fractions of urban waste, a greater level of gas generation efficiency is possible. In this case the digestate is much more likely to be reprocessed into secondary products rather than directed for conventional disposal as a stabilised material

ii) process engineered fuel (PEF) — this approach to systematic energy recovery from mixed urban wastes usually focuses on the high calorific fraction (see 2.3.1 ii), but may also include carry-over components from the moist organic fraction (see 2.3.1 i). These materials most typically are processed at a specialised facility by sorting, screening, blending, drying and particle size control to produce quality-assured alternative or supplementary fuels for use by existing or dedicated conversion facilities (see 2.5.3). A feature of these facilities is the production of a supplementary or alternative fuel product that has defined, specified and assured qualities and characteristics. This allows the converter to establish their own product, process and emission quality criteria, with confidence that the fuel will have known and acceptable impacts.



This generic approach presents the maximum quantity of available high calorific fraction (HCF) for conversion to energy and retains the primary control of environmental impacts in the fuel preparation process rather than relying solely on gas clean-up and complex ash management techniques.

Another feature of the approach is that high calorific materials can be received and processed into fuel products as they are needed. Their future conversion can then occur as required to meet secondary market demand. Where existing facilities such as kilns and power stations act as the converter the capital cost of dedicated conversion facilities is avoided.

Process engineered fuel facilities play a convenient and cost-effective first point of receival role for waste collection vehicles similar to that currently played by transfer stations.

The alternative and supplementary fuel products that result can be forwarded to the dedicated conversion facilities as value-added products rather than as negatively valued wastes

iii) advanced thermal processes — these include:

a) gasification — thermal conversion of feedstock to a combustible gas in an oxygen-reduced atmosphere. The gas may be used as a fuel or chemical feedstock after clean-up

b) pyrolysis — the application of an external heat source in the absence of oxygen to produce reduced gas, oil and char products for immediate or future use

c) plasma arc — the application of an extreme heat source to convert the fuels into hot ionised gas for synthesis into the desired products.

These are sophisticated processes that can deliver significant advantages in terms of efficiency and control of process and product quality. They are invariably sensitive to feedstock quality and consistency and therefore most likely to be used for converting PEFs.



2.5.3 Secondary conversion facilities for selected or pre-prepared

fuel products can present in many forms:

i) existing facilities — a range of industrial or power generation facilities currently exist that have been established on traditional fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) and can be adapted to accept a proportion of alternative or supplementary fuels prepared from urban wastes.

Similarly, these PEFs can be “manufactured” to meet the precise requirements of existing industrial applications to ensure there is no detriment to the primary product quality or emission profile of the existing facilities (see 2.5.2 ii).

The potential facilities include:

a) cement and lime kilns

b) brick or masonry works

c) metal smelting and reduction plants

d) thermal power generation plants

e) miscellaneous facilities that generate industrial heat and steam.

As alternative fuels, the PEFs are manufactured to completely replace the existing fuel source.

As supplementary fuels, the PEFs are manufactured and supplied to co-fire with the existing fuel source in the desired or practical proportion

ii) special purpose facilities — in this scenario PEFs might be produced to a specification to exactly suit a new special purpose conversion facility such as:

a) an advanced thermal process (see 2.5.2 iii)

b) a dedicated power generation facility with a wide range of hearth configurations

iii) embedded facilities — these are usually smaller but very localised energy recovery facilities, even to the scale of the single facility converting its own waste material. An example of this is a sawmill converting offcuts and sawdust to produce heat, steam and/or power for its own use, perhaps with an excess to export from time-to-time or perhaps converting bagasse on-site to provide heat and power for sugar distillation. These facilities are increasingly adopting cogeneration techniques for optimum efficiency and cost-effectiveness.



The main features of embedded facilities with regard to the conversion of urban wastes are:

a) they are usually small-scale, for example up to 10 MW

b) they are localised and generally centred on one plant or industry for base demand

c) they are located to minimise transport and transmission costs

d) they often feature cogeneration for local heat and steam use, with excess power exported.



2.6 Interaction with the Community

A focus for the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice is to facilitate the granting of a broad-based community licence to operate for appropriate and sustainable EfW projects. This involves providing information and facilitating active involvement so that the community can exercise its ultimate responsibility through an informed, transparent and accountable process or framework. 2.6.1 Whilst the term “community” includes every party potentially

involved in evaluating a particular project or issue, the main stakeholders have been defined as community, government and industry (see 1.7.1). As such, government represents the statutory authorities that are charged with interpreting the community will and common good. Community in this instance seeks to reflect:

i) neighbouring residents, workers, businesses and sensitive landuses such as schools, community centres and aged care facilities

ii) the electorate (local, state, federal)

iii) environmental NGOs

iv) special interest groups. By this definition the community is a powerful force that could organise and act to influence government and industry on significant issues.

2.6.2 Given the benchmark of sustainability as the primary

determinant of appropriate projects and the requirement for a broad-based community licence to operate as a basic necessity for an appropriate project to proceed, the community has a crucial role to play (see 2.1, 1.10.2 i).

2.6.3 The community role is to act as arbiters of sustainability on

behalf of current and future generations. This requires active interaction between the stakeholders to assist them to carry out their tasks and responsibilities.

2.6.4 The community needs to be actively involved, fully informed

and engaged regularly and transparently in order to make its decision responsibly. The Sustainability Guide provides a structure or framework to facilitate this outcome.



2.6.5 To facilitate this interaction between the stakeholders the

Sustainability Guide outlines a process and framework for:

i) providing information — the information provided must be topical, of an appropriate quality and readily accessible. It needs to cover the following topics as a minimum:

a) the issues and context

b) the details of the specific proposal

c) the outcomes, impacts and benefits

d) the determining factors

e) the process for project assessment and determination

ii) stimulating involvement — the rights of and necessity for the community to be intimately involved in the decision-making process is matched by a responsibility to undertake the task thoroughly. Action and involvement are essential for this to occur and can be stimulated if required by:

a) an iterative and interactive approach that matches involvement, information and interaction to suit the status of the proposal

b) an “early and often” approach that encourages active involvement whenever new information or material advances on a proposal occur

c) a consultative approach that provides transparent and accountable feedback mechanisms

iii) maintaining a transparent and accountable process — for all the stakeholder groups to be able to act and interact with confidence and goodwill, the process must be fair and transparent and the parties must be accountable for their actions and the decisions they make on behalf of their respective constituencies. The adoption of a transparent and accountable process is the best insurance that projects will be thoroughly evaluated and critiqued and the final decision to approve, amend or reject a proposal delivered in an environment that can be substantiated.



2.7 Issues to be Evaluated and Assessed for a Successful Project

As outlined in this section and reinforced during the extensive consultation and workshop process described in Appendix D, a number of key issues emerge that must be addressed and resolved for a project or proposal to:

i) receive a widely endorsed licence to operate from the community

ii) optimise the sustainability of the project or proposal. 2.7.1 Best Use of the Available Resources

The evaluation of best resource use goes to the heart of the sustainability issue. This issue is of paramount importance because of the irreversibility or binary nature of the decision to recover the calorific value of the materials concerned (see 1.2). If it can be shown that potentially available urban wastes can be directed for higher value reuse, recycling or reprocessing in substantially their current form, then it is immediately apparent that EfW is not the correct action. In those circumstances all other issues of efficiency, environmental and social impact and economic consequence will not require assessment or evaluation.

2.7.2 Assessment of Consequences, Impacts and Commitment

Once potentially available fractions have been identified as being suitable for appropriate conversion to energy, then the circumstances of their arising and presentation can inform the most effective conversion pathway. This can be decided after considering:

i) the net efficiency of their conversion. Inefficient conversion results in wasted resource value (see PSP2 and Section 3 for a description of the PSPs)

ii) whether there is adequate control of the environmental impacts that will occur. In all circumstances this is a critical factor in receiving consent to operate. It will be demonstrated by control of the fuel preparation and conversion processes (see PSP3)

iii) adequate assessment, evaluation and control of the social consequences of a potential project. These issues are of significant consequence to neighbours, the electorate and regular or special purpose NGOs (see PSP4)

iv) the importance of having a long-term delivery on commitments made at the time of initial consent. This amounts to a proven ability to make good on commitments and control measures over the life of a project — perhaps 20–30 years — and not just at the consent and approval stages (see PSP5)



v) the potential commercial impacts on higher order reuse, recycling or reprocessing options. Before the project is operational, it is crucial to document that no higher resource value programs will be negatively impacted (see PSP6).

Throughout the evaluation process for i-v above there is a need to ensure that the full suite of environmental externalities has been systematically evaluated and included in any final assessment or decision.

2.7.3 Throughout the project evaluation phase the community needs to

be consulted proactively and the actions and decisions of all stakeholders continually monitored and reviewed in a fully transparent and accountable framework. The Sustainability Guide has been designed to provide this framework.



Section 3: Project Scoping Principles for EfW Projects This section summarises and resolves the outcomes of the national consultative workshops and the issues reviewed in the two previous sections. It presents a series of key project scoping principles (PSPs) that can be used to assess the sustainability of any energy from waste (EfW) project or proposal. The PSPs are fundamental to the use of this Sustainability Guide.

3.1 Introduction to the PSPs

Project scoping principles or PSPs take the guesswork out of assessing the sustainability of an EfW project

3.1.1 The following PSPs have been developed from the national

consultative workshops to provide a recognisable structure for assessing the sustainability of an EfW project. The PSPs aim to:

i) help potential EfW projects be conceived, scoped and structured to optimise the potential of sustainable energy recovery from the appropriate fractions of urban waste whilst minimising or eliminating the potential disadvantages (see 1.3)

ii) provide a common reference for the evaluation of potential projects as they seek to “justify their demand” or acquire their basic “licence to operate” from the community and its duly authorised consent and approval regulators

iii) provide an integrated and structured reference for the ongoing assessment and monitoring of a project or facility that does acquire a community licence to operate.

3.1.2 The process of profiling a project and assessing sustainability

has the following features, which are also shown graphically in Figure 3-1:

i) satisfaction of PSP1 — if it cannot be demonstrated that conversion to recover the calorific value of the materials in question is the most sustainable use of the materials, no further project assessment needs to be undertaken. Whilst this initial assessment may be undertaken by any stakeholder, it is most appropriate for the owner or generator of the waste to undertake it

ii) assessment of optimum conversion pathway — for the materials or resources presenting for recovery of calorific value an iterative framework is proposed that includes evaluation against PSP2–6 within a process that advocates:

a) proactive consultation with the community (see 2.6.3)

b) continuous monitoring of the likely impacts of a proposal and the incorporation of environmental and social externalities at each stage.



The PSPs are designed to streamline the assessment process

The Sustainability Guide proposes that the current waste owner, generator or project developer be responsible for demonstrating the optimum conversion pathway

iii) application for formal consents and approvals — this stage should be greatly simplified for both applicant and consent authority through the demonstration of a general licence to operate from the community.

3.1.3 The proactive and conscientious application of the project

profiling and assessment process shown in Figure 3-1 can reduce the potential for misunderstandings between stakeholders and avoid potential delays due to objections since these may not be raised if the PSPs are used. The process also identifies projects at an early stage which do not demonstrate sustainable resource use. This avoids the considerable time and expense that would be incurred by both applicants and consent authorities if a formal consent or approval process were to be undertaken (see 1.5). In this case the community would be justified in withholding a licence to operate.



Figure 3-1: Assessment Roadmap of Project Scoping Principles

YES

Evaluation of optimumconversion pathway

STOP PROCESSNO

PSP1: Best use of material

PSP2: Optimum conversion

Com

mun

icat

e an

d co

nsul

t

Community licence to operate

Mon

itorin

g an

d in

corp

orat

ion

of e

xter

nalit

ies

PSP4: Control of social outcomes

PSP3: Control of environmental outcomes

PSP5: Assured delivery of commitments

PSP6: Commercial interface



3.2 Profiling EfW Projects and Proposals

The following PSPs and the corresponding assessment process outlined in Figure 3-1 above allows the potential of an actual EfW project to be profiled to provide a qualitative and widely recognised assessment. If this is positive, it can provide a firm basis for a more quantitative assessment as part of any future formal consent, approval and licensing procedure.

3.2.1 The profiling process is based on assessing a project or

proposal against the six PSPs that have been identified as more accurately representing the issues of ESD and community interest.

3.2.2 The commercial assessment that might occur after a project

has achieved a positive assessment against these sustainability criteria is assumed to be an independent process for a project proponent5.

3.2.3 Each of the following PSPs is addressed as follows:

i) PSP title

ii) PSP statement of purpose or objective

iii) explanatory notes to assist assessment

iv) some suggested compliance criteria or approaches

v) qualitative assessment matrix.

3.2.4 The qualitative assessment matrix provides a framework for

comparative evaluation. It is designed to give the stakeholders confidence that the quantitative assessments that will be required during the formal consent or approval processes are appropriate.

5 However, a project that demonstrated a positive sustainability assessment and therefore an important role in delivering a sustainable resource outcome for the community’s urban wastes but failed a standard commercial viability assessment by the project proponent might be a candidate for public support or subsidy as a tangible internalisation of certain ESD externalities.



3.3 PSP1: Best Use of the Available Materials This assessment is best done by the waste owner or generator

3.3.1 The purpose or objective of PSP1 is:

to demonstrate that the application of the urban wastes being considered for conversion for their calorific value represents the most sustainable application of the resources.

3.3.2 Explanatory Notes to Assist Assessment

It is proposed that the following assessment is to be completed for the urban wastes under consideration by their owner or generator. This approach is aimed at both facilitating the acquisition of data and information that will most accurately describe the circumstances of their arising and presentation in their current form, and most directly informing the development of alternative strategies should they emerge as possible or beneficial. An audit and assessment of the materials in question should allow the following profile to be systematically addressed:

i) did the particular urban wastes need to be generated in the first place and is the primary activity or product design justified or could the activity have been altered or amended to avoid generating the waste?

Responses to this very fundamental initial question could have considerable impact on many of the future values and assessment criteria, especially where a point source or specific activity can be identified. For materials such as mixed residual MSW the assessment may be more subjective and could include:

a) justification of demand for the generic product or service

b) attention to sustainability and resource use issues at the point of design or product initiation to achieve the optimum post-consumer fate for the product or service

c) the clean production disciplines



ii) if the production of the wastes was unavoidable and justified, could the volume, toxicity or heterogeneity have been reduced at or before the point of generation?

iii) once a particular urban waste is confirmed and identified, could all or any fraction of the materials have been beneficially directed for some form of reuse, perhaps as a supplement to the original raw materials or related to the original purpose or function?

iv) could all or any of the materials presenting in the confirmed and identified urban waste stream be beneficially directed for recycling into substantially the same originating material (for example, paper-to-paper, glass-to-glass, plastic-polymer-to-plastic-polymer, metal-to-metal)?

v) having reviewed the possibilities in i–iv above, could all or some of the materials in the urban waste be beneficially reprocessed into some other raw material stream or product?

Responses to ii–v above will be much assisted if the research for i above has been thorough and systematic and properly addressed under the headings of clean production and post-consumer planning.

If questions i–v above are answered in the negative, then the calorific value potential needs to be assessed, evaluated and considered before determining the materials' fate of last resort such as the need for stabilisation or treatment to make them suitable for landfill. The following issues and all future decisions will be materially affected by the circumstances of their arising and the rate of availability of the urban wastes in question:

a) geography — where the materials initially arise will materially influence all issues of critical mass, transport and aggregation

b) rate of arising — the materials may arise sporadically, regularly or seasonally or in variable or reliable rates of presentation

c) reliability of presentation — the materials may present as short-, medium- or long-term opportunities

d) quality and content — the auditable quality characteristics of the materials will inform the selection of future processes.

These issues will be vital determinants of the options, scale or viability in the assessment of PSPs 2–6 below.

The consideration of existing or potential markets for resource streams and their availability or saturation must also be included in the assessment in PSP1. However, it should be noted that EfW projects will not prevent other markets for recoverable resource streams developing.



3.3.3 Some Suggested Compliance Criteria or Approaches

The assessment and evaluation of performance against these criteria may never be an exact science, but the ultimate granting or declining of a community licence to operate may never be able to be objectively determined either. The task is to demonstrate that the key issues and criteria have been systematically and conscientiously addressed and that practical, commonsense, fair and equitable conclusions can and have been drawn. There are emerging assessment tools that might be adopted in whole or in part to provide greater levels of assurance and certainly in certain circumstances. These include:

• life cycle assessment (LCA)

• materials flux analysis (MFA)

• environmental accounting

• risk assessment

• general research and best practice benchmarking. However, the adoption of these tools will still require value judgements and artificial boundary or process parameter determinations. As such, they need to be used with careful consideration of their effects on the more intuitive and subjective opinions of the general community. This Sustainability Guide suggests that the current waste generator be responsible for the structured responses to these criteria, since they are best placed to influence the outcomes. This is especially valid in an EPR context6.

6 Assessment at this fundamental and initial stage highlights the important link between design intent at the product initiation stage with the range and serviceability of systematically available options for both the by-products from the production process and the post-consumer fate of the products or packaging themselves. The urban wastes that are the subject of this Sustainability Guide arise as by-products of the productive processes as well as post-consumer discards. The interface between designing products and services sustainably and sensitively for a secondary resource or post-consumer fate that cannot be provided is as wasteful as providing secondary resource recovery services that are sub-optimised by inconsiderately designed products or packaging (eg. making a “recyclable” soap container that although made of cardboard, has a metal spout, a plastic handle and non-recyclable coating). The concepts of extended producer responsibility (EPR) and/or product stewardship (PS) have a direct and causal relationship with the (usually government) role of waste management planning or secondary resource recovery, reaggregation and systematic value recovery. The provision of EfW options and facilities should be seen as providing for the recovery of the most sustainable inherent energy values from materials that were specifically designed or made available for such a fate.



3.3.4 Qualitative Assessment Matrix

Because of the importance of granting a community licence to operate, the responses to these criteria must be sufficiently well developed and communicated to allow reasonable assessment.

Table 3-1: PSP1 Qualitative Assessment Matrix

Assessment Issue Yes or not

applicable (N/A)

No Provisional

i) Is there justification for the generic product or service that generated the urban wastes in question?

ii) Has sustainable resource management been adequately addressed at the point of product initiation or design?

iii) Have the clean production disciplines been conscientiously observed and implemented up to the point of consumption?

iv) Has resource value been optimised throughout the supply chain to create the opportunity for optimal reuse, recycling and reprocessing?

v) Are the resultant wastes unavoidable? A yes or N/A response to each question should facilitate a simple response to the next stage (see

Table 3-2). Any no response would suggest a review of the circumstances that drew that response since if they

are left unaltered these issues are likely to feature prominently in any future consent or approval process.

Any provisional responses may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.

Table 3-2: PSP1 Evaluation Matrix

Assessment Issue Yes No Provisional In light of the quality of the information provided and the above responses, on balance has the case been sustained that the materials in question have no higher resource value than to be converted for their calorific value?

A yes response would suggest that a move to PSPs 2–6 was appropriate. A no response would indicate that a move to PSPs 2–6 was unlikely to be worthwhile. A provisional response would indicate that a move to PSPs 2–6 might be appropriate, especially if

very positive results could be expected from future assessments. However, a systematic review of the suitability of the apparently available materials for conversion to energy might be more rewarding.



3.4 PSP2: Selection of the Optimum Conversion Pathway


to demonstrate that the selected process and pathway for the conversion of the urban wastes for their calorific value are the optimum ones for the available materials.


i) A sub-optimal or inefficient conversion process and pathway represents wasted resource value. Wasted resource value represents unsustainability and is to be avoided on both environmental and economic grounds.

ii) The concept of the conversion pathway reflects the geography of the initial arising of the wastes in question and requires consideration of the costs and impacts of any future transport or aggregation to attain critical mass or access to a suitable conversion process (see 3.3.2 a). Where conversion to electric power is being considered, future power transmission issues have an impact on the final determination of the optimum result.

iii) Urban wastes usually present as a mixture of different materials with quite different conversion characteristics such as different flash points, ash content and optimum combustion and burn-out properties. There will even be differing moisture levels and inert contaminants within each of the constituent materials. In these circumstances the selection of the conversion process will need to reflect these complexities.

iv) Optimal conversion efficiency may be best demonstrated where both heat and power recovery are achieved (cogeneration). Conversion efficiency may be expressed simply as operational efficiency; that is, the useful output of energy divided by the total energy input. At a more complex level, issues such as fuel processing and pathway and transport activities need to be considered and compared with locally available energy sources or alternatives.

v) Feedstock preparation can play a role in:

a) narrowing the range of optimisation for the selected process

b) demonstrating control of impurities and contaminants

c) providing evidence that any higher value materials have been identified and recovered

d) providing first order value-adding to materials that are identified for future transport and aggregation to larger scale and more efficient facilities.



3.4.3 A three-stage iterative review process is proposed as shown in

Figure 3-2:

Figure 3-2: PSP2 – Iterative review process

i) feedstock characterisation — the initial supply of urban waste has been identified in PSP1. The characteristics of this material need to be recorded as to:

a) geography — where the materials initially arise or present as an opportunity for assessment and potential resource recovery

b) rate of arising — the volume or quantity of the urban wastes available for assessment

c) reliability of presentation — the seasonability or fluctuations in the availability of the materials including a review of the short-, medium- and long-term prospects for the continued generation of the urban wastes

d) quality and content — a physical and biochemical analysis of the materials including a review of potential changes over time (see c above).

A review of these characteristics will enable an initial needs analysis to be completed that will describe the development of an optimum process specification to accommodate the conversion of the available materials for their calorific value

required to justify demand

Provisionally acceptable

Assessment Matrix 3.4.4

Efficiency / impact improvement

Feedstock characterisation

Process / facility selection

Efficiency / impact assessment



ii) conversion pathway, process, facility and site selection — a range of issues will need to be assessed and reassessed to identify the best fit with the needs analysis and process specification developed in i above including, but not limited to:

a) on-site, local and embedded facilities — these facilities or processes would include either new or existing facilities that are suitable to convert the specific materials in question and could include systems mentioned in Section 2.5 (see 2.5.3 iii)

b) regional facilities — these facilities, also outlined in Section 2.5, will require a transport or transmission factor to be considered, and may represent an opportunity to aggregate the materials to improve economies of scale or improve the profile of all or any of the factors set out in 3.4.3 i a, b, c and d above

c) site selection — the selection of a specific site for the project is an important consideration and, in particular, its proximity to resource supply and the community

d) sole, alternative or supplementary feed — the materials might be converted as a sole feed to a new or existing process, as an alternative to some existing feed or as a supplement to an existing feed into a new or existing conversion process

e) process track record and reliability — any conversion pathway or specific process in any of the above combinations needs to be assessed for innovation, its track record in similar service, its reliability and general ability to deliver proven and acceptable outcomes

iii) efficiency and impact assessment — this process may be conducted iteratively as different combinations of i and ii above are considered. Both qualitative and quantitative items will need to be included.

Eventually the efficiency of the proposed process compared with alternative sources of energy locally and the impacts (PSPs 3, 4, 5 and 6) will need to be presented in a format and with a level of community credibility which allows reasonable and informed members of the community sufficient justification for granting a community licence to operate. The presentation of an audit trail of the research and assessment undertaken to establish the efficiency and impact values is therefore recommended



iv) iterative development of options — after an initial assessment as described in i and ii above, the results at iii may appear sub-optimal, in which case other options may be considered to improve the outcomes, such as:

a) aggregation with other urban wastes — in this situation other sources of materials that can pass the evaluation criteria for PSP1 might be identified that improve the rate and reliability of arising issues and/or quality and content characteristics. Aggregation might involve the original materials being transported to a regional facility or regionally sourced materials being aggregated at the original location

b) transport and transmission issues — aggregation involves net process efficiency and impact criteria to reflect the transport costs and impacts and, in the case of energy generators, future transmission costs and losses

c) review of conversion pathway and process options — following a needs analysis and process specification revised by research into a) and b) above, the amended situation will require a review of the conversion pathway and process options before a revised efficiency and impact assessment is undertaken

d) assessment of impacts in relation to the receiving environment — this should be done bearing in mind the specific conditions and characteristics of the local or receiving environment since impacts such as emissions to air, water or land, traffic, noise, job creation and local commerce will all be regionally specific.




This proposed assessment process assumes that sufficient iterations of the review of 3.4.3 i, ii and iii have occurred independently to provide the basis for the following assessment.



applicable (N/A)

No Provisional

i) Has the potential feedstock characterisation occurred to a level of certainty sufficient to objectively scope future conversion pathway and process options?

ii) Have issues of potential feedstock aggregation been considered to a level that is sufficient to objectively scope future conversion pathway and process options and consider additional transport and transmission issues?

iii) Has feedstock preparation and pre-treatment been thoroughly evaluated in the development of the proposed conversion pathway and process especially in regard to improving logistics, efficiency and impacts?

iv) Does the selection of the proposed conversion pathway, process or facility demonstrate a thorough evaluation of all the options within the context of the specific feedstocks available?

A yes or N/A response to each question should facilitate a simple response to the next stage (see Table 3.4).

A no response to any of the questions would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No responses are likely to feature prominently in any future formal consent or approval process.

A provisional response to any of the above questions may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.


Assessment Issue Yes No Provisional In light of the responses and information provided, can a position be sustained that, on balance, the selected conversion pathway and process is the most efficient for the urban wastes in question?

Note The issue of the resultant impacts of the project will be evaluated in PSP3 below.

A yes response would suggest that a move to PSPs 3–6 was appropriate and that preliminary community consultation could proceed on the basis of the information that had been generated from PSPs 1 and 2.

A no response would suggest that further review of the options was required before continuing or that the proposal should proceed no further.

A provisional response would indicate that positive results from PSPs 3–6 could improve the project’s sustainability profile but that the project was unlikely to satisfy a formal consent or approval process in its current form.



3.5 PSP3: Control of Environmental Impacts and Outcomes


to demonstrate that the selected conversion pathway and process and management systems will provide control of all environmental impacts and outcomes.


i) Unless they are separated at their source, urban wastes almost by definition usually present as mixed and indeterminate.

ii) Conversion pathways and processes may be adjustable but will tend to be optimised at certain preset process conditions.

iii) Where materials of indeterminate consistency are processed via a consistent process, the outcomes may well be as variable and indeterminate as the original feedstocks.

iv) This variability may be managed by tertiary processes broadly scoped to treat any unacceptable impacts or outcomes as and when they occur. These techniques can be employed in such areas as gas clean-up, water treatment or ash management. However, there is an inherent inefficiency in this approach since it requires a process to be designed and operated at all times, regardless of whether or not the particular impact is present or evident at any particular time. An alternative approach is to pre-treat or pre-process the feedstocks to remove the indeterminate nature of the material before processing or converting them (see 2.5.2 ii and 2.4.4 iii).

v) This Sustainability Guide advocates the pre-treatment or fuel preparation route since it has the greatest potential to provide the greatest level of impact control or certainty of outcomes (see 2.4.4 iii). Fuel preparation by mechanical, manual or automated systems to produce a product to a defined specification that can be made available for direct conversion will not only demonstrate the greatest level of assurance to the community but will allow for a more targeted conversion process design that incorporates management systems to deal with any tertiary impacts.

vi) Fuel preparation can occur at the point of generation as part of the aggregation or logistics network or at the conversion plant itself.

vii) Site availability and selection will be an important factor requiring consideration. Factors to be considered include size, transport access, proximity to the resource, market, community and any sensitive natural surroundings.



viii) The demonstration of appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) systems is essential for satisfaction of this PSP. Some of the poor public perception of energy recovery from wastes originates from environmental impact issues.

Historically incineration was adopted as a disposal-based technology that sought to destroy or reduce the volume and toxicity of urban wastes by intense thermal oxidation, with any energy recovery as a by-product of the main activity (see 2.4). The process accommodated the heterogeneous and indeterminate nature of the wastes. If environmental impacts were recognised as an issue they were dealt with by ever-more complex gas clean-up, water treatment, ash management and OH&S techniques.

ix) The EfW approach in this Sustainability Guide does not advocate the destruction or disposal of urban wastes for their own sake. Rather, it seeks to recover the calorific value from those materials that have no higher resource value than to be managed in this way. A fundamental difference between the two approaches is reflected in the QA/QC procedures adopted. An example of this is the pre-treatment or preparation of available wastes into specified fuel products.

x) EfW projects must adhere to the environmental standards in the state where they operate. These require the management of by-products from EfW projects including ash, char and digestate to comply with relevant standards.

xi) Approaches in this PSP are typical of those that need to be addressed in formal approvals from permitting authorities, facilitating formal interactions when required.


i) In the first instance the potential impacts from a particular

conversion pathway or process will have been defined in evaluation of PSP2 (see 3.4.3 iii).

ii) To demonstrate compliance with this PSP proponents need to:

a) determine that these impacts are acceptable and of a minimum that will sustain project viability

b) demonstrate that if any environmental impacts are accepted as reasonable and in proportion to the benefits that they can be systematically controlled throughout the entire life of the project.

This gives rise to a proposed two-stage iterative review process to satisfy this PSP as shown in Figure 3.2: PSP3 - Iterative review process.




iii) The basis for demonstrated QA/QC may be:

a) strategic

b) mechanical

c) systematic

d) a combination of all three.

In any case, evidence would need to be presented that would lead to conclusion by a suitably informed party carrying out a reasonable assessment concluding that these issues had been thoroughly and conscientiously addressed.


This assessment process assumes that sufficient iterations have occurred between 3.5.3 ii a, b and PSP2, if necessary, to provide the basis for the following assessment.



applicable (N/A)

No Provisional

Are the projected impacts such as emissions and residuals management acceptable as a practical minimum in proportion to the potential benefits and in light of the local, regional or national circumstances?

Has a sufficient level of control of the impacts been demonstrated to ensure that they will be the maximum experienced for the duration of the project?

or not sufficiently controlled

Impacts acceptable and manageable


Impacts unacceptable

Determination of acceptability of impacts as a practical minimum

Demonstration of appropriate QA/QC to ensure the impacts as a maximum possible

PSP2



A yes or N/A response to each question should facilitate a simple response to the next stage (see Table3.6).

A no response to either question would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No responses are likely to feature prominently in any future consent or approval process.

A provisional response to either question may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.


Assessment Issue Yes No Provisional In light of the responses and information provided, can a position be sustained that control of the potential impacts can be maintained for the duration of the project?

A yes response would suggest that a move to PSPs 4–6 was appropriate and that preliminary community consultation could proceed on the basis of the information that had been generated from PSPs 1, 2 and 3.

A no response would suggest that a further review of the control mechanisms was required or that the proposal should proceed no further.

A provisional response would indicate that positive responses to previous or future criteria would be required to provide the level of confidence necessary in a formal consent or approval process.



3.6 PSP4: Control of Social Impacts and Outcomes


to demonstrate that measures are in place to adequately manage social and economic impacts for the duration of the project.


i) The establishment of an EfW project, whether embedded,

local or regional in scale and whether adopting new or existing conversion facilities, can have social and/or economic impacts on the community. These impacts might include:

a) concern over direct environmental impacts such as:

• emissions to air

• emissions to water

• emissions to land

• biodiversity and ecotoxicity concerns

• traffic issues

• increased noise profile

• greenhouse issues

• odour

• dust

• vermin and vectors (see 3.5)

b) employment and training issues

c) OH&S issues

d) local amenity issues and aesthetics

e) commercial effects locally, regionally and nationally

f) pricing signals, effects on other programs (e.g. recycling)

g) delivery of genuinely sustainable resource management outcomes

h) offsets and community infrastructure.



ii) Many of these issues and impacts will be weighted

differently in different locations and circumstances and depend on site availability and selection. Different views or perspectives can arise from local, regional and larger scale community interests. For example, a remote rural application may value the employment and commercial benefits more highly but consider impacts of traffic and amenity more negatively. The measurement of net environmental impacts will also be a direct result of considering the totality of the effects within the context of the receiving environment.

iii) Many of these impacts such as b, d, e, f and g above

may be observed positively as well as negatively and a community licence to operate may be granted as a result of various representations or understandings on these issues. The objective of this PSP is to ensure that the project is structured so that it can demonstrate an ability to manage and deliver the anticipated social outcomes.

3.6.3 Some Suggested Compliance Criteria or Approaches i) The direct anticipated environmental impacts will have

been established in PSP3. However, the concern will be best managed by a structured program of communication, education and engagement conducted in a participatory, accountable and transparent manner.

This dialogue must be genuinely informative since the objective of sustainable resource use requires responsible decision-making by all stakeholders (see 2.6).

ii) Where a new project has the potential to influence local employment or training opportunities, some measure of assurance needs to be provided that these expectations are realistic.

iii) A monitorable OH&S plan needs to be presented to give confidence that the projected OH&S outcomes will be achieved.

iv) Similarly, an environmental monitoring program needs to be presented to demonstrate commitment to responsible environmental management throughout the life of the project.

v) Process pathway and conversion facility designs need to be sufficiently advanced to allow the community to make fully informed decisions as to local amenity and aesthetics.

vi) Pricing signals for the maintenance and promotion of sustainable resource use are addressed in PSP6. However, new developments will have effects, especially in the local area. These impacts need to be sufficiently defined to allow objective assessment.



vii) The social issues and impacts can be the most subjective

or difficult to define or satisfy and yet they may be the very issues that most materially affect the granting of the community licence to operate. For this reason, proactive, informed and sensitive consultation is recommended to ensure the greatest level of common understanding before decisions are made.

viii) In the case of compensatory offers such as the provision of sporting or recreational facilities donations or ongoing royalties, transparency and accountability are vital, as is confirmation of the ability to deliver on behalf of the party making the offer.

ix) The objective of this PSP is to demonstrate that the social and economic impacts:

a) have been adequately described and quantified

b) are acceptable to the community

c) can be controlled or delivered in substantially the form described for the life of the project.


This simple assessment process assumes that sufficient iterations have occurred between 3.6.3 viii a, b and other PSPs as required.


or not sufficiently controlled

Impacts acceptable and manageable


Impacts unacceptable

Determination and acceptability of the social and economic impacts

Demonstration that the social and economic impacts are acceptable to the host community

PSP2

Demonstration that control of the impacts can be delivered as described





applicable (N/A)

No Provisional

i) Have the social and economic impacts been adequately determined and identified?

ii) Is there evidence that the anticipated social and economic impacts are acceptable to the determining community?

iii) Can it be demonstrated that control exists to deliver the impacts as described or better?

A yes or N/A response to each question should facilitate a simple response to the next stage (see Table 3-8).

A no response to either question would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No responses are likely to feature prominently in any future consent or approval process.

A provisional response to either question may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.


Assessment Issue Yes No Provisional In light of the above responses and the quality of the information provided, can a position be sustained that acceptability and control of the social and economic impacts can be maintained for the duration of the project?

A yes response would suggest that a move to PSPs 5–6 was appropriate and that preliminary community consultation could proceed on the basis of the information that had been generated from PSPs 1, 2, 3 and 4.

A no response would suggest that a further review of the control mechanisms was required or that the proposal should proceed no further.

A provisional response would indicate that positive responses to previous or future criteria would be required to provide the level of confidence necessary in a formal consent or approval process.



3.7 PSP5: Assurance of Project Commitments


to demonstrate that the environmental, social and economic commitments defined at the initiation of the project are understood and delivered over the life of the project.


i) One major community concern identified has been the

monitoring of the project after the consent to operate has been given. Under the spotlight of a formal consultation, consent or approval process, adequate undertakings or assurances may have been provided but a concern may remain as to whether these undertakings or assurances would be maintained for the life of the project once the initial focus was dissipated and over time. In the absence of these confirmations, the community may be likely to withhold the community licence to operate, forgoing the immediate benefits because of the prospect of medium- to long-term disadvantages. There is therefore a need for the project proponent or formal consent authority to provide or insist on safeguards for the life of the project.

ii) Commitments for the life of the project need to include an eventual closure and site remediation plan so that in the event of circumstances that cause the closure of the project the physical remnants would not be orphaned or left as an unfunded public liability. The proponent's commitments also need to include an undertaking to respond to complaints promptly (e.g. within 24 hours), hold open days and publish community information newsletters and so on.

iii) In the event that a project produces unexpected and unacceptable consequences or that the initial undertakings in regard to foreseen impacts have not been managed appropriately, there is a need for transparent mechanisms by which the situation can be redressed.

3.7.3 Some Suggested Compliance Criteria or Approaches i) The proponent needs to demonstrate that they are a

respected corporate citizen with sufficient means to deliver the project within anticipated timelines.

ii) The formal consent authorities need to note all legitimate community concerns and ensure that the terms and conditions of consent contain mechanisms that will provide the level of monitoring and control appropriate for the circumstances.



i) The proposed strategies, programs and actions that are

developed to demonstrate compliance with this PSP need to be transparent and monitorable during the life of the project and might include:

a) by the proponent: • International Standards Organisation (ISO)

14000 accreditation • public reporting through

• Public Environmental Reporting (PER) (Environment Australia website)

• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) • Triple Bottom Line (TBL) • National Pollution Inventory (NPI)

• information dissemination by: • website • newsletters • annual reports • regular open days

b) by the formal consent authority: • compliance audits of consent conditions • contractual commitments.

Note Where any specific environmental impact internalisation

mechanisms such as renewable energy certificates (RECs) or carbon credits exist, the auditing and verification process by the issuer of the tradable certificate should provide one more level of assurance in this regard.




Given that the environmental, social and economic impacts will have been identified in PSPs 3 and 4, compliance with PSP5 ca be assessed by applying Table 3-9.



applicable (N/A)

No Provisional

i) Is the proponent a respected corporate citizen with sufficient means to undertake the proposed project?

ii) Have strategies, programs or actions been proposed that if fully and transparently implemented would provide the level of assurance required for the granting of a licence to operate by the community?

iii) Have the formal consent authorities shown sufficient regard to these long-term issues in the development and imposition of the consent conditions for the project?

iv) Does the proponent have sufficient financial resources or the ability to obtain these resources in order to provide financial assurance for closure and remediation if necessary?

A yes or N/A response to each question should facilitate a simple response to the next stage (see Table 3-10).

A no response to any question would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No responses are likely to feature prominently in any future consent or approval process.

A provisional response to any question may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.


Assessment Issue Yes No Provisional In light of the above responses and the quality of the information provided, can it be reasonably determined that the level of environmental, social and economic impacts, positive and negative, deemed both desirable and acceptable at the commencement of the project will be delivered and monitored over the life of the project?

A yes response would support the continued development of the project. A no response would suggest that a further review of the proposed assurance mechanisms was

required or that the proposal should proceed no further. A provisional response would indicate that positive responses to previous or future criteria would be

required to provide the level of confidence necessary in a formal consent or approval process.



3.8 PSP6: Management of the Commercial Interface


to demonstrate that the structuring of the project to achieve commercial viability does not compromise the inherent sustainability achieved by observance of the other PSPs.


This PSP addresses many of the issues that normally would be part of the continuous and iterative monitoring and incorporation of the sustainability externalities shown in Figure 4.1. However, certain key issues can be identified as needing particular attention.

i) The commercial and financial realities for a project must achieve the prescribed returns and outcomes within the risk profile acceptable to the proponent. However, the achievement of these commercial and financial outcomes should not be at the expense of the strategic and sustainable resource use requirements that created the potential for the project in the first instance.

ii) Supply issues — a facility that can efficiently and safely recover the calorific value from selected urban waste streams may be complex and capital-intensive and the commercial viability of a project is likely to depend on a reliable supply of waste to justify the capital investment for the project (see PSPs 2, 3 and 4). However, the paradox is that sustainable resource use aims to reduce these waste streams to zero wherever possible or practical. Therefore, an EfW facility needs to have the flexibility to take these materials as and when they become available as residuals after all other higher value outcomes have been reviewed (see PSP1). On the other hand, the facility owner, operator or converter may require a fixed and contracted minimum to be provided to justify the project. This can be problematic and needs to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with the philosophies of the Sustainability Guide while simultaneously considering the commercial underpinning of the project.



iii) Energy availability issues — energy (heat or power)

generated from urban wastes, even as a minor fraction of the total fuel consumed has the potential to fail the “improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources” test for sustainability (see Annexure F (d)). If the energy value is not fully appreciated, there is a danger that unsustainable pricing signals could present downstream. For example:

a) electricity could be generated at a lower cost than by the alternative or sustainable options and could lead to unsustainable power consumption (because of the low cost)

b) fuel could be supplied for process heat at a significant discount to the existing alternative (e.g. coal) to the extent that either marginal or inefficient operations could be retained or product costs could be “artificially” lowered to promote excessive use of energy or negatively impact on demand management programs.

While these issues may not feature strongly in the evaluation and assessment of a project or proposal, they are important considerations for demonstrating attention to detail when seeking a community licence to operate.

iv) Miscellaneous issues and commercial signals — within the broad context of the feedstock and energy supply issues discussed in ii and iii above, the following lesser issues could impact on the sustainability outcomes if they are handled inappropriately during the development of a commercial framework for a project or proposal.

a) The volume and content of urban wastes that satisfy PSP1 will alter continuously and need to be addressed in proposals. It may be necessary for conversion pathways and facilities to avoid levels of specialisation that cannot accommodate this sort of variability.

b) Long-term commitments of, say, up to 25 years need to be considered carefully by potential suppliers because these sorts of commitments could eventually have the effect of absorbing materials with a higher resource value. Where long-term commitments are not provided the supplier must recognise the offsetting increases in processing costs that need to be borne in order to allow the developer to make a reasonable risk-weighted rate of return.



c) The provision of or access to suitable EfW

conversion pathways and facilities need to be part of an integrated suite of options to support optimum resource use outcomes in general, especially as support for whole-of-life planning programs at the point of product initiation and design (this relates to the parallel issues of EPR, lightweighting, post-consumer planning and by-product optimisation).

d) Putrescible urban wastes that could satisfy PSP1 might require immediate processing as a treatment or stabilisation function. This could trouble the orderly observance of this PSP.


i) Some waste supply, fuel demand and energy need issues can be addressed logistically by the fuel preparation approach. By this method urban wastes that satisfy PSP1 are received at a process engineered fuel (PEF) facility as and when they are available and converted into specified and stabilised fuel or energy products immediately. These fuel or energy products would be produced to the specifications required by future energy converters and could be supplied to them as and when required to meet their quite independent, future market demands. This approach would enable the PEF manufacturer to access a range of sources as the basis of production and still provide supply certainty to the end user.

ii) It is important to avoid an overly dependent relationship between the supplier and converter. The converter might manage supply assurance issues by having a range of PEF supplies and/or suppliers. Furthermore, by having a backup supply of fossil fuels, the PEFs are supplementary. This places the PEF product as supplementary or alternative fuel, for conversion as available, as opposed to threatening compliance with this PSP.

iii) Other approaches could involve:

a) modularity

b) process flexibility or turndown capacity

c) a fixed or variable component in the supply agreement. The balancing of base demand versus spot prices.



3.8.4 Qualitative Assessment Matrix Table 3-11: PSP6 Qualitative Assessment Matrix

Assessment Issue Yes No Provisional Have the commercial arrangements for the proposal or project been developed to support and reinforce the sustainability criteria of all other PSPs?

A yes response would support the continued development of the project. A no response would suggest that a further review of the proposed assurance mechanisms was

required or that the proposal should proceed no further. A provisional response would indicate that positive responses to previous or future criteria would be

required to provide the level of confidence necessary in a formal consent or approval process.



Section 4: The Assessment Tools

Assessment Roadmap

YES

Evaluation of optimumconversion pathway

STOP PROCESSNO

PSP1: Best use of material

PSP2: Optimum conversion

Com

mun

icat

e an

d co

nsul

t

Community licence to operate

Mon

itorin

g an

d in

corp

orat

ion

of e

xter

nalit

ies

PSP4: Control of social outcomes

PSP3: Control of environmental outcomes

PSP5: Assured delivery of commitments

PSP6: Commercial interface



Section 5: Glossary Aggregate/aggregation Collect materials together with a view to create a critical mass

for a subsequent operation or activity Anaerobic digestion (AD) The decomposition of biologically unstable organic materials by

micro-organisms specifically suited for an oxygen depleted (free) environment. The primary products of AD are an energy rich (methane) biogas and a biologically stable residue (digestate).

Ash The mineral or inorganic residue of a (complete) combustion process

Avoidance A waste management strategy that seeks to avoid the generation of the waste in the first instance

Bagasse The residual woody stem material that results from the process to recover the sugar content from sugar cane

Beneficiation The further improvement by quality of a material stream to specifically meet end user requirements and specifications

Biogas The off gas produced from the anaerobic digestion or decomposition of biologically unstable materials. Such conditions might be created naturally, or in a landfill or in-vessel in an AD facility.

Biomass Total quantity or weight of organisms in a given area Bioreactor Landfill A landfill where the rate of anaerobic decomposition is

specifically managed and accelerated to increase the generation of biogas and to accelerate landfill stabilisation.

Calorific value The energy value per unit mass (or volume) that is released by a material in combustion, normally measured in mega-joules per kilogram (MJ/kg) or giga-joules per tonne (GJ/t).

Char Carbon material that remains after the incomplete combustion of biomass, for example, charcoal is left after the incomplete combustion of wood.

Clean(er) production The management technique that seeks to minimise or eliminate the environmental impacts of manufacturing or productive processes with particular emphasis on presenting unavoidable offcuts, surpluses or residues as useful by-products (for subsequent use) rather than as (mixed) or negatively valued wastes.

Community licence to operate The consensual agreement of the general community to

sanction a particular (industrial) activity in their geographical area of concern

Consent or approval process The prevailing landuse and planning authorities manage a structured process whereby industrial or productive activities require prescribed consents, approvals or licences for initial establishment and ongoing operations

Digestate The digested output from an anaerobic digester



Energy from waste (EfW) An approach to resource recovery that focuses on maximising

the amount of energy that can be recovered from materials that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill through a variety of energy recovery technologies (contrast with waste to energy).

Energy recovery technologies Energy recovery technologies refer to a technology or

methodology that seeks to recover the calorific value of a material

Environmental externalities The range of environmental impacts (positive and negative) that are not brought to account in conventional market based accounting systems. This results in a market failure in that the true cost of a given activity is not reflected in the market price of the good or service.

Highest Resource Value The highest market value of a particular resource after accounting for both the costs of recovery or beneficiation for such a use and after fully accounting for any relevant environmental externalities

Initial arising The first point at which a waste stream or by-product presents in the value chain requiring an appropriate logistic response

Lignocellulosic Lignocellulose is the combination of lignin, hemicellulose and

cellulose that forms the structural framework of plant cell walls. Here lignocellulosic materials are used to describe wood, garden organics (greenwaste) and other wood derived products such as paper.

Methane A colourless, odourless and flammable gas that is created by the decay of organic matter. It is the chief component of natural gas and biogas (C2H4)

Monofill The practice of using landfill as a storage receptacle for source separated and homogenous materials such as tyres.

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OH&S Occupational Health & Safety Process engineered fuels (PEFs) Refers to fuels that are manufactured from selected materials

that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill. They are quality controlled, relatively homogeneous and are produced fit for purpose use in a cement kiln or power station. Sometimes PEF is also referred to as Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF).

PSP Project scoping principles Reduce See Avoidance Recycling The act of reclaiming resources from materials that would

otherwise be disposed of to landfill for the purposes of reprocessing into either the same or similar products (direct recycling) or into different product types altogether (indirect recycling).

Residual urban wastes The residual material that cannot be avoided and that is unable to be re-used or recycled.



Reuse An activity that re-uses any given material or product for

essentially the same original purpose in the same original form. Secondary resource A grouping noun for materials recovered from waste streams

that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill. Waste Any material that has no further use to the owner (perceived or

real) and arises from:

i) By-product of manufacture or resource extraction,

ii) Off-cuts, over runs, out of specification materials in manufacture and assembly,

iii) End of service life product,

iv) Broken, obsolete or unwanted product. Waste hierarchy The name given to a hierarchical approach to resource use and

recovery that states that the best outcome is to Avoid the generation of the waste in the first instance, then to Re-use and Recycle and unavoidable wastes, followed by Treatment and Energy Recovery. Landfill is only used as a measure of last resort.

Waste minimisation There are three interpretations of Waste Minimisation:

i) The goal of minimising the generation of all waste as an end in and of itself (see also Waste Avoidance),

ii) A tool to achieve sustainability outcomes by looking for opportunities within manufacturing or consuming to minimse the generation of unnecessary waste,

iii) A grouping term that covers all resource recovery activities such as re-use and recycling, because in becoming a resource the “waste” is minimised.

Waste to energy (WtE) Waste to energy is a waste management approach where the focus is on material destruction and where energy recovery is a by-product. This style of approach is best evidenced by mass burn incineration (contrast with energy from waste).



Section 6: Appendixes

Appendix A Working Group Members

Appendix B Reference Group Members

Appendix C Sponsors

Appendix D Stakeholder Workshops and Results

Appendix E Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development

Appendix F Literature Review



Appendix A – Working Group Members The Working Group retained editorial control of the project and overall project delivery as to quality, time and budget.

Name Organisation

Mark Glover (Chair) Renewed Fuels Pty Ltd

Ron Wainberg (Treasurer) NSW Branch WMAA

Matthew Warnken (Project Manager) Warnken ISE

Jeff Angel Total Environment Centre

Stephen Schuck Bioenergy Australia

Tony Wright Wright Corporate Strategy

Neil Chapman Resource NSW

Graeme Jessup SEDA

Raymond Kidd Department of the Environment and Heritage

Jenny Pickles / Cathy Van der Zee EcoRecycle Victoria

David Moy Qld Branch WMAA, Qld University

Fraser Bell SA Branch WMAA, Finlaysons

Carinda Rue / Iain Williams Tas Branch WMAA, DPIWE

Lillias Bovell WA Branch WMAA, WA Department of Environmental Protection

Yolande Stone (Observer) Planning NSW



Appendix B – Reference Group Members The Reference Group was established to peer-review and critique the initial draft of both the Sustainability Guide and the Code of Practice. The commitment of the Reference Group members was documented by individually signed Consent to Act forms (see attached forms). Formal submissions were received from 22 of the original 51 members of the Reference Group (see table below).

The comments from the review process were assessed by the Working Group and included as deemed appropriate. It should be emphasised that there was a degree of diversity within the comments, ranging from strong support to strong opposition. Thus, the list of contributors should not be taken as an endorsement of the Sustainability Guide by either the individual or the organisation listed below.

Name OrganisationCraig Midson Australian Greenhouse OfficeStephen Joseph Biomass Energy Services & TechnologyMark Hipgrave Brightstar Environmental (Qld)Don Chambers C4ES Patricia Nicholls C4ES Kathryn Turner Cement Industry FederationJoe Lunardello City of MonashAllan Pilcher Country EnergySara Beavis CRES, Australian National UniversityGriff Rose CVC Reef IMBrett Corderoy Delta ElectricityGraham Spalding Department of Environment Waste Management Branch Clinton Watkins Development Manager & Economist - EcoCarbon Incorporated Toby Hutcheon EcomattersGreg Watt Energy Futures AustraliaLouise Drolz Environment Business AustraliaJohn Lawson Global Renewables LtdMichael Clarke Griffith UniversityRussell Wade IndividualNick Orr IndividualCraig Fraser IndividualNeil Rose Maroondah City CouncilChristine Wardle MeinhardtPeter Brotherton National Environmental Consultative ForumSharon Denny Office of Energy & Treasury (Qld)Nigel Green Office of Environment & Heritage, NT GovernmentDavid Rossiter Office of the Renewable Energy RegulatorShani Bienefelt Pantechnicon Peter Goggin PEG Business SolutionsJohn Sparkes Planning NSWJoanna Missen PPK Kylie Hughes Queensland Environmental Protection AgencyAmy Hogan Queensland Environmental Protection AgencyTim Powe Queensland Environmental Protection AgencyNeil Chapman Resource NSWMarc Stammbach Rethmann Australia Environmental Services Andrew Thaler scrapp.comChris Pickering Stanwell Corporation LimitedGabrielle Henry Sustainable Energy Authority (VIC)John Hewitson Teris (Aust)Andrew Brownlow Terra ConsultingDon White University of Sydney - Department of Chemical Engineering Lynne Forster University of TasmaniaDenis James Visy RecyclingMohan Selvaraj Waste Service NSWTerry Carter Western Power CorporationPaul Oakes Worley Developments



WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA NSW BRANCH

Energy from Waste Division 62 Brook Street COOGEE NSW 2034 Telephone: 02 9664 5552 Facsimile: 02 9665 9423 Email: [email protected] Web: www.wmaa.asn.au/efw/home.html

Energy from Waste Sustainability Project

Reference Group Consent to Act Form The Energy from Waste Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA), received grant funding from the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) to prepare an Energy from Waste (EfW) Sustainability Guide and complementary Industry Code of Practice for the EfW industry. Drafts of these documents have been completed and are now ready for circulation to the Reference Group.

The main role of the Reference Group is to act as the primary body of review for the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice. It is anticipated that in addition to an individual review, members of the Reference Group will also solicit input, comment and feedback from their respective members/constituency/colleagues on draft documents and then channel this information back to the Working Group. The general duties of the Reference Group include:

• Reviewing draft documentation from the perspective of the organisation being represented and the wider stakeholder group,

• Checking of any technical data where relevant,

• Providing written comment to the Working Group by the due date required (14 May 2003), and through a template that will be supplied by the Project Manager,

• Indicating the level of “sign-off” that the member (individually or on behalf of an organisation) would be prepared to offer in support of the final publications,

• Disseminating the final publications throughout existing networks.

It should be noted that the Working Group does not necessarily undertake to include verbatim all of the written submissions received from the Reference Group into the final publication. The Working Group will, however, undertake to consider these views and to strive to reach a consensus position.

Membership on the Reference Group is honorary and has been initiated by application or nomination to the Working Group. By signing this “Consent to Act” form the Reference Group member offers to participate on the Reference Group and agrees to undertake the duties that are outlined above. A list of participating Reference Group members will be maintained on the EfW Division’s website.

Name: Date:

Signature: Phone:

Organisation Represented: Fax:

Please sign, date and fax this form back to 02 9571 4900



Appendix C – Sponsors Australian Greenhouse Office Renewed Fuels Cement Industry Federation QLD Environmental Protection Agency Resource NSW SA Environmental Protection Agency SEDA NSW Waste Service NSW Babcock & Brown Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria C4ES Delta Electricity CS Energy Global Renewables Department of the Environment and Heritage CVC Reef Novera Energy Recycling and Recovery Industries Stanwell Corporation


Appendix D – Stakeholder Workshops and Results

The summary below of the stakeholder workshops and results is taken from the report “Energy from Waste Sustainability Project - Summary of Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes” which was prepared by Warnken ISE Pty Ltd and can be downloaded in its entirety from: http://www.wmaa.asn.au/efw/Final%20Summary.pdf

Introduction

Energy from Waste (EfW) is often perceived to be no more than poorly disguised incineration and a technology that both destroys resources and creates pollution. However, EfW can present a viable solution for recovering resources that would otherwise be lost to landfill, while at the same time reducing the use of fossil fuels for our energy sources.

The EfW Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia responded to the need for guidance to resolve this potential conflict by launching the Energy from Waste Sustainability Project. This project received the support of Commonwealth Government funding through the Australian Greenhouse Office, in addition to receiving support from fifteen industry and government bodies.

The Sustainability Project aimed to develop two support documents:

1. A Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects; and

2. An Energy from Waste (EfW) Industry Code of Practice.

The intention was that the Sustainability Guide would provide a framework around which the dialogue and debate on Energy from Waste issues could occur. In particular the Guide would:

• Provide an agreed basis of evaluation for EfW projects,

• Provide a starting point for community involvement,

• Provide a design template for EfW project design, development and implementation.

In doing this it was anticipated that the overall impact of the Guide would be to assist projects in maximising the benefits while minimising or avoiding any negative impacts of EfW.

The development of an Industry Code of Practice was seen a necessary step to ensure industry commitment to meeting the principles put forward in the Sustainability Guide.

In order to gain stakeholder input on the issues that would form the “backbone” of these documents, a total of eighteen stakeholder workshops were held across eleven locations in Australia during the months of September, October and November 2002.

Warnken Industrial and Social Ecology Pty Ltd, as the project manager for the Energy from Waste Sustainability Project, were contracted to organise and facilitate the workshops, document workshop outcomes and prepare an overall summary document of major themes emerging from the workshops.

This document provides an overview of the outcomes from those workshops. Section 2 outlines the process that was involved in the running of the workshops, Section 3 groups the workshop outcomes according to framing considerations for EfW and then under the three “legs” of ecologically sustainable development, namely, Social, Political and Legislative considerations,


Environmental aspects and Techno-economic issues. A selection of quotes from the workshop reports are presented in call out boxes to illustrate the flavour of participant input.

Section 4 details suggestions for the Sustainability Guide, in particular changes to the draft framework of project scoping principles that the Working Group had developed prior to the workshops and Section 5 presents the issues and suggestions regarding an Energy from Waste Industry Code of Practice.

The Process As was stated, the aim of the stakeholder consultation was to ensure that both the positive and negative aspects of Energy from Waste (EfW) projects were captured to assist the development of the Sustainability Guide. In order to deliver against this project requirement broad-based stakeholder workshops were convened in eleven cities and towns across Australia. A complete listing of the workshop dates and venues can be found in Annexure 1.

Two sets of workshops were hosted at seven of the “larger” locations, namely the broad-based morning stakeholder workshop, and a smaller invitational “expert” workshop. In this section we describe how these two sets of workshops were run and the outputs they delivered. These outputs are synthesised in this report.

Advertising of the process To ensure that as wide a possible range of stakeholders was represented at the morning workshops the following methods of advertising were used:

• Newspapers advertisements in local, regional and state papers,

• Magazine articles and advertisements,

• Email newsletters,

• Media releases to newspapers and ABC radio,

• Email alerts through association distribution lists,

• Internet sites.

Interested parties were invited to register for the morning stakeholder workshops online. Representation at the smaller afternoon workshops was by invitation only. Invitation lists were compiled with input from the local Working Group member and through a review of the online registrations. In some instances a general invitation was also made to workshop participants on the day.

In total 299 people from thirteen stakeholder groups attended the eleven morning stakeholder workshops, and 71 people attended the afternoon sessions (see Section 2.2.2 for a breakdown of stakeholder participation). From the morning sessions approximately 1,800 flash cards were produced detailing issues (positive and negative) related to EfW. Complete listings of participants attending the workshops and the issues that were raised can be found in the specific workshop reports, downloadable from the EfW Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia homepage.

www.wmaa.asn.au/efw/home.html


Stakeholder Workshops Stakeholder workshops were run over a morning session of three hours. The aim of these sessions was to ensure that all the concerns and perceptions of the stakeholders present were captured. To this end these sessions focussed on issue identification only, no attempt was made to reach consensus on issues raised.

Summary of Process The morning sessions started with an introduction to the project, to ensure, as far as possible that all people present were presenting issues relative to a consistent basis. The attendees self-selected into smaller groups, run as “Tables” for the workshop. Tables consisted of six or more people, with a maximum of ten per table. Each table had a facilitator who was given support instructions on how to facilitate the process for their table. The participants were invited to spend some time writing their concerns onto flash cards provided. As a group the table then decided on generic groupings for these issues, and recorded these onto overhead transparencies for presentation to the workshop as a whole. The workshop reconvened to allow for presentation of the table discussions.

The tables were also asked to act as a “Citizen’s Jury” and vote on the following issues:

• EfW has no role to play in any form;

• EfW has a role to play but that role is determined on a case by case basis; or

• EfW always has a role to play in any form.

The results of these votes were recorded and presented to the workshop as a whole.

Following the group report back session the draft framework of project scoping principles was presented. An attempt was made to summarise issues identified during the report back session that would need to be addressed within this framework.

Breakdown of Stakeholder Participation Participants who registered online also nominated a stakeholder grouping that best fitted their interest/activities related to Energy from Waste. This breakdown has been used to provide an estimate on the ratios of stakeholder representation amongst workshop attendees and is presented in Table D-1 below.


Table D-1: Breakdown of stakeholder participation

Stakeholder Group %

Academics & Researchers 6%

Consultants 21%

Developers/Technology Providers

7%

Energy Sector 7%

Feedstock - Other Users 1%

Feedstock Providers 3%

Finance Sector 1%

Government Federal 1%

Government Local 24%

Government State 14%

Media 1%

Non Government Organisations 6%

Other 8%

Nature of Outputs All of the flash cards submitted by the workshop attendees were transcribed after the workshop. These comments, together with a transcription of the overheads used by each table and a record of the voting of each table formed the output of each workshop. This final output was in the form of a workshop report which was circulated to all workshop attendees, and has been made available to the public on the WMAA EfW homepage.

The reports contain a wealth of information and, in their entirety, describe the complexity of the EfW issue in Australia. A synthesis of the stakeholder workshop outcomes is included below.

Smaller Invitational Workshops Smaller invitational workshops were hosted in the afternoon of the stakeholder workshops and lasted three hours.


Process The smaller workshops made use of the results of the stakeholder workshops, as well as any further issues which attendees felt were significant, and attempted to determine:

• Whether the draft Project Scoping Principles (PSP) developed by the Working Group addressed these issues, and if so, which PSP addressed the issue; or

• Whether the issue was not addressed by the PSP framework and thus required either further discussion in the Guide, or the establishment of a new PSP.

Secondly, the development of an Industry Code of Practice (CoP) was discussed. At some workshops this was the only item of discussion. The discussion centred around answering the following:

• Who is the “Industry”?

• What should be included within the scope of the CoP?

• What are the issues with implementation and ownership of the CoP?

The aim of these workshops was to build consensus. For this reason, and because the number of attendees at these workshops was relatively small, workshops were run as group sessions with a single facilitator.

Nature of Outputs Workshop reports were also generated for all of the smaller workshops. These can be downloaded from the EfW homepage. These reports detail how the issues highlighted in the stakeholder workshops can be grouped into the relevant PSP. Issues which fell outside the Draft PSPs were highlighted and, where relevant, additional PSPs were suggested. Elements which require more discussion than has been included in the Draft Sustainability Guide were ear-marked for more in-depth discussion.

The breadth of considerations to be included in an Industry Code of Practice was also reported.

Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes The issues and considerations highlighted at the eleven morning stakeholder workshops hosted through this project have been synthesised into generic categories within this section. This report places these issues in the context of the Project Scoping Principles of the EfW Sustainability Guide.

The outcomes of the workshop explored the significant range and complexity of issues associated with EfW projects. While care has been taken to ensure that all issues have been included in this report, a comprehensive listing of arguments offered at the workshops cannot be captured in this relatively short document. The Sustainability Guide should thus also refer to individual workshop reports to ensure that the breadth of arguments is addressed.


Framing Considerations A number of different philosophical bases for decision making on project selection were highlighted at the workshop:

• Projects should be fit for purpose.

• Care should be taken to deliver highest possible resource recovery and to maintain organic value as far as possible before using material as an energy source.

• Decision making should incorporate the “big picture” and be strategic in nature, including life cycle considerations and being solution focussed and not problem focussed.

• Extended producer responsibility should play a role in the development of strategies, and EfW projects should not undermine the future viability of other extended producer responsibility plans.

• Care should be taken to ensure that excess energy availability does not lead to inefficient and wasteful energy use.

• EfW projects should not be seen as encouraging waste generation, or to be undermining any waste minimisation projects.

• EfW projects are consistent with ESD objectives and are making use of a resource which might otherwise be wasted.

• Clear terminology definitions are required.

• Care should be taken to ensure that future scenarios are explored when a project is proposed. While many workshop participants stressed the need for action in the short-term, there was the concern that projects accepted now might jeopardise the potential (both environmental and economic) for future technologies to survive.

• The potential for EfW processes to destroy some hazardous wastes deserves comment.

The results of the “citizen’s jury” provide an overall perspective on the general philosophical position of participants with regard to Energy from Waste.

Social, Political and Legislative considerations Community Issues One of the most significant outcomes of the workshop process was the emphasis which was placed on communities. This was a common theme at all the workshops. Community considerations include:

• Community education including the communication and explanation of risks associated with emissions, addressing perceptions relating to concerns around forestry depletion and human health effects, resolving misconceptions relating to the efficacy of technologies and ensuring community perception of EfW as a way of delivering sustainable outcomes to communities. There is the potential for proactive capacity building to reduce some of the emotional debate around EfW projects. The community should be made aware of EfW projects, and the final destiny of the wastes which they produce, with the intention of ensuring that waste becomes the responsibility of the community and not the regulators.


• It should be noted that the newer the technology proposed for a project, the greater will be the uncertainty of the community about the ability of the technology to deliver the projected outcomes.

• Care should be taken to ensure that community behaviour is not adversely affected, that over consumption should not be encouraged, and that existing behaviour relating to recycling initiatives (splitting wastes at source) are not undermined; the potential exists to enhance existing community behaviour through well-managed kerbside systems.

• Stakeholder values should be considered during decision making processes on EfW projects. This links to the consumer education issue as the appropriate information needs to be available to stakeholders to support effective debate between stakeholders.

Potential actions for addressing community issues include:

• Ensuring that all communication is transparent and that project proponents are accountable, this will build the credibility of the industry. Care should be taken to ensure that information supplied is consistent.

• Appropriate siting of new facilities which includes a consideration of all community values, issues relating to transport routes; buffer zones should be maintained.

• There should be a focus on the development of partnerships, for example between communities and industry, or as part of integrated municipal planning.

• The perception that EfW technologies are equivalent to incineration needs to be addressed in the short term.

Local Government Concerns and Considerations The reason for highlighting this element of the debate is because waste management is, to a great extent, managed at a local level and has the potential to be a highly politicised issue. The workshops hosted during the project were convened both in the cities, and in regional Australia. Some considerations specific to regional Australia were highlighted. In general, the comments relating to local government concerns and considerations include:

• EfW projects have the potential to encourage uniform and integrated waste management across cities and to aid local government to deliver against their responsibilities in this regard. Significant levels of co-ordination will be required to link the management of wastes at a local level to regional infrastructure.

• Waste strategies developed at a local level should be consistent and developed in a co-operative manner; they should also be commercially viable. Local authorities have the greatest role to play in ensuring that highest resource recovery is being realised in their region.

• Landfill infrastructure is in place and generates income at a local level, care should be taken to understand existing infrastructure and future requirements. At the same time a number of landfills are to close in the near future and valid alternatives are sought; however, the majority of alternatives will result in increased costs to rate payers. Currently low landfill charges have the potential to undermine the economic viability of EfW projects.

• Catering for the needs of remote communities is complex and not to be under-estimated, at the very least the trade-off between transport distances and energy recovered must be assessed. Partnerships may have a significant role to play here.


• Local Authorities have a significant role to play in communication with communities and in engaging the community in relevant debates and decision making processes.

• Jurisdictional issues need to be clarified, between local, state and federal government.

Policy Considerations and Legislative Considerations The role of Federal and State government was not highlighted to any great extent other than where concerns were expressed about the efficacy of State Government in this area and the need for consistent regulation and policy across Australia. Rather attention was focussed on the potential for the proposed Sustainability Guide to inform Policy and Legislation and whether it could possibly be adopted by Federal and State government to inform the development of legislation. This would provide a level of consistency desired across the different states and territories.

The elements of the debate relating to policy, legislation and regulation are:

• Using waste to supply energy includes an implicit understanding that wastes will be generated and may be seen to undermine any “zero waste” programmes.

• Regulation of EfW projects in some form is required, whether this is self-regulation or through enacted legislation – with preference being voiced for the latter. Regulation should not be prescriptive, it should support innovation on the part of the project proponent and not limit the potential future of technology development. Mandatory standards which have the support of statutory authorities are needed.

• Any policy developed should recognise the interplay between energy and waste generation and should ensure that one is not supported through over-emphasis being placed on the other. There is the need for consistency and uniformity in the government’s policy direction. Current impediments to distributed energy recovery are seen to be both regulatory and commercial, efforts need to be made to match technology and policy.

• The complexity of current legislation was highlighted as a stumbling point, this coupled with uncertainty around future legislation has the potential to undermine any benefits which EfW projects might deliver. Concern was also expressed about the time and cost of application processes. Care should be taken to ensure that any control mechanisms developed are objective.

• A review of tariff levels on electricity and gas is necessary in order to make alternatives which are more environmentally and economically feasible.

• The potential for State Governments to develop integrated strategies for their states should be investigated and supported.


Environmental Environmental Benefits The perceived environmental benefits associated with EfW projects were consistent across the stakeholder workshops, and include:

• A decrease in the material sent to landfill with associated availability of landfill volume and reduction of the impacts associated with landfilling materials (such as impacts on ground water). In addition to this the wastage of materials is avoided, i.e. producing energy from waste is preferable to doing nothing with the waste and thus losing the energy which it contains. This exemplifies improved resource recovery and can potentially increase recycling opportunities.

• Dependency on fossil fuels will be reduced. In spite of the fact that the renewable nature of feedstreams to EfW processes was debated and no conclusions were drawn, it was accepted that, in general, energy produced from waste materials was preferable to that derived from fossil fuels and could be seen as relatively more sustainable.

• A reduction in total greenhouse gases associated with the provision of energy could be achieved. It must be noted that there was significant confusion regarding the greenhouse gas implication of EfW projects. This was highlighted as an area requiring publicly accessible information.

• Transformation of a waste into a resource.

Potential Environmental Impacts Workshop participants generally recognised that there are potential environmental impacts associated with EfW projects. However, the workshop attendees were satisfied that, in the main, these impacts could be managed. It was also identified that our current methods of generating energy were not environmentally benign, with brown coal combustion being a case in point. Potential environmental impacts of EfW highlighted included:

• Off-gases and residues which would require adequate management using tailored pollution control equipment. In addition, further research is required to ensure that EfW processes are sufficiently well understood and that pollution control technology selected is adequate to ensure that the processes operate within, or beyond, legislative limits. Performance relative to these standards should be consistent. Emissions of specific concern were dioxins arising form the combustion of PVC and the effects associated with the metals present in CCA treated timbers. It is these effects which lead to the desire for buffer zones described in section 3.2.1.

• Other environmental impacts which should be considered include the “nuisance” impacts of noise, odour, visual impacts etc.

• Environmental impacts associated with EfW projects have the potential to be both short-lived (off-gas emissions) and long-term (effects associated with solid residues and persistent compounds). Adequate management of these is a pre-requisite.

• The on-site human health effects of technologies should not be overlooked.

• Feedstock quality control is significant as any contaminants in the feedstream will report to one or other residue from an EfW process and would require active management to ensure that the natural environment is not negatively effected. Emphasis was placed on CCA treated timbers in this context.

• Impacts associated with the storage of feedstreams must be quantified and addressed.


• Streams which might have been recycled and retained in the industrial economy will no longer be available.

Potential actions which can be taken to minimise the deleterious environmental effects of EfW processes are:

• Extended producer responsibility and design for the environment to ensure that environmental considerations are taken on board at the outset of the project; care should be taken to ensure that closure and decommissioning are included in any project proposal.

• Verification and sampling of fuels and the removal of contaminants.

• EfW processes have the potential to have limited environmental impact, this needs to be communicated effectively to the broader community.

• Best practice for different fuel sources should be established; processes should be operated optimally with state-of-the-art process control; all attempts should be made to minimise human error; energy efficient processes should be a focus; appropriate materials and streams should be identified and materials adequately sorted. It should also be recognised that “Best Practice” is potentially region or site specific.

• Replacing existing systems which do not have adequate environmental performance; this might include improved gas recovery from landfills.

Techno-Economics This category includes consideration of specific suitable technologies, as well as an indication of potential constraints on the operation of these technologies. Economic barriers and constraints are also highlighted.

Management of the EfW Feedstream The management of the feedstream could be related to environmental considerations (contaminants contained in the feedstream could lead to environmentally unacceptable emissions) or social considerations (changing the manner in which wastes are collected can change social attitudes to waste generation and collection). For example:

• Wastes which have the potential to form part of the feedstream to EfW processes should be classified and their maximum potential realised.

• EfW projects should incorporate a consideration of risk associated with the supply of waste as a feedstream, contingency plans for the replacement of wastes as feeds should be made to ensure that waste is not generated to “feed the furnace”.

• Unacceptable contaminants (defined relative to potential emissions from the process) must be removed from the feedstream; this process must be monitored, audited and reported to ensure a high level of quality control on the feedstream.

• The non-homogeneous nature of the feedstream must be addressed explicitly.

• Information on the quality, quantity and value of potential feedstreams needs to be generated.

• The impact of transport should be minimised either by limiting the distance between feedstream generation and utilisation or by accessing back loading opportunities.


• Trade-off between security of supply and potential to undermine better uses for the feedstream – project proponents desire a known quantity of feed for a significant amount of time, these long-term contracts have the potential to undermine the economic potential of alternative uses for the feedstream.

Technical Considerations and Constraints Technologies should be selected for EfW projects only once the following issues have been addressed, it should be noted that each of these points contains the implicit understanding that preferred technologies may differ between metropolitan and regional Australia:

• Technology should be fit for purpose; don’t just accept solutions which have worked overseas – at the same time don’t try to re-invent the wheel; equal opportunity should be extended to all technologies, whether or not they are EfW technologies.

• Efficiency of energy recovery should be a driver.

• Technologies should be flexible in order that they can both manage inconsistency in feed materials, and retain the potential to respond to future changes in waste management; technologies should represent a long-term solution without constraining the ability of future communities to strive for their own sustainable development.

• No prescriptive definition of a preferred technology should be made, innovation should be encouraged; this has both an economic and a legislative element.

• Technology is not the only fix, and should not be developed in isolation. For instance, partnerships for behavioural change related to waste minimisation should be investigated.

• Inefficiencies in technologies used previously have the potential to undermine future EfW projects (negative historical legacy of EFW).

• Opportunities for co-generation of energy, and co-firing with existing fossil fuels should not be overlooked.

• There is significant concern about the uncertainty associated with the operation of EfW technologies, both because a significant number of the technologies is unproven at a process plant scale, and because of the non-homogeneity of the feedstream; these concerns should be addressed through a formal communication strategy.

• Scale of application of EfW technologies could include both distributed and centralised operations, this will vary between regional and metropolitan areas.

• Competition from other sources of “green energy” should not be overlooked.

• New, innovative EfW technologies have the potential to lead to new opportunities.

• Companies proposing EfW projects should have credibility.

Economic Considerations The economic considerations covered at the workshops included both project-specific financial considerations, as well as potential future levy structures. Both of these sets of considerations are included below:


• Existing landfill levies and energy costs are currently too low to render EfW technologies economically viable (even if they are proven to have better environmental performance and are accepted by stakeholders in the area); levy structures may need to be re-evaluated to ensure that the true cost of landfilling and energy provision are reflected; funding is required to support initial plants/pilot projects, government support is necessary in this context.

• EfW projects must internalise all externalities and ensure that they had made adequate provision for such considerations as planning for closure.

• The fact that overseas solutions are not necessarily economic in Australia should be acknowledged, addressing this could be included in any community education process.

• The economic viability of projects has the potential to be undermined by siting requirements, especially if this results in significant transportation distances.

• Public-private and private-private partnerships should be investigated.

• Further market research into the need for “green electricity” may be required.

• The number of jobs created and/or destroyed and the investment in the local community should be quantified.

• There is a perceived lack of venture capital to support such projects.

• Tradeable certificates such as RECs were highlighted as having a significant role to play in ensuring that EfW projects are economically viable.

• Installation costs for remote communities should not be underestimated; the potential for EfW projects to add an economic burden to local government and/or communities should be highlighted.

• Monopoly situations should be avoided.

Assessment tools and Indicator sets A number of the comments from the workshops referred to specific management tools and/or potential indicators which exist, or require development. These are detailed below:

• Assessments should include a complete consideration of sustainability criteria including economic, social and environmental, this should include job creation, costs to local communities, noise, odour etc.

• Highest resource value must be defined and quantified.

• Life Cycle Assessment should be used to compare between potential EfW technologies and to determine whether EfW or alternative recycling processes are preferred.

• The entire project life cycle from project selection to closure and post-closure should be considered.

• A uniform database should be established that facilitates comparison of projects, significant research is required in this area.


• EfW projects should be monitored and audited and should be required to report their performance in a transparent manner.

• All indicators constructed should be transparent, defendable and understandable.

Results of the Citizen’s Juries Stakeholders voted in a “citizen’s jury” as to whether EfW has a role to play in the recovery of resources from waste. Stakeholders were required to indicate whether:

• EfW has no role to play in any form;

• EfW has a role to play but that role is determined on a case by case basis; or

• EfW always has a role to play in any form.

The intention of this “straw poll” was to identify any poles of very strong opposition or strong support to EfW projects. While there were some reservations about the structuring of the question, the majority of workshop participants (76% + 22% = 98%) expressed support for the concept of EfW having a role to play in resource recovery from waste. Only a small minority of participants (2%) expressed absolute opposition to EfW.

The break down of voting at Workshops is presented in Table D-2 below.


Table D-2: Results of Citizen's Jury Voting Strongly No Contingent Strongly Yes

Location EfW has no roleto play in any

form

EfW has a role to play but that role is determined on

case by case issues

EfW always has a role to play in any

form

Canberra 1 14 5

Sydney 3 38 2

Hobart 0.5 22 0.5

Perth 0 23 14

Melbourne 0 35 14

Shepparton 1 10 4

Darwin 0 8 3

Adelaide 0 25 5

Dubbo 0 2 4

Townsville 0 6 1

Brisbane 1 22 6

Totals 6.5 205 58.5

% 2% 76% 22%

It is noted that the majority of those supporting EfW suggested that projects must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This highlighted the need for mechanisms such as the Sustainability Guide to provide the assistance in deciding those case-by-case instances.

(Note: the discrepancy between total votes cast in the ballot above and the workshop participant summary is caused by the Project Manager and the Chairman not voting at workshops and also from participants who left early from a workshop. A half vote was recorded in two instances where the participant voted half way between the two categories.)


Suggestions for Re-drafting the Sustainability Guide

A draft framework of project scoping principles was developed by the working group of the EfW Division of the WMAA. This framework was tested at the several of the smaller afternoon sessions. Below are the suggestions for new project scoping principles, suggested changes to the existing framework and a summary of the issues that were grouped for discussion under different PSPs.

It should be noted that the linearity of the principles was questioned. A repeated suggestion was for the progression of the principles to be non-hierarchical.

New Project Scoping Principles There was strong support expressed for the addition of a project scoping principle (PSP) to cover all aspects of community interaction with EfW projects. It was felt that by having this as a separate PSP the Sustainability Guide would clearly communicate the importance of community involvement in the development of EfW projects. There was concern that this message could be diluted if community aspects were contained within the discussion or incorporated into an existing PSP.

A suggested wording for this PSP, the “nullth” principle, was put forward by the Melbourne afternoon session, identifying the purpose of the project as being:

“Measures to ensure a communication and consultation plan that demonstrates ongoing accountability and transparency.”

It was suggested that this principle cover community issues such as:

• Involvement,

• Education,

• Provision of information,

• Consultation,

• Participation,

• Engagement,

• Perception (Historical negative context),

• Awareness,

• Health issues,

• Employment,

• Transparency,

• Accountability,

• Siting,


• Waste Minimisation,

• Waste Hierarchy,

• Impacts on Recycling.

Suggested Changes to the Existing Framework There were suggestions to change the wording on two of the other project scoping principles – PSP2 and PSP3.

The first suggestion was to change “Technology” to “Process” in PSP2, resulting in:

“Project Scoping Principle #2 - Selection of Optimum Conversion Process”.

The second suggestion was to add “optimal social outcomes” into PSP3, changing it to:

“Project Scoping Principle #3 - Systems Quality Control for Assurance of Optimum Environmental and Social Outcomes”.

No other direct wording suggestions were recorded. However it should be noted that PSP5 – “Measures to Compensate for the Inadequacies of the Prevailing Market Conditions” was recognised as being the least developed of the PSPs and consequently requires further consideration and development.

Grouping of Issues under PSP Framework Below is a summary of the issues that PSPs 1 – 5 (with the changed wording) should cover in their discussion. It is suggested that individual workshop notes be consulted for further elaboration on the detail within each issue.

Project Scoping Principle #1 - Best Use of Available Materials

Aim: To demonstrate that use of the available residual materials for conversion to energy represents the most sustainable use in both the short and long term.

• Highest Resource Value,

• Recovery of materials for reuse,

• Competition for waste materials from recycling,

• Continuation of recycling – source separation,

• Use of organics for compost and agriculture,

• Waste Minimisation and the Waste Hierarchy,

• Controls of feedstock to allow for best use,

• Mass balance of energy use.

Project Scoping Principle #2 - Selection of Optimum Conversion Process

Aim: To demonstrate that the selected EfW process is the most efficient conversion technology for


the available fuel source(s) in the circumstances. Conversion inefficiency means wasted resource value.

• Technology selection (consideration of alternatives),

• Cost of technology,

• Feedstock preparation (heterogenous to homogeneous),

• Use of existing infrastructure (co-firing),

• Cogeneration,

• Siting of technology,

• Worlds best performing technology,

• Transport implications,

• Materials handling requirements,

• Pilot facilities to prove performance,

• Redundancy,

• Closure plan for technology.

Project Scoping Principle #3 - Systems Quality Control for Assurance of Optimum Environmental and Social Outcomes

Aim: To demonstrate that where the available residuals cannot be presented entirely fit-for-purpose, that the selected conversion processes and management systems can control unacceptable by-products or pollutants or unintended environmental impacts.

• Emissions to air (in particular dioxins, furans and particulate),

• Emissions to land (ash – heavy metal implications),

• Emissions to water,

• Systems for control of contamination (outputs),

• Systems for control of feedstock (inputs),

• Water use,

• Stockpile management,

• Pollutant inventories,

• Quality assurance,

• Feedstock flexibility,


• Greenhouse gas balances,

• Training and competency standards,

• General environment issues,

• General health implications,

• Design of plant (aesthetics),

• Regulation (licence conditions),

• Hazardous materials.

Project Scoping Principle #4 - Management of the Commercial Interface between Waste Generation and Energy Requirements

Aim: To ensure that energy demand cannot stimulate waste generation, and that conversely, waste availability will not unsustainably stimulate energy consumption.

• Encouragement of waste generation,

• Waste minimisation,

• Renewable energy,

• Energy efficiency (demand management),

• Venture capital and resource security,

• Supply contracts (time),

• Gate fee structures,

• Transport costs.

Project Scoping Principle #5 - Measures to Compensate for the Inadequacies of the Prevailing Market Conditions

Aim: To oblige proponents to quantify any required normalisation of market conditions to meet ESD objectives - which may include impact of landfill levies, incentives or subsidies - to demonstrate an internalisation of the environmental externalities.

• Impacts of landfill levy,

• Impacts of renewable energy certificates,

• Impacts of carbon credits,

• Internalisation of externalities,

• Market forces,

• Other market based instruments,


• Current subsidies within energy generation.

Introduction and General Discussion Suggestions were also made with regard to the content that the Sustainability Guide should include by means of an introduction to Energy from Waste and also by means of a general discussion that provides a context for the EfW debate. These included (in no particular order):

• General benefits of EfW,

• Philosophical framework and drivers for EfW,

• Current energy generation, usage and transmission,

• Policy setting for EfW,

• Ecological Sustainable Development and Triple Bottom Line issues,

• Fate of landfill,

• Greenhouse gas issues and EfW,

• Regulatory framework,

• Methodologies for assessing Highest Resource Value,

• Methodology for assessing the impacts and benefits of EfW projects,

• Economic issues,

• Integrated waste management,

• Regional solutions,

• Need for research and development,

• Need for information on technologies and waste availability,

• Role of the three levels of government,

• Need for action now versus development of new technologies.

Suggestions for the Industry Code of Practice A general discussion was held regarding an Industry Code of Practice (CoP) at each of the seven afternoon sessions. Below are the suggestions and comments arising from that discussion.

Nature of an Industry CoP The question “What is the role of an Industry CoP?” featured as a starting point for discussion. Some participants questioned the value of a CoP, concerned that the Industry was too “young” to develop a Code. Others concerned that the CoP would not be used at a state planning level and was therefore of limited value. Others queried the distinction between a Code of Ethics and a Code of Conduct.


Overall however, there was support for the concept of a Code of Practice, the key question being the level of detail to be included in the CoP. For instance, whether to have a Code that was predominantly at a strategic level or whether to develop a “nuts and bolts”, highly prescriptive and operational document.

It was generally felt that the Code would be more operational than the Sustainability Guide, but would not have the level of detail included in project licence conditions. Another observation based on the development of the Clinical Waste Management Code of Practice was that the entire process lasted six years and required several iterations to develop the detail and consensus on the CoP.

The issue regarding the level of detail was not resolved. What was supported was the fact that consensus was required in order for the CoP to be of any value and that community input into the development of the CoP was also necessary.

Who is the Energy from Waste Industry? The scope of the EfW Industry was debated. A functional description of the Industry as being those elements providing the feedstock, providing and operating the processes and marketing or managing the outputs suggested that the industry comprised:

• Waste suppliers,

• Technology providers,

• Operators,

• Product purchasers,

• Waste planners – regional groups,

• Community groups and NGO’s (ultimately determine the go/no go status of a project),

• Consultants and advisors (included on the periphery cf. traffic consultants).

It was noted that there were differences between the generation of heat and the generation of electricity, potentially requiring differentiation the CoP owing to different participants. The issue of size of operation was also flagged, i.e. the Code should not discriminate against smaller scale industry members.

Role of Government A nationwide Code of Practice was seen as a measure of proactively engaging with government at all levels, especially if consensus amongst the majority of industry could be achieved. It was suggested that a nationwide CoP could play a part in supporting commonality and consistency between state legislatures. This would be the case if the CoP was able to be called up in state legislation, highlighting the need for the CoP to be endorsed by regulators.


Benefits Associated with an Industry CoP

Some of the benefits of having a Code of Practice that were identified during discussion included:

• Industry credibility,

• Industry bargaining and leverage,

• Assistance in gaining statutory approvals by being a signatory,

• Recognition,

• Setting standards of operation within the Industry,

• Providing assurance to the community regarding compliance with licence conditions,

• Assist in dealing with local governments and community groups.

Ownership, Evolution and the Role of the Waste Management Association of Australia It was generally recognised that the CoP would need to be owned and administered by one organisation in order to ensure that the Code is updated and revised on a regular basis (eg. every three years). A potential role for the Waste Management Association of Australia to play in this regard was noted.

Against this it was recognised that there are requirements to resource this evolutionary approach and that the regulation of the CoP could be problematic.

Compliance with an Industry CoP Associated with the notion of an Industry Code of Practice was the issue of managing non-compliance with the Code, i.e. what is the mechanism for assessment and enforcement? Suggestions included:

• Expulsion of member,

• Accreditation with independent auditing (external to WMAA),

• Legislation to catch free-riders / 'cowboys',

• Potential for legal action,

• Self regulation through environmental management systems,

• Market forces,

• Conditions of supply contracts,

• Removed from list of signatories.

Legal Implications In addition to issues surrounding compliance with the CoP, a number of other legal issues were also identified, such as the potential for the CoP to be called up in legislation and the implications of the the CoP with regard to competition policy.

Also at issue was the liability issue associated with dependence on a CoP to establish regulatory performance. It was not known whether a disclaimer would be sufficient to manage that liability.


Suggested Details to be Included in the Industry CoP The discussion below presents some of the specific suggestions that were made for inclusion into an Energy from Waste industry Code Of Practice.

Adherence to the Principles of the Sustainability Guide

Workshop participants generally agreed that one of the fundamental ingredients of the CoP should be to agree to adhere to the principles within the Sustainability Guide. Some went as far as suggesting the the CoP should be a guide to implementing the sustainability guide.

Community Involvement It was felt that a commitment to ensuring an ongoing process of community involvement should be significant requirement under the CoP. This would involve some mechanism to undertake community education/information /consultation/involvement in a credible fashion.

Aspects of Corporate Citizenship An undertaking to be a good corporate citizen was suggested for inclusion in the CoP. Specifically this would cover aspects such as:

• Open and transparent communication with community, including reporting, provision of monitoring data,

• Commitment to work between government and industry,

• Commitment to ongoing R&D on the reduction of environmental impacts.

Concepts of Best Practice and Continuous Improvement The issue of “best practice” received a mixed reaction, owing in part to the difficulties associated with defining best practice and the changing nature of what comprises best practice. Alternative suggestions were put forward regarding a commitment to continuous improvement, without the setting of an initial benchmark. Still others wanted to see a commitment to “beyond compliance” and the setting of industry competency standards.

In general the value of a commitment to best practice and to continuous improvement was recognised and that a requirement of this involved some uniform level of education/understanding within the industry.

Environmental Management The Code should cover environmental issues such as air emissions, water usage and management of solid by-products such as ash. Other aspects of environmental management also mentioned included issues such as noise, traffic, odour, litter, dust and waste tracking.

Community Involvement The Code should ensure a process of community involvement by providing a mechanism for consultation that demonstrates openness and accountability.


Annexure D-1: Energy from Waste Sustainability Project - Summary of Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes

Location Date Time Venue Attendance

Canberra 18-Sep 9am - 12noon Rydges Capital Hill 23

Sydney 24-Sep 9am - 12noonThe Mercure Hotel

Sydney46

Hobart 25-Sep 9am - 12noon The Lands Building 22

Perth 1-Oct 9am - 12noon The River Room 42

Melbourne 8-Oct 9am - 12noonCity of Banyule Rethink

Centre54

Shepparton 10-Oct 10am - 1pm Parklake Motor Inn 16

Darwin 22-Oct 9am - 12noonDarwin City Council Civic

Centre14

Adelaide 24-Oct 9am - 12noon Radisson Playford Hotel 32

Dubbo 29-Oct 9am - 12noonDubbo Council Civic

Centre9

Townsville 6-Nov 9am - 12noon Townsville Civice Centre 9

Brisbane 7-Nov 9am - 12noon Hilton Brisbane 32


Appendix E – Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development

Available online at http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/strategy/index.html. Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) aims to provide strategic directions and a framework for government to direct policy and decision-making. The Commonwealth’s 1992 definition of ESD was:

“A pattern of development that improves the total quality of life both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends” (NSESD 1992).

This strategy had 3 core objectives:

1. To enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations.

2. To provide for equity within and between generations (intra-generational and inter-generational equity).

3. To protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems.

Seven guiding principles for achieving these objectives are proposed. These are that:

• decision making processes should effectively integrate both long and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations,

• where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation,

• the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies should be recognised and considered,

• the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy which can enhance the capacity for environmental protection should be recognised,

• the need to maintain and enhance international competitiveness in an environmentally sound manner should be recognised,

• cost effective and flexible policy instruments should be adopted, such as improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms, and

• decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect them.

It is identified in the strategy that the guiding principles and core objectives need to be considered in their entirety, and that no objective or principle should predominate over the others.


Appendix F – Literature Review

The literature review was prepared by Warnken ISE Pty Ltd and can be downloaded in its entirety from: http://www.wmaa.asn.au/efw

Introduction This literature survey was prepared as a supporting information document for a project on the development of a set of Sustainability Guidelines and an Industry Code of Practice for the recovery of Energy from Waste. These documents are being developed by the Energy from Waste Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia under a grant provided by the Australian Greenhouse Office and with the support of industry sponsors.

In the Draft Implementation Plan for the above project, the aims of the literature review were identified to be to:

1. Review guidelines, codes of practice, case studies and legislation as they relate to sustainability of the energy from waste industry,

2. Highlight whether current guidelines address highest resource value of materials,

3. Discuss whether current guidelines have a mechanism for trade-offs between techno-economic, environmental and socio-political criteria,

4. Identify whether current guidelines utilise life cycle assessment and life cycle thinking as streamlined approaches to EfW issues,

5. Identify and comment on any EfW projects which have been assessed on the basis of sustainability,

6. Assess what tools are available for the evaluation of sustainable EfW projects,

7. Assess what legislative mechanisms are available to improve sustainability outcomes,

8. Highlight significant issues encountered by established EfW projects, and

9. Develop a glossary of EfW terms.

This document represents a synthesis of information which is available in the open literature within the context of these aims. A database of the literature sources consulted during the course of this work can be made available. This information resource can be made available to the greater EfW Division membership through the division website.


Definitions of Sustainability and Sustainable Development The concepts of sustainability and sustainable development may be interpreted in different ways, but the most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development comes from a report entitled 'Our Common Future', otherwise known as the Brundtland Report1,2. This definition suggests that:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Sustainable development thus focuses on improving the quality of life for earth's inhabitants, without increasing the use of natural resources beyond the capacity of the environment to supply them indefinitely.

In practical terms Environmental Resources Management (ERM)3 suggests that sustainability can be promoted by stepping back from what we are currently doing and looking at the more complete (and often more complex) picture. One example presented in their work is that, although recycling schemes are seen as an important step forward, it is better to look at the ways in which the total volume of waste produced can be reduced, through better processes and product design, a step which can lead to waste minimisation. EfW has a role to play within the context of this overall view of sustainable development.

A 1997 report completed on behalf of the European Commission by ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited suggested that a shift is required in the pattern of development from the current pattern of production and consumption to a new pattern which can accommodate sustainable growth whilst reducing the demands on the environment. The report identifies three progressive growth paths required to shift a region towards sustainable development:

• “business as usual” in which all current environmental standards are met;

• “minimisation” in which industry and consumers go beyond current standards and employ best available technologies and techniques for minimising their demands on the environment; and

• “sustainable development” in which economic growth continues whilst reducing the impact it has on the environment.

Australia's National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development5 defines ecologically sustainable development (ESD) as:

'using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased'.

On this basis, the three principles that are necessary to understanding sustainable development are identified to be intergenerational equity, the precautionary approach and biodiversity conservation. Together these approaches aim to prevent and reverse adverse impacts of economic and social activities on the ecosystem, while continuing to allow the sustainable, equitable development of societies5.

In summary, therefore, although no interpretations of sustainability specific to Energy from Waste were found, a number of generic interpretations of these concepts are available. For other generic statements of the principles of sustainability as interpreted by various entities, please refer to the list provided by the Environment Policy Institute at Brock University in Canada4.


Energy from Waste (EfW) – Definitions and Technologies What is Energy from Waste?

The term 'Energy from Waste' (EfW) covers the suite of technologies or processes whereby the inherent energy value of a waste stream is recovered in whole or in part. This energy may be recovered as heat (for heating or industrial process requirements), electricity, or a combination of the two. To provide some context of the scale of these facilities and the type of energy they produce, it is reported in the United States that over 80 percent of 102 EfW facilities surveyed produce electricity. Twenty of the 84 facilities that produce electricity cogenerate steam and electricity, and only 18 of the facilities produce only steam7.

A distinction is made at the outset between incineration for which the primary purpose is the destruction of waste, and Energy from Waste for which the key focus is energy recovery. This literature review does not cover incineration except where the term is used to include some form of energy recovery.

The most common waste stream from which energy is recovered is the domestic/municipal waste stream, although some components of the construction and demolition (C&D) and commercial and industrial (C&I) streams may be suitable for EfW. Biosolids are also used in some facilities.

Technologies used for Recovery of Energy from Waste

Various technologies are available for the recovery of energy from waste. The main categories of these technologies, various configurations of which have been used successfully around the world, are presented here. Common to all of these approaches is the potential advantage of preceding the processes with a separation step for removal of recyclable waste stream components for material recovery. This contributes towards optimal resource recovery, reduces the extent of contamination and may also increase the calorific value of the fuel stream. This review includes discussions on both direct (combustion) and indirect (pyrolysis, gasification) options for energy recovery from wastes.

Mass Burn Incineration

In mass burn incineration energy is recovered from waste by combustion. Mass burn incineration is the most common method of energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste.

In mass burn incineration a heterogenous fuel stream is burned. This stream is characterised by high variability/uncertainty in the composition of the stream, and the potential for contamination with hazardous materials. For this reason this option has potential for significant environmental impacts relating to exposure of the environment to both gaseous and ash outputs from the process. Flue gas treatment may include injection of dry urea directly into the combustion chamber to limit the production of nitrous oxides (NOx), passing gases through a scrubber reactor to treat acidic pollutants (SO2 and HCl), injecting active carbon to remove residual organic compounds such as dioxins and removal of particulates and heavy metals using a bag house filter8. Ash produced from the process also needs to be appropriately managed, with management requirements being dependant on the chemical composition of the ash.

Public perception of incineration is a significant issue when planning new mass burn incinerators due to the legacy of old plants and issues encountered with these. Modern plants are generally required to meet the standards in directives/legislation developed to combat air pollution from waste incinerators.


Refuse Derived Fuel

One major drawback of burning a mixed waste stream as described above is that the fuel is likely to be heterogeneous, may have a high moisture content and may be supplied large fragments. The water content will lower the recoverable energy content per unit mass of fuel. The heterogeneous nature, variability in stream composition and potential hazardous content of the stream can result in inconsistent emission levels, thereby adding to the difficulty of cleanup, and impeding design for maximum efficiency. Furthermore, burning mixed waste neglects materials recycling which is potentially (but not always) a higher resource value option for the waste.

In RDF systems, waste separation is undertaken to remove the combustible fraction and increase the homogeneity of the material, via a combination of unit processes including screening for removal of glass, grit and sand, shredding, air classification and magnetic separation for metals removal. This is referred to as pre-treatment. The extent to which noncombustible materials are removed varies from application to application. Some systems also utilise air classifiers, trommel screens, or rotary drums to further refine the waste9. The resultant refuse derived fuel (RDF) is often co-fired with coal for energy recovery.

The advantages of separation of the combustible and non-combustible material include an increase in the energy value of the fuel. A sample produced in Rome's RDF plant was found to have an energy content of 20.5 GJ/t, but calorific values will differ significantly from fuel to fuel, and may be closer to 12 to 13 GJ/t. Another advantage of RDF is that its processes are potentially more efficient than mass burn incinerators in terms of energy recovery, and potentially require less effluent treatment7.

Even though the fuel quality is improved through the RDF process, resulting in more efficient combustion, a disadvantage of RDF is the additional cost associated with fuel preparation. Sale of recyclable materials contributes some additional revenue stream, but may not be sufficient to offset additional capital costs.

Direct Energy Recovery

In addition to use for energy generation via incineration in dedicated incinerators, Refuse Derived Fuels are often used as part or whole substitute for fuels in industrial applications which require energy for their production processes, such as cement kilns. This potentially represents a more efficient energy recovery option.

Cement kilns have been used with varying degrees of success as a combination waste disposal mechanism and energy recovery for waste streams such as tyres. Issues associated with both gaseous streams and components of the waste which are incorporated into the clinker must be considered in such operations.

Gasification and Pyrolysis

Mass Burn Incineration technologies as discussed above are designed to manage heterogeneous streams with high inherent variability. Gasification and Pyrolysis are two technologies designed for energy recovery from more homogeneous waste streams.

Gasification refers to thermal decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in an oxygen restricted environment. The process produces a mixture of combustible gases (primarily methane, complex hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon monoxide). This gas can either be used in a boiler or stripped of CO2 and used in combustion turbines or generators. The gasification process generally requires a heat supply for initiation and is thereafter either self sustaining once the operating temperature is reached or may need to be maintained by recycling a small


proportion of the energy produced from the combustion of the fuel gases9.

Thermal pyrolysis differs from gasification in that the thermal decomposition takes place in the absence of oxygen. This process modification results in the creation of an energy rich oil and combustible solid residue (known as char) together with the fuel gas.

A number of advantages of pyrolysis and gasification over mass burn technologies are identified. Firstly, it may be feasible to gasify significantly smaller volumes of waste than may be treated in mass burn incinerators. This suggests greater scope for application of this technology in smaller communities than the large cities which typically support incinerators today. Furthermore, there is less need to keep the gasifier running 100% of the time as start-up periods are significantly less than for mass burn incinerators. Finally these systems are also able to operate at less than 100% of capacity so there is flexibility when there is a decline in waste availability. This is in contrast to MBI where operating at below 100% capacity reduces the economic viability of the operation.

The major environmental benefit of these processes are that they retain pollutants (the sulphur, heavy metals etc.) in the ash instead of the gas phase. The solid waste (ash) streams are generally easier to manage than off gases.

The potential requirement for fuel preparation to provide the relatively homogeneous feedstock required is one disadvantage of these processes. The fuel material requires shredding prior to gasification. The savings made by not requiring the level of gaseous emission controls, may offset fuel preparation costs, resulting in a potentially economically viable process9.

Biological Mechanisms – Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion relates to the organic breakdown of wastes via biological degradation to produce a relatively stable solid residue (digestate) similar to compost, and biogas, a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide which may then be used as fuel. Anaerobic digestion is particularly suited to wet, organic material and as such has been used for the treatment of sewerage sludge for over a century5.

Compared to other EfW processes, anaerobic digestion recovery of energy for the purpose of electricity generation is about twice as efficient as recovery of energy from landfill, only a third as efficient as recovery via mass burn, and a fifth as efficient as gasification.

Potential negative impacts will be similar to other solid waste management options and with proper planning can be minimised to acceptable levels. Advantages include that the input of waste, seen as a liability, can be reduced to a saleable soil conditioner and that all the greenhouse gas generated by digestion is burnt for energy recovery rather than letting some of it escape to the atmosphere as would occur in landfill9.

Biological Mechanisms - Landfill Gas

Landfill gas is generated by similar biological processes to those which are utilised in anaerobic digestion technologies, but this category refers to in-situ gas generation from landfill sites. The resulting gas consists of a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane (in roughly equal quantities), with a large number of trace components, with the methane content of the gas (typically around 40-60% by volume) making it a useful fuel. The gas is formed when the waste deposited in landfills breaks down as a result of microbial action. It is collected through a series of wells drilled into the landfill site.

Bioreactor landfills refer to landfills that are managed to maximise the production of landfill gas. In this sense they are more like an anaerobic digestor than a landfill. The accelerated generation of


landfill gas is accomplished by increasing the rate of anaerobic decomposition through the re-circulation of leachate (a liquid generated from the anaerobic decomposition process) and also through the occasional addition of sewerage sludge.

The captured landfill gas is combusted in one of a variety of technologies (including gas turbines, dual fuel (compression ignition) engines and spark ignition engines) for energy recovery. These engines may range from a few hundred kilowatts to several megawatts. Fuel conversion efficiency ranges from 26% (typically for gas turbines) to 42% (for dual-fuel engines).

In Australia, the installed electricity generating capacity from landfill gas was approximately 72MW in 1997. In 1998 there were15 projects in operation10.

The UK, however, currently has approximately 150 sites generating electricity which is fed into the grid. The UK landfill gas resource is estimated to be equivalent to around 6.75TWh per year (around 2% of current UK electricity demand). This equates to around 850MW of installed capacity.

The number of schemes using landfill gas in the UK is expected to rise as EU directives to control methane emissions to the atmosphere are put into effect. In the longer term, beyond 2025, the number of new landfill gas recovery schemes is expected to decline as the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive diverts organic wastes away from landfill and thus reduces methane generation5. One of the problems related to the removal of green waste in a landfill is, therefore, the potentially reduced generation and recovery rates, making recovery facilities less economically viable.

Plasma Processes

Various plasma processes have been developed which have the potential advantages of 100% diversion of waste from landfill, the recovery of energy from this waste stream, and the main waste product being an inert glassy slag. Integrated facilities can be designed to produce negligible or no liquid or gaseous wastes.

The Solena Group11 describes one such process, namely Plasma Gasification Vitrification (PGV). The PGV systems completely disassociate all waste matter (organic and inorganic) for energy recovery and material recycling. A Plasma Gasification Reactor (PGR), which houses one or more plasma arc torches, is used for this process. These torches generate, through electric power, a high temperature environment of between 5,000 to 14,000 °C. The extreme temperature of the plasma system completely disassociates the atoms in any organic material into simple gases while simultaneously melting all the inorganic materials. This process of thermal depolymerisation / steam gasification is called Plasma Gasification Vitrification (PGV).

An example of a plasma arc plant in operation is located near Kyoto in Japan, which uses technology developed by Nippon Steel. Two plants each process 300 tonnes/day. The cost of construction of these two plants was 10.7 billion yen for the first and 21.3 billion yen for the second.

Plasma arc technologies use significant amounts of energy in their operation (parasitic load). The amount of electrical energy that can be generated from these processes is contingent on the amount of inorganic material in the feedstream, with a preference for lower amounts. The Solena technology using a combined cycle gas turbine and a feed stream of sorted Refuse Derived Fuel (15 MJ/kg), can operate at an electrical efficiency of approximately 30%*.


Assessment of the Sustainability of an EfW Development A number of broad objectives are identified which must be considered when assessing the sustainability of any of the above EfW options. These objectives include environmental, socio-political and techno-economic factors. Some of these objectives which have been presented in literature are discussed below.

Not presented here are the detailed performance measures which will be used to assess sustainability of options. Such performance measures are to be identified and developed through other aspects of this project and used to provide a set of measures which reflect preferences and values in the Australian context. These may include those afforded by life cycle impact assessments and other environmental decision support tools, but will vary from situation to situation. Reference 12 contains further reading on indicators which may be used for assessment of Energy Projects.

It is noted that the issues presented here are by no means exhaustive, and are presented to encourage debate around what makes a sustainable EfW project.

Recovery of Highest Resource Value There is an intuitive recognition of the value in recovering energy from waste materials that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill. There is also the notion, however, that some waste materials may have a higher resource value than conversion into energy. Community preferences also tend towards increased recycling as opposed to energy recovery with the ultimate destruction of the resource. Equally, where fuel is unavailable or very expensive, the conversion to energy could a preferred option over resource recovery.

As a guideline for this higher order use the traditional waste management hierarchy is often consulted to determine desired outcomes. In the traditional hierarchy, reuse is designated a higher resource value than recycling of a material. In more sophisticated applications a distinction is made within recycling between closed loop or direct recycling (material going back into the same or similar product) and open loop or indirect recycling (material having one use before re-aggregation into the biosphere). The difficulty with this simplistic normative approach is that it does not account for the complexities of impact and energy usage within re-use and recycling operations, and furthermore does not take into accounted the avoided economic and environmental costs associated with extraction and use of primary fuels.

This has been recognised within the new waste hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (WARRA) 2001 in NSW which suggests that resource management options be considered against the following priorities:

Avoidance – which includes reducing the amount of waste generated by households, industry and all levels of government.

Resource Recovery - including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery.

Disposal - including management of all disposal options in the most environmentally responsible manner14.

The first of these, avoidance, suggests that efforts should be put in place to encourage the community to reduce the amount of waste it generates and to be more efficient in its use of resources. Thus resource recovery (including EfW) systems should not encourage the generation of waste. The second, resource recovery, suggests that the options for reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery at the highest net value of the recovered material must be maximised. This encourages the efficient use of recovered resources while supporting the


principles of improved environmental outcomes and ecologically sustainable development. Resource recovery, which includes energy recovery, can also embrace new and emerging technologies14.

This definition is not prescriptive and gives no guidance in terms of assessing one resource recovery option against another. Part of the challenge of this current project is to provide guidance to the user of the guidelines in the assessment of highest resource value in the context of Energy from Waste projects.

As mentioned previously, various environmental decision support tools, such as Materials Flux Analysis (MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), are available for evaluating options on the basis of environmental performance. In the context of this current work, however, it is suggested that these tools are problematic for use by the broad range of stakeholders that are involved in Energy from Waste projects.

Furthermore, the presentation of outcomes from such analysis, especially as single point indicators, without communicating the assumptions inherent in the development of such indicator sets is questionable. The challenge, therefore, is to develop a set of metrics which are accessible to both technical and non-technical stakeholders. Such a set of metrics has an important role in the assessment of EfW projects.

Potential for Current and Future Competing Uses for the Waste, and Preventing Unnecessary Generation of Waste When planning Energy from Waste facilities, consideration should be given to potential availability of the fuel in the future. Changing demand patterns, and potential future competing uses for the fuel will affect the sustainability of the project. An example of this is when a higher resource value usage becomes economically or environmentally feasible in the future. The continued supply of fuel will be necessary to ensure the sustainability of any Energy from Waste project. In predicting the availability of fuel supplies, therefore, sufficient provision should be made to ensure that the plant does not discourage more appropriate, higher value recovery.

Impact on the Environment - Pollution Concerns One of the most significant limiting factors with regards to the impact of the general public and local/national authorities are concerns about pollution, which include air pollution, leaching of heavy metals from ashes etc.

In order to meet the requirements of legislation and to protect the community, incinerators in particular require installation of various pieces of air pollution control equipment. Such equipment may include dry scrubbers, baghouse/ fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, an ammonia deNOx system, dry sorbant injection, after-burn system, mercury control system, and other technologies9. Investment in such environmental control systems can be significant, and may constitute up to 60% of plant equipment costs.

Impact on Demand for Landfill Space A positive contribution of energy recovery from waste is that the combustion of waste potentially reduces the volume by up to 90 percent. The remaining ash is either used in products (depending on its composition) or buried in landfills – representing a significantly lower volume of solids which require disposal. The ash is divided into two categories: bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash is deposited at the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash is composed of small particles that rise during combustion and are removed from the flue gases with fabric filters and scrubbers. Fly ash is usually considered to be the more significant environmental problem9.


Community Acceptance Community acceptance and effective communication is significant when obtaining a community 'license to operate' for an EfW facility. A study across five countries in the European Union of public acceptability of energy from waste and energy from biomass residues found differences in acceptability across different countries. These were attributed to many factors, including different cultures in energy and waste disposal, different regulatory approaches, and differences in the level of consultation with local communities prior to planning16. The study found that in many areas where schemes have been successfully developed, the local community was involved in extensive consultation, and that schemes that failed to gain consent have also failed to gain support from the local communities, particularly local authority officer and councillors and the local media.

Visual Impacts of EfW Facilities One less readily identifiable but significant impact of EfW facilities is the visual impact which it may have on the surroundings. Design of such facilities should thus include aesthetic considerations, and plants should be designed to be as tidy and visually unobtrusive and appealing as the process and space requirement will allow7.

Subsidies Subsidies are one area which can affect the economic viability and sustainability of energy projects. De Moor et al17 reported that in the OECD, higher subsidies are given to the more environmentally damaging fuels - coal subsidies are the highest, followed by oil, then nuclear power and finally natural gas. The proportion of total funding (around five per cent) devoted to sources of renewable energy, the most environmentally friendly sources, is the lowest.

The guidelines entitled Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living 18, published by the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme and the WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature suggest that charging and pricing systems should be used to achieve improved standards of efficiency. They suggest that energy prices should reflect the full social and resource cost of the product, and that charges should also be used as an incentive for saving energy. No additional criteria for evaluating these 'costs' were proposed in those guidelines.

Summary A number of different issues have been highlighted from literature which will contribute to determining the sustainability of EfW projects. These include that the feed to the process must be sustainable and EfW should represent the highest resource value, pollution (visual, air and solid) issues must be addressed, and subsidies should be awarded to assure the economic viability of projects which represent achievement of meeting the highest sustainability considerations.

It is recommended that these issues should be included amongst those addressed in the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice for EfW projects. It is expected that further issues will be identified during workshops and by other stakeholders during the course of this project which will be used to augment this list.

Available Guidelines for Assessing the Sustainability of Energy from Waste Projects Apart from one brochure focused on promoting EfW projects as sustainable, developed by the UK Department of Transport and Industry’s New and Renewable Energy Programme, no other sustainability guidelines addressing EfW were found.

A number of best practice documents and issues papers were found for renewable energy19,20,21, and one for Energy from Waste published by the UK DTI21, but only passing reference is made to sustainability issues as applied to EfW in these documents.


Two reports are currently being prepared which are worthy of mention here. IEA Bioenergy, is currently preparing a position paper on energy recovery from MSW and its role in sustainability. One major focus of this report is the greenhouse gas implications/benefits from EfW projects.

The US Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has prepared a draft report that provides a discussion about what constitutes "sustainable biomass" electricity. Although the report does not focus exclusively on EfW in the context of this project, it does address the use of paper, garden, food and wastes from municipal sources. It is intended that this report, though not providing a definition of sustainable biomass for energy generation, will provide support to building consensus around such a definition. The consensus building approach is based on identifying sustainable and unsustainable aspects of biomass, sustainability criteria, technology types and existing research and analysis that can be used to support or oppose any given biomass project. The final report is expected to be published late 2002.

A number of generic sets of principles of sustainability are also presented in this current document. These are presented in the following chapter. In the last chapter of this literature review these documents are synthesised and their relevance to EfW is presented.

Principles for Evaluation of Projects along the Lines of Sustainability Many organisations have sought to establish operating principles that could guide development on to a more sustainable pathway. These are discussed in reference 19 and include:

• The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development24

• The Bellagio Principles

• Canadian International Development Agency's Framework for Sustainable Development

• Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living18

• Changing Course

• Defining a Sustainable Society

• Guideposts for a Sustainable Future

• Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy

• The Natural Step: The Four System Conditions

• Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development2

Whilst none of these focus specifically on energy, or for that matter, Energy from Waste, some do make mention of energy within their recommendations. Relevant sections of four of these guidelines are summarised below to give some indication of the types of principles contained therein. Many of the others are fairly similar in their content, referring to generic concepts. The implications of these principles for development of the EfW Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice are summarised in Table 3 of Section 10.


Rio Declaration on Environment and Development In June 1992 the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), (the 'Earth Summit') was held in Rio de Janeiro. Government representatives from 178 countries attended. The outcomes of this conference included the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development24 which is a statement of 27 principles upon which the nations have agreed to base their actions in dealing with environment and development issues. These are listed in Annexure F-1.

The principles relate to aspects of both a procedural nature (eg principle 17) and to a more substantive nature (eg principle 2). Furthermore, certain of the principles are included as guidelines or policy directive and do not necessarily give rise to specific legal outcomes (eg 5, 22 and 25). Some of the principles relate to action primarily on the international level (eg principles 2, 6, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) and others (eg 10, 11, 13, 16 and 17) imply actions specifically at the national level. The principles address imbalances between developing and developed countries (eg principles 5 and 6) and recognises the role that all members of society have to play in sustainability (principles 21, 22 and 23).

The Bellagio Principles This set of principles, presented in Annexure F-2, was developed during a meeting of an international group of measurement practitioners and researchers from five continents in Bellagio, Italy. The outcome of this meeting was a set of principles which are an expression of core values and aim to serve as practical guidelines for the entire assessment process from system design and identification of indicators, through field measurement and compilation, to interpretation and communication of the result. With broad acceptance, it is expected that a common foundation will emerge, even though details of system design and indicator choice might vary greatly in any given application.

These principles serve as guidelines for the whole of the assessment process including the choice and design of indicators, their interpretation and communication of the result. The principles are interrelated and should be applied as a complete set.

Four aspects of assessing progress toward sustainable development are covered by the principles. Principle 1 deals with the starting point of any assessment - establishing a vision of sustainable development and clear goals that provide a practical definition of that vision in terms that are meaningful for the decision-making unit in question. Principles 2 through 5 deal with the content of any assessment and the need to merge a sense of the overall system with a practical focus on current priority issues. Principles 6 through 8 deal with key issues of the process of assessment, while Principles 9 and 10 deal with the necessity for establishing a continuing capacity for assessment25.

Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living These guidelines to sustainable development18, published by the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme and the WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature propose long-term energy strategies for all countries. Key aspects of these strategies with specific regard to energy include:

- increased efficiency in energy generation from fossil fuels, and increased use of alternative, particularly renewable, energy sources;

- increased efficiency in the distribution of energy;

- reduced energy use per person in all sectors, and major increases in the efficiency of use in the home, industry, business and transport

With regard to energy production from biomass, the guidelines propose "…continued development


of biomass-based fuels where they can be derived from crop residues, surpluses, or are produced on land not otherwise needed for food growing, or are not of higher value under natural or semi-natural vegetation."

Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD) aims to provide strategic directions and a framework for government to direct policy and decision-making5. The strategy incorporates many aspects of the other sets of principles discussed here.

Three core objectives of the principles are identified:

• to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations

• to provide for equity within and between generations

• to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems

Seven guiding principles for achieving these objectives are proposed. These are that:

• decision making processes should effectively integrate both long and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations

• where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation

• the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies should be recognised and considered

• the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy which can enhance the capacity for environmental protection should be recognised

• the need to maintain and enhance international competitiveness in an environmentally sound manner should be recognised

• cost effective and flexible policy instruments should be adopted, such as improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms

• decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect them

It is identified in the strategy that the guiding principles and core objectives need to be considered in their entirety, and that no objective or principle should predominate over the others.

With specific reference to energy, the strategy states the challenge to be ‘To limit production of harmful emissions without reducing economic efficiency, improve the availability, efficiency and affordability of alternative energy sources, and improve the technical and economic efficiency of urban and non-urban transportation.’ Additional objectives include lowering of greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the research into- and use of- renewable energy. No specific reference to energy from waste is made in this strategy.


Other Industry Guidelines and Codes of Practice Towards Sustainability To provide a basis for development of sustainability guidelines and codes of practice for EfW Projects, some examples of the contents of Sustainability Guidelines and Codes of Practice for other sectors is provided here. Whilst conducting the literature survey it was identified that most guidelines that are publicly available relate to general development (such as for a city or a region). It is hoped, however, that this section will provide a basis for the development of sustainability guidelines and a code of practice specifically directed at Energy from Waste projects in Australia. The implications of the guidelines and codes of practice presented in this section for the EfW Sustainability Guide are summarised in Table 3 of section 10.

Guidelines for Environmentally Sustainable Projects in Wales A guide prepared for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment Agency Wales (EAW) and the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) by ERM provides guidance on how to make projects more ecologically sustainable, with the aim of bringing additional and long-term benefits to the economy, society and environment of Wales3. Guidelines are provided for, amongst others, the assessment of energy infrastructure projects in terms of environmental sustainability. These guidelines identify key considerations which may be taken into account when assessing projects:

• Consideration of how the project is impacting on the environment and how negative impacts can be mitigated and opportunities from positive impacts maximised. For example, has an environmental assessment or appraisal of the project been undertaken?

• Consideration of alternatives which are potentially more sustainable (e.g. different fuel, technology, process, raw materials, site );

• Consideration of maximisation of environmental sustainability opportunities - the project may be promoting a sustainable means of energy production but it could still have negative impacts or perhaps positive impacts which are not fully utilised.

• Ensuring that benefits of the project are maximised by maximising efficiency and the long term legacy eg by considering what the site/facility will be like in 50 years?

• Ensuring that the development is appropriate to the area through work with local communities, businesses, local authorities and services providers to maximise the local ownership of any new/improved generation or distribution systems;

• Maximising the opportunities to raise awareness of sustainable energy production and its linkages to resource conservation, greenhouse effect and other environmental pollution, degradation and inequality issues.

A selection of suggested actions which could be implemented or integrated into projects is also presented in this work. These include to:

• identify, assess and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project through an EIA or environmental appraisal and ensure that any negative impacts are avoided or mitigated and any positive impacts are maximised, through seeking advice and guidance from environmental groups and organisations if necessary;

• consult and work with local communities, business, industry, local authorities to develop generation capabilities which will maximise natural resource conservation (through energy efficiency, use of renewable fuels), clean technology and innovative energy generation and transportation systems;

• maximise the sustainability of the project e.g. by using best environmental practice in any construction, undertaking an energy audit to identify potential areas for conservation, minimising the construction footprint of any new facilities/pipelines/transmission lines , planting native wild flower and tree/shrub


species in any landscaping or post-construction restoration, using clean emissions and production technology or renewable fuels;

• maximise the long term added value and sustainability of the project by giving a clear commitment to manage any land which forms part of the project, in a sustainable manner; maximise opportunities to encourage people to think more sustainably about their use of energy. Advertise widely the benefits of energy efficiency in the home, office, factory and recreational area and reach out to schools, community groups, businesses and industry to increase awareness.

A selection of suggested targets which could be used to report the progress and success of the project could include:

• reduction in CO2 obtained against a business as usual scenario;

• number of buildings (or floor space of buildings/offices) which have been fitted with energy saving/efficient devices;

It is suggested that the core values and ideas expressed in this Welsh set of guidelines represent a good starting basis for the development of sector specific guidelines such as that which is being explored for energy from waste.

Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Development – British Wind Energy Association The British Wind Energy Association has developed a set of guidelines for development of wind energy facilities. The layout of these guidelines merit mention here. For each step in the project timeline, from site selection to decommissioning and land reinstatement, guidance is provided on what are identified to be the three key elements of the process, namely:

1. Technical and commercial considerations;

2. Environmental considerations; and

3. The need for dialogue and consultation26.

Code of Practice – Development of the Shellfish Industry, British Columbia, Canada In Canada the British Columbia Shellfish Aquaculture Industry has developed a Code of Practice to serve as a guideline to shellfish aquaculture companies to ensure their operations are conducted in a manner that works in concert with the marine environment. The CoP aims to "…provide guidance for addressing and minimising negative environmental impacts and maximising positive impacts related to normal farm practices on shellfish aquaculture tenures. The CoP will promote the responsible development and management of a viable and responsible BC shellfish aquaculture sector". General areas covered by this CoP include siting, tenure modification, waste management, access, private property and riparian rights, noise & light, odour, visual quality, interaction with wildlife, transplant and import of stocks, biofouling control, use of vessels, vehicles and marine equipment, equipment & construction standards, use & storage of chemical, fuel & lubricants, and operations and training27.

The Province of Manitoba, Canada's, Sustainable Development Code of Practice This Province of Manitoba's sustainable development code of practice28 is a generic code for development within the province. In this guideline it is recommended that the decisions and activities of the public sector should strive towards:

a. integrating economic, environmental, human health and social considerations;

b. ensuring the most efficient and effective use of human, natural and financial resources with due consideration of full-cost accounting;


c. including processes for informing those affected by decisions and actions in a timely manner and ensuring meaningful opportunity for public consultation and due process, including, where applicable, collaborative decision making, consensus building and alternative dispute resolution;

d. being carried out in an equitable manner;

e. minimising waste and utilising environmentally, socially and economically sound and viable substitutes for scarce resources;

f. being based on sound science and research;

g. recognising the value of, and integrating where possible, traditional knowledge and intergenerational considerations;

h. being effective stewards in the management of the economy, environment, human health and social well-being for present and future generations;

i. recognising that all departments and agencies share responsibility for the pursuit of sustainable development in Manitoba;

j. anticipating, mitigating and preventing adverse impacts to the economy, environment, human health and social well-being;

k. conserving renewable and non-renewable natural resources; and

l. ensuring local decision making is consistent with global environmental, economic and social responsibilities.

Mechanisms proposed to assist in meeting these aims include:

• complying with the requirements of applicable regulations, laws and policies; ensuring that submissions to authorities, regulations, policies and procedures are consistent with the Principles and Guidelines of Sustainable Development; ensuring administrative policies and procedures are streamlined, coordinated and integrated, ensuring enforcement procedures are fair and equitable;

• providing employees with information, work skills training and education in sustainable development practices; ensuring meaningful opportunity for public consultation; ensuring assessment of proposed programs and projects is carried out to determine and address sustainability impacts; rewarding innovative actions (social, scientific, technological, financial) for initiatives having proven sustainable development benefits; participating, where possible, in resource management initiatives at the local level and supporting groups interested in human and natural resource management issues,

• Employing the 4Rs (reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering) in its use of resources and the management of waste, ensuring efficient use of water, energy and other resources in its operations, practising conservation of non-renewable resources and using viable substitutes for scarce resources.

• Seeking opportunities, to harmonise provincial laws and processes internally and with other jurisdictions based on uniform, common or appropriate social, health, development, environmental and natural resources standards.


Summary This section has provided examples of sustainability codes of practice and guidelines for sustainable development in other sectors. Whilst no such documents were found for the Energy from Waste sector in particular, it is proposed that the structure of these guidelines provide a starting point for development of those for EfW projects.

Policies and Legislation Governing Development of Sustainable Energy from Waste Projects in Australia One of the aims of the literature search was to provide an overview of the policies and legislation which support or promote renewable energy projects in Australia.

It was identified that the Commonwealth Government does not play any regulatory role with respect to Energy from Waste issues. These are managed at a state level through environmental protection and waste management legislation (see Table F-1).

Environment Australia is in the process of ascertaining requirements for a national policy on Energy from Waste. This is likely to be additional to a national policy on Energy.

At present, much of the policy debate surrounding issues of EfW have been caught up within the greenhouse gas debate. Some of the Commonwealth Government’s responses to global greenhouse gas concerns include:

• The establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO). The AGO has released the National Greenhouse Strategy, which provides a framework for Australia’s response to its greenhouse gas commitments. The AGO also developed the Renewable Energy Commercialisation Programme (RECP) which provides grants for new technology development in the area of renewable energy. Several EfW projects have received funding under this programme. Furthermore, the Remote Renewable Power Generation Program provides financial support to increase the use of renewable energy generation in remote parts of Australia that presently rely on diesel for electricity generation.

• Drawing up of the national renewable energy programme, and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act of 2000. The Act sets a mandatory target of an additional 9 500 GWh/a of renewable energy target for all electricity retailers and wholesale purchasers by 2010. Retailers and purchasers who do not meet this target can elect to pay a penalty. .As part of this programme Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which represent a tradeable commodity on the basis of each MWh of renewable energy which is generated, have been implemented. The Act further identifies the organic component of MSW to be an eligible fuel for the generation of Renewable Energy Certificates, providing a significant market driver to the development of EfW projects.

• Establishment of the Office Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER)29, to oversee implementation of the renewable energy target.

• The Greenhouse Gas Abatement Programme provides funding to projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the main focus being projects with the potential to abate more than 250,000 tpa CO2-e.

A summary of the current status of policy and legislation around the states in Australia is presented in Table F-1.


Table F-1: Australian State Government Policy & Legislation Regarding EfW Projects State/Territory Sustainable

Energy Office Funding Programs

for EfW Carbon Targets

related to Electricity Specific Waste

Legislation Waste Planning

and Management EfW Policy

ACT No Waste by 2010 ACT NOWaste30 NSW Sustainable Energy

Development Authority (SEDA)30

Renewables Investment Programme - funding

NSW Electricity Retailer Greenhouse Benchmarks

Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001

Resource NSW Protection of the Environment Policy (PEP) under development

NT Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development

Waste Management and Pollution Control Act 1999

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment

QLD Office of Sustainable Energy, EPA

Queensland Sustainable Energy Innovation Fund

Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Policy 2000

Office Sustainable Resources, EPA

SA Sustainable and Renewable Energy (Energy SA)

State Energy Research Advisory Committee (SENRAC)

Environment Protection (Waste Management) Policy 1994

Waste Management Committee (SA EPA)

TAS Development of Tasmanian Waste Strategy

Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment32

VIC Sustainable Energy Authority

Renewable Energy Assistance Programme

Environment Protection (Resource Efficiency) Act 2002

EcoRecycle Victoria33

WA Sustainable Energy Development Office (SEDO)

Waste Management Bill under development

Waste Management Board

Bioenergy policy on wood waste under development


Constraints to Energy from Waste Projects In the development of a Code of Practice and Sustainability Guidelines for Energy from Waste projects, it is necessary to identify and address the constraints to realisation of these projects. Experience from established and “popularised” EfW projects has shown that the two primary constraints are:

• economic risks and

• community/NGO objections

Economic Risks Economic risks surrounding EfW projects primarily relate to costs and availability implications associated with supply of the material used for generation of energy. Costs of material are influenced by a number of factors, including competition for suitable material, which will potentially increase as the market grows, gate fees, transport costs and the degree of pre-treatment required (which depends again on quality of material and technology chosen for processing). The value of recoverable RECs represents a further significant consideration in terms of EfW projects.

In addition to supply issues, given the uncertain and changing policy and regulatory conditions, it is difficult to fully account for costs for licensing an EfW facility. This which may imply costly administration, public participation, marketing; pollution control equipment and management procedures, and hence on-going management costs. Not being able to accurately plan for these costs is a potential limitation to such facilities.

Community and Environmental NGO Objections Community concerns regarding EfW facilities largely relate to concerns about health issues. Past negative experience with incineration facilities (such as the Waverly Woollahra incinerator) and existing EfW projects such as Liddell power station have led to mistrust of such facilities. Such experience has also contributed to a distrust of licensing authorities with respect to approval of such facilities.

Environmental NGOs have expressed a number of issues in opposition to EfW. These include:

• Depletion of native forests for biomass energy,

• Preferences for “non-polluting” solar- and wind power,

• Preference for material recycling with perceived socio-economic benefits of job creation etc,

• Concerns about Dioxin formation and other pollution issues, and

• Empowerment of local communities.

It is essential that communication strategies regarding EfW projects address these issues and maintain ongoing interaction with these stakeholder groups to ensure that all viewpoints are addressed.


Summary

This literature review has presented an overview of information contained in publicly available literature. A number of aims were identified at the start of this literature review, and a summary of the extent to which these aims have been achieved is presented below.

1. Review guidelines, codes of practice, case studies and legislation as they relate to sustainability of the Energy from Waste industry

A number of generic guidelines for sustainability were reviewed. No documents were, however, found in the course of this literature review which relate directly to Energy from Waste within the context of the guiding the sustainable development of EfW projects.

2. Highlight whether current guidelines address highest resource value of materials

A review was provided of the traditional waste hierarchy and the new Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (WARRA) in NSW. These guidelines do not provide decision makers with the tools to distinguish between options for resource recovery, an issue which needs to be explored in the context of this current project.

3. Discuss whether current guidelines have a mechanism for trade-offs between techno-economic, environmental and socio-political criteria

No record of such guidelines were found in open literature. Various tools were, however, identified in the course of this study for making such tradeoffs, although outputs from these are potentially too detailed for use for large groups of non-technical stakeholders.

4. Identify whether current guidelines utilise life cycle assessment and life cycle thinking as streamlined approaches to EfW issues

Whilst life cycle thinking and LCA tools are widely used to support environmental decision making, no reports of their application to EfW decisions was found.

5. Identify and comment on any EfW projects which have been assessed on the basis of sustainability

No such reports were found during the course of this literature review.

6. Assess what tools are available for the evaluation of sustainable EfW projects

No record of such tools was found in the open literature. The challenge, as has been previously identified, is to develop a such a set of metrics which are accessible to both technical and non-technical stakeholders.

7. Assess what legislative mechanisms are available to improve sustainability outcomes

A number of Australian Commonwealth and State government initiatives which support growth of renewable energy, and in particular the greenhouse gas abatement benefits associated with renewable energy, were identified. The difficulty remains the establishment of what constitutes a sustainable renewable (in this case Energy from Waste) activity.


8. Highlight significant issues encountered by established EfW projects

Established and “popularised” EfW projects were used to conduct a review of the types of issues which must be considered in the context of Energy from Waste. The aim of the planned stakeholder workshops associated with another aspect of this overall project, is to develop a comprehensive list of such issues which reflect stakeholder values.

9. Develop a glossary of EfW terms

A comprehensive glossary of EfW terms was developed and is attached as an appendix to the literature review.

As a starting point for the development of the sustainability guide and code of practice documents in the scope of this current project, Table F-2 presents a synthesis of the various general principles and guidelines for sustainability discussed in this document which are potentially significant in the context of EfW, and a comment on their relevance to EfW projects.


Table F-2: Summary of Other Principles & Guidelines, & Comments as they may be applied to EfW Projects

Principle Relevance to EfW Sustainability Guidelines and Code of Practice Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be guided by a clear vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision

The guidelines should include a clear description of sustainability and how Energy from Waste fits into this framework.

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state as well as the direction and rate of change of that state, of their component parts, and the interaction between parts, and consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a way that reflects the costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in monetary and non-monetary terms Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should consider economic development and other, non-market activities that contribute to human/social well-being.

Sustainability represents a holistic viewpoint of the impact of an operation and this should be accounted for when evaluating potential impacts of the EfW operation.

Consideration of alternatives which are potentially more sustainable (e.g. different fuel, technology, process, raw materials, site ); Consideration of maximisation of environmental sustainability opportunities - the project may be promoting a sustainable means of energy production but it could still have negative impacts or perhaps positive impacts which are not fully utilised. minimising waste and utilising environmentally, socially and economically sound and viable substitutes for scarce resources;

Assessment of an EfW project must include comparison with a comprehensive set of alternatives, including non-EfW options for the waste material and also of non waste sources for energy generation.

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on an explicit set of categories or an organising framework that links vision and goals to indicators and assessment criteria, a limited number of key issues for analysis, a limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer signal of progress, standardising measurement wherever possible to permit comparison

Provide guidance on the objectives and criteria which may be used to assess sustainability of a proposed or existing EfW facility.

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should adopt a time horizon to capture both human and ecosystem time scales, and take into account the needs of current and future generations, define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance impacts on people and ecosystems and build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions - where we want to go, where we could go. Ensuring that benefits of the project are maximised by maximising efficiency and the long term legacy eg by considering what the site/facility will be like in 50 years?

Provide guidance on selecting both spatial and temporal system boundaries for evaluating EfW projects. Past experience should guide future planning.

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends, be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems are complex and change frequently, adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained and promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision- making. …improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies.

The information contained in the documents should continue to be developed as experience and needs in the field of EfW change, and as understandings of sustainability continue to evolve. Local and international knowledge must be incorporated into this evolutionary process. The owners of these documents must be clear and responsibility must be taken for their ongoing evolution, implementation and dissemination.


Principle Relevance to EfW Sustainability Guidelines and Code of Practice Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development should be assured by clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making process, providing institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation supporting development of local assessment capacity.

In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

Evaluation and addressing of potential and existing environmental impacts of EfW projects must be integral in all steps of the project life cycle.

Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, should be provided. Maximising the opportunities to raise awareness of sustainable energy production and its linkages to resource conservation, greenhouse effect and other environmental pollution, degradation and inequality issues.

Stakeholder consultation must represent an integral part of the project life cycles. All steps in the project must be transparent and information must be made available to the public.

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The precautionary principle is recommended in addressing potential environmental issues. Note that this does not mean postponing project development, but rather involves being proactive in preventing environmental degradation.

Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.

Environmental Impact Assessments for new facilities, and changes to existing facilities, should be conducted.

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.

Costs, taxes, levies, penalties and incentives should represent the true cost of an activity, including environmental costs. Novel ways for accomplishing this without a strong legislative framework should be developed.


Literature Review References The documents listed below are those referred to in this current document. A full database of all reference sources consulted will be made available. 1. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1987 p. 43.

2. Environment Australia, 'Ecologically Sustainable Development Home Page', http://www.ea.gov.au/esd/index.html, accessed 5 August 2002.

3. Environmental Resources Management, 'Maximising the Environmental Sustainability of the West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme: A Guide for Project Applicants and Programme Managers.' Prepared for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment Agency Wales (EAW) and the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) , October 2000. Found online at www.wefo.wales.gov.uk/newprogs/objective1/ob1-envi.

4. Principles of Sustainability: A Compilation. Available Online at http://www.brocku.ca/epi/sustainability/sustprin.htm. Accessed 24 July 2002.

5. Environment Australia, ‘National Strategy for Sustainable Development’, found online at http://www.ea.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/index.html, accessed 30 July 2002.

6. UK Department of Trade and Industry, 'Renewable Energy Programme Website', found online at http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/main.html, accessed 3 August 2002.

7. International Renewable Energy. Found Online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/contents.html. Accessed July 2002.

8. Vienna University of Technology (1999), 'ALTENER Waste-for-Energy Nett IV Study', prepared for the European Union Directorate for Energy, contract number 4.01030/D/97-030.

9. Cardiff University, Waste Research Station. Found online at: http://www.wasteresearch.co.uk/ade/Currentprojects.htm. Accessed 24 July 2002.

10. Australian Greenhouse Office, 'Biomass Applications', found online at: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/reis/technologies/biomass/bioapp.html. Accessed 11 September 2002.

11. The Solena Group, found online at http://www.solenagroup.com. Accessed 19 July 2002.

12. Schipper, L., Unander, F. and Marie-Lilliu, C., (2000), 'The IEA Energy Indicators Effort: Increasing the Understanding of the Energy/Emissions Link', IEA: COP 6, The Hague, 13-14 Nov 2000.

13. Jackson, D.V. (1988), 'A Review of Developments in the Production and Combustion of Refuse Derived Fuel', in Proceedings of a Seminar on Recovery Energy from Municipal and Industrial Waste through Combustion, A. Brown, P.Evemy and G.L. Ferrero eds, Essex: Elsevier.

14. NSW Government (2001), Waste Avoidance And Resource Recovery Act, Updated 18 January 2002.

15. Resources NSW, found online at http://www.resource.nsw.gov.au/about.htm, accessed 25 July 2002

16. AEA Technology, (2001), Comparison of public acceptability of energy from waste and energy from biomass residues in 5 EU states. Available online at http://www.etsu.com/integrate/INTEGRATEReport_for_web.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2002.


17. de Moor, A. and P. Calamai, Subsidising Unsustainable Development, Report Commissioned by The Earth Council, ISBN 0-9681844-0-5. Available online at http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/econ/sud.

18. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1991). ‘Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living’. Gland, Switzerland.

19. National Biofuels Roundtable (1994), 'Principles and Guidelines for the Development of Biomass Energy Systems: Draft Final Report'. National Fuels Roundtable.

20. European Commission, 'Green Paper – Towards A European Strategy For The Security Of Energy Supply', found online at www.europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/, accessed 29 July 2002.

21. British Biogen, found online at http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk/gpg/index.html, accessed 2 August 2002.

22. UK Department of Trade and Industry (1996), 'Energy from Waste: Best Practice Guide', revised edition. Published by the DTI.

23. The Sustainability Report (2001), found online at http://www.sustreport.org/home.html. Accessed 26 July 2002.

24. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992), 'Declaration of Principles', Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992.

25. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (1997), 'Assessing Sustainable Development – Principles in Practice', International Institute for Sustainable Development: Canada, Eds: Peter Hardi and Terrence Zdan ISBN 1-895536-07-3.

26. British Wind Energy Association (1994), 'Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Development', found online at http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/pdf/bpg.pdf.

27. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Government of British Columbia (2002), 'British Columbia Shellfish Aquaculture: Code of Practice', Final Draft available online at http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/shellfish/FinalCOPSubmission%2002July03.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2002.

28. Province of Manitoba, Canada (2001), 'Provincial Sustainable Development Code of Practice. Found online at http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/susresmb/code/Code-Prac.doc. Accessed 26 July 2002.

29. Office of Renewable Energy Regulator (2002), http://www.orer.gov.au accessed July 2002.

30. ACT NOWaste, http://www.act.gov.au/nowaste/, accessed 20 July 2002.

31. The Sustainable Energy Development Authority, http://www.seda.nsw.gov.au/, accessed 25 July 2002.

32. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Tasmania, http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Home/1?Open, accessed 25 July 2002.

33. EcoRecycle Victoria, http://www.ecorecycle.vic.gov.au/, accessed 25 July 2002.

34. Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., and Moberg, A., (2000), 'Life Cycle Assessments of Energy from Solid Waste'. Found online at http://www.fms.ecology.su.se/pdf/LCAofenergyfromsolidwaste.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2002.

35. Integrated Waste Services Association, found online at http://www.wte.org/index.html. Accessed 20 July 2002.


Annexures from the Literature Review Annexure F-1: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Principles Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

Principle 2: States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

Principle 5: All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Principle 6: The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

Principle 7: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

Principle 8: To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

Principle 9: States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies.

Principle 10: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

Principle 11: States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

Principle 12: States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.

Principle 13: States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

Principle 14: States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.

Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Principle 16: National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.


Principle 17: Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.

Principle 18: States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international community to help States so afflicted.

Principle 19: States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an early stage and in good faith.

Principle 20: Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21: The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilised to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22: Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24: Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

Principle 26: States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Principle 27: States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development.


Annexure F-2: The Bellagio Guidelines Principle Description 1. GUIDING VISION

AND GOALS • Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be guided by a clear

vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision 2. HOLISTIC

PERSPECTIVE

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should • include review of the whole system as well as its parts, • consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state as

well as the direction and rate of change of that state, of their component parts, and the interaction between parts, and

• consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a way that reflects the costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in monetary and non-monetary terms

3. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: • consider equity and disparity within the current population and between present and

future generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-consumption and poverty, human rights, and access to services, as appropriate,

• consider the ecological conditions on which life depends, • consider economic development and other, non-market activities that contribute to

human/social well-being 4. ADEQUATE

SCOPE

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: • adopt a time horizon long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time scales

thus responding to needs of future generations as well as those current to short term decision-making,

• define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance impacts on people and ecosystems

• build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions - where we want to go, where we could go

5. PRACTICAL FOCUS

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on: • an explicit set of categories or an organising framework that links vision and goals to

indicators and assessment criteria, • a limited number of key issues for analysis • a limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer signal of

progress • standardising measurement wherever possible to permit comparison • comparing indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction

of trends, as appropriate 6. OPENNESS

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: • make the methods and data that are used accessible to all • make explicit all judgments, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and interpretations

7. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: • be designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users • draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve to engage decision-

makers • aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear and plain language

8. BROAD PARTICIPATION

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: • obtain broad representation of key grass-roots, professional, technical and social

groups, including youth, women, and indigenous people - to ensure recognition of diverse and changing values

• ensure the participation of decision-makers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and resulting action

9. ONGOING ASSESSMENT

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: • develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends • be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems are

complex and change frequently • adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained • promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision- making

10. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development should be assured by: • clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making

process • providing institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation • supporting development of local assessment capacity

Date post:	12-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Sustainability Guide for Energy from Waste (EfW) Projects and Proposals/media/resources... ·...

Documents