The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Victorian Government’s wasted waste policy > Comments

The Victorian Government’s wasted waste policy : Comments

By Harry Van Moorst, published 21/4/2005

Harry van Moorst argues that something is rotten in hazardous waste policy

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I'm not familiar with all the details of the search for a suitable hazardous waste facility for Victoria but much of this story has a very familiar ring to it.

Many environmentalists believe that there really is no suitable place in the universe for a hazardous waste facility. Rarely do environmentalists suggest any sites of their own. They simply discredit everybody else's recommended site and then they blame others for slowing the process down. Standing out in the cold on a Monday night at Werribee Racecourse is a lot easier than finding a suitable hazardous waste site. Harry van Moorst complains that there has been little consultation, but maybe the environmental groups have not offered anything positive in previous consultations, so the government simply decided to move on.

In my experience the real problem was only touched on briefly in this story and that is money. Governments limit themselves to the fees that they can charge for landfill of hazardous waste, despite the fact that it is much more costly to provide more secure treatment. One thing that those 15,000 people at Werribee Racecourse could do is make sure that there is enough money to do the job properly.

It is unfortunate to lose productive farmland, but there are few complaints from the farmers when developers of residential homes drop by to offer half a million dollars a hectare, for land their fathers paid $50 a hectare for. If the best site is on productive farmland that is a trade-off that we need to make. If the farmer is justly compensated and buffer land is also purchased so that there is no impact on the neighbours then the process can move forward. It needs enough money to make the process go, though.

Maybe I'm all wrong and several sites have been put forward by environmental groups and the government told them to go away. If so please let me know.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 21 April 2005 1:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue here was arrogant contempt for rural Victorians and duplicity. The proposed dump is huge, covering 1 km square and with a buffer zone 10 kilometres wide. The selected farms and the farming lives of the associated families would have been completely destroyed by the dump. The proposed land payments were actually below market value and would have left affected families unable to re-enter the farming business.

And yet the first the farmers knew of this was a letter hand-delivered to their doors at 7 am one morning in November 2003. This was extraordinarily arrogant.

Secondly, initial material from Major Projects spoke of a new generation containment facility. Subsequent events showed this was pure fiction. There had been little or no design at all. It's now clear the proposed facility will be just a landfill, except it's now 500 kilometres away from Melbourne and away from the manufacturing industry that creates the toxic waste.

Third, there continue to be serious concerns about siting such a facility close to the floodplains of the Murray River. Government-funded engineering studies conveniently ignore the threat of wind erosion exposing and cracking the underlying clay, and of eroding sand hills that supposedly protect the facility from floodwaters.
Posted by Tony Healy, Friday, 22 April 2005 8:45:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
''Another victorian government landmark''
What went wrong?.the premier has sent Victoria deeper down the path of despair.
Not many people will debate that hazardous waste is not as important as education or the health system,however the Victorian government believes that such things as raising revenue is more important,thus,revenue like being 5 km over the speed limit (theres a $100.00 fine in that)is more important then providing a healthy state and enviornment.
And God knows where the revenue is spent?.I dont see any on Victorian roads,public services or the health system,and i never see any pumped into a better Victorian education system(if it was,Victorian teenagers would not spend the v.c.e. class time **typing text of jibberish and slang,that you cant understand,into thier mobile phones).
The fact that the waste management policy has not been implemented is a sign that the state government has there policy prioritys somewhere else-esp,if it would put Victoria ahead in toxic waste management and is a shame and a waste,if it was passed,we in Victoria would have a toxic waste program better then some entire nations.
The wait of 5 years(december 2001) is typical of a uneducated(on waste management)and a nieave (on the effects of toxic waste)state labor government.And is a blatant insult to the people of Victoria.
If it was a bill for a parliamentry member wage rise or a public service wage rise,even new speed cameras ,it would have been approved in 5 DAYS.
The Victorian communnitty has to keep fighting and push the government into action,esp- with the placement and debate of toxic waste lanfills in the Victorian communittys.

**i once recieved a e-mail from a young person,and it was written in typical mobile phone text message,with jibberish,shortend words and slang,i at once replyed with the message ""send the same e-mail again to me and write in english or dont bother"
Posted by al bundy, Wednesday, 1 June 2005 8:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brother can you spare a dime.
Posted by R.H., Saturday, 13 August 2005 12:36:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is now EPA regulations in place to allow Hazardous Waste into Municipal Landfill site that can qualify as a "Best practice Landfill".

I am currently objecting in the City of Casey against SITA for changes to their Landfill permit that would remove the local Council from the position of Responsible Authority, replacing the Council with reference to an EPA licence. Well so far this looked good and possibly the most responsible thing to do. But there is a slight catch to this statement. In the past 12 months, EPA has changed the regulations relating to the Municipal Landfills.

If you have a look at the attached documents, you will see that any qualifying Municipal Landfill is able to deposit the following in Local Municipal Landfills around our suburbs and town (Including Mildura). These descriptions are as per attached EPA documents1040, 1062 and 996.
Category C(1) wastes include wastes that are highly odorous and/or are dusty. These wastes are largely food processing wastes.
Category C(2) wastes include:
• prescribed industrial wastes with low contaminant levels which are largely from industrial or manufacturing activities (these wastes will be referred to as low-hazard industrial wastes)
• treated (or immobilised) prescribed industrial waste which, prior to treatment, was a Category B waste (these wastes will be referred to as Category C immobilised waste)
• low-level contaminated soils
• waste asbestos from industrial sources, or that has been removed by a licensed asbestos removalist, that has been double wrapped in plastic sheets as required by EPA Publication 364, The transport and disposal of waste asbestos.

The Hampton Park Progress Association is objecting to the proposed changes to the Permit for the Hallam Road Tip, Hampton Park. The Amendment to their permit would allow Hazardous Waste of Class C and immobilised Class B (which becomes Class C immobilised waste, to be dumped at this site. The Health and Safety of Hampton Park, Lynbrook and Cranbourne North resident is at risk. We have residential housing sharing their fence line with the landfill, others just a couple of hundred metres.

Tony O’Hara
Posted by 2H, Monday, 29 January 2007 12:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy