Strategic Review of the Collection of Household Hazardous Waste in Tasmania Evaluation Report... · This project was jointly funded by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries,

Strategic Review of the Collection of HHW in Tasmania – Version 2.a Page 1

Strategic Review of the Collection of Household Hazardous Waste

in Tasmania

Version: 2.a

Date: 7 February 2013

Copy: Uncontrolled

This project was jointly funded by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and

the Environment (DPIPWE) and the three regional bodies (Southern Waste Strategy Authority, Cradle

Coast Authority and the Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group (NTWMG).

DOCUMENT ACCEPTANCE and RELEASE NOTICE


This is version 2.a of the Strategic Review of the Collection of Household Hazardous Waste in Tasmania 7 February 2013 The review is a managed document. For identification of amendments each page contains a version number and a page number. Changes will only be issued as complete replacement. Recipients should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised for release once all signatures have been obtained. PREPARED: ..................................................................................DATE: (for review by Working Group, Steering Committee and LGAT CEO) Ben Mooney, Project Officer ACCEPTED: ...................................................................................DATE: HHW Working Group ACCEPTED: ...................................................................................DATE: HHW Steering Committee ACCEPTED: ...................................................................................DATE: 1. BUILD STATUS:

Version Date Author Reason Sections 1.a 23/10/2012 Ben Mooney Draft for Working Group All 1.b 21/11/2012 Ben Mooney Draft for Working Group All and Steering Committee 2.a 08/01/2013 Ben Mooney Review for Working Group All and Steering Committee 2. AMENDMENTS IN THIS RELEASE:

Section Title Section Number Amendment Summary N/A 3. DISTRIBUTION:

Copy No Version Issue Date Issued To 1 1.a 23/10/2012 Working Group 2 1.b 21/11/2012 Working Group and Steering

Committee 3 2.a 08/01/2013 Working Group and Steering

Committee


Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Goals ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 5

2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Project history and definitions ....................................................................................... 7 2.2 Feasibility Studies ....................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Program aims, responsibilities, governance and reporting .......................................... 11 2.4 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) ............................................................................. 12

3 Project Design ................................................................................................................... 14

4 Results ..........……………………………………………………………………………………….17

4.1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Comparison with Feasibility Modelling ........................................................................ 18

5 Finance ............................................................................................................................... 20

6 Media and Communications ............................................................................................. 22

6.1 Brochure ..................................................................................................................... 22 6.2 Free call 1800 number ............................................................................................... 23 6.3 Website ....................................................................................................................... 23 6.4 Media releases, newspaper, radio and television ........................................................ 23

7 Other HHW Schemes ......................................................................................................... 25

8 National and State Waste Management Context ............................................................. 27

8.1 Commonwealth Government ...................................................................................... 27 8.2 Tasmanian State Government .................................................................................... 29

9 Tasmanian Local Government Surveys ........................................................................... 31

10 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 32

11 Analysis and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 35

11.1 Temporary vs Permanent Drop-off Sites ..................................................................... 35 11.2 Project Management ................................................................................................... 38 11.3 Promotions ................................................................................................................. 39 11.4 Funding and Governance ........................................................................................... 39 11.5 Future Direction .......................................................................................................... 40

12 References ......................................................................................................................... 41

13 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 43

13.1 Terms of reference: household hazardous waste program review .............................. 43 13.2 Site Selection Criteria (Full day service for up to 350 cars) ......................................... 48 13.3 HHW Material Collected (percent and kg) over 3 years ............................................... 49 13.4 Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Summary – 3 years ........................................ 50 13.5 Media Release Program Launch ................................................................................. 52 13.6 Media Release ............................................................................................................ 55 13.7 Newspaper Article ....................................................................................................... 56 13.8 Brochures ................................................................................................................... 57 13.9 Tasmanian Household Hazardous Waste Program – .................................................. 61 Survey March 2012 .............................................................................................................. 61 13.10 Household Hazardous Waste Stakeholder - ............................................................... 63 Survey October 2012 ........................................................................................................... 63


1 Executive Summary

1.1 Goals

The goals of this review of the Tasmanian Household Hazardous Waste Program are to

assess the outcomes and effectiveness of the current program, ChemSafe Homes

Tasmania, and propose future operational models for the collection, transport and disposal

of household chemicals. The review will be informed by quantitative and qualitative data

collected throughout the program, consultation with local governments and other relevant

stakeholders, and from information gathered about similar programs operating in other

jurisdictions.

From 2009-2012 the Tasmanian Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program successfully

delivered an opportunity for Tasmanians to safely dispose of household chemicals. The

benefits included safer homes, a cleaner environment, less hazardous material going to

landfill, a greater public awareness of household chemicals and a better understanding of

how to coordinate a state-wide free drop-off program.

Over the 3 years the Pilot Tasmanian Household Hazardous Program offered 34 drop-off

days across 24 local council jurisdictions, with 2658 people surrendering 78,529 kg of

material at a total cost of $967,959. The first of its kind in Tasmania, the jointly funded State

and Local Government HHW project ($500,000 each) demonstrated the benefits of

partnered State-wide projects.

The program is well positioned to continue to meet the needs of the Tasmanian community

and will require further State and Local Government commitment to secure a long-term

funding scheme, such as via a waste levy, and discussion around governance. In its final

year the program substantially increased public profile with a large increase in participation

rates and volumes of HHW.


After reviewing the original goals of the program, and making minor amendments based on

this review, a future program should continue to have the following goals:

• be well coordinated across regions, simple & safe;

• maintain a balance between collection and cost, and consider triple-bottom-line

outcomes;

• stimulate reuse of materials;

• have a high level of participation;

• increase community health and safety;

• stimulate awareness of waste minimisation;

• reduce the broader environmental impact of household hazardous waste; and

• meet community expectations for better waste management.

1.2 Recommendations

Based on the experiences of the three years of the Tasmanian HHW program and

successes from other programs run interstate, the following recommendations are presented

for the future direction of the program:

• Design and provide funding for a State-wide network of permanent drop-off sites for

High Volume Low Toxicity (HVLT) items (82% of material by volume) such as paint,

batteries, gas bottles, fluoro tubes and aerosols. Where such collections already

exist, consider the option of expanding and /or creating a regional centre for

collection and consolidation of material. This will allow for greater economies of

scale, reduce the cost per kilo for transport and treatment, and allow greater

opportunity for direct reuse (e.g. paint) via resource recovery operations.

• Provide regionally focussed mobile drop-off locations targeting Low Volume High

Toxicity (LVHT) materials. Mobile collection days are expensive to host and should

aim to collect only highly toxic material.

• Develop a register system for participants using mobile drop-off days. This ensures

greater effectiveness of offering mobile days, allows better planning and higher

quality of service with reduced overheads.

• Marketing to utilise a variety of options such as letterbox drops, newspaper, radio,

television, local government and state government promotional avenues. Support

should also be provided for a freecall number and message bank service, and

website.


• Actively pursue cost saving measures by reuse, recycling and recovery of

commodities for example supporting and engaging reuse operations (i.e. tip shops).

• Engage Tasmanian organisations to assist financially and/or in-kind by sponsoring

mobile LVHT drop-off days and permanent HVLT sites.

• Train local staff/council to operate components of the mobile drop off days to help

reduce operational costs.

• Partake in discussions regarding extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes,

and national or State Product Stewardship arrangements.


2 Background

2.1 Project history and definitions A joint project between the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and

the Environment (DPIPWE), the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT), and

the three regional bodies (Southern Waste Strategy Authority, Cradle Coast Authority and

the Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group (NTWMG)); the Tasmanian Household

Hazardous Waste Pilot Collection Program (HHW) is jointly funded by a DPIPWE Living

Environment Program (LEP) and the 29 councils in Tasmania. The program operated under

a Grant Deed, beginning in March 2009 and ending 31 December 2012. The HHW program

was based on similar existing programs operating in other states of Australia, such as Detox

Your Home in Victoria, Household Hazardous Waste Collection in South Australia,

Household Hazardous Waste Program in Western Australia and CleanOut in New South

Wales. Unique to Tasmania, however, are the challenges of a small and dispersed

population, a lack of treatment options within Tasmania and subsequent cost of shipping

material within and out of the state.

The aim of the pilot project was to improve the management of HHW in Tasmania, through

the establishment of a statewide collection, resource recovery, treatment and disposal

system and the provision of supporting public education and promotional activities.

Other reasons cited within the Grant Deed for undertaking the program included:

• Reduction of potential occupational health and safety (OH&S) impacts on waste

industry workers;

• Reduction in the potential for inadvertent poisonings; and

• Resource recovery, as some of the products are reusable or recyclable.

The term “household hazardous waste” originates in the United States and is defined in that

country as “leftover household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive

ingredients”10,13. In Australia, the terms “household hazardous waste” and “household

chemicals” tend to be used interchangeably3. The exact categories of products that are

included in HHW vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, the differences between

these lists appear principally due to the degree of detail in defining individual categories of

HHW, rather than differences in intent of separately collecting these materials. The majority

of HHW are liquids and unable to be disposed of at waste transfer stations (WTS), materials

recovery facilities (MRFs) and landfills due to environmental requirements to control

contaminated runoff and seepage.


The categories of HHW collected in this program are indicated in Table 1, and are further

defined as high volume low toxicity” (HVLT) household chemicals, and low volume high

toxicity” (LVHT) products.

Programs of separately collecting HHW to divert these materials from the general refuse

stream exist in the majority of Australian states and in a large number of overseas

communities, particularly in North America and Europe (see Section 7). Overall, programs of

separate collection and controlled recycling or disposal of HHW are considered to be

worthwhile not only for their direct environmental and health benefits, but because they also

engender the sense of environmental responsibility in the community 1,14.


Table 1: Categories of HVLT and LVHT HHW

High volume low toxicity (HVLT)

Paint (all types)

Gas cylinders

Batteries

Flammable liquid FP <61C

Aerosols

Automotive products except oil, eg coolants, brake fluids

Fluorescent tubes and CFGs

Low volume high toxicity (LVHT)

Acidic liquid

Alkali

Arsenic based products

Cyanides

Heavy metal compounds excluding metallic mercury

Metallic mercury

Organic peroxides

Oxidising(solid and liquid)

PCB materials

Pesticides (solid and liquid toxic)

Pesticides OC (solid and liquid toxic)

Photographic chemicals

Reactives

Solvents - halogenated

Toxic (solid and liquid)

Unknown (solid and liquid)


2.2 Feasibility Studies

As part of the Tasmanian Government’s commitment to achieving significant improvements

to the way that wastes are managed in the State, the then Department of Tourism, Arts and

the Environment (DTAE - formerly the Department of Primary Industries Water and

Environment (DPIWE) now DPIPWE) in 2006 engaged a consultant, Asterisk One, to

conduct comprehensive research and analysis on issues, barriers, options and costs of

establishing a HHW collection scheme in Tasmania 1,2,3.

Active collection programs in place in a number of Australian states and world-wide indicate

an increasing community expectation to divert these materials from the general domestic

waste stream, capture any available resource value, and provide the community with an

opportunity to dispose of them responsibly 1,12,14.

Tasmania has certain characteristics, including the size and spread of its population,

restricting availability of specialised infrastructure required for the management of HHW.

Consequently it was thought a different program was required, compared to other

jurisdictions, in order to yield the best results. In addition there was a desire for any HHW

collection program to be integrated with other waste management activities wherever

possible.

A range of research activities were undertaken by Asterisk One, including workshops with

key State and Local Government and industry stakeholders, a telephone survey of

householder attitudes, and comparison with practices and experiences of other Australian

programs1,2,3. These included the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation’s

‘Clean Out’ Program, and programs run by Sustainability Victoria and Zero Waste South

Australia.

A detailed comparison of the feasibility study models and actual results is discussed in

Section 4.2.


2.3 Program aims, responsibilities, governance and reporting

The agreed program aims of the HHW program, as outlined in the Grant Deed were:

• To appoint a Household Hazardous Waste Program Coordinator at 0.6 FTE.

• To implement and annual collection and disposal for household hazardous waste.

• To promote and develop a long-term partnership between LGAT, the regional council

bodies and DPIPWE and actively seek further investment opportunities for the

Household Hazardous Waste Program beyond the grant period.

• To enter into a suitable data sharing agreement for management and use of data

collection in relation to household hazardous waste and other data to support the

KPIs.

• To increase community health and safety, reduce environmental harm.

• To have a high level of participation and be responsive to community expectations.

• To investigate the investment in hazardous waste infrastructure and management in

Tasmania.

In order to meet these aims, roles and responsibilities were defined in the Grant Deed as

follows:

• The Regional Bodies agree to support the establishment and implementation of a

state-wide system of household hazardous waste collections by contributing to the

program the amount of funding matching the State Governments Living Environment

Program (LEP) contribution. This contribution is conditional on Local Government not

being responsible for unilaterally funding the program beyond the duration of the pilot

project, and once the pool of State and Local Government funds has been fully

expended.

• LGAT will host the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Coordinator,

facilitate meetings associated with the running of the program, hold in Trust the funds

received from DPIPWE and regional bodies, coordinate expenditure of the program

and provide audited financial statements.

• DPIPWE will provide funding via the LEP and work with LGAT to appoint the

Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Coordinator.


Program goals, indicators, strategies and initiatives were developed through stakeholder

workshops involving key state, regional, and local government representatives held in

Hobart and Launceston in February and March 2006.

The goals were for a program that:

• was well coordinated across regions, simple & safe;

• was financially sustainable;

• stimulated reuse of materials;

• had a high level of participation;

• increased community health and safety;

• stimulated awareness of waste minimisation;

• reduced the broader environmental impact of household hazardous waste; and

• met community expectations for better waste management.

2.4 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

As agreed by stakeholders attending the workshops in 2006, and then signed by the parties

in the Grant Deed, the reporting of KPIs for the program included:

• number of participating councils;

• number of collections held;

• frequency of collections in each region;

• cost per kilo collected;

• ratio of state and local funding;

• number of reported incidents;

• quantity and nature of material collected per household and per capita;

• community attitude trends measured by community surveys and use of recycling

facilities;

• reduced frequency of household hazardous waste presenting at Waste Transfer

Station and landfills; and

• community expectations and complaints.


The Grant Deed “Living Environment Program – Household Hazardous Waste Pilot

Collection Program” was a binding commitment by State and Local Government in Tasmania

to support the collection of HHW.

The program coordinator, situated at LGAT, was responsible for the establishment and daily

management of the program. This position was advertised across Tasmania in October

2008 with shortlisted candidates interviewed in December and the coordinator commencing

on 4 March 2009. The project coordinator was guided by a steering committee comprising

one member each from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Division, LGAT and the

Southern Waste Strategy Authority (SWSA).

During the 3.5 years the steering committee formally met 18 times, with out of session

meetings as required. The coordinator also made regular contact with the three Tasmanian

waste management groups to brief member councils, network ideas, seek feedback on the

program and provide a drop-off debrief including data on quantities and participation rates.

In August 2012, the three waste management groups established a working group and terms

of reference (Appendix 13.1) to guide a strategic review of the program. The working group

formally met five times with out of session meetings as required.


3 Project Design

Taking into account the needs of local and state government, regional authorities, budget,

preliminary scoping reports and operations of similar existing programs in Australia, the

HHW Steering Committee acknowledged the need for the program to be “seen” within the

first year of operation and endorsed a mobile collection scheme. Mobile drop-offs days

require householders to gather their HHW materials and deliver them to a location which the

chemical operator has determined safe for transfer of items. Strict adherence to instructions

was required, with participants agreeing drive safely, to stay within their vehicles and turn of

the ignition when asked. Mobile drop-off days were conducted as full days, generally

9.00am to 3.00pm, half days for 3 hours either morning or afternoon, and satellite days

which were run in conjunction with full days whereby the operator sets up the full day site,

and then drove up to one hour away to set up a smaller, half day drop-offs with a skeleton

staff, usually between 10.00am and 2.00pm. In this way two sites (or councils) received a

service and it also allowed materials to be consolidated on the day. In year one (2009–10),

two discreet campaigns were scheduled for December 2009 and March 2010. In

consultation with Local Government and the chemical contractor, Toxfree Solutions Ltd

(formerly Chemsal Pty Ltd), selection of 10 councils, sites, dates and times were confirmed.

In the selection of drop-off dates a consideration of weekend versus weekday was

addressed. Based on consultation with participating councils and mainland operations,

weekends were considered the best option for the pilot program. Survey data collected from

participants during collection days will assist in determining any future modification to this

approach. Careful timing of weekend drop-offs was made to avoid school and public

holidays, when many householders are away. Care was also taken to avoid scheduling

drop-offs at sites the same day as large events, such as football grand finals, international

sporting matches and festivals. Whilst every attempt was made to avoid clashes, there was

inevitably overlap and this was largely unavoidable. There is, however, some evidence to

suggest conducting drop-offs in conjunction with other events, such as free council waste

drop-offs, market days etc, may increase participation as householders are willing to travel

further for multiple events.


In the first year of operation the majority of the 10 sites were located in more populated

councils, with Dorset and Circular Head representing the two less populated councils. The

basic criteria for site selection included a well-known site with good access and flow through

traffic, flat, sealed, approximately 20m x 20m of available space, good visibility, little or no

pedestrian access and away from public activity areas (such as sporting fields, dog walking

tracks, play equipment – see Appendix 13.2.

Modifications were made to the design of the year two campaign (2010–2011) as a result of

lessons learnt in year one, and because of the need to extend the access to more

householders and council areas. In brief, the timetable of drop-offs in the second year

contained a combination of full and half day satellite drop-offs, as well as half day mobile

drop-offs. This unique design was formulated by the program coordinator to best meet the

immediate needs of councils wanting a service, and to trial shorter collections at more

remote collection sites. Promotion of these drop-offs was managed through two distinct

campaigns, with mailouts conducted a month prior to each collection, and media releases

prior to each drop-off weekend.

Of the 29 councils in Tasmania, 27 contributed financially to the program, with West Coast

and King Island councils not contributing. Of the 27 contributing councils, 24 received a

drop-off day, as shown in Figure 1.Those municipalities which did not have a drop-off day

included West Tamar, La Trobe and Flinders Island councils. Reasons for not providing a

service to these municipalities included transport and cost, particularly for Flinders Island,

and proximity of major population centres in those councils to existing drop-off locations in

other municipalities. For example, Latrobe and Devonport City Council shared a site at the

Spreyton Waste Transfer Station.

In year three (2011–12) the schedule returned to four drop-off days in the major population

centres (Launceston, Burnie and greater Hobart). The resounding success and quantity of

materials surrendered at these drop-offs days reduced the financial ability of the program to

conduct further drop-off days. By comparison the 30 drop-off days from 2009-2010 cost

approximately $400,000 in hosting and treatment, and the four drop-off days in 2011 cost

$93,000, leaving a balance of approximately $130,000 for future drop-off days. More detail

on finance is presented in Section 5.


Figure 1: Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Sites and Frequency 2009-2011


4 Results

4.1 Summary

2009-2012 outcomes

• 34 drop-off days across 24 council jurisdictions were conducted.

• The HHW program was used by 2658 people.

• The program collected 78,529 kg of HHW.

• The total cost of the program was $967,959 (including collection, transportation,

treatment and administration).

• Substantial quantities of LVHT materials were collected, such as toxic pesticides

(3,863 kg), toxic organics (1,527 kg), cyanides (43 kg) and arsenic based compounds

(38.5 kg).

• The majority if materials collected included HVLT materials, such as water and

solvent-based paints (59.2%), lead acid batteries (11%), gas bottles (5.1%) and

flammable liquids (e.g. fuels) (4.7%).

• The average collection costs were $12.33 per kg and $1.94 per capita.

• A comprehensive breakdown of total HHW collected, volume per site, number of

participants, and cost is presented in Appendix 13.3 and 13.4.


4.2 Comparison with Feasibility Modelling

The feasibility study conducted by Asterix One in 2006-07 presented two main options for

the conduct of a HHW collection in Tasmania, namely permanent versus temporary

collection sites. Both options were modelled to show promotion, collection, transportation

and treatment costs. The options, however, did not include project management costs such

as coordinator salary and administration.

Modelling of a five-year temporary site collection program (option A) estimated 11 drop-offs

per year, returning 44 tonnes per year, at a cost of $175,165 per year (Table 3). Modelling

of a single permanent site collection program (option B), based at either greater Hobart,

greater Launceston or Burnie, plus nine temporary site collections per year was estimated to

return 63 tonnes per year and cost $228,000 per annum.

The HHW Pilot Program Steering Committee decided to pursue option A and conduct only

temporary drop-offs sites in order to collect data on categories such as volumes and types of

materials collected, participation rates, successes of promotional campaigns and site

suitability. As such, the program conducted 34 temporary drop-off days (Appendix 13.4) at a

total cost of $967,959.

A clear difference between the modelling and the actual results is in the participation rates

and subsequent tonnes of materials collected. The modelling assumed approximately twice

that of the actual participation rates and tonnages during the first two years. However, in

year three the participation rate exceeded the modelling estimate by 40% and the cost per

kilogram reduced from $9.25 (year one), and $10.08 (year two) to $5.30 in year three. The

modelling for option A estimated a cost per kilogram of between $3.72 and $4.01 during the

first two years (See Table 3).

In developing the drop-off timetable, the year two design evolved considerably from that

workshopped with Asterix One. The key differences included the spread of drop-off days to

cover many more council areas and modification of the temporary full day drop-offs to

include full, half and satellite drop-offs. The result of these changes included lower volumes

of collected material and increased cost per kilogram. The overall nature of the waste

remained unchanged.

The differences in costs and participation rates may be due to the fact this was the first

program of its kind in Tasmania. Other factors which may have influenced costs and

participation include site selection, advertising, additional transport and hosting costs, and

Tasmania’s population distribution and demographics.


Table 3: Comparison of Modelling and Actual Drop-off Days aModelling based on Launceston permanent facility b Modelling based on 40 kg per person c Promotions, collection and treatment costs (does not include coordinator salary and administration support) dModelling based on 0.5 % of the council population participation

2009-2010 2010-Autumn 2011 Spring 2011

Modelling – Temporary

Sites

(option A)

Modelling – Temporary and

Permanent Sitesa

(option B)

Actual – Temporary

Sites


Sites

(option A)


and Permanent

Sitesa

(option B)


Sites


Sites

Number days 11 9 10 11 9 20 4

Tonnesb 44 63 25 48 36 27 26

Cost per kg ($)c 4.01 3.61 9.25 3.72 3.61 10.08 5.30

Total cost ($)c 175,165 228,000 231,383 180,029 228,000 272,077 137,774

Participants 1093 1580 1092 1210 1580 850 716

Participation rated 0.5 NA 0.29 0.5 NA 0.22 0.71


5 Finance

The HHW Program began in 2008 with $500,000 funding from DPIPWE, matched by

Tasmania's 29 local councils and be administered by the LGAT. Total income for the program

was $967,959. The Grant Deed outlined the roles and responsibilities of the parties and how

finances were to be allocated, with the balance of deed funds used to administer the program,

and expenses claimed from local governments on a dollar-for-dollar basis during the program.

In this way, Local Government was able to spread the cost of supporting the program over four

years. The major expenses were chemical collection/treatment (Toxfree and other contractors,

53%), wages (19%) and promotional activities (17%) (Table 4).

Totals

Expenses 2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013 $ (%)

Travel 2,092 5,583 6,467 3,855 3,000 20,997 2 Overheads 20,922 41,276 55,654 56,716 35,000 209,568 23 Promotions (brochure, website, media releases) 36,220 72,247 46,544 155,011 17 Toxfree (and other chemical contractors) 195,163 199,830 92,445 487,438 53 Asterix One 44,265 7,569 51,834 6 Total 67,279 285,811 334,198 199,560 38,000 924,848 100 Income State Government 500000 500,000 0.52 Local Government Regions SWSA 77,480 91,414 50,606 9,800 229,300 0.24 NTWMG 44,274 52,237 28,918 5,600 131,029 0.14 CCWMG 36,368 42,909 23,754 4,600 107,631 0.11 Regional subtotal 158,123 186,559 103,278 20,000 467,959 0.48 967,959 100

Table 4: Expenditure and Income 01/05/2008 – 01/12/2012


The greatest category expense for the program was for the collection and treatment of

chemicals by Toxfree ($485,871) (Table 5). A significant proportion of expense was from

hosting mobile collection sites. This is one area where significant savings can be achieved in

the future by the use of suitably trained local labour as opposed to using mainland labour.

Toxfree would still require qualified site managers and chemists for unknown identifications;

however, the remainder of staff could be sourced locally. Additional savings may also be

achieved in connecting reusable materials (such as paint, some oils) with resource recovery

outlets within Tasmania.

The cost of promotional activity over the three years was also significant ($153,699) (Table 5).

However, the HHW Steering Committee determined the cost was justified to ensure the

program was well-positioned statewide to deliver performance outcomes and meet

stakeholder expectations.

Table 5 – Chemical treatment and promotion expenses 01/05/2008 – 01/12/2012

1 Includes transport and unknown identification.

Toxfree Collection Hosting Treatment1 Dec-09 63,700 21,563 Mar-10 87,900 21,773 Dec-10 70,523 20,249 Mar-11 77,960 30,098 Dec-11 49,523 42,582 Total 349,606 136,265 485,871 Promotions

Brochure Printing Delivery Collection

Dec 2009 and Mar

2010 13,595 21,313 Dec-10 22,758 20,008 Mar-11 29,481 Dec-11 15,882 30,662 Total 52,235 101,464 153,699


6 Media and Communications

The communications strategy was considered one of the keys to the success of the program

and a brochure was used as the main form of connecting with the householder. Many

homeowners are unsure of the identity of materials accumulated or inherited on their

properties. To assist with product identification and questions relating to scheduling and

frequency of drop-off days, a freecall, recorded 1800 number, with message bank, was setup

to receive calls. The biggest investment in time and money was on the brochure printing and

mail out ($153,699, Table 5), with the 1800 number, website, and media

releases/newspaper/radio/TV interviews providing low cost support.

Promotion of the first campaign was via a media launch in October 2009, at Launceston City

Council's depot at Remount Road, by the then Minister for Environment, Michelle O’Byrne,

and LGAT President Mayor Barry Easther (Appendix 13.5). The coordinator was interviewed

on ABC Radio on the day of the media launch. A state-wide information brochure was mailed

out 4 November 2009, detailing drop-off rules and the timetable for drop-offs in December

2009 and March 2010 (Appendix 13.6). Media releases were published the week preceding

each drop-off and were carried by most regional newspapers as well as smaller community

newspapers (Appendix 13.6 and 13.7).

6.1 Brochure An information brochure was prepared for each drop-off campaign to promote the timetable of

drop-offs and generate awareness of HHW. Brochures were delivered across Tasmania to all

households, post-office boxes, roadside and counter collections. Business addresses were

not included. Miscommunication with the delivery provider in the November 2010 mail out

resulted in a restricted delivery and brochures not being delivered to addresses with “No Junk

Mail", “No unaddressed Mail” notices. This error was subsequently rectified and all future mail

outs are to be clearly labelled as unrestricted government community notices. Examples of

the brochures can be found in Appendix 13.8.


6.2 Free call 1800 number

The number was established to provide a one-stop-shop for information to householders, as

well as provide a central communication place for individuals to leave a message and return

phone number. The program coordinator was able to respond to homeowners' questions

about the materials collected, their destination and other matters relating to the program. The

1800 857 002 free call number had strong usage, with 536 calls over three years. The phone

number was considered a very useful low cost way to support the brochure, media releases

and website. High population densities are reflected in the top call localities with Hobart,

Launceston, Devonport and Burnie recording the highest number of calls (Figure 2). Over

three years the program coordinator made 155 return calls to messages left on the 1800

number. The range and quantity of enquiries were equally spread across what types of

material were accepted, how to identify or transport unknowns, confirmation of dates and sites

locations, and when the next drop-offs days were to be announced. Set up and maintenance

of the 1800 number and return calls amounted to approximately $2000 over 3.5 years.

6.3 Website

The LGAT website maintained a page providing background information, current and

proposed timetables and was considered a good low cost option to provide support to the

main promotional campaigns. All councils were encouraged to provide similar information on

their own websites, including a copy of the brochure and timetable. Direct email enquiries to

the program coordinator resulting from the website averaged 20 per year.

6.4 Media releases, newspaper, radio and television

Prior to each drop-off campaign the program coordinator prepared media releases (Appendix

13.6) for distribution across radio, television and newspapers. On all occasions the stories

were run in the three Tasmanian newspapers (The Mercury, The Examiner and The Advocate)

for each drop-off campaign in their area. The story was also picked up by ABC radio in

October 2009 with the coordinator conducting two on-air interviews. Survey results from

participants at every drop-off site indicated that while the brochure was the main source of

information (range 44-100% of respondents per site), newspaper, council advertising and radio

are also an excellent low-cost option. Such advertising would be worth continuing in future

programs. Campaign website updates and media releases/interviews cost approximately

$200 and $500 per annum, respectively. In November 2012, the program coordinator was


interviewed by ABC Tasmania news to outline the history and success of the program and to

highlight the lack of facilities within Tasmania to receive and treat HHW.

Figure 2: Most Common 1800 Call Localities between November 2009 – November 2012

*Other includes unknown call locality within Tasmania and all localities less than 8 calls


7 Other HHW Schemes

Several HHW schemes operate in mainland Australian states, including:

• Detox Your Home (Sustainability Victoria)

• Household Hazardous Waste Program (WALGA and local government)

• Household Hazardous Waste Collection (Zerowaste SA and local government)

• CleanOut (NSW DECC and local government).

Many of these programs have been operating for a number of years (e.g. Detox since about

1994). All have temporary collection days and several provide permanent facilities (Western

Australia 6 sites, South Australia 1). NSW has plans to implement permanent sites in the near

future. In each state the main material collected is water and solvent based paint (43 – 56 %

of total waste by weight). There are no extended producer responsibility or sponsorship

schemes in place, with the total cost of the programs covered by respective state governments

and, in some cases, in partnership with local governments.

Detox Your Home, funded by landfill levy through Sustainability Victoria (11)

From 2005 – 2010 there were 175 mobile collections across Victoria, attracting 46,970 visits,

collecting more than 2,100 tonnes of HHW. 125 sites were classed as non-metro, with the

majority of these attracting less than 500 visits. The program supports six metropolitan and

seven regional permanent facilities which collect only LVHT. The cost per kilogram to collect

HHW materials in 2004-5 was $1.90. In 2012, the program implemented a pre-register service

for mobile HHW collection days. Where possible participants are required to list their

chemicals, quantities and expected arrival time to the collection days (within a one hour

timeslot). The system has achieved savings due to better prediction of quantities and types of

material to be dropped off, allowing savings on staff management and infrastructure

deployment (trucks, bins, stillages) (pers. comm. Jason Cran Victoria State Manager Toxfree).

CleanOut, funded by NSW Environmental Trust through DECC NSW in partnership with Local Government (4)

From 2003 – 2011 there were 385 mobile collections across NSW, attracting 164,282 visits,

collecting more than 5,822 tonnes of HHW. NSW has no major permanent facilities and

conducts 38 mobile drop-off days annually. The cost per kilogram to collect HHW materials in

2004-2005 was $3.29.


Household Hazardous Waste Program, funded by WA Waste Authority through WALGA in cooperation with regional councils (16)

In 2009 there were 18 collections of HHW from six permanent sites, and 12 mobile collection

days, attracting 3146 participants (mobile sites only) and collecting more than 149 tonnes of

HHW (both modes of collection). The cost per kilogram to collect HHW materials in 2009 for

permanent and mobile collections combined was $15.52.

Household Hazardous Waste Program, funded and run through Zerowaste SA in cooperation with Local Government (15)

The South Australian program began in 2003 and has around 22 mobile days and one

permanent facility open one day per month. In 2007-08, the program attracted 3,869

participants (mobile sites only), collecting more than 220 tonnes of HHW. The cost per

kilogram to collect HHW materials in 2004-05 was $3.04.

Internationally, many HHW schemes operate. The following provides a snapshot of different

management styles and operations. Funding sources are commonly from State and Local

Government, industry and waste management levies.

United States. Since collections began in the 1980s, the number of collection days held

today is in excess of 3000 annually. The main focus is permanent drop-off facilities with some

temporary days held. Various funding models include State and/or Local Governments with

occasional input from industry and other organisations (such as utilities, research institutes)

10,13

New Zealand. A mobile caravan, Hazmobile Service, which began in Auckland, now operates

across the country. Most paint is collected via a product stewardship point-of-sale return

service.8

Europe. In the United Kingdom, most material is collected at permanent recycling collection

centres. Belgium (Antwerp) and Netherlands (The Hague) provide householders with a

tamper-proof box for mobile collections or residents can drop them at permanent facilities.7,9

Canada. British Columbia has well-developed product stewardship schemes for paint (1994),

pharmaceuticals (1996), household chemicals (1997) at centralised depots or point-of-sale

return for HHW.5,6


8 National and State Waste Management Context

8.1 Commonwealth Government

In November 2009 The National Waste Policy (NWP) outlined a new, efficient and

environmentally responsible approach to waste management in Australia, and where we want

to be in 2020. The aims of the NWP are to:

• avoid the generation of waste, reduce the amount of waste (including hazardous

waste) for disposal

• manage waste as a resource

• ensure that waste treatment, disposal, recovery and re-use is undertaken in a safe,

scientific and environmentally sound manner, and

• contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation and

production, water efficiency and the productivity of the land.

Direct relevance between the commonwealth policy and HHW collection in Tasmania are

primarily those strategies targeting HHW items with the NWP driving product stewardship

framework legislation to allow the impacts of a product to be responsibly managed during and

at end-of-life. As such, the Product Stewardship Regulations (Televisions and Computers)

2011 came into effect on 8 November 2011. The regulations underpin the National Television

and Computer Recycling Scheme, which provide householders and small businesses with free

access to drop-off and recycling services. The first services under the scheme will start in mid-

2012 and will cover metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia by the end of 2013.

This is an example of producers taking responsibility for the collection and recycling of their

products. Further product stewardship programs for tyres, batteries and paint are being

considered.

Another example of a national extended producer responsibility (EPR) product stewardship

program is ChemClear®, a successor program to ChemCollect. It is implemented by Agsafe

Ltd, an independent subsidiary of Crop Life Australia (the national body for the plant science

industry). The program primarily targets unwanted rural chemicals that are currently registered

by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Chemicals Authority (APVMA), and are sold by

member Companies of Crop Life Australia and Animal Health Alliance. Such products are

designated “Group 1” and are collected by ChemClear® at no cost to the holder of the

materials. All other products are designated as “Group 2”, and can be collected by

ChemClear®, but a charge is made.


A cornerstone of the ChemClear® program is that all materials must be booked in for

collection, either by phone or via the ChemClear® website. Full inventories of materials must

be provided when making the booking. ChemClear® will carry out the collection only when

sufficient material is booked in from any one region. As mentioned in Section 8, this system of

pre-registering material has been adopted by the Victorian HHW program, Detox Your Home,

with great success.

drumMUSTER is the national program for the collection and recycling of empty, cleaned, non

returnable crop production and on-farm animal health chemical containers. Like ChemClear®,

it is an initiative of The National Farmers Federation, Crop Life Australia and Animal Health

Alliance, and runs with the active participation of local government. It is implemented by

Agsafe Ltd, an independent subsidiary of Crop Life Australia. The majority of councils in

Tasmania have entered into agreements with Agsafe to become collection agencies for the

program.

The National Return & Disposal of Unwanted Medicines Limited, is a national not-for-profit

company and operates the Return Unwanted Medicines (RUM) Project. The national scheme,

funded by the Commonwealth Government, provides for unwanted and out-of-date medicines

to be collected by community pharmacies from consumers and then disposed of by high

temperature incineration. Community pharmacies collect these medicines at no cost to

consumers, and pharmaceutical wholesalers provide support via a discounted charge for

delivery and collection of RUM Project containers, to and from pharmacies. The federal budget

for July 2009 approved over $9 million for a four year term to the project, with a funding review

due in June 2013.


8.2 Tasmanian State Government

The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy, June 2009, was developed as a

result of both State and Local Government’s commitment to improving waste management

and waste minimisation services and practices, and as a result of industry and community

concern about a growing waste management problem in the State. The Strategy provides

broad guidance and a strategic framework for solid waste management and resource recovery

initiatives and programs. The Strategy recognises the need for local and unique waste

management solutions in the State based on Tasmania’s low economies of scale and

geographical distance from existing mainland and international markets of waste treatment

and resource recovery. Addressing the waste management issues and finding effective

solutions in Tasmania requires coordinated and collaborative action across the State. This

Strategy builds upon the progress made and strengthens collaborative partnerships between

the State and Local Governments, and between Government and industry.

A number of key themes resulted from stakeholder input and have been incorporated in the

objectives and strategic actions in this Strategy. These are:

• principles of sustainability being integral of any initiatives arising from the Strategy;

• waste avoidance and reduction;

• better governance and leadership from State Government;

• improved regulation and enforcement of waste management activities;

• an increase in resource recovery;

• an increase and improvements in data collection and management systems;

• improved partnerships and cooperation between stakeholders, and

• clarification of roles and responsibilities in relation to waste management

From a policy perspective, the Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy is

largely consistent with the Commonwealth National Waste Policy. Ongoing discussion

between the State Government and stakeholders in Tasmania regarding a waste levy has

resulted in a discussion paper “A Waste to Resources Framework” to be released for public

comment late 2012, or early 2013. The paper outlines the case for change regarding the

management of waste in Tasmania, and the need to divert waste from landfill and provide

assistance and incentives for improved waste management practices.


As such, a compulsory landfill levy, mandated in State legislation of $10 per tonne is

proposed. Waste includes municipal, construction and demolition, commercial and industrial

waste and would apply in addition to gate fees charged by the landfill owners and operators.

Such a levy would generate approximately $4.5 million per year. This revenue, the “Waste to

Resources Fund”, would be fully allocated to waste management activities.

The discussion paper proposes 20% to local government regional waste management groups,

10% to the EPA for waste compliance and enforcement activities, and the remaining 70% for

funding and management of initiatives consistent with the Waste to Resources strategy. The

paper proposes the EPA Board to administer the Waste to Resources Framework, and that

the Waste Advisory Committee provides advice to the EPA Board.

Due to the cost of HHW collections both here and on the mainland the future of a HHW

program in Tasmania is wholly dependent on the implementation of a landfill levy, and a

successful proposal to secure funds from the Waste to Resources Fund.


9 Tasmanian Local Government Surveys

In March and October 2012 two surveys were distributed to all councils in Tasmania, copies of

which are attached in Appendix 13.9 and 13.10. The aim of the first survey was to ascertain

general satisfaction levels with the number and location a drop-off days, satisfaction with the

promotional campaign and evidence of a reduction in the quantity of material presented at

waste transfer stations. Responses (17% of councils) indicated the program was very well

received, with a high level of satisfaction with the number of drop-off sites in their council and

region. No respondents were unsatisfied with the level of service and all indicated a difficulty

in measuring whether a reduction in HHW presenting at landfill was achieved. Overall, the

comments across councils were that the program was very worthwhile, should continue and

when was the next service to begin.

The second survey asked more detailed questions on current landfill and WTS operations,

materials accepted (including some HHW categories) and general interest in hosting either

HVLT or LVHT drop-off sites. Of the respondents (52% of councils), 80% currently accept

some form of HVLT HHW, mainly paint, batteries, gas bottles or aerosols. The majority of

councils indicated willingness to host a permanent HVLT drop-off (70%), with 50% expressing

willingness to host a permanent LVHT drop-off site. In the comments section there was strong

support for a regional and/or state-wide approach to managing the collection of HHW

materials, with a number of councils expressing a strong desire to be a regional site for HVLT

and LVHT.


10 Conclusions

Over three years the Pilot Tasmanian HHW Program delivered a very successful service for

the safe disposal of household chemicals and met or exceeded the KPIs and goals outlined in

the Grant Deed.

2009-2012 outcomes

• 34 drop-off days across 24 council jurisdictions were conducted.

• The HHW program was used by 2658 people.

• The program collected 78,529 kg of HHW.

• The total cost of the program was $967,959 (including collection, transportation,

treatment and administration).

• Substantial quantities of LVHT materials were collected, such as toxic pesticides (3,863

kg), toxic organics (1,527 kg), cyanides (43 kg) and arsenic based compounds (38.5

kg)

• The majority of materials collected included HVLT materials, such as water and solvent-

based paints (59.2%), lead acid batteries (11%), gas bottles (5.1%) and flammable

liquids (e.g. fuels) (4.7%)

• The average collection costs were $12.33 per kg and $1.94 per capita.

There were no environmental incidents and participant surveys indicate the overwhelming

response from Tasmanians was positive, with only a few complaints (less than 2% of surveyed

participants) regarding the location and frequency of drop-offs in some jurisdictions. The

number of businesses attempting to utilise the service was fewer than 25 over 34 drop-off

days.


The program achieved fairly high yet varying participation rates. Factors influencing

participation rates included:

• Site selection.

Centrally located sites located on major roads, with clear and easy vehicular access

with a well-known public profile received the most cars and quantities of material.

Generally, sites at council chambers or central car parks had better participation rates

(as % per council population) than those at council waste management centres. This is

possibly due to the location of waste management centres being less well-known to

participants from neighbouring councils.

• Promotion.

The promotional campaign varied from year one to year two, with a more targeted

letterbox drop in the second year. The first campaign mail out was in October 2009.

This mail out suffered by advertising for drop-offs days in March 2010, which appears

to be too far in advance. The second year mail out, whilst delivered 4 weeks prior to

regional collection days, suffered as a result of the brochures not going out

“unrestricted”. Consequently, brochures were not delivered to households displaying

messages such as “no junk mail” and “unaddressed mail only”. In future, clear

communication with the delivery provider (Australia Post) will ensure correct delivery of

brochures. In year three a single campaign with state-wide brochure delivery returned

a substantial increase in participation rates. This is likely due to the on-going message

being reinforced and improved HHW community education.

• Weather and scheduling.

These factors appear to be less important, with several days experiencing very cold

and wet weather receiving good numbers of participants, as well as hot sunny days

also performing well. Several drop-off days which coincided with local market days and

sporting matches did not appear to be overly affected. At a local level there is some

suggestion that scheduling drop-off days with community events may enhance

participation, particularly in more rural areas. A good example is one of the more

successful drop-offs in Sorell, which coincided with the market day, with 0.5% of the

Sorell Council population using the service. This is the third highest participation rate

over the 34 drop-off days, behind both Kingborough drop-offs.


Several sites offering recurring drop-offs had sustained participation rates (Kingborough and

Glenorchy), whereas Launceston's had reduced and Hobart performed below expectations.

As suggested earlier, this is possibly a result of the location of the drop-off at, or near, waste

management centres.

The progression from full-day (year one) to a combination of full, half and satellite drop-offs

(year two) achieved a number of successful outcomes. It meant a greater proportion of

council areas gained access and returned surprising results from some locations. For

example, the full day Sorell drop-off had the third highest rate of participation (based on % of

council population). Further, the half day Ulverstone drop-off had one of the lowest cost per

kilogram ($3.70 per kilogram) as a result of high participation, high volumes per person and

shorter hosting time (3 hours). Other half-day drop-offs at Sheffield, George Town, St Helens,

Triabunna, Oatlands and Campbell Town all had costs greater than $10.00 per kilogram (refer

to Appendix 13.4), due to low participation.

It appears the HHW program in year three was gathering momentum and beginning to

approach or in some cases exceed the Asterix One models and other Australian programs

when comparing participation rate, volume per person and finally, cost per kilo. The most

successful full day drop-off was Clarence City Council chambers on 26/11/2011 where 334

participants (1.06% of council population) surrendered nearly 13 tonnes of materials (39 kg per

person) at a cost of $2.40 per person.


11 Analysis and Recommendations

The HHW program delivered an opportunity for Tasmanians to safely dispose of household

chemicals. The benefits of such a program included safer homes, a cleaner environment, less

material going to landfill, a greater public awareness of household chemicals and a better

understanding of how to coordinate a free statewide drop-off program. We reviewed the goals

and made minor amendment and as such a future program should continue to have the

following goals:

• be well coordinated across regions, simple & safe;

• maintain a balance between collection and cost, and consider triple-bottom-line

outcomes;

• stimulate reuse of materials;

• have a high level of participation;

• increase community health and safety;

• stimulate awareness of waste minimisation;

• reduce the broader environmental impact of household hazardous waste; and

• meet community expectations for better waste management.

11.1 Temporary vs Permanent Drop-off Sites

Over the three year program, the main factors in determining whether to conduct temporary or

permanent sites were the spread of population in Tasmania across metropolitan and non-

metropolitan areas, and the funding contributed by local governments. The preferred option of

temporary collections saw a combination of full, half and satellite temporary drop-off days in 24

of the 29 local government jurisdictions.

The future design of the HHW drop-off program depends on the level of funding and future

goals indicated earlier. Further, it also depends on the types of materials to be collected.

Permanent sites are more suited to HVLT materials, while mobile collections suit LVHT

material collections.


Temporary sites allow for greater flexibility and a greater number and range of sites, with the

downsides being the higher costs, and having to justify sites based on council boundaries and

financial contributions. In adopting a register system for participants using mobile drop-off

days, similar to the Victorian model and that used for ChemClear, the program could make

more accurate forecasts on staff deployment and types of material expected. This could lead

to cost savings and transport efficiencies.

A comparison of options for future drop-off days, including temporary/permanent, metro/non-

metro and permanent HVLT/temporary LVHT are presented in Table 6. The fixed costs for

temporary or permanent drop-off days range from $110,000-$210,000, with permanent sites

requiring additional funding for infrastructure (dangerous goods storage), and on-going labour

costs, training, servicing and maintenance of facilities. The advertising is based on a regional

($25,000) or state-wide ($50,000) mailout of brochures. The overheads are based on

employment and administrative costs of a coordinator (0.6 FTE - $60,000 or 0.3 FTE -

$30,000), as well as costs for set up and maintenance of the 1800 number, website and media

releases. In order to compare value for money, the number of mobile collection days or

permanent sites in options 2, 4 and 6 were selected to enable a comparison of total annual

costs across these options (e.g. $370,000-$380,000).

The comparison of temporary metro HHW drop-off days (options 1 and 2) indicates the cost

competitiveness of increasing the number of drop-off days due to the large fixed cost

component. Similarly options 3 and 4 show a substantial decrease in the cost per kilo in non-

metro drop-offs when increasing the number of days. A single permanent drop-off facility,

option 5, has the second lowest cost per kilo ($4.11), however, option 6 has the lowest cost

per kilo ($3.13) and the highest expected volume (120 tonnes). This is due to targeting HVLT

through permanent facilities and offering a single mobile drop-off day per year.


Option Fixed Costs Variable Tonnage and Costs per annum

Total Annual Costs

Total Annual

Cost per kg

Start-up Fixed Cost per annum Collection Treatment Total

Infrast. Advertising/marketing Operating Overheads Total Days $ per

unit $ per

annum Tonnes $ per tonne

$ per annum

1 (1) mobile metropolitan site (LVHT & HVLT) 0 25000 0 30000 55000 1 15000 15000 15 2000 30000 45000 100000 6.67

2 (6) mobile metropolitan sites (LVHT & HVLT) 0 50000 0 60000 110000 6 15000 90000 90 2000 180000 270000 380000 4.22

3 (1) mobile non-metropolitan site (LVHT & HVLT)

0 25000 0 30000 55000 1 7500 7500 5 2000 10000 17500 72500 14.50

4 (15) mobile non-metropolitan sites (LVHT & HVLT)

0 50000 0 60000 110000 15 7500 112500 75 2000 150000 262500 372500 4.97

5 (1) permanent metropolitan site (LVHT & HVLT)

35000 25000 100000 30000 190000 N/A 0 0 90 2000 180000 180000 370000 4.11

6 (10) permanent metropolitan and non-metropolitan sites (HVLT);

(1) mobile metropolitan site (LVHT);

10000 25000 0 60000 95000 1 40000 40000 120 2000 240000 280000 375000 3.13

Table 6 – Cost models for future HHW collections – metro, non-metro, permanent and temporary


Permanent sites, targeting LVHT, most likely in greater Hobart, Launceston or Burnie, would

provide a stable opportunity for householders to drop-off materials; however, the fixed cost for

infrastructure and annual operation would require substantial long-term commitment from

hosting councils and/or regions and a secure funding source before embarking on such a

service. Several other considerations also need to be taken into account, such as:

• the need for trained staff to be available on-site at all times to receive material

• a requirement for necessary licences on site and liability insurance to store material

• storage of materials could potentially pose a hazard to council staff and the general

public

• more frequent servicing of storage areas would be required.

Given the volumes and costs associated with HVLT materials (82% of total volume), a future

program should target and provide permanent facilities for the collection, reuse, consolidation

and transport of these categories. Across Tasmania, many councils currently provide the

opportunity for drop-off of a variety of HVLT items, such as paint, gas bottles, aerosols and

batteries. It is recommended, if the HHW program continues, a state-wide network of

permanent facilities targeting HVLT items is established. In developing a network, cost

savings can be achieved through economies of scale by consolidating categories into bulk

transport/processing/recovery options and allow greater opportunity of direct reuse (e.g. paint)

via resource recovery operations.

11.2 Project Management

A degree of the success of the program can be credited to the continuity of a single program

coordinator and an unchanged program management committee. The coordinator established

a clear and professional relationship with the chemical contractor which ensured the program

was flexible enough to modify the drop-off schedule in year two and deliver a tailored service

for Tasmania. The program coordinator also provided clear and transparent information

directly to councils hosting mobile days and collectively through the three local government

regional authorities. These networks will be crucial in delivering the program in future years

and developing a suitable model. The same coordinator has remained in the position

throughout the program and this is considered a vital component of the successful operation of

the service. The ongoing program management of the HHW drop-off program requires a

committed and centralised coordinator with strong relationships with stakeholders and

contractors.


11.3 Promotions

The delivery of brochures to every house in Tasmania is the most effective way to inform

householders of the importance of disposal options for household hazardous waste. It

provides direct access to the homeowner, regardless of ownership or tenancy, and avoids

unnecessary duplication or overlap with businesses. Although the most costly option, this

method will contribute to the success of a future program and should be continued if funding is

available.

Depending on site location, it may be possible to reduce costs by reducing the number of

drop-off locations and running a more targeted campaign. However, this approach risks

missing potential households which are willing to travel greater distances to attend drop-offs.

The use of lower cost options such as council newsletters, media releases carried by local

newspapers and TV and radio interviews should be pursued. The free-call 1800 number also

provided the opportunity for direct contact with households about the service and should be

continued. A dedicated website or online information about the service via a regional

authority/waste management groups should also be maintained with up-to-date information on

the HHW program.

11.4 Funding and Governance

Current discussion of a State-wide waste levy, with the majority of funds raised to be

hypothecated to waste management projects, is a potential long-term option for the funding of

the HHW program. The program requires substantial funding to be effective in promotion,

collection and treatment of HHW. Further contributions from other government sources,

industry and NGOs should be considered once long-term financial backing is confirmed.

Additionally, as many of the costs associated with the HHW program are demand driven and

largely unpredictable (i.e.number of participants, volume and type of material), a contingency

fund should be established to ensure costs will be met.


11.5 Future Direction

Based on the analysis of the Tasmanian program, with consideration of similar national and

international programs, the following future directions are recommended:

• A State-wide network of permanent drop-off sites for HVLT items (82% of material by

volume) such as paint, batteries, gas bottles, fluoro tubes and aerosols, to allow for

greater economies of scale, reduce the cost per kilo for transport and treatment, as

shown by option 6 (Table 6) and provide greater opportunity for direct reuse (e.g. paint)

via resource recovery operations.

• Design regionally focussed mobile drop-off locations aimed at targeting LVHT materials.

Mobile collection days are expensive and should aim to target highly toxic material.

• Use marketing options such as letterbox drops, newspaper, radio, television, local

government and state government promotional avenues and continue a freecall number,

message bank service and website.

• Develop a register system for participants using mobile drop-off days to ensure greater

effectiveness of mobile days, better planning and provide a higher quality of service with

reduced overheads.

• Actively pursue cost saving measures by reuse, recycling and recovery of commodities

such as supporting and engaging reuse operations (i.e. tip shops).

• Engage Tasmanian organisations to assist financially and/or in-kind by sponsoring

mobile LVHT drop-off days and permanent HVLT sites.

• Train local staff/council to operate components of the mobile drop off days to help

reduce operational costs.


12 References

1. Asterisk One (April 2006) Householder Attitudes to HHW – Survey Report, prepared for

the Tas Dept of Tourism, Arts & the Environment, Hobart.

2. Asterisk One (May 2007) A Household Hazardous Waste Collection System for

Tasmania: Supplementary Modelling Report, prepared for the Tas Dept of Tourism, Arts

& the Environment, Hobart.

3. Asterisk One (July 2006) A Household Hazardous Waste Collection System for

Tasmania, prepared for the Tas Dept of Tourism, Arts & the Environment, Hobart.

4. DECCW (Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water 2009) Household

Chemical CleanOut Program: Annual Report 2010-2011, DECCW, Sydney.

5. Driedger RJ (2002) From Cradle to Grave: Extended Producer Responsibility for

Household Hazardous Wastes in British Columbia, Journal of Industrial Ecology,

Volume 5, No 2, pp 89-102.

6. ECO (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario) (2010) Getting it Right: Paying for the

Management of Household Hazardous Wastes. Special Report to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario.

7. European Commission, Directorate-General Environment (2002) Study on Hazardous

Household Waste (HHW) with a Main Emphasis on Hazardous Household Chemicals

(HHC).

8. Murray, S. (2010) The Auckland Region Household and Agricultural Hazardous Waste

Programme. 2008/2009 Annual Report. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report

2010/049.

9. National Household Hazardous Waste Forum, Case Study: Collections in Antwerp,

Belgium, http://www.resourcefutures.co.uk/

10. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Household Hazardous Waste,

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8485.html

11. Sustainability Victoria (2010) Detox your home Strategic Review - Victorian Local

Government Data Collection 2007/08, Sustainability Victoria, Melbourne.

12. TQA Research Pty Ltd (2004) Household Chemical Collection (HCC) Program Review

Research – Final Report. Prepared for EcoRecycle Victoria.

13. United States EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/hhw.htm

14. Woolcott Research (2002) A Benchmark and Evaluative Study of Knowledge, Attitudes

and Behaviour Regarding Household Hazardous Waste, prepared for Resource NSW.

15. ZeroWaste SA (2012) Business Plan 2012-13 and 2013-2015 Future Directions,

Government of South Australia.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8485.html

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/hhw.htm


16. Zero Waste WA (2010) Household Hazardous Waste Program: Program Summary and

Forecasts for 2010-11, Zero Waste WA, Perth.


13 Appendix

13.1 Terms of reference: household hazardous waste program review

The household hazardous waste (HHW) program (known as ChemSafe HomesTasmania)

provided a mobile collection of household hazardous waste chemicals throughout Tasmania

from March 2009 until December 2011. Households were encouraged to drop off chemicals

from the garden, kitchen and garage, including fuels, oils, lubricants, paints, thinner, solvents,

poisons and many more to mobile drop off points across Tasmania.

The program, jointly funded by the state government and Tasmania's 29 local governments

through the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT), has concluded. The program

was facilitated by LGAT who also hosted the program coordinator. The program was overseen

by a steering committee, chaired by the program coordinator, with representatives from the

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Tasmania, LGAT, and the Southern Waste Strategy

Authority.

It is timely a review is carried out to determine how household chemicals might be collected in

Tasmania in the future. In undertaking a review, it will be important to consider the influence of

emerging national waste policies and household hazardous waste collection approaches used

in other jurisdictions.

The review is to be undertaken with the following terms of reference.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. Purpose

To review the outcomes and effectiveness of the ChemSafe Homes Tasmania program and

propose future operational models for the collection, transport and disposal of household

chemicals.

2. Scope of work

The program coordinator is to lead the review into the ChemSafe Homes program with support

from Tasmania's three waste management groups (Cradle Coast Waste Management Group,

the Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group and the Southern Waste Strategy

Authority).


The review will be informed by quantitative and qualitative data collected throughout the

program, consultation with local governments and other relevant stakeholders, and from

information gathered about similar programs operating in other jurisdictions.

In undertaking this review, the program coordinator will undertake targeted engagement and

consultation with local governments, waste management groups, and the state government

and industry where appropriate.

In determining the future scope and operation of a HHW collection program, the following

issues will be examined:

2.1. Program administration and outcomes a) Costs

i. Overall costs to administer the program. Costs are to include financial

costs,human resources costs and iny in-kind support offered to the

program from any partner organisations.

ii. Cost of the ChemSafe program compared to costs of running similar

programs in other jurisdictions.

iii. Cost per tonne of materials collected per head of population and any

other comparisons considered appropriate.

b) Outcomes

i. Tonnages of materials collected, broken down by type.

c) Performance of the program against performance indicators or success

measures set at the commencement of the program.

d) Communications and advertising

i. Number of households targeted.

ii. Type of communication methods used.

iii. Amount spent on advertising per tonne of materials recovered and per

participant.

e) Attendance

i. Numbers of participants at all collections held and also broken down by

region.

ii. Factors affecting attendance rates, e.g. weather, location, community

events, holidays, frequency of collections.

f) Service satisfaction

i. Participant feedback received.

ii. Local government satisfaction.


g) Logistics

i. The appropriateness of the sites, including traffic management,

occupational health and safety considerations and environmental

controls.

ii. Injuries or reported hazards to either staff or the community using the

service and any incidents (such as spillages) reported.

iii. Relationship with the company contracted to accept the chemicals and

any issues encountered.

iv. Incidences of banned or prohibited materials, by frequency and material

type.

2.2. Other collection and disposal options

a) Report on other methods of household hazardous waste collection used in other

jurisdictions and internationally, including:

i. types of collection services, such as permanent collection points at transfer

stations or mobile collections

ii. cost to establish the service

iii. annual operational cost

iv. funding mechanism

v. kinds of materials collected in other jurisdictions

vi. companies used to collect and treat hazardous household chemicals in Australia.

2.3. National legislation

a) Examine if and how the federal government's extended producer responsibility

(EPR) scheme might impact on or influence any future hazardous household

waste collection scheme.

2.4. Options for the future

a) Present options for an effective and economical household hazardous waste

collection for either:

i. Tasmania as a whole

ii. each waste management region.

b) In presenting these options, the following will be outlined:

i. Estimated establishment costs, including financial and non-financial costs of re-

establishing a household chemical collection program if this program fully lapses.

ii. Estimated annual ongoing operational costs, considering if and how costs may vary

depending on the volume of materials recovered.

iii. Funding mechanisms.


3. Consultation

In undertaking the above tasks, the following groups must be consulted with:

• Each waste management group

• EPA Tasmania

• Other jurisdictions running similar services (Zero Waste SA; Sustainability Victoria; EPA

NSW).

In addition, the following specific consultation is required:

• An email at the commencement of the project to the working group outlining the

consultation to be undertaken.

• An email to the working group with the draft report.

• A presentation of the draft report to the working group.

4. Working Group

A working group will be established and will be chaired by (TBC). Membership of the group will

include the following:

• Mat Greskie, Cradle Coast Waste Management Group

• Ben Mooney, HHW program coordinator, LGAT

• Michelle Ogulin, Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group.

• David Sales, Southern Waste Strategy Authority

The group shall report to the Household Hazardous Waste Steering Committee.

The working group will oversee the progress of the review and provide advice on issues,

research findings and proposed future directions. The working group is not a decision making

forum for deciding the future of household hazardous waste collection in Tasmania.

The group will convene as agreed by the group members and be conducted in a manner

determined by the chairperson subject to these terms of reference. If the chairperson is not

present at a meeting, the meeting is to be chaired by a member chosen by the members

present at the meeting. These terms of reference will be endorsed at the working group's first

meeting.

The working group may, and is encouraged to, conduct all or any part of a meeting by using

telephones, video links or any other system of telecommunication.


Members should anticipate meetings of up to one hour's duration. Meeting regularity and

length may be reduced as the need dictates. Members are generally expected to participate in

at least 75% of scheduled meetings.

5. Reporting

A draft and final report covering all items outlined in item 2 is to be prepared for presentation to

the working group and the waste management groups. The final report is requested for

submission to the working group by 14 December 2012, with the draft report to be circulated

for review and comment at least four weeks before the final report is to be submitted.


13.2 Site Selection Criteria (Full day service for up to 350 cars)

Flat hard stand area approximately 20m x 20m

Away from natural waterways, stormwater drains, vegetation

Good and clear vision across the site and surrounds

Adequate arrival and departure path for up to 20 vehicles

Forklift and amenities on site

Centrally located, well known site with access to, or located on, main road

At least 50m from public facilities, such as parks and playgrounds, pedestrian traffic,

residential areas and businesses


13.3 HHW Material Collected (percent and kg) over 3 years

Categories Totals (kg) Percent (%) Paint & Varnishes – non-recyclable - water based 27198 34.6 Paint & Varnishes – non-recyclable - solvent based 19282 24.6 Batteries – lead-acid 8609 11.0 Gas Cylinders – propane 3990 5.1 Flammable liquid FP <61C 3712.5 4.7 General household chemical/cleaners 2226 2.8 Pesticides liquid toxic 2161.5 2.8 Pesticides solid toxic 1701.5 2.2 Toxic liquid organic 1360.5 1.7 Inert solids 1004 1.3 Aerosols 901 1.1 Photographic chemicals 835.5 1.1 Acidic liquid 781 1.0 Automotive products other than used oil, e.g. coolants, brake fluids 717.5 0.9 Batteries – other 586.5 0.7 Inert liquids 399 0.5 Alkali 369 0.5 Paint & Varnishes – non-recyclable - metal based 361.5 0.5 Fluorescent tubes and CFGs 323.5 0.4 Oil 315 0.4 Oxidising liquid 272 0.3 Solvents – halogenated 266.5 0.3 Pesticides OC liquid toxic 191.5 0.2 Pesticides OC solid toxic 188 0.2 Toxic solid organic 166 0.2 Reactives 142.5 0.2 Heavy metal compounds excluding metallic mercury 109 0.1 Pharmaceuticals 102.5 0.1 Gas Cylinders – other 101 0.1 Cyanides 43 0.1 Arsenic based products 38.5 0.0 Oxidising solid 38 0.0 Metallic mercury 18.5 0.0 Organic peroxides 13 0.0 PCB materials 4 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Paint & Varnishes – non-recyclable – isocyanatesetc 0 0.0 Paint & Varnishes - recyclable 0 0.0 Smoke detectors 0 0.0 Unknowns – liquid 0 0.0 Unknowns – solid 0 0.0 78528.5 100


13.4 Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Summary – 3 years

Date Council Address Pop’n Region Full/Half day

Cars % of Pop

Volume (kg)

Volume/person

Costa Cost /kg

North Region

5/12/2009 Launceston City Remount Road WMC, Mowbray 65548 N Full 143 0.22 2357 16 21703 9.2




27/03/2010 Dorset Scottsdale WTS 7377 N Full 7 0.09 83 12 13456 162.1

05/12/2010 Meander Valley Deloraine Community Complex 19547 N Half 17 0.09 760 45 6811 9.0

20/03/2011 George Town Civic Complex, George Town 6830 N Half 22 0.32 531 24 7069 13.3

26/03/2011 Break O’Day Council Chambers St Helens 6410 N Half 18 0.28 298 17 6198 20.8

27/03/2011 Northern Midlands War Memorial Oval, Campbell Town 12602 N Half 4 0.03 397 99 6493 16.4

North West Region

6/12/2009 Burnie City Burnie WMC 19877 NW Full 67 0.34 1002 15 14661 14.6



21/03/2010 Devonport City Spreyton Community Hall 25518 NW Full 42 0.16 1219 29 16151 13.2

04/12/2010 Devonport City Spreyton Memorial Hall 25518 NW Full 17 0.07 2747 162 18104 6.6

20/03/2010 Circular Head White Hills TS 8300 NW Full 13 0.16 661 51 15176 23.0

19/03/2011 Waratah-Wynyard Wynyard WTS 14117 NW Half 34 0.24 1317 39 8343 6.3

19/03/2011 Central Coast QuadrantUlverstone 21732 NW Half 98 0.45 3373 34 12339 3.7

20/03/2011 Kentish Council Chambers, Sheffield 6281 NW Half 14 0.22 660 47 6812 10.3


Date Council Address Pop’n Region Full/Half day

Cars % of Pop

Volume (kg)

Volume/person

Costa Cost /kg

South Region 28/11/2009 Glenorchy City DEC,Glenorchy 44628 S Full 220 0.49 6420 29 31084 4.8

11/12/2010 Glenorchy City DEC, Glenorchy 44628 S Full 155 0.35 3939 25 18743 4.8

29/11/2009 Kingborough Kingborough Council Depot 33464 S Full 239 0.71 4423 19 25442 5.8

12/03/2011 Kingborough Kingborough Council Depot 33464 S Full 183 0.55 2162 12 16484 7.6

13/03/2010 Hobart City McRobies Gully WMC 49887 S Full 98 0.20 2628 27 23152 8.8

27/11/2011 Hobart City McRobies Gully WMC 49887 S Full 203 0.92 5215 26 22000 4.2

14/03/2010 Clarence City Council Chambers, Clarence 52140 S Full 224 0.43 5130 23 26128 5.1

26/11/2011 Clarence City Council Chambers, Clarence 52140 S Full 334 1.06 12948 39 31530 2.4

12/12/2010 Sorell Station LaneSorell 13127 S Full 66 0.50 2383 36 16929 7.1

13/03/2011 Brighton Civic Centre, Bridgewater 15807 S Full 39 0.25 1478 38 15832 10.7

11/12/2010 Huonville Council carpark, Huonville 15134 S Half 28 0.19 787 28 6887 8.8

12/12/2010 Tasman Council ChambersNubeena 2374 S Half 3 0.13 903 301 6134 6.8

12/03/2011 Derwent Valley Willow Court, New Norfolk 10036 S Half 19 0.19 1282 67 7882 6.1

13/03/2011 Central Highlands Council Chambers, Hamilton 2324 S Half 0 0.00 0 0 5200 N/A

26/03/2011 Glamorgan-Spring Bay Sporting Complex, Triabunna 4500 S Half 7 0.16 253 36 6196 24.5

27/03/2011 Southern Midlands Oatlands District High School 6054 S Half 8 0.13 434 54 6898 15.9

Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Summary – 34 sites over 3 years (Page 2 of 2)

aHosting and treatment cost


13.5 Media Release Program Launch

Tasmanians will soon be able to remove unwanted and out-of-date chemical products from their homes

and deposit them at a free drop-off site.

The Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage Michelle O'Byrne and the President of the Local

Government Association of Tasmania Barry Easther today jointly launched the ChemSafe Homes

Tasmania program in Launceston.

Under the program, drop-off days have been organised at various locations around Tasmania. Anyone

with an unwanted household chemical can visit any of the drop-off points on each day and locations will

be rotated across as many jurisdictions as possible.

Chemicals accepted at the drop-off sites include most garden, kitchen, laundry, shed and garage

chemicals, along with different types of fuels, oils, lubricants, paints, thinner, solvents and poisons.

This includes all household horticultural chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides, fuels, lubricants,

coolants, brake and transmission fluid, all batteries, gas cylinders, fertiliser, photograhic chemicals,

aerosol cans and pharmaceuticals.

Drop-off sites will NOT accept products such as motor oil, farm chemicals, fire extinguishers, asbestos,

ammunition and explosives and chemicals from commercial business.

The ChemSafe Homes Tasmania program has many environmental benefits including the treatment

and correct disposal of household hazardous waste and preventing this waste from entering our

landfills and waterways.


"This is a chance for all Tasmanians to help make their home hazard free by cleaning out their

household chemical clutter and safely disposing them at designated drop-off points across the State,"

Ms O'Byrne said.

Cr Easther said the program was designed to help keep Tasmanians safe in their homes.

"This is great for Tasmania because every resident has the opportunity to clear out those unwanted

chemicals lying around the house. Not only will it create safer homes, but will add to our understanding

of quantities and types of chemicals used, and help us better manage chemical waste."

Residents are asked to drive to the designated drop-off point on the day, follow the directions and stay

in their vehicle as the collector on site will assist in removing the products. Chemicals collected will be

reused, recycled or treated appropriately.

Drop-off sites will accept household quantities, up to a maximum of 20 litres or 20 kilograms per item.

An information brochure explaining the ChemSafe Homes Tasmania program will be distributed to

every household over the next few weeks, outlining what will and won't be accepted at the drop-off

sites.

The brochure also contains a timetable for drop-off sites from November 2009 to March 2010, with the

first two being held in the south at the Derwent Entertainment Centre (DEC) at Glenorchy on Saturday

28 November and at the Kingborough Council Depot on Sunday 29 November 2009.

The first drop-off in the north will be held at the Launceston City Council Depot in Remount Road in

Launceston on Saturday 5 December and in the northwest at the Burnie Waste Management Centre in

Mooreville Rd, Sunday 6 December 2009.

The 'ChemSafe Homes Tasmania' program is part of the Tasmanian Household Hazardous Waste

Collection Project.

This is a joint project between the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the

Environment, the Local Government Association of Tasmania and three regional bodies - the Southern

Waste Strategy Authority, the Cradle Coast Waste Management Group and the Northern Tasmania

Regional Waste Management Group.

The one-million-dollar project is jointly funded through the DPIPWE Living Environment Program (LEP)

and the 29 local councils in Tasmania.

More information about the 'ChemSafe Homes Tasmania' program, including drop-off times and


information on what will and will not be accepted at drop-off sites can be found by visiting the LGAT

website at: www.lgat.tas.gov.au

The Minister for the Environment, Parks and Heritage Michelle O'Byrne and Local Government

Association of Tasmania President, Mr Barry Easther, jointly launched "ChemSafe Homes Tasmania"

on 20th October 2009 at the Launceston City Council Depot, 50 Remount Road, Mowbray.

http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/


13.6 Media Release

Media Alert

Wednesday November 25 2009

Free Household Chemical Drop-Off Service for Tasmania

‘ChemSafe Homes Tasmania’, a free household chemical drop-off service, begins this weekend in the

State’s south.

Gates will be open this Saturday at the Derwent Entertainment Centre and Sunday at the Kingborough

Council Depot. Similar services will be held in Launceston and Burnie the following weekend.

The drop-off service gives Tasmanians the chance to clear out unwanted chemicals, thus creating safer

homes. It also adds to the understanding of quantities and types of chemicals used and helps better

manage chemical waste.

Media Opportunity:

Chemsafe Program Coordinator Ben Mooney is available for interview Thursday 26 November and

Friday 27 November in the lead up to the first chemical drop-off. Ben will also be available during the

drop-off days listed below. Examples of common household products accepted will be on display at

each drop-off service. Images of chemicals can be provided in advance.

Contact:

Ben Mooney, Program Coordinator, ChemSafe Homes Tasmania

Phone 0417 540 936 Email: [email protected]

Time Table for Drop-Off Sites

Glenorchy, Derwent Entertainment Centre, Brooker Highway

Saturday 28 November, 9.00am to 3.30pm

Kingborough Council Depot, Cr Channel Highway & Spring Farm Road

Sunday 29 November, 9.00am to 3.30pm,


13.7 Newspaper Article

Article in the Eastern Shore Sun 12 April 2010


13.8 Brochures


Chemsafe Homes Tasmania First Campaign Brochure– Dec 2009


Chemsafe Homes Tasmania Second Campaign Brochure– December 2010


Chemsafe Homes Tasmania Third Campaign Brochure – March 2010


13.9 Tasmanian Household Hazardous Waste Program –

Survey March 2012

• Over 3 years provided 34 collection days across 24 Local Government

jurisdictions.

• Collected 78 000 kg of HHW from over 2600 residents.

• Funded by State and Local Government (50:50).

• Primarily consisted of high-volume low-toxicity material, such as water and

solvent-based paint (55.8%), lead acid batteries (10.8%), flammable liquids (e.g.

fuels) (5.9%), gas bottles (5.3%).

• Collected substantial quantities of low-volume high-toxicity material, such as

toxic pesticides (3,260 kg), toxic organics (1,392.5 kg), cyanides (42 kg), arsenic

based compounds (33.5 kg)

Household Hazardous Waste Stakeholder Questionnaire

1. How satisfied are you with the number of drop-off sites in your municipality?

Highly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Unsure Not applicable

2. How satisfied are you with the number of drop-off sites in your region?

Highly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Unsure

3. How would you rate the drop-off site location in your municipality?

Excellent Good Neutral Poor Very Poor Unsure Not applicable


4. Have you observed a reduction in HHW presenting at waste transfer stations/landfills in your area?

Yes significant reduction Yes a little reduction Neutral Not significant reduction No reduction at all Unsure

5. How successful do you think the promotional campaign was for your area?

Very successful Somewhat successful Neutral Not very successful Not at all successful Unsure

6. Other comments.

Please return by 5pm Friday 16 March 2012 by email, post or in person to: Ben Mooney HHW Program Coordinator Local Government Association of Tasmania GPO Box 1521, Hobart TAS 7000 [email protected] P: 03 6233 5963 M: 0417540 936

mailto:[email protected]


13.10 Household Hazardous Waste Stakeholder -

Survey October 2012

Purpose A current review of the HHW program requires information on current practices at council or

privately operated waste transfer stations (WTS)/landfills in order to propose future operational

models for the collection, transport and disposal of household chemicals. Operational models

to be considered include permanent and/or temporary sites, specific targeting of high volume

materials (e.g. paint, gas bottles, fuels, batteries) and coordinating regional and/or statewide

networks.

Background

• Over 3 years provided 34 collection days across 24 local government

jurisdictions.

• Began March 2009, ends December 2012.

• Collected 78,000 kg of HHW from over 2,600 residents.

• Funded by state and local government (50:50). Primarily consisted of high-volume low-toxicity material (HVLT), such as water and

solvent-based paint (55.8%), lead acid batteries (10.8%), flammable liquids (e.g. fuels)

(5.9%), gas bottles (5.3%).

Collected substantial quantities of low-volume high-toxicity material (LVHT), such

as toxic pesticides (3,260 kg), toxic organics (1,392.5 kg), cyanides (42 kg), arsenic

based compounds (33.5 kg) .


Questions

7. In your jurisdiction:

a. how many public WTS, landfills, tip shops or waste receival facilities operate

b. what is the nature of the operation (e.g. council owned and operated, partnerships, contractor)

c. what types of materials are collected (general waste, green waste, white goods, motor oil, plastic, cardboard, glass, batteries, paint, gas bottles, aerosols and others)?

Facility Operator Materials collected

e.g. landfill Council owned, contractor

operated

General, green, oil, plastic,

cardboard, batteries


A fully funded Statewide model for collection of HHW using permanent sites will

consider local government participation. Council in-kind support would include hosting

a secure collection site, on-site management of the waste (e.g. logistics of public drop-

off and contractor removal, monitoring contamination, user education).

8. Would your council be interested in hosting and providing in-kind support for a permanent facility for HVLT (e.g. paint, batteries, gas bottles, aerosols)?

Yes Unsure No Not applicable

9. If funded, would your council be interested in hosting and providing in-kind support for a permanent facility for LVHT hazardous chemicals (e.g. acids, bases, fuels, pesticides)?

Yes Unsure No Not applicable

10. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the program or how it might be run in the future?

Please return by 5pm Friday 2 November 2012 by email, post or in person to your regional waste management contact and:

Ben Mooney HHW Program Coordinator Local Government Association of Tasmania GPO Box 1521, Hobart TAS 7000 [email protected] P: 03 6233 5963 M: 0417540 936

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Strategic Review of the Collection of Household Hazardous Waste in Tasmania Evaluation Report... · This project was jointly funded by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries,