Archive Bio Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

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

Tel: 61 2 9599 7511 Fax: 61 2 9599 6032
Email: admin@wmaa.asn.au Website: www.wmaa.asn.au
Energy from Waste Division
Sustainability Guide
for
Energy from Waste (EfW)
Projects and Proposals
Completed with significant sponsorship from
Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia
First Draft
Discussion Draft
Final (AGO) Draft
Plain English Draft 1
Plain English Draft 2
Edition 1
For Review by Reference Group

For Submission to AGO
For Submission to AGO
For Publication
Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
1/07/03
3/07/03
10/11/03
10/12/03
19/12/03
22/12/03
Page i
Preface
The Sustainability Guide for Energy from Waste (EfW) Projects and Proposals is an initiative of the
EfW Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA). The EfW Division has
also developed a Code of Practice for the EfW Sector in Australia to support the Sustainability
Guide.
These two documents form the first and second parts of the WMAA Energy from Waste
Sustainability Project. Together they provide the fledgling EfW industry with a widely accepted
protocol, process and strategic framework for assessing EfW projects and proposals.
The vision of the Energy from Waste Sustainability Project is for a sustainable Australia with our
systems, facilities and infrastructure working to avoid and minimise waste, recover valuable
resources and energy and close the loop on urban resource consumption.
The Sustainability Guide is intended to help the community, government and industry stakeholders
know when it is acceptable to conserve materials presenting as urban "wastes" in something close
to their original form and when to convert them to energy through a variety of processes.
The Sustainability Guide recognises the crucial role played by the community in any EfW project or
proposal. In effect, the community act as arbiters of sustainability on behalf of current and future
generations. It acknowledges that without broad community agreement to an EfW project, or a
"community' licence to operate," an EfW project cannot go ahead. The document is framed to keep
the community actively involved, fully informed and engaged regularly and transparently in order to
facilitate an outcome that provides for sustainable resource use in the interests of current and
future generations.
Although the Sustainability Guide does discuss some EfW technologies, a deliberate decision has
been made to focus on outcomes rather than being prescriptive in terms of technology, process or
methodology. The document presents a number of project scoping principles stakeholders can use
to assess whether a project or proposal falls within the principles of ecologically sustainable
development.
The Code of Practice supporting the Sustainability Guide is intended to demonstrate the EfW
industry's commitment to operating within the framework of ecologically sustainable development.
By signing up to the Code members of the EfW industry are publicly stating their commitment to
act for the recovery of the highest resource value from secondary resource materials, ensure
transparency in their decision-making processes, meet all legislative requirements and
continuously improve in all the aspects of their operation over which they have control.
The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice are living documents that derive their functionality
and credibility from their inclusiveness, continual improvement and interaction with stakeholder
requirements, as accommodated against a founding philosophy of sustainable resource use.
They were developed over three years from November 2000 to December 2003 and involved
extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders (see Appendixes A, B, C and D). The
Australian Greenhouse Office provided significant sponsorship for the project, as did a wide range
of government and industry parties (see Appendix C).

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page ii
Signatories to the Code and their current compliance status will be kept on the WMAA EfW
Division website at www.wmaa.asn.au/efw.
The EfW Division of the WMAA and its state-based Working Groups will regularly produce updated
editions of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice in a culture of continuous improvement
and in the face of changing circumstances and needs. Edition 2 of the Sustainability Guide is due
for completion at the end of 2004.
Structure of the Sustainability Guide

Section 1 of the Sustainability Guide is intended for first-time readers only. It provides a broad
overview of the issues involved and the rationale for the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice.
It also outlines how the document was developed and gives guidance on how it is to be applied.
Section 2 gives a consolidated summary of the issues and drivers as a context and rationale to
many of the principles and outcomes adopted in the Sustainability Guide. Much of this material
originated from early discussion groups, the deliberations of the Working Group and the matters
raised during the stakeholder consultation. The section will be useful where the interpretation of
related, collateral or contingent issues arise in any future project assessment.
Section 3 provides a set of project scoping principles (PSPs). These are the principles that have
been developed to best address the complex issues surrounding sustainable energy recovery from
urban wastes. The section will be particularly useful in the qualitative assessment of proposed or
actual projects.
Section 4 is the assessment roadmap tool. This consists of a process that is recommended to
analyse and evaluate the impacts of a project in the context of ESD.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page iii
Contents
Section 1: Introduction
1.1
The Initial Conditions and Context
1.2
Energy Recovery: A Binary Decision
1.3
The Potential Impacts of Energy Recovery from Urban Wastes
1.4
Origins of the Sustainability Guide
1.5
Development of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice
1.6
The Purpose of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice
1.7
Key Stakeholder Groups
10
1.8
Applicability to Individual Stakeholder Requirements
11
1.9
Editorial Focus and Sustainability Guide Formats
12
Section 2: Background and Context
14
2.1
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) as the Primary Determinant
14
2.2
The Nature of the Waste Considered
16
2.3
Broad Characteristics of Residual Urban Wastes
17
2.4
Community Perceptions of Energy Recovery Projects
18
2.5
Energy Recovery Systems and Technologies
20
2.6
Interaction with the Community
25
2.7
Issues to be Evaluated and Assessed for a Successful Project
27
Section 3: Project Scoping Principles for EfW Projects
29
3.1
Introduction to the PSPs
29
3.2
Profiling EfW Projects and Proposals
32
3.3
PSP1: Best Use of the Available Materials
33
3.4
PSP2: Selection of the Optimum Conversion Pathway
37
3.5
PSP3: Control of Environmental Impacts and Outcomes
42
3.6
PSP4: Control of Social Impacts and Outcomes
46
3.7
PSP5: Assurance of Project Commitments
50
3.8
PSP6: Management of the Commercial Interface
53
Section 4: The Assessment Tools
57
Section 5: Glossary
58

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page iv
Section 6: Appendixes
61
Appendix A Working Group Members
62
Appendix B Reference Group Members
63
Appendix C Sponsors
65
Appendix D Stakeholder Workshops and Results
66
Appendix E Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development
89
Appendix F Literature Review
90
List of Tables
Table 3-1: PSP1 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ........................................................................ 36
Table 3-2: PSP1 Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................. 36
Table 3-10: PSP5 Evaluation Matrix........................................................................................... 52
Table 3-11: PSP6 Qualitative Assessment Matrix ...................................................................... 56
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Assessment Roadmap of Project Scoping Principles .................................................. 31
Figure 3-2: PSP2 Iterative review process .................................................................................. 38

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page v
Section 1: Introduction
This section provides an overview of the main issues that relate to the complex topic of
energy recovery from societys urban waste streams. It introduces the structure of the
Sustainability Guide and outlines the process of its development.
(Many of the issues touched on in the introduction are explored in more detail elsewhere in the
document and referenced accordingly. The section may only be of value to first-time readers of
the Sustainability Guide.)
1.1
The wastes in
question
The Initial Conditions and Context

1.1.1
One unintended consequence of the rapid economic

development in OECD countries is the unsustainable use and
consumption of natural resources, both renewable and finite
(non renewable).
1.1.2
Sustainability in this context, or ecologically sustainable

development (ESD) in general, refers to the concept of
managing the use of resources in a way that improves our
quality of life today and allows future generations to improve
their own quality of life, with an underlying focus on
maintaining the ecological processes upon which life on Earth
depends. Within this concept, sustainability can also be
described in terms of the ability of the natural environment to
sustain impact (see 2.1.5).
1.1.3
This Sustainability Guide focuses on the sustainable use of the

resources that currently present as the three main urban
waste streams, comprising:
i)
the spent, surplus and discarded materials that originate

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

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

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 1
1.1.4
In addressing societys urban waste streams from a

perspective of sustainability, a number of strategies can be
adopted:
i)
efforts can be made to avoid the materials being initially

produced, consumed or in such a way that they never
present as wastes
ii) strategies can be employed to limit or minimise the

amounts of materials that eventually present as wastes
iii) spent, surplus or secondary materials can be managed as
by-products for future reuse or recycling in their original
form or in a degraded form, or they can be reprocessed
for some equally valid re-application of their resource
potential.
One potential but irreversible reprocessing option for these
materials may be to recover the energy or "calorific" value of
the waste through an Energy from Waste (EfW) project.
1.1.5
This Sustainability Guide seeks to address and define those

elements in the urban waste streams that are suitable for EfW
projects and to present protocols for their conversion from
waste to energy.
1.1.6
These potential sources of energy could be described as

materials that satisfy the following two conditions:
i)
they have no further practical value or market for reuse,

recycling or reprocessing to recover their inherent resource
value
ii) they have a net calorific value that could be recovered and
would otherwise be lost through disposal to landfill.
1.1.7
In terms of ecologically sustainable resource application, the

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

conversion to energy
ii) whether the immediate impacts of the conversion activity

are acceptable: i.e. will the benefits be optimised and the
disbenefits minimised or eliminated?
1.1.8
Urban waste is an important community issue and concern.

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 2
1.1.9
Currently, fractions of urban wastes that present as potentially

sustainable sources of energy as described in 1.1.6 above are
being lost to landfill disposal because:
i)
there are few, if any, facilities available to recover the

energy in Australia
ii) energy recovery facilities are not being developed in

Australia because there are no generally accepted
standards, protocols or strategic planning frameworks that
could support the necessary investment decisions.
1.1.10
This Sustainability Guide provides the strategic framework

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 3
1.2
Energy Recovery: A Binary Decision

1.2.1
Because the EfW process is irreversible, the decision to

reprocess urban wastes for the primary purpose of energy
recovery has implications for sustainable resource use.
1.2.2
On the one hand, the recovery of the calorific value of the

waste and its corresponding benefits may be preferable to
losing the potential for energy recovery to landfill disposal.
1.2.3
On the other hand, the irreversible consumption of a resource

for energy alone may not fully acknowledge the more
sustainable resource use of that material, by reuse, recycling
or reprocessing for the inherent material recovery and the
greater embodied energy value (see 2.1.7).
1.2.4
Such resource decisions are of vital interest to the broader

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 4
1.3
The Potential Impacts of Energy Recovery from Urban Wastes

1.3.1
The benefits of energy recovery from urban wastes can

include the following:
i)
a higher value resource management outcome than to lose

the same materials through landfill disposal
ii) the biomass or lignocellulosic content of urban wastes can

present as a renewable source of energy
The potential
benefits
iii) the hydrocarbon-based content (high calorific plastic-,

textile- and fossil-fuel-based fraction) of urban wastes can
present as a source of alternative or supplementary energy
iv) use of certain urban wastes for energy recovery can
deliver a reduced greenhouse gas impact when compared
to directly applied fossil fuels or the landfill alternative
where organic material is not collected separately and
diverted
v) a reduction in volume of the solid waste that is consigned
to landfill
vi) appropriate conversion of certain urban wastes for energy
recovery close to the potential markets for this energy can
demonstrate significant transport and transmission
advantages
vii) processing urban wastes for energy recovery can
demonstrate significant public health, hygiene and public
amenity advantages over many alternative applications
such as landfill disposal1.
1.3.2
The potential
disadvantages
Like any waste management option, inappropriate energy

recovery from urban wastes can produce significant
disadvantages such as:
i) wasted resource value from a once-off application for
energy from materials that had ongoing or higher resource
value applications available
ii) direct impacts of polluting emissions (including health
impacts), odours, dust and noise
iii) maintaining a demand for the creation of waste, rather than
avoiding waste, simply to satisfy the needs of the EfW
facility.
Landfill disposal itself has a range of problems including leachate and the generation of methane, a potent
greenhouse gas. These impacts can be difficult to manage because of the indeterminate boundaries of
landfill impact. Furthermore, landfilling the materials may not recover the highest resource value for the
material.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 5
Better information
exchange is
needed to promote
community
confidence in EfW
projects
1.3.3
An objective of sustainable development is to ensure optimum

benefits within a framework that eliminates or minimises the
potential disadvantages.
1.3.4
Some EfW projects have had a chequered history; too often

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 6
1.4
Origins of the Sustainability Guide

1.4.1
In November 2000 the EfW Division of the Waste Management

Association of Australia (WMAA) was initiated by a group of
experienced practitioners in the area of waste management
and sustainable resource use. The group identified the need to
develop a nationally accepted approach and strategic planning
framework for EfW projects.
1.4.2
The EfW Division developed a discussion paper to

conceptualise the group's ideas and launched the project to
develop this Sustainability Guide and its supporting Code of
Practice. The project attracted major sponsorship from the
Australian Greenhouse Office and significant additional
sponsorship and support from a wide range of government and
industry parties (see Appendix C).
1.4.3
This Sustainability Guide and its supporting Code of Practice

are the outcomes of this project.
A national strategic
planning
framework was
needed

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 7
1.5
Development of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

1.5.1
1.5.2
The key steps in the development of this Sustainability Guide

and Code of Practice have featured an ever-broadening
involvement of stakeholders so that the final product can be
adopted with confidence.
i)
Following the formation of the WMAA EfW Division an

initial discussion paper was prepared.
ii)
Increasing membership of the EfW Division led to the

preparation of a revised and refined discussion paper
and to the identification of the need for a Sustainability
Guide and Code of Practice.
iii)
A project proposal was developed to produce the

Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice. This proposal
received funding from the Commonwealth through the
Australian Greenhouse Office, the environmental
agencies in most states and private sector contributors
(see Appendix C).
iv)
An expert Working Group was established to manage

the project and maintain editorial control (see Appendix
A).
v)
Workshops were advertised and conducted in all state

capitals and many regional centres to address the
complexities of the debate and to inform the production
of subsequent documents (see Appendix D).
vi)
The first drafts of the Sustainability Guide and Code of

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

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

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 8
1.6
The Purpose of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

1.6.1
The Sustainability Guide has been produced to provide a

widely accepted protocol, process and strategic framework
that will:
i) help potential EfW projects to be conceived, scoped and
structured to optimise the potential of sustainable energy
recovery from the appropriate fractions of urban waste,
whilst ensuring that the potential environmental, social,
health and economic impacts are rigorously evaluated in a
transparent and publicly accountable manner
ii) provide a common reference for the evaluation of potential
projects and for projects that are evaluated positively
Why do we need
an EfW
sustainability guide
and code of
practice?
iii) provide a pathway toward the granting of a licence to

operate from the community and assistance for regulators
in granting project approvals
iv) provide an integrated and structured reference for the
ongoing assessment and monitoring of a project or facility
that does acquire a community licence to operate.
1.6.2
Whilst the Sustainability Guide has been developed to inform

and facilitate the scoping and initiation of sustainable EfW
projects, the companion Code of Practice has been produced
to evidence stakeholders long-term and ongoing commitment
to the principles and philosophies of the Sustainability Guide.
This enshrines a platform of continuous improvement for all
stakeholders directly involved in a potential project.
1.6.3
It is hoped that the Sustainability Guide will assist sustainable

EfW projects to emerge that gain consent, approval and the
confidence of all stakeholders.
1.6.4.
The Sustainability Guide in no way seeks to provide

guarantees or assurances of success during a formal consent
or approval process. However, it can help both applicants and
consent authorities understand the complex issues
surrounding EfW projects.
1.6.5.
Since a formal application may well require the expenditure of

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 9
1.7
Key Stakeholder Groups

1.7.1
Wide consultation
improves an EfW
project's chances
of success
There is a wide range of individual stakeholder and special

interest groups with whom consultation is an important factor
in gaining acceptance and approval for a development. These
groups can be loosely categorised as community, government
and industry and encompass the following stakeholders:
i)
community
a) neighbouring residents, workers, businesses and
sensitive landuses such as schools, community
centres and aged care facilities
b) the electorate (local, state, federal)
c) environmental NGOs
d) special interest groups
ii)
government
a) local government
b) state governments and their individual agencies
c) federal government and its individual agencies
iii)
industry
a) project developers and proponents
b) waste generators, suppliers and collectors
c) technology developers and vendors
d) energy wholesalers and retailers
e) energy consumers
f)
specialist consultants and advisors
g) ancillary suppliers.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 10
1.8
Applicability to Individual Stakeholder Requirements

1.8.1
The Sustainability
Guide helps the
community,
government and
industry decide
which projects are
acceptable
1.8.2
The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice have been

developed for both the general community and the specialist
stakeholder groups involved to promote informed decisionmaking processes and sustainable resource use.
i)
Community groups can use the Sustainability Guide to

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

the Sustainability Guide for evaluating and approving
projects, drafting consent conditions and developing
public policy and strategy. For example, it will assist local
government to make waste management decisions
where alternative technologies are being considered.
iii)
Industry can apply the principles, philosophies and

project assessment framework in the Sustainability
Guide for scoping and developing projects that are more
likely to receive a community licence to operate and the
regulatory consents and approvals that are required.
The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice are designed to

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 11
1.9
Editorial Focus and Sustainability Guide Formats

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

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

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

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

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

forms to accommodate different requirements:
a) the Complete Sustainability Guide with all sections
as the background reference document
b) a Concise Sustainability Guide with little background
and context and more emphasis on the project
scoping principles (PSPs) and the assessment tool
c) a Condensed Sustainability Guide with only core
principles and a graphic of the assessment process.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 12
1.9.2
All documents will be developed and issued by the National

EfW Division of WMAA.
1.9.3.
The Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice will be updated

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 13
Section 2: Background and Context

This section gives more detail and background to the issues and drivers that must be
addressed and resolved in the evaluation of sustainable energy from waste (EfW)
projects. It is designed as a reference guide for the evaluation and assessment of
related, collateral or contingent issues or projects.
2.1
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) as the Primary

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

heart of the social, environmental and commercial debate over
the impact modern civilisation is having on the biosphere and
its natural systems.
2.1.2
The framework adopted by the Working Group for the

assessment and prioritisation of options is derived from
Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development (see Appendix F).
2.1.3
The definition of ecologically sustainable development (ESD)2

adopted in this strategy is:
Establishing the
benchmark
A pattern of development that improves the total quality of life

both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the
ecological processes on which life depends.
2.1.4
Societys resources are to be managed in a way that improves

our quality of life today without compromising the ability of
future generations to improve their own quality of life.
What is
sustainability?
The Sustainability
Guide looks to
avoiding,
minimising,
reusing, recycling
and reprocessing
waste before
considering the
potential of EfW
projects kicks in.
The overarching concept adopted in the Sustainability Guide is

as follows:
2.1.5
This concept of sustainability accepts that all human and

natural activity has an impact, but advocates that the
biosphere must be capable of sustaining or absorbing these
impacts. Human activity that causes impacts which natural
systems cannot repair is unsustainable. This unsustainability
can be assessed by intensity and rate.
2.1.6
The Sustainability Guide has been developed to support and

complement higher order strategies of avoidance,
minimisation, reuse, recycling and reprocessing (facilitated
through source separation) for inherent material recovery. It
seeks to promote these outcomes before the step is taken to
recover the calorific value through EfW projects (see 1.1.6).
Note that the terms "ecologically sustainable development" and "sustainable development" are used
interchangeably.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 14
1.1.2
The destruction of finite resources for energy recovery alone

can have lasting impacts on future resource availability and is
not encouraged by this Sustainability Guide. The impacts of
this are exacerbated when these materials still have the
practical ability to furnish other higher value societal needs in
substantially their current form or slightly degraded form.
2.1.8
The importance of embodied energy needs to be considered at

this point.
Embodied energy
needs to be
considered
i)
The embodied energy in an item or material is the

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

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

energy recovery is the effort, energy or resources
required to actually reuse, recycle or reprocess the
particular item that is presenting in an urban waste
stream.
2.1.9
The principles of ESD have been adopted as a primary

determinant for issues and options during the development of
the Sustainability Guide since they establish a framework to
balance social, environmental and commercial issues with the
needs of both current and future generations.
2.1.10
These issues discussed in 2.1.1-2.1.9 above have been

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 15
2.2
The Nature of the Waste Considered

2.2.1
The Sustainability
Guide deals with
the residuals of
three urban waste
streams
The urban waste streams that are the focus of the

Sustainability Guide originate from the following three main
sources:
i)
municipal solid waste (MSW) the material generated

by individual households and some small businesses. It
represents the post-consumer spent and surplus
materials traditionally discarded and disposed of
ii)
commercial and industrial (C&I) waste the spent,

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

products of building demolition or alterations and the
spent or surplus materials generated by building and
engineering activity.
2.2.2
By their nature, the materials from these three waste streams

present as mixed or heterogeneous. This is a direct product
of the circumstances of their discard and will greatly affect how
the materials might later be used if they are not to be simply
discarded for landfill disposal.
2.2.3
Where the materials can be presented in defined or

homogeneous streams, their ability to be reused or recycled
is much enhanced, as is the case with kerbside recycling of
domestic containers and paper, source-separated garden
waste or source-separated wood, metals, glass and plastics
from C&I or C&D waste.
2.2.4
The focus of this Sustainability Guide is the flow of residual

urban wastes after higher order options have been thoroughly
explored or those materials that, although homogeneous in
nature, can be most sustainably used for energy recovery.
2.2.5
The Sustainability Guide has been developed as an

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 16
2.3
Broad Characteristics of Residual Urban Wastes

2.3.1
The viability of an
EfW project
depends on the
properties of the
materials, their
location and the
energy recovery
pathway or
infrastructure
Although the materials in residual urban wastes are by

definition indeterminate, in aggregate they demonstrate some
broad characteristics. Generally these wastes will contain:
i)
a moist organic fraction this material comes from food

residuals, soiled paper and garden organics and is
predominantly lignocellulosic biomass in origin
(renewable)
ii)
a biologically slow or inactive high calorific fraction

this material consists of plastics, textiles, footwear and
some wood, cardboard and paper and is predominantly
hydrocarbon material of crude oil origin with some carryover of lignocellulosic material
iii)
metals this consists of ferrous (iron and steel) and non

ferrous (aluminium, copper and lead) materials. Metals
can be extracted from the original waste material
iv)
an inert fraction this includes materials such as

ceramics, dirt, grit, broken glass and rubble. These
materials can be readily separated from the original
waste material.
2.3.2
It is anticipated that a level of cross-contamination will occur

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

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

is an important characteristic in assessing the potential for an
appropriate energy recovery pathway. Issues of transport for
aggregation to create viable volumes and the transmission of
any electricity to be generated are both characteristics to be
evaluated in determining the ultimate viability and sustainability
of the EfW project.
2.3.5
The Sustainability Guide focuses on three urban waste

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 17
2.4
Community Perceptions of Energy Recovery Projects

2.4.1
Incinerating urban wastes as an alternative to landfill disposal

has been practised widely for many years around the world,
and still is. Increasingly incineration operations are retrofitting
energy recovery capabilities and flue gas treatment systems to
their facilities or replacing old plants with new facilities that
seek to optimise the energy recovery in the form of heat or
power as a valuable by-product of the primary operation. For
ease of description we term these facilities "waste to energy"
or "WtE."
2.4.2
Modern WtE facilities are one possible approach to the

sustainable energy recovery from urban waste streams,
especially in the light of recent technology improvements and
the effort that is being directed to engineering out their
potential negative impacts. However, the limits to these
technological solutions must be recognised and considered in
a transparent manner.
2.4.3
The current community perceptions of this form of energy

recovery from urban wastes could be coloured by past events
and impacts. The business profile for these facilities tends to
feature the following:
The Sustainability
Guide promotes
EfW when all other
resource recovery
options have been
exhausted, not
WtE as a byproduct of
incineration
2.4.4
i)
the core business is based on the disposal of the

communitys wastes. Energy recovery is an option or byproduct of the core activity
ii)
the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the facility is

closely dependent on waste volume and constant levels
of throughput which have a tendency to require a large
and dedicated catchment to provide supply for such a
significant investment
iii)
the wastes provided as feed to the facility are by

definition indeterminate and of no fixed or certain origin or
quality, even though they tend to demonstrate certain
broad generic characteristics (see 2.2.2, 2.3.1). This lack
of consistency could reflect a commensurate lack of
control of the emission and ash quality from the facility
and even certain operational impacts. Whilst many of
these issues can now be managed by improved
technology and engineering, these controls come at a
cost.
The term "energy from waste" or "EfW" used in this

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 18
i)
the core business is the efficient recovery of energy from

those fractions of the urban waste stream that have been
identified as having no higher resource value other than
energy recovery
ii)
EfW provides the systems, facilities and infrastructure to

recover energy efficiently without creating an incentive to
generate waste or disrupt the flow of waste materials to
their highest net resource value
iii)
the immediate environmental consequences of EfW must

demonstrate assured levels of control and management
of impacts such as noise, pollutants, air and ash quality,
as well as odour and traffic (see 3.5). Given the
indeterminate nature of the original urban wastes, if
fuel preparation is not to be the primary strategy for
controlling environmental impacts, the project would
need to demonstrate post-conversion engineering
and technological solutions that give the same or
higher levels of confidence.
2.4.5
Whilst WtE and EfW facilities may deliver substantially similar

results and outcomes most of the time, it is perception and
confidence issues that so concern the community.
2.4.6
Once urban wastes have been determined to have no higher

resource value than energy recovery3 the circumstances of
their availability should inform the selection of the most
appropriate conversion pathway.
Note that the Sustainability Guide does not preclude the use of monofill as a long-term storage option. This
would simply become one of the technology options to assess when considering highest resource value.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 19
2.5
Energy Recovery Systems and Technologies

2.5.1
Detail on each technology is provided in Appendix H.

Generic systems and technologies to recover energy from
non-source separated or unsorted urban wastes include:
i)
conventional landfill with methane recovery the

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

recovered biogas that is recovered from landfill can be
converted to heat, steam or electricity. The landfill design
and filling process can be done to optimise
Generic
approaches for
unsorted urban
wastes
a) the anaerobic, biogas generating activity

b) the systematic recovery of the biogas. Less gas is
likely to escape to atmosphere over time, minimising
the risk of a significant greenhouse emission impact
from the biogas4
iii)
in-vessel anaerobic digestion (AD) the recovered

biogas can be converted to heat, steam or electricity.
Rather than rely on the relatively indeterminate boundary
limits of a landfill, the same anaerobic digestion can be
better controlled in a dedicated vessel or container. This
allows the process to be conducted "wet" in a fully
aqueous (added water) environment or "dry" using the
inherent moisture in the material itself (perhaps 55%
moisture). In either case, gas control can be absolute
and gas generation rates optimised. The digestate will
present for future treatment, beneficiation or processing
to produce secondary products if required4
In the three generic systems and technologies set out in i, ii and iii above it is only the organic biomass
fraction of the urban wastes that is altered or converted by the process. The metals and inert materials
remain substantially unchanged. A biologically stable organic fraction will result from the digestion for future
processing, application or disposal. The primary outcomes of these systems or technologies are volume
reduction, biochemical stabilisation and some calorific energy recovery.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 20
iv)
mass burn the heat evolved can be used directly or

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

pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc (see Annexure H
for more detail).
In general these advanced thermal processes and
technologies are unsuitable for unsorted or non pretreated urban wastes (see 2.5.2 iii below).
2.5.2
Generic systems and technologies to recover energy from

selected or source-separated fractions of urban waste are set
out below.
By definition, the following systems or technologies require
and assume that the preferred fraction has been selected from
the mixed and indeterminate urban waste feedstocks and pretreated, screened or selected:
Generic
approaches for
selected urban
wastes
i)
in-vessel anaerobic digestion (AD) as for 2.5.1 iii

above. However, where the moist organic fraction
referred to in 2.3.1 iii above is processed without the
other fractions of urban waste, a greater level of gas
generation efficiency is possible. In this case the
digestate is much more likely to be reprocessed into
secondary products rather than directed for conventional
disposal as a stabilised material
ii)
process engineered fuel (PEF) this approach to

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 21
This generic approach presents the maximum quantity of

available high calorific fraction (HCF) for conversion to
energy and retains the primary control of environmental
impacts in the fuel preparation process rather than
relying solely on gas clean-up and complex ash
management techniques.
Another feature of the approach is that high calorific
materials can be received and processed into fuel
products as they are needed. Their future conversion
can then occur as required to meet secondary market
demand. Where existing facilities such as kilns and
power stations act as the converter the capital cost of
dedicated conversion facilities is avoided.
Process engineered fuel facilities play a convenient and
cost-effective first point of receival role for waste
collection vehicles similar to that currently played by
transfer stations.
The alternative and supplementary fuel products that
result can be forwarded to the dedicated conversion
facilities as value-added products rather than as
negatively valued wastes
iii)
advanced thermal processes these include:

a)
gasification thermal conversion of feedstock to

a combustible gas in an oxygen-reduced
atmosphere. The gas may be used as a fuel or
chemical feedstock after clean-up
b)
pyrolysis the application of an external heat

source in the absence of oxygen to produce
reduced gas, oil and char products for immediate
or future use
c)
plasma arc the application of an extreme heat

source to convert the fuels into hot ionised gas for
synthesis into the desired products.
These are sophisticated processes that can deliver

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 22
2.5.3
Secondary conversion facilities for selected or pre-prepared

fuel products can present in many forms:
i)
existing facilities a range of industrial or power

generation facilities currently exist that have been
established on traditional fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) and
can be adapted to accept a proportion of alternative or
supplementary fuels prepared from urban wastes.
Similarly, these PEFs can be manufactured to meet the
precise requirements of existing industrial applications to
ensure there is no detriment to the primary product
quality or emission profile of the existing facilities (see
2.5.2 ii).
The potential facilities include:
a) cement and lime kilns
b) brick or masonry works
c) metal smelting and reduction plants
d) thermal power generation plants
e) miscellaneous facilities that generate industrial heat
and steam.
As alternative fuels, the PEFs are manufactured to
completely replace the existing fuel source.
As supplementary fuels, the PEFs are manufactured and
supplied to co-fire with the existing fuel source in the
desired or practical proportion
ii)
special purpose facilities in this scenario PEFs

might be produced to a specification to exactly suit a
new special purpose conversion facility such as:
a) an advanced thermal process (see 2.5.2 iii)
b) a dedicated power generation facility with a wide
range of hearth configurations
iii)
embedded facilities these are usually smaller but

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 23
The main features of embedded facilities with regard to

the conversion of urban wastes are:
a)
they are usually small-scale, for example up to 10

MW
b)
they are localised and generally centred on one

plant or industry for base demand
c)
they are located to minimise transport and

transmission costs
d)
they often feature cogeneration for local heat and

steam use, with excess power exported.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 24
2.6
Interaction with the Community

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

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

sensitive landuses such as schools, community centres
and aged care facilities
ii)
the electorate (local, state, federal)
iii)
environmental NGOs
iv)
special interest groups.
By this definition the community is a powerful force that could

organise and act to influence government and industry on
significant issues.
2.6.2
Given the benchmark of sustainability as the primary

determinant of appropriate projects and the requirement for a
broad-based community licence to operate as a basic
necessity for an appropriate project to proceed, the community
has a crucial role to play (see 2.1, 1.10.2 i).
2.6.3
The community role is to act as arbiters of sustainability on

behalf of current and future generations. This requires active
interaction between the stakeholders to assist them to carry
out their tasks and responsibilities.
2.6.4
The community needs to be actively involved, fully informed

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 25
2.6.5
To facilitate this interaction between the stakeholders the

Sustainability Guide outlines a process and framework for:
i)
providing information the information provided must

be topical, of an appropriate quality and readily accessible.
It needs to cover the following topics as a minimum:
a) the issues and context
b) the details of the specific proposal
c) the outcomes, impacts and benefits
d) the determining factors
e) the process for project assessment and determination
ii)
stimulating involvement the rights of and necessity for

the community to be intimately involved in the decisionmaking process is matched by a responsibility to undertake
the task thoroughly. Action and involvement are essential
for this to occur and can be stimulated if required by:
a) an iterative and interactive approach that matches
involvement, information and interaction to suit the
status of the proposal
b) an early and often approach that encourages active
involvement whenever new information or material
advances on a proposal occur
c) a consultative approach that provides transparent and
accountable feedback mechanisms
iii)
maintaining a transparent and accountable process

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 26
2.7
Issues to be Evaluated and Assessed for a Successful Project

As outlined in this section and reinforced during the extensive consultation
and workshop process described in Appendix D, a number of key issues
emerge that must be addressed and resolved for a project or proposal to:
i)
receive a widely endorsed licence to operate from the community
ii)
optimise the sustainability of the project or proposal.
2.7.1
Best Use of the Available Resources

The evaluation of best resource use goes to the heart of the
sustainability issue. This issue is of paramount importance
because of the irreversibility or binary nature of the decision to
recover the calorific value of the materials concerned (see
1.2). If it can be shown that potentially available urban wastes
can be directed for higher value reuse, recycling or
reprocessing in substantially their current form, then it is
immediately apparent that EfW is not the correct action. In
those circumstances all other issues of efficiency,
environmental and social impact and economic consequence
will not require assessment or evaluation.
2.7.2
Assessment of Consequences, Impacts and Commitment

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

conversion results in wasted resource value (see PSP2
and Section 3 for a description of the PSPs)
ii)
whether there is adequate control of the environmental

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

social consequences of a potential project. These issues
are of significant consequence to neighbours, the
electorate and regular or special purpose NGOs (see
PSP4)
iv)
the importance of having a long-term delivery on

commitments made at the time of initial consent. This
amounts to a proven ability to make good on
commitments and control measures over the life of a
project perhaps 2030 years and not just at the
consent and approval stages (see PSP5)

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 27
v)
the potential commercial impacts on higher order reuse,

recycling or reprocessing options. Before the project is
operational, it is crucial to document that no higher resource
value programs will be negatively impacted (see PSP6).
Throughout the evaluation process for i-v above there is a need

to ensure that the full suite of environmental externalities has
been systematically evaluated and included in any final
assessment or decision.
2.7.3
Throughout the project evaluation phase the community needs to

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 28
Section 3: Project Scoping Principles for EfW Projects

This section summarises and resolves the outcomes of the national consultative
workshops and the issues reviewed in the two previous sections. It presents a series of
key project scoping principles (PSPs) that can be used to assess the sustainability of
any energy from waste (EfW) project or proposal. The PSPs are fundamental to the use of
this Sustainability Guide.
3.1
Introduction to the PSPs

3.1.1
Project scoping
principles or PSPs
take the
guesswork out of
assessing the
sustainability of an
EfW project
3.1.2
The following PSPs have been developed from the national

consultative workshops to provide a recognisable structure for
assessing the sustainability of an EfW project. The PSPs aim
to:
i)
help potential EfW projects be conceived, scoped and

structured to optimise the potential of sustainable energy
recovery from the appropriate fractions of urban waste
whilst minimising or eliminating the potential
disadvantages (see 1.3)
ii)
provide a common reference for the evaluation of

potential projects as they seek to justify their demand
or acquire their basic licence to operate from the
community and its duly authorised consent and approval
regulators
iii)
provide an integrated and structured reference for the

ongoing assessment and monitoring of a project or
facility that does acquire a community licence to operate.
The process of profiling a project and assessing sustainability

has the following features, which are also shown graphically in
Figure 3-1:
i)
satisfaction of PSP1 if it cannot be demonstrated

that conversion to recover the calorific value of the
materials in question is the most sustainable use of the
materials, no further project assessment needs to be
undertaken. Whilst this initial assessment may be
undertaken by any stakeholder, it is most appropriate for
the owner or generator of the waste to undertake it
ii)
assessment of optimum conversion pathway for

the materials or resources presenting for recovery of
calorific value an iterative framework is proposed that
includes evaluation against PSP26 within a process
that advocates:
a)
proactive consultation with the community (see

2.6.3)
b)
continuous monitoring of the likely impacts of a

proposal and the incorporation of environmental
and social externalities at each stage.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 29
The Sustainability Guide proposes that the current waste

owner, generator or project developer be responsible for
demonstrating the optimum conversion pathway
The PSPs are

designed to
streamline the
assessment
process
iii)
3.1.3
application for formal consents and approvals this

stage should be greatly simplified for both applicant and
consent authority through the demonstration of a general
licence to operate from the community.
The proactive and conscientious application of the project

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 30
Figure 3-1: Assessment Roadmap of Project Scoping Principles
PSP1: Best use of material
NO
STOP PROCESS
YES
Communicate and consult
PSP2: Optimum conversion
PSP3: Control of
environmental outcomes
PSP4: Control of social

outcomes
PSP5: Assured delivery of

commitments
PSP6: Commercial
interface
Monitoring and incorporation of externalities
Evaluation of optimum
conversion pathway
Community licence to operate

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 31
3.2
Profiling EfW Projects and Proposals

The following PSPs and the corresponding assessment process outlined
in Figure 3-1 above allows the potential of an actual EfW project to be
profiled to provide a qualitative and widely recognised assessment. If this
is positive, it can provide a firm basis for a more quantitative assessment
as part of any future formal consent, approval and licensing procedure.
3.2.1
The profiling process is based on assessing a project or

proposal against the six PSPs that have been identified as
more accurately representing the issues of ESD and
community interest.
3.2.2
The commercial assessment that might occur after a project

has achieved a positive assessment against these
sustainability criteria is assumed to be an independent process
for a project proponent5.
3.2.3
Each of the following PSPs is addressed as follows:
3.2.4
i)
PSP title
ii)
PSP statement of purpose or objective
iii)
explanatory notes to assist assessment
iv)
some suggested compliance criteria or approaches
v)
qualitative assessment matrix.
The qualitative assessment matrix provides a framework for

comparative evaluation. It is designed to give the stakeholders
confidence that the quantitative assessments that will be
required during the formal consent or approval processes are
appropriate.
However, a project that demonstrated a positive sustainability assessment and therefore an important role
in delivering a sustainable resource outcome for the communitys urban wastes but failed a standard
commercial viability assessment by the project proponent might be a candidate for public support or
subsidy as a tangible internalisation of certain ESD externalities.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 32
3.3
PSP1: Best Use of the Available Materials
This assessment is 3.3.1

best done by the
waste owner or
generator
3.3.2
The purpose or objective of PSP1 is:

to demonstrate that the application of the urban wastes
being considered for conversion for their calorific value
represents the most sustainable application of the
resources.
Explanatory Notes to Assist Assessment
It is proposed that the following assessment is to be completed
for the urban wastes under consideration by their owner or
generator. This approach is aimed at both facilitating the
acquisition of data and information that will most accurately
describe the circumstances of their arising and presentation in
their current form, and most directly informing the development
of alternative strategies should they emerge as possible or
beneficial. An audit and assessment of the materials in
question should allow the following profile to be systematically
addressed:
i)
did the particular urban wastes need to be generated in

the first place and is the primary activity or product
design justified or could the activity have been altered or
amended to avoid generating the waste?
Responses to this very fundamental initial question
could have considerable impact on many of the future
values and assessment criteria, especially where a point
source or specific activity can be identified. For materials
such as mixed residual MSW the assessment may be
more subjective and could include:
a) justification of demand for the generic product or
service
b) attention to sustainability and resource use issues at
the point of design or product initiation to achieve the
optimum post-consumer fate for the product or
service
c) the clean production disciplines

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 33
ii)
if the production of the wastes was unavoidable and

justified, could the volume, toxicity or heterogeneity have
been reduced at or before the point of generation?
iii)
once a particular urban waste is confirmed and

identified, could all or any fraction of the materials have
been beneficially directed for some form of reuse,
perhaps as a supplement to the original raw materials or
related to the original purpose or function?
iv)
could all or any of the materials presenting in the

confirmed and identified urban waste stream be
beneficially directed for recycling into substantially the
same originating material (for example, paper-to-paper,
glass-to-glass, plastic-polymer-to-plastic-polymer, metalto-metal)?
v)
having reviewed the possibilities in iiv above, could all

or some of the materials in the urban waste be
beneficially reprocessed into some other raw material
stream or product?
Responses to iiv above will be much assisted if the research

for i above has been thorough and systematic and properly
addressed under the headings of clean production and postconsumer planning.
If questions iv above are answered in the negative, then the
calorific value potential needs to be assessed, evaluated and
considered before determining the materials' fate of last resort
such as the need for stabilisation or treatment to make them
suitable for landfill. The following issues and all future
decisions will be materially affected by the circumstances of
their arising and the rate of availability of the urban wastes in
question:
a)
geography where the materials initially arise will

materially influence all issues of critical mass, transport
and aggregation
b)
rate of arising the materials may arise sporadically,

regularly or seasonally or in variable or reliable rates of
presentation
c)
reliability of presentation the materials may present as

short-, medium- or long-term opportunities
d)
quality and content the auditable quality

characteristics of the materials will inform the selection of
future processes.
These issues will be vital determinants of the options, scale or

viability in the assessment of PSPs 26 below.
The consideration of existing or potential markets for resource
streams and their availability or saturation must also be
included in the assessment in PSP1. However, it should be
noted that EfW projects will not prevent other markets for
recoverable resource streams developing.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 34
3.3.3
Some Suggested Compliance Criteria or Approaches

The assessment and evaluation of performance against these
criteria may never be an exact science, but the ultimate
granting or declining of a community licence to operate may
never be able to be objectively determined either. The task is
to demonstrate that the key issues and criteria have been
systematically and conscientiously addressed and that
practical, commonsense, fair and equitable conclusions can
and have been drawn.
There are emerging assessment tools that might be adopted in
whole or in part to provide greater levels of assurance and
certainly in certain circumstances. These include:
life cycle assessment (LCA)
materials flux analysis (MFA)
environmental accounting
risk assessment
general research and best practice benchmarking.
However, the adoption of these tools will still require value

judgements and artificial boundary or process parameter
determinations. As such, they need to be used with careful
consideration of their effects on the more intuitive and
subjective opinions of the general community.
This Sustainability Guide suggests that the current waste
generator be responsible for the structured responses to these
criteria, since they are best placed to influence the outcomes.
This is especially valid in an EPR context6.
Assessment at this fundamental and initial stage highlights the important link between design intent at the product
initiation stage with the range and serviceability of systematically available options for both the by-products from the
production process and the post-consumer fate of the products or packaging themselves.
The urban wastes that are the subject of this Sustainability Guide arise as by-products of the productive processes as
well as post-consumer discards. The interface between designing products and services sustainably and sensitively for
a secondary resource or post-consumer fate that cannot be provided is as wasteful as providing secondary resource
recovery services that are sub-optimised by inconsiderately designed products or packaging (eg. making a recyclable
soap container that although made of cardboard, has a metal spout, a plastic handle and non-recyclable coating). The
concepts of extended producer responsibility (EPR) and/or product stewardship (PS) have a direct and causal
relationship with the (usually government) role of waste management planning or secondary resource recovery,
reaggregation and systematic value recovery.
The provision of EfW options and facilities should be seen as providing for the recovery of the most sustainable
inherent energy values from materials that were specifically designed or made available for such a fate.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 35
3.3.4
Qualitative Assessment Matrix

Because of the importance of granting a community licence to
operate, the responses to these criteria must be sufficiently
well developed and communicated to allow reasonable
assessment.
Table 3-1: PSP1 Qualitative Assessment Matrix

Issue
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Yes or not
applicable
(N/A)
Assessment
No
Provisional
Is there justification for the generic product or service

that generated the urban wastes in question?
Has sustainable resource management been
adequately addressed at the point of product
initiation or design?
Have the clean production disciplines been
conscientiously observed and implemented up to the
point of consumption?
Has resource value been optimised throughout the
supply chain to create the opportunity for optimal
reuse, recycling and reprocessing?
Are the resultant wastes unavoidable?
A yes or N/A response to each question should facilitate a simple response to the next stage (see
Table 3-2).
Any no response would suggest a review of the circumstances that drew that response since if they
are left unaltered these issues are likely to feature prominently in any future consent or approval
process.
Any provisional responses may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval process but
may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.
Table 3-2: PSP1 Evaluation Matrix

Issue
Assessment
No
Provisional
In light of the quality of the information provided and
the above responses, on balance has the case been
sustained that the materials in question have no
higher resource value than to be converted for their
calorific value?
A yes response would suggest that a move to PSPs 26 was appropriate.
A no response would indicate that a move to PSPs 26 was unlikely to be worthwhile.
A provisional response would indicate that a move to PSPs 26 might be appropriate, especially if
very positive results could be expected from future assessments. However, a systematic review of the
suitability of the apparently available materials for conversion to energy might be more rewarding.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Yes
Page 36
3.4
PSP2: Selection of the Optimum Conversion Pathway

3.4.1

to demonstrate that the selected process and pathway for
the conversion of the urban wastes for their calorific value
are the optimum ones for the available materials.
3.4.2

i)
A sub-optimal or inefficient conversion process and

pathway represents wasted resource value. Wasted
resource value represents unsustainability and is to be
avoided on both environmental and economic grounds.
ii)
The concept of the conversion pathway reflects the

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

materials with quite different conversion characteristics
such as different flash points, ash content and optimum
combustion and burn-out properties. There will even be
differing moisture levels and inert contaminants within
each of the constituent materials. In these
circumstances the selection of the conversion process
will need to reflect these complexities.
iv)
Optimal conversion efficiency may be best demonstrated

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

a) narrowing the range of optimisation for the selected
process
b) demonstrating control of impurities and contaminants
c) providing evidence that any higher value materials
have been identified and recovered
d) providing first order value-adding to materials that
are identified for future transport and aggregation to
larger scale and more efficient facilities.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 37
3.4.3
A three-stage iterative review process is proposed as shown in

Figure 3-2:
Figure 3-2: PSP2 Iterative review process
Feedstock characterisation
Process / facility selection
Efficiency / impact
assessment
Efficiency / impact
improvement
Assessment Matrix
3.4.4
required to justify
demand
Provisionally
acceptable
i)
feedstock characterisation the initial supply of

urban waste has been identified in PSP1. The
characteristics of this material need to be recorded as to:
a)
geography where the materials initially arise or

present as an opportunity for assessment and
potential resource recovery
b)
rate of arising the volume or quantity of the

urban wastes available for assessment
c)
reliability of presentation the seasonability or

fluctuations in the availability of the materials
including a review of the short-, medium- and longterm prospects for the continued generation of the
urban wastes
d)
quality and content a physical and biochemical

analysis of the materials including a review of
potential changes over time (see c above).
A review of these characteristics will enable an initial

needs analysis to be completed that will describe the
development of an optimum process specification to
accommodate the conversion of the available materials
for their calorific value

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 38
ii)
iii)
conversion pathway, process, facility and site

selection a range of issues will need to be assessed
and reassessed to identify the best fit with the needs
analysis and process specification developed in i above
including, but not limited to:
a)
on-site, local and embedded facilities these

facilities or processes would include either new or
existing facilities that are suitable to convert the
specific materials in question and could include
systems mentioned in Section 2.5 (see 2.5.3 iii)
b)
regional facilities these facilities, also outlined

in Section 2.5, will require a transport or
transmission factor to be considered, and may
represent an opportunity to aggregate the
materials to improve economies of scale or
improve the profile of all or any of the factors set
out in 3.4.3 i a, b, c and d above
c)
site selection the selection of a specific site for

the project is an important consideration and, in
particular, its proximity to resource supply and the
community
d)
sole, alternative or supplementary feed the

materials might be converted as a sole feed to a
new or existing process, as an alternative to some
existing feed or as a supplement to an existing
feed into a new or existing conversion process
e)
process track record and reliability any

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

may be conducted iteratively as different combinations
of i and ii above are considered. Both qualitative and
quantitative items will need to be included.
Eventually the efficiency of the proposed process
compared with alternative sources of energy locally and
the impacts (PSPs 3, 4, 5 and 6) will need to be
presented in a format and with a level of community
credibility which allows reasonable and informed
members of the community sufficient justification for
granting a community licence to operate. The
presentation of an audit trail of the research and
assessment undertaken to establish the efficiency and
impact values is therefore recommended

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 39
iv)
iterative development of options after an initial

assessment as described in i and ii above, the results at
iii may appear sub-optimal, in which case other options
may be considered to improve the outcomes, such as:
a)
aggregation with other urban wastes in this

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

involves net process efficiency and impact criteria
to reflect the transport costs and impacts and, in
the case of energy generators, future transmission
costs and losses
c)
review of conversion pathway and process options

following a needs analysis and process
specification revised by research into a) and b)
above, the amended situation will require a review
of the conversion pathway and process options
before a revised efficiency and impact assessment
is undertaken
d)
assessment of impacts in relation to the receiving

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 40
3.4.4

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

Issue
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Yes or not
applicable
(N/A)
Assessment
No
Provisional
Has the potential feedstock characterisation

occurred to a level of certainty sufficient to
objectively scope future conversion pathway
and process options?
Have issues of potential feedstock aggregation
been considered to a level that is sufficient to
objectively scope future conversion pathway
and process options and consider additional
transport and transmission issues?
Has feedstock preparation and pre-treatment
been thoroughly evaluated in the development
of the proposed conversion pathway and
process especially in regard to improving
logistics, efficiency and impacts?
Does the selection of the proposed conversion
pathway, process or facility demonstrate a
thorough evaluation of all the options within the
context of the specific feedstocks available?
Table 3.4).
A no response to any of the questions would suggest that a review of the particular issue was
advisable. No responses are likely to feature prominently in any future formal consent or approval
process.
A provisional response to any of the above questions may also draw attention during a formal
consent or approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.

Issue
Assessment
No
Provisional
In light of the responses and information provided, can
a position be sustained that, on balance, the selected
conversion pathway and process is the most efficient
for the urban wastes in question?
Note The issue of the resultant impacts of the project
will be evaluated in PSP3 below.
A yes response would suggest that a move to PSPs 36 was appropriate and that preliminary
community consultation could proceed on the basis of the information that had been generated from
PSPs 1 and 2.
A no response would suggest that further review of the options was required before continuing or that
the proposal should proceed no further.
A provisional response would indicate that positive results from PSPs 36 could improve the projects
sustainability profile but that the project was unlikely to satisfy a formal consent or approval process in
its current form.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Yes
Page 41
3.5
PSP3: Control of Environmental Impacts and Outcomes

3.5.1

to demonstrate that the selected conversion pathway and
process and management systems will provide control of
all environmental impacts and outcomes.
3.5.2

i)
Unless they are separated at their source, urban wastes

almost by definition usually present as mixed and
indeterminate.
ii)
Conversion pathways and processes may be adjustable

but will tend to be optimised at certain preset process
conditions.
iii)
Where materials of indeterminate consistency are

processed via a consistent process, the outcomes may
well be as variable and indeterminate as the original
feedstocks.
iv)
This variability may be managed by tertiary processes

broadly scoped to treat any unacceptable impacts or
outcomes as and when they occur. These techniques
can be employed in such areas as gas clean-up, water
treatment or ash management. However, there is an
inherent inefficiency in this approach since it requires a
process to be designed and operated at all times,
regardless of whether or not the particular impact is
present or evident at any particular time. An alternative
approach is to pre-treat or pre-process the feedstocks to
remove the indeterminate nature of the material before
processing or converting them (see 2.5.2 ii and 2.4.4 iii).
v)
This Sustainability Guide advocates the pretreatment or fuel preparation route since it has the
greatest potential to provide the greatest level of
impact control or certainty of outcomes (see 2.4.4 iii).
Fuel preparation by mechanical, manual or automated
systems to produce a product to a defined specification
that can be made available for direct conversion will not
only demonstrate the greatest level of assurance to the
community but will allow for a more targeted conversion
process design that incorporates management systems
to deal with any tertiary impacts.
vi)
Fuel preparation can occur at the point of generation as

part of the aggregation or logistics network or at the
conversion plant itself.
vii)
Site availability and selection will be an important factor

requiring consideration. Factors to be considered include
size, transport access, proximity to the resource, market,
community and any sensitive natural surroundings.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 42
viii)
The
demonstration
of
appropriate
quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) systems is essential
for satisfaction of this PSP. Some of the poor public
perception of energy recovery from wastes originates
from environmental impact issues.
Historically incineration was adopted as a disposal-based
technology that sought to destroy or reduce the volume
and toxicity of urban wastes by intense thermal oxidation,
with any energy recovery as a by-product of the main
activity (see 2.4). The process accommodated the
heterogeneous and indeterminate nature of the wastes. If
environmental impacts were recognised as an issue they
were dealt with by ever-more complex gas clean-up,
water treatment, ash management and OH&S
techniques.
3.5.3
ix)
The EfW approach in this Sustainability Guide does not

advocate the destruction or disposal of urban wastes for
their own sake. Rather, it seeks to recover the calorific
value from those materials that have no higher resource
value than to be managed in this way. A fundamental
difference between the two approaches is reflected in the
QA/QC procedures adopted. An example of this is the
pre-treatment or preparation of available wastes into
specified fuel products.
x)
EfW projects must adhere to the environmental standards

in the state where they operate. These require the
management of by-products from EfW projects including
ash, char and digestate to comply with relevant
standards.
xi)
Approaches in this PSP are typical of those that need to

be addressed in formal approvals from permitting
authorities, facilitating formal interactions when required.

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

conversion pathway or process will have been defined in
evaluation of PSP2 (see 3.4.3 iii).
ii)
To demonstrate compliance with this PSP proponents

need to:
a)
determine that these impacts are acceptable and of

a minimum that will sustain project viability
b)
demonstrate that if any environmental impacts are

accepted as reasonable and in proportion to the
benefits that they can be systematically controlled
throughout the entire life of the project.
This gives rise to a proposed two-stage iterative review

process to satisfy this PSP as shown in Figure 3.2: PSP3 Iterative review process.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 43
Determination of acceptability of impacts as

a practical minimum
Demonstration of appropriate QA/QC to

ensure the impacts as a maximum possible
Impacts
unacceptable
PSP2
Assessment Matrix
3.5.4
or not sufficiently
controlled
Impacts acceptable
and manageable
iii)
The basis for demonstrated QA/QC may be:

a)
strategic
b)
mechanical
c)
systematic
d)
a combination of all three.
In any case, evidence would need to be presented that

would lead to conclusion by a suitably informed party
carrying out a reasonable assessment concluding that
these issues had been thoroughly and conscientiously
addressed.
3.5.4
This assessment process assumes that sufficient iterations have occurred

between 3.5.3 ii a, b and PSP2, if necessary, to provide the basis for the
following assessment.
Issue
Yes or not
applicable
(N/A)
Assessment
No
Provisional
Are the projected impacts such as emissions and

residuals management acceptable as a practical
minimum in proportion to the potential benefits and in
light of the local, regional or national circumstances?
Has a sufficient level of control of the impacts been
demonstrated to ensure that they will be the maximum
experienced for the duration of the project?
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 44
Table3.6).
A no response to either question would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No
responses are likely to feature prominently in any future consent or approval process.
A provisional response to either question may also draw attention during a formal consent or
approval process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.

Issue
Assessment
No
Provisional
In light of the responses and information provided, can
a position be sustained that control of the potential
impacts can be maintained for the duration of the
project?
PSPs 1, 2 and 3.
A no response would suggest that a further review of the control mechanisms was required or that the
proposal should proceed no further.
A provisional response would indicate that positive responses to previous or future criteria would be
required to provide the level of confidence necessary in a formal consent or approval process.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Yes
Page 45
3.6
PSP4: Control of Social Impacts and Outcomes

3.6.1

to demonstrate that measures are in place to adequately
manage social and economic impacts for the duration of
the project.
3.6.2

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

local or regional in scale and whether adopting new or
existing conversion facilities, can have social and/or
economic impacts on the community. These impacts
might include:
a)
concern over direct environmental impacts such as:
emissions to air
emissions to water
emissions to land
biodiversity and ecotoxicity concerns
traffic issues
increased noise profile
greenhouse issues
odour
dust
vermin and vectors (see 3.5)
b)
employment and training issues
c)
OH&S issues
d)
local amenity issues and aesthetics
e)
commercial effects locally, regionally and nationally
f)
pricing signals, effects on other programs (e.g.

recycling)
g)
delivery of genuinely sustainable resource

management outcomes
h)
offsets and community infrastructure.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 46
3.6.3
ii)
Many of these issues and impacts will be weighted

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

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

i)
The direct anticipated environmental impacts will have

been established in PSP3. However, the concern will be
best managed by a structured program of
communication, education and engagement conducted in
a participatory, accountable and transparent manner.
This dialogue must be genuinely informative since the
objective of sustainable resource use requires
responsible decision-making by all stakeholders (see
2.6).
ii)
Where a new project has the potential to influence local

employment or training opportunities, some measure of
assurance needs to be provided that these expectations
are realistic.
iii)
A monitorable OH&S plan needs to be presented to give

confidence that the projected OH&S outcomes will be
achieved.
iv)
Similarly, an environmental monitoring program needs to

be presented to demonstrate commitment to responsible
environmental management throughout the life of the
project.
v)
Process pathway and conversion facility designs need to

be sufficiently advanced to allow the community to make
fully informed decisions as to local amenity and
aesthetics.
vi)
Pricing signals for the maintenance and promotion of

sustainable resource use are addressed in PSP6.
However, new developments will have effects, especially
in the local area. These impacts need to be sufficiently
defined to allow objective assessment.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 47
3.6.4
vii)
The social issues and impacts can be the most subjective

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

of sporting or recreational facilities donations or ongoing
royalties, transparency and accountability are vital, as is
confirmation of the ability to deliver on behalf of the party
making the offer.
ix)
The objective of this PSP is to demonstrate that the

social and economic impacts:
a)
have been adequately described and quantified
b)
are acceptable to the community
c)
can be controlled or delivered in substantially the

form described for the life of the project.
This simple assessment process assumes that sufficient iterations have

occurred between 3.6.3 viii a, b and other PSPs as required.
Determination and acceptability of the social

and economic impacts
Demonstration that the social and economic

impacts are acceptable to the host community
Demonstration that control of the impacts can

be delivered as described
Impacts
unacceptable
Assessment Matrix
3.6.4
PSP2
or not sufficiently
controlled
Impacts acceptable
and manageable

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 48

Issue
i)
ii)
iii)
Yes or not
applicable
(N/A)
Assessment
No
Provisional
Have the social and economic impacts been

adequately determined and identified?
Is there evidence that the anticipated social and
economic impacts are acceptable to the
determining community?
Can it be demonstrated that control exists to
deliver the impacts as described or better?
Table 3-8).
A no response to either question would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No
A provisional response to either question may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval
process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.

Issue
Assessment
No
Provisional
In light of the above responses and the quality of the
information provided, can a position be sustained that
acceptability and control of the social and economic
impacts can be maintained for the duration of the
project?
PSPs 1, 2, 3 and 4.
A no response would suggest that a further review of the control mechanisms was required or that the
proposal should proceed no further.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Yes
Page 49
3.7
PSP5: Assurance of Project Commitments

3.7.1

to demonstrate that the environmental, social and
economic commitments defined at the initiation of the
project are understood and delivered over the life of the
project.
3.7.2
3.7.3

i)
One major community concern identified has been the

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

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

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

i)
The proponent needs to demonstrate that they are a

respected corporate citizen with sufficient means to
deliver the project within anticipated timelines.
ii)
The formal consent authorities need to note all legitimate

community concerns and ensure that the terms and
conditions of consent contain mechanisms that will
provide the level of monitoring and control appropriate
for the circumstances.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 50
i)
The proposed strategies, programs and actions that are

developed to demonstrate compliance with this PSP
need to be transparent and monitorable during the life of
the project and might include:
a)
by the proponent:
International Standards Organisation (ISO)

14000 accreditation
public reporting through
Public Environmental Reporting (PER)

(Environment Australia website)
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
National Pollution Inventory (NPI)

information dissemination by:
website
newsletters
annual reports
regular open days
b)
by the formal consent authority:
compliance audits of consent conditions
contractual commitments.
Note Where any specific environmental impact internalisation

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 51
3.7.4

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

Issue
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Yes or not
applicable
(N/A)
Assessment
No
Provisional
Is the proponent a respected corporate citizen

with sufficient means to undertake the proposed
project?
Have strategies, programs or actions been
proposed that if fully and transparently
implemented would provide the level of
assurance required for the granting of a licence
to operate by the community?
Have the formal consent authorities shown
sufficient regard to these long-term issues in the
development and imposition of the consent
conditions for the project?
Does the proponent have sufficient financial
resources or the ability to obtain these
resources in order to provide financial
assurance for closure and remediation if
necessary?
Table 3-10).
A no response to any question would suggest that a review of the particular issue was advisable. No
A provisional response to any question may also draw attention during a formal consent or approval
process but may be offset by positive responses to all other criteria.

Issue
Assessment
No
Provisional
In light of the above responses and the quality of the
information provided, can it be reasonably determined
that the level of environmental, social and economic
impacts, positive and negative, deemed both desirable
and acceptable at the commencement of the project
will be delivered and monitored over the life of the
project?
A yes response would support the continued development of the project.
A no response would suggest that a further review of the proposed assurance mechanisms was
required or that the proposal should proceed no further.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Yes
Page 52
3.8
PSP6: Management of the Commercial Interface

3.8.1

to demonstrate that the structuring of the project to
achieve commercial viability does not compromise the
inherent sustainability achieved by observance of the
other PSPs.
3.8.2

This PSP addresses many of the issues that normally would be
part of the continuous and iterative monitoring and
incorporation of the sustainability externalities shown in Figure
4.1. However, certain key issues can be identified as needing
particular attention.
i)
The commercial and financial realities for a project must

achieve the prescribed returns and outcomes within the
risk profile acceptable to the proponent. However, the
achievement of these commercial and financial outcomes
should not be at the expense of the strategic and
sustainable resource use requirements that created the
potential for the project in the first instance.
ii)
Supply issues a facility that can efficiently and safely

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 53
iii)
Energy availability issues energy (heat or power)

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

by the alternative or sustainable options and could
lead to unsustainable power consumption (because
of the low cost)
b)
fuel could be supplied for process heat at a

significant discount to the existing alternative (e.g.
coal) to the extent that either marginal or inefficient
operations could be retained or product costs could
be artificially lowered to promote excessive use of
energy or negatively impact on demand
management programs.
While these issues may not feature strongly in the

evaluation and assessment of a project or proposal, they
are important considerations for demonstrating attention
to detail when seeking a community licence to operate.
iv)
Miscellaneous issues and commercial signals within

the broad context of the feedstock and energy supply
issues discussed in ii and iii above, the following lesser
issues could impact on the sustainability outcomes if they
are handled inappropriately during the development of a
commercial framework for a project or proposal.
a)
The volume and content of urban wastes that satisfy

PSP1 will alter continuously and need to be
addressed in proposals. It may be necessary for
conversion pathways and facilities to avoid levels of
specialisation that cannot accommodate this sort of
variability.
b)
Long-term commitments of, say, up to 25 years

need to be considered carefully by potential
suppliers because these sorts of commitments
could eventually have the effect of absorbing
materials with a higher resource value. Where longterm commitments are not provided the supplier
must recognise the offsetting increases in
processing costs that need to be borne in order to
allow the developer to make a reasonable riskweighted rate of return.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 54
3.8.3
c)
The provision of or access to suitable EfW

conversion pathways and facilities need to be part
of an integrated suite of options to support optimum
resource use outcomes in general, especially as
support for whole-of-life planning programs at the
point of product initiation and design (this relates to
the parallel issues of EPR, lightweighting, postconsumer planning and by-product optimisation).
d)
Putrescible urban wastes that could satisfy PSP1

might require immediate processing as a treatment
or stabilisation function. This could trouble the
orderly observance of this PSP.

i)
Some waste supply, fuel demand and energy need

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

between the supplier and converter. The converter might
manage supply assurance issues by having a range of
PEF supplies and/or suppliers. Furthermore, by having a
backup supply of fossil fuels, the PEFs are
supplementary. This places the PEF product as
supplementary or alternative fuel, for conversion as
available, as opposed to threatening compliance with this
PSP.
iii)
Other approaches could involve:

a)
modularity
b)
process flexibility or turndown capacity
c)
a fixed or variable component in the supply

agreement. The balancing of base demand versus
spot prices.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 55
3.8.4

Issue
Assessment
No
Provisional
Have the commercial arrangements for the proposal
or project been developed to support and reinforce the
sustainability criteria of all other PSPs?
A yes response would support the continued development of the project.
A no response would suggest that a further review of the proposed assurance mechanisms was
required or that the proposal should proceed no further.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Yes
Page 56
Section 4: The Assessment Tools

Assessment Roadmap
PSP1: Best use of material
NO
STOP PROCESS
YES
Communicate and consult
PSP2: Optimum conversion
PSP3: Control of
environmental outcomes
PSP4: Control of social

outcomes
PSP5: Assured delivery of

commitments
PSP6: Commercial
interface
Monitoring and incorporation of externalities
Evaluation of optimum
conversion pathway
Community licence to operate

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 57
Section 5: Glossary
Aggregate/aggregation
Collect materials together with a view to create a critical mass

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

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

process
Avoidance
A waste management strategy that seeks to avoid the

generation of the waste in the first instance
Bagasse
The residual woody stem material that results from the process
to recover the sugar content from sugar cane
Beneficiation
The further improvement by quality of a material stream to

specifically meet end user requirements and specifications
Biogas
The off gas produced from the anaerobic digestion or

decomposition of biologically unstable materials.
Such
conditions might be created naturally, or in a landfill or in-vessel
in an AD facility.
Biomass
Total quantity or weight of organisms in a given area
Bioreactor Landfill
A landfill where the rate of anaerobic decomposition is

specifically managed and accelerated to increase the generation
of biogas and to accelerate landfill stabilisation.
Calorific value
The energy value per unit mass (or volume) that is released by
a material in combustion, normally measured in mega-joules per
kilogram (MJ/kg) or giga-joules per tonne (GJ/t).
Char
Carbon material that remains after the incomplete combustion of

biomass, for example, charcoal is left after the incomplete
combustion of wood.
Clean(er) production
Community
operate
licence
The management technique that seeks to minimise or eliminate

the environmental impacts of manufacturing or productive
processes with particular emphasis on presenting unavoidable
offcuts, surpluses or residues as useful by-products (for
subsequent use) rather than as (mixed) or negatively valued
wastes.
to
Consent or approval process
Digestate
The consensual agreement of the general community to

sanction a particular (industrial) activity in their geographical
area of concern
The prevailing landuse and planning authorities manage a
structured process whereby industrial or productive activities
require prescribed consents, approvals or licences for initial
establishment and ongoing operations
The digested output from an anaerobic digester

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 58
Energy from waste (EfW)
Energy
technologies
recovery
Environmental externalities
Highest Resource Value
An approach to resource recovery that focuses on maximising

the amount of energy that can be recovered from materials that
would otherwise be disposed of to landfill through a variety of
energy recovery technologies (contrast with waste to energy).
Energy recovery technologies refer to a technology or
methodology that seeks to recover the calorific value of a
material
The range of environmental impacts (positive and negative) that
are not brought to account in conventional market based
accounting systems. This results in a market failure in that the
true cost of a given activity is not reflected in the market price of
the good or service.
The highest market value of a particular resource after
accounting for both the costs of recovery or beneficiation for
such a use and after fully accounting for any relevant
environmental externalities
Initial arising
The first point at which a waste stream or by-product presents in

the value chain requiring an appropriate logistic response
Lignocellulosic
Lignocellulose is the combination of lignin, hemicellulose and

cellulose that forms the structural framework of plant cell walls.
Here lignocellulosic materials are used to describe wood,
garden organics (greenwaste) and other wood derived products
such as paper.
Methane
A colourless, odourless and flammable gas that is created by

the decay of organic matter. It is the chief component of natural
gas and biogas (C2H4)
Monofill
The practice of using landfill as a storage receptacle for source

separated and homogenous materials such as tyres.
OECD
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OH&S
Process
(PEFs)
Occupational Health & Safety

engineered
PSP
Reduce
Recycling
Residual urban wastes
fuels
Refers to fuels that are manufactured from selected materials

that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill. They are quality
controlled, relatively homogeneous and are produced fit for
purpose use in a cement kiln or power station. Sometimes PEF
is also referred to as Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF).
Project scoping principles
See Avoidance
The act of reclaiming resources from materials that would
otherwise be disposed of to landfill for the purposes of
reprocessing into either the same or similar products (direct
recycling) or into different product types altogether (indirect
recycling).
The residual material that cannot be avoided and that is unable
to be re-used or recycled.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 59
Reuse
Secondary resource
Waste
An activity that re-uses any given material or product for

essentially the same original purpose in the same original form.
A grouping noun for materials recovered from waste streams
that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill.
Any material that has no further use to the owner (perceived or
real) and arises from:
i)
By-product of manufacture or resource extraction,
ii)
Off-cuts, over runs, out of specification materials in

manufacture and assembly,
iii) End of service life product,

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

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

i)
The goal of minimising the generation of all waste as an

end in and of itself (see also Waste Avoidance),
ii)
A tool to achieve sustainability outcomes by looking for

opportunities within manufacturing or consuming to
minimse the generation of unnecessary waste,
iii) A grouping term that covers all resource recovery activities

such as re-use and recycling, because in becoming a
resource the waste is minimised.
Waste to energy (WtE)
Waste to energy is a waste management approach where the

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 60
Section 6: Appendixes
Appendix C Sponsors
Appendix E
Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development
Appendix F
Literature Review

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 61

The Working Group retained editorial control of the project and overall project delivery as to
quality, time and budget.
Name
Organisation
Mark Glover (Chair)
Renewed Fuels Pty Ltd
Ron Wainberg (Treasurer)
NSW Branch WMAA
Matthew Warnken (Project Manager)
Warnken ISE
Jeff Angel
Total Environment Centre
Stephen Schuck
Bioenergy Australia
Tony Wright
Wright Corporate Strategy
Neil Chapman
Resource NSW
Graeme Jessup
SEDA
Raymond Kidd
Department of the Environment and Heritage
Jenny Pickles / Cathy Van der Zee
EcoRecycle Victoria
David Moy
Qld Branch WMAA, Qld University
Fraser Bell
SA Branch WMAA, Finlaysons
Carinda Rue / Iain Williams
Tas Branch WMAA, DPIWE
Lillias Bovell
WA Branch WMAA, WA Department of

Environmental Protection
Yolande Stone (Observer)
Planning NSW

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 62

The Reference Group was established to peer-review and critique the initial draft of both the Sustainability
Guide and the Code of Practice. The commitment of the Reference Group members was documented by
individually signed Consent to Act forms (see attached forms). Formal submissions were received from 22
of the original 51 members of the Reference Group (see table below).
Name
Organisation
Craig Midson
Australian Greenhouse Office
Stephen Joseph
Biomass Energy Services & Technology
Mark Hipgrave
Brightstar Environmental (Qld)
Don Chambers
C4ES
Patricia Nicholls
C4ES
Kathryn Turner
Cement Industry Federation
Joe Lunardello
City of Monash
Allan Pilcher
Country Energy
Sara Beavis
CRES, Australian National University
Griff Rose
CVC Reef IM
Brett Corderoy
Delta Electricity
Graham Spalding
Department of Environment Waste Management Branch
Clinton Watkins
Development Manager & Economist - EcoCarbon Incorporated
Toby Hutcheon
Ecomatters
Greg Watt
Energy Futures Australia
Louise Drolz
Environment Business Australia
John Lawson
Global Renewables Ltd
Michael Clarke
Griffith University
Russell Wade
Individual
Nick Orr
Individual
Craig Fraser
Individual
Neil Rose
Maroondah City Council
Christine Wardle
Meinhardt
Peter Brotherton
National Environmental Consultative Forum
Sharon Denny
Office of Energy & Treasury (Qld)
Nigel Green
Office of Environment & Heritage, NT Government
David Rossiter
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
Shani Bienefelt
Pantechnicon
Peter Goggin
PEG Business Solutions
John Sparkes
Planning NSW
Joanna Missen
PPK
Kylie Hughes
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency
Amy Hogan
Tim Powe
Neil Chapman
Resource NSW
Marc Stammbach
Rethmann Australia Environmental Services
Andrew Thaler
scrapp.com
Chris Pickering
Stanwell Corporation Limited
Gabrielle Henry
Sustainable Energy Authority (VIC)
John Hewitson
Teris (Aust)
Andrew Brownlow
Terra Consulting
Don White
University of Sydney - Department of Chemical Engineering
Lynne Forster
University of Tasmania
Denis James
Visy Recycling
Mohan Selvaraj
Waste Service NSW
Terry Carter
Western Power Corporation
Paul Oakes
Worley Developments
The comments from the review process were assessed by the Working Group and included as deemed appropriate. It should be
emphasised that there was a degree of diversity within the comments, ranging from strong support to strong opposition. Thus, the list
of contributors should not be taken as an endorsement of the Sustainability Guide by either the individual or the organisation listed
below.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 63
WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

NSW BRANCH
Energy from Waste Division

62 Brook Street COOGEE NSW 2034
Telephone: 02 9664 5552 Facsimile: 02 9665 9423
Email: mark@ecowaste.com.au Web: www.wmaa.asn.au/efw/home.html
Energy from Waste Sustainability Project

Reference Group Consent to Act Form
The Energy from Waste Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA),
received grant funding from the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) to prepare an Energy from
Waste (EfW) Sustainability Guide and complementary Industry Code of Practice for the EfW
industry. Drafts of these documents have been completed and are now ready for circulation to the
Reference Group.
The main role of the Reference Group is to act as the primary body of review for the Sustainability
Guide and Code of Practice. It is anticipated that in addition to an individual review, members of
the Reference Group will also solicit input, comment and feedback from their respective
members/constituency/colleagues on draft documents and then channel this information back to
the Working Group. The general duties of the Reference Group include:
Reviewing draft documentation from the perspective of the organisation being represented
and the wider stakeholder group,
Checking of any technical data where relevant,
Providing written comment to the Working Group by the due date required (14 May 2003),
and through a template that will be supplied by the Project Manager,
Indicating the level of sign-off that the member (individually or on behalf of an

organisation) would be prepared to offer in support of the final publications,
Disseminating the final publications throughout existing networks.
It should be noted that the Working Group does not necessarily undertake to include verbatim all
of the written submissions received from the Reference Group into the final publication. The
Working Group will, however, undertake to consider these views and to strive to reach a
consensus position.
Membership on the Reference Group is honorary and has been initiated by application or
nomination to the Working Group. By signing this Consent to Act form the Reference Group
member offers to participate on the Reference Group and agrees to undertake the duties that are
outlined above. A list of participating Reference Group members will be maintained on the EfW
Divisions website.
Name:
Date:
Signature:
Phone:
Organisation Represented:
Fax:
Please sign, date and fax this form back to 02 9571 4900

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 64
Appendix C Sponsors
Australian Greenhouse Office
Renewed Fuels
Cement Industry Federation
QLD Environmental Protection Agency
Resource NSW
SA Environmental Protection Agency
SEDA NSW
Waste Service NSW
Babcock & Brown
Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria
C4ES
Delta Electricity
CS Energy
Global Renewables
Department of the Environment and Heritage
CVC Reef
Novera Energy
Recycling and Recovery Industries
Stanwell Corporation

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 65

The summary below of the stakeholder workshops and results is taken from the report Energy
from Waste Sustainability Project - Summary of Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes which was
prepared by Warnken ISE Pty Ltd and can be downloaded in its entirety from:
http://www.wmaa.asn.au/efw/Final%20Summary.pdf
Introduction
Energy from Waste (EfW) is often perceived to be no more than poorly disguised incineration and
a technology that both destroys resources and creates pollution. However, EfW can present a
viable solution for recovering resources that would otherwise be lost to landfill, while at the same
time reducing the use of fossil fuels for our energy sources.
The EfW Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia responded to the need for
guidance to resolve this potential conflict by launching the Energy from Waste Sustainability
Project. This project received the support of Commonwealth Government funding through the
Australian Greenhouse Office, in addition to receiving support from fifteen industry and
government bodies.
The Sustainability Project aimed to develop two support documents:
1. A Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects; and
2. An Energy from Waste (EfW) Industry Code of Practice.
The intention was that the Sustainability Guide would provide a framework around which the
dialogue and debate on Energy from Waste issues could occur. In particular the Guide would:
Provide an agreed basis of evaluation for EfW projects,
Provide a starting point for community involvement,
Provide a design template for EfW project design, development and implementation.
In doing this it was anticipated that the overall impact of the Guide would be to assist projects in
maximising the benefits while minimising or avoiding any negative impacts of EfW.
The development of an Industry Code of Practice was seen a necessary step to ensure industry
commitment to meeting the principles put forward in the Sustainability Guide.
In order to gain stakeholder input on the issues that would form the backbone of these
documents, a total of eighteen stakeholder workshops were held across eleven locations in
Australia during the months of September, October and November 2002.
Warnken Industrial and Social Ecology Pty Ltd, as the project manager for the Energy from Waste
Sustainability Project, were contracted to organise and facilitate the workshops, document
workshop outcomes and prepare an overall summary document of major themes emerging from
the workshops.
This document provides an overview of the outcomes from those workshops. Section 2 outlines
the process that was involved in the running of the workshops, Section 3 groups the workshop
outcomes according to framing considerations for EfW and then under the three legs of
ecologically sustainable development, namely, Social, Political and Legislative considerations,
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 66
Environmental aspects and Techno-economic issues. A selection of quotes from the workshop
reports are presented in call out boxes to illustrate the flavour of participant input.
Section 4 details suggestions for the Sustainability Guide, in particular changes to the draft
framework of project scoping principles that the Working Group had developed prior to the
workshops and Section 5 presents the issues and suggestions regarding an Energy from Waste
Industry Code of Practice.
The Process
As was stated, the aim of the stakeholder consultation was to ensure that both the positive and
negative aspects of Energy from Waste (EfW) projects were captured to assist the development of
the Sustainability Guide. In order to deliver against this project requirement broad-based
stakeholder workshops were convened in eleven cities and towns across Australia. A complete
listing of the workshop dates and venues can be found in Annexure 1.
Two sets of workshops were hosted at seven of the larger locations, namely the broad-based
morning stakeholder workshop, and a smaller invitational expert workshop. In this section we
describe how these two sets of workshops were run and the outputs they delivered. These
outputs are synthesised in this report.
Advertising of the process

To ensure that as wide a possible range of stakeholders was represented at the morning
workshops the following methods of advertising were used:
Newspapers advertisements in local, regional and state papers,
Magazine articles and advertisements,
Email newsletters,
Media releases to newspapers and ABC radio,
Email alerts through association distribution lists,
Internet sites.
Interested parties were invited to register for the morning stakeholder workshops online.
Representation at the smaller afternoon workshops was by invitation only. Invitation lists were
compiled with input from the local Working Group member and through a review of the online
registrations. In some instances a general invitation was also made to workshop participants on
the day.
In total 299 people from thirteen stakeholder groups attended the eleven morning stakeholder
workshops, and 71 people attended the afternoon sessions (see Section 2.2.2 for a breakdown of
stakeholder participation). From the morning sessions approximately 1,800 flash cards were
produced detailing issues (positive and negative) related to EfW. Complete listings of participants
attending the workshops and the issues that were raised can be found in the specific workshop
reports, downloadable from the EfW Division of the Waste Management Association of Australia
homepage.
www.wmaa.asn.au/efw/home.html

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 67
Stakeholder Workshops
Stakeholder workshops were run over a morning session of three hours. The aim of these
sessions was to ensure that all the concerns and perceptions of the stakeholders present were
captured. To this end these sessions focussed on issue identification only, no attempt was made
to reach consensus on issues raised.
Summary of Process
The morning sessions started with an introduction to the project, to ensure, as far as possible that
all people present were presenting issues relative to a consistent basis. The attendees selfselected into smaller groups, run as Tables for the workshop. Tables consisted of six or more
people, with a maximum of ten per table. Each table had a facilitator who was given support
instructions on how to facilitate the process for their table. The participants were invited to spend
some time writing their concerns onto flash cards provided. As a group the table then decided on
generic groupings for these issues, and recorded these onto overhead transparencies for
presentation to the workshop as a whole. The workshop reconvened to allow for presentation of
the table discussions.
The tables were also asked to act as a Citizens Jury and vote on the following issues:
EfW has no role to play in any form;
EfW has a role to play but that role is determined on a case by case basis; or
EfW always has a role to play in any form.
The results of these votes were recorded and presented to the workshop as a whole.
Following the group report back session the draft framework of project scoping principles was
presented. An attempt was made to summarise issues identified during the report back session
that would need to be addressed within this framework.
Breakdown of Stakeholder Participation
Participants who registered online also nominated a stakeholder grouping that best fitted their
interest/activities related to Energy from Waste. This breakdown has been used to provide an
estimate on the ratios of stakeholder representation amongst workshop attendees and is
presented in Table D-1 below.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 68
Table D-1: Breakdown of stakeholder participation

Stakeholder Group
Academics & Researchers
6%
Consultants
21%
Developers/Technology
Providers
7%
Energy Sector
7%
Feedstock - Other Users
1%
Feedstock Providers
3%
Finance Sector
1%
Government Federal
1%
Government Local
24%
Government State
14%
Media
1%
Non Government Organisations
6%
Other
8%
Nature of Outputs
All of the flash cards submitted by the workshop attendees were transcribed after the workshop.
These comments, together with a transcription of the overheads used by each table and a record
of the voting of each table formed the output of each workshop.
This final output was in the form of a workshop report which was circulated to all workshop
attendees, and has been made available to the public on the WMAA EfW homepage.
The reports contain a wealth of information and, in their entirety, describe the complexity of the
EfW issue in Australia. A synthesis of the stakeholder workshop outcomes is included below.
Smaller Invitational Workshops

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

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 69
Process
The smaller workshops made use of the results of the stakeholder workshops, as well as any
further issues which attendees felt were significant, and attempted to determine:
Whether the draft Project Scoping Principles (PSP) developed by the Working Group
addressed these issues, and if so, which PSP addressed the issue; or
Whether the issue was not addressed by the PSP framework and thus required either further
discussion in the Guide, or the establishment of a new PSP.
Secondly, the development of an Industry Code of Practice (CoP) was discussed. At some
workshops this was the only item of discussion. The discussion centred around answering the
following:
Who is the Industry?
What should be included within the scope of the CoP?
What are the issues with implementation and ownership of the CoP?
The aim of these workshops was to build consensus. For this reason, and because the number of
attendees at these workshops was relatively small, workshops were run as group sessions with a
single facilitator.
Nature of Outputs
Workshop reports were also generated for all of the smaller workshops. These can be downloaded
from the EfW homepage. These reports detail how the issues highlighted in the stakeholder
workshops can be grouped into the relevant PSP. Issues which fell outside the Draft PSPs were
highlighted and, where relevant, additional PSPs were suggested. Elements which require more
discussion than has been included in the Draft Sustainability Guide were ear-marked for more indepth discussion.
The breadth of considerations to be included in an Industry Code of Practice was also reported.
Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes

The issues and considerations highlighted at the eleven morning stakeholder workshops hosted
through this project have been synthesised into generic categories within this section. This report
places these issues in the context of the Project Scoping Principles of the EfW Sustainability
Guide.
The outcomes of the workshop explored the significant range and complexity of issues associated
with EfW projects. While care has been taken to ensure that all issues have been included in this
report, a comprehensive listing of arguments offered at the workshops cannot be captured in this
relatively short document. The Sustainability Guide should thus also refer to individual workshop
reports to ensure that the breadth of arguments is addressed.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 70
Framing Considerations
A number of different philosophical bases for decision making on project selection were
highlighted at the workshop:
Projects should be fit for purpose.
Care should be taken to deliver highest possible resource recovery and to maintain organic
value as far as possible before using material as an energy source.
Decision making should incorporate the big picture and be strategic in nature, including life
cycle considerations and being solution focussed and not problem focussed.
Extended producer responsibility should play a role in the development of strategies, and
EfW projects should not undermine the future viability of other extended producer responsibility
plans.
Care should be taken to ensure that excess energy availability does not lead to inefficient and
wasteful energy use.
EfW projects should not be seen as encouraging waste generation, or to be undermining

any waste minimisation projects.
EfW projects are consistent with ESD objectives and are making use of a resource which might
otherwise be wasted.
Clear terminology definitions are required.
Care should be taken to ensure that future scenarios are explored when a project is proposed.
While many workshop participants stressed the need for action in the short-term, there was
the concern that projects accepted now might jeopardise the potential (both environmental and
economic) for future technologies to survive.
The potential for EfW processes to destroy some hazardous wastes deserves comment.
The results of the citizens jury provide an overall perspective on the general philosophical
position of participants with regard to Energy from Waste.
Social, Political and Legislative considerations

Community Issues
One of the most significant outcomes of the workshop process was the emphasis which was
placed on communities. This was a common theme at all the workshops. Community
considerations include:
Community education including the communication and explanation of risks associated with
emissions, addressing perceptions relating to concerns around forestry depletion and human
health effects, resolving misconceptions relating to the efficacy of technologies and ensuring
community perception of EfW as a way of delivering sustainable outcomes to communities.
There is the potential for proactive capacity building to reduce some of the emotional debate
around EfW projects. The community should be made aware of EfW projects, and the final
destiny of the wastes which they produce, with the intention of ensuring that waste becomes
the responsibility of the community and not the regulators.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 71
It should be noted that the newer the technology proposed for a project, the greater will be the
uncertainty of the community about the ability of the technology to deliver the projected
outcomes.
Care should be taken to ensure that community behaviour is not adversely affected, that
over consumption should not be encouraged, and that existing behaviour relating to recycling
initiatives (splitting wastes at source) are not undermined; the potential exists to enhance
existing community behaviour through well-managed kerbside systems.
Stakeholder values should be considered during decision making processes on EfW projects.
This links to the consumer education issue as the appropriate information needs to be
available to stakeholders to support effective debate between stakeholders.
Potential actions for addressing community issues include:
Ensuring that all communication is transparent and that project proponents are accountable,
this will build the credibility of the industry. Care should be taken to ensure that information
supplied is consistent.
Appropriate siting of new facilities which includes a consideration of all community values,
issues relating to transport routes; buffer zones should be maintained.
There should be a focus on the development of partnerships, for example between

communities and industry, or as part of integrated municipal planning.
The perception that EfW technologies are equivalent to incineration needs to be addressed in
the short term.
Local Government Concerns and Considerations

The reason for highlighting this element of the debate is because waste management is, to a great
extent, managed at a local level and has the potential to be a highly politicised issue. The
workshops hosted during the project were convened both in the cities, and in regional Australia.
Some considerations specific to regional Australia were highlighted. In general, the comments
relating to local government concerns and considerations include:
EfW projects have the potential to encourage uniform and integrated waste management
across cities and to aid local government to deliver against their responsibilities in this regard.
Significant levels of co-ordination will be required to link the management of wastes at a local
level to regional infrastructure.
Waste strategies developed at a local level should be consistent and developed in a cooperative manner; they should also be commercially viable. Local authorities have the
greatest role to play in ensuring that highest resource recovery is being realised in their region.
Landfill infrastructure is in place and generates income at a local level, care should be taken
to understand existing infrastructure and future requirements. At the same time a number of
landfills are to close in the near future and valid alternatives are sought; however, the majority
of alternatives will result in increased costs to rate payers. Currently low landfill charges have
the potential to undermine the economic viability of EfW projects.
Catering for the needs of remote communities is complex and not to be under-estimated, at
the very least the trade-off between transport distances and energy recovered must be
assessed. Partnerships may have a significant role to play here.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 72
Local Authorities have a significant role to play in communication with communities and in
engaging the community in relevant debates and decision making processes.
Jurisdictional issues need to be clarified, between local, state and federal government.
Policy Considerations and Legislative Considerations

The role of Federal and State government was not highlighted to any great extent other than
where concerns were expressed about the efficacy of State Government in this area and the need
for consistent regulation and policy across Australia. Rather attention was focussed on the
potential for the proposed Sustainability Guide to inform Policy and Legislation and whether it
could possibly be adopted by Federal and State government to inform the development of
legislation. This would provide a level of consistency desired across the different states and
territories.
The elements of the debate relating to policy, legislation and regulation are:
Using waste to supply energy includes an implicit understanding that wastes will be generated
and may be seen to undermine any zero waste programmes.
Regulation of EfW projects in some form is required, whether this is self-regulation or through
enacted legislation with preference being voiced for the latter. Regulation should not be
prescriptive, it should support innovation on the part of the project proponent and not limit the
potential future of technology development. Mandatory standards which have the support of
statutory authorities are needed.
Any policy developed should recognise the interplay between energy and waste generation
and should ensure that one is not supported through over-emphasis being placed on the other.
There is the need for consistency and uniformity in the governments policy direction. Current
impediments to distributed energy recovery are seen to be both regulatory and commercial,
efforts need to be made to match technology and policy.
The complexity of current legislation was highlighted as a stumbling point, this coupled with
uncertainty around future legislation has the potential to undermine any benefits which EfW
projects might deliver. Concern was also expressed about the time and cost of application
processes. Care should be taken to ensure that any control mechanisms developed are
objective.
A review of tariff levels on electricity and gas is necessary in order to make alternatives which
are more environmentally and economically feasible.
The potential for State Governments to develop integrated strategies for their states should be
investigated and supported.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 73
Environmental
Environmental Benefits
The perceived environmental benefits associated with EfW projects were consistent across the
stakeholder workshops, and include:
A decrease in the material sent to landfill with associated availability of landfill volume and
reduction of the impacts associated with landfilling materials (such as impacts on ground
water). In addition to this the wastage of materials is avoided, i.e. producing energy from
waste is preferable to doing nothing with the waste and thus losing the energy which it
contains. This exemplifies improved resource recovery and can potentially increase recycling
opportunities.
Dependency on fossil fuels will be reduced. In spite of the fact that the renewable nature of
feedstreams to EfW processes was debated and no conclusions were drawn, it was accepted
that, in general, energy produced from waste materials was preferable to that derived from
fossil fuels and could be seen as relatively more sustainable.
A reduction in total greenhouse gases associated with the provision of energy could be
achieved. It must be noted that there was significant confusion regarding the greenhouse gas
implication of EfW projects. This was highlighted as an area requiring publicly accessible
information.
Transformation of a waste into a resource.
Potential Environmental Impacts

Workshop participants generally recognised that there are potential environmental impacts
associated with EfW projects. However, the workshop attendees were satisfied that, in the main,
these impacts could be managed. It was also identified that our current methods of generating
energy were not environmentally benign, with brown coal combustion being a case in point.
Potential environmental impacts of EfW highlighted included:
Off-gases and residues which would require adequate management using tailored pollution
control equipment. In addition, further research is required to ensure that EfW processes are
sufficiently well understood and that pollution control technology selected is adequate to
ensure that the processes operate within, or beyond, legislative limits. Performance relative to
these standards should be consistent. Emissions of specific concern were dioxins arising form
the combustion of PVC and the effects associated with the metals present in CCA treated
timbers. It is these effects which lead to the desire for buffer zones described in section 3.2.1.
Other environmental impacts which should be considered include the nuisance impacts of
noise, odour, visual impacts etc.
Environmental impacts associated with EfW projects have the potential to be both short-lived
(off-gas emissions) and long-term (effects associated with solid residues and persistent
compounds). Adequate management of these is a pre-requisite.
The on-site human health effects of technologies should not be overlooked.
Feedstock quality control is significant as any contaminants in the feedstream will report to
one or other residue from an EfW process and would require active management to ensure
that the natural environment is not negatively effected. Emphasis was placed on CCA treated
timbers in this context.
Impacts associated with the storage of feedstreams must be quantified and addressed.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 74
Streams which might have been recycled and retained in the industrial economy will no longer
be available.
Potential actions which can be taken to minimise the deleterious environmental effects of EfW
processes are:
Extended producer responsibility and design for the environment to ensure that
environmental considerations are taken on board at the outset of the project; care should be
taken to ensure that closure and decommissioning are included in any project proposal.
Verification and sampling of fuels and the removal of contaminants.
EfW processes have the potential to have limited environmental impact, this needs to be
communicated effectively to the broader community.
Best practice for different fuel sources should be established; processes should be operated
optimally with state-of-the-art process control; all attempts should be made to minimise human
error; energy efficient processes should be a focus; appropriate materials and streams should
be identified and materials adequately sorted. It should also be recognised that Best Practice
is potentially region or site specific.
Replacing existing systems which do not have adequate environmental performance; this
might include improved gas recovery from landfills.
Techno-Economics
This category includes consideration of specific suitable technologies, as well as an indication of
potential constraints on the operation of these technologies. Economic barriers and constraints
are also highlighted.
Management of the EfW Feedstream
The management of the feedstream could be related to environmental considerations
(contaminants contained in the feedstream could lead to environmentally unacceptable emissions)
or social considerations (changing the manner in which wastes are collected can change social
attitudes to waste generation and collection). For example:
Wastes which have the potential to form part of the feedstream to EfW processes should be
classified and their maximum potential realised.
EfW projects should incorporate a consideration of risk associated with the supply of waste as
a feedstream, contingency plans for the replacement of wastes as feeds should be made to
ensure that waste is not generated to feed the furnace.
Unacceptable contaminants (defined relative to potential emissions from the process) must
be removed from the feedstream; this process must be monitored, audited and reported to
ensure a high level of quality control on the feedstream.
The non-homogeneous nature of the feedstream must be addressed explicitly.
Information on the quality, quantity and value of potential feedstreams needs to be generated.
The impact of transport should be minimised either by limiting the distance between
feedstream generation and utilisation or by accessing back loading opportunities.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 75
Trade-off between security of supply and potential to undermine better uses for the
feedstream project proponents desire a known quantity of feed for a significant amount of
time, these long-term contracts have the potential to undermine the economic potential of
alternative uses for the feedstream.
Technical Considerations and Constraints

Technologies should be selected for EfW projects only once the following issues have been
addressed, it should be noted that each of these points contains the implicit understanding that
preferred technologies may differ between metropolitan and regional Australia:
Technology should be fit for purpose; dont just accept solutions which have worked overseas
at the same time dont try to re-invent the wheel; equal opportunity should be extended to all
technologies, whether or not they are EfW technologies.
Efficiency of energy recovery should be a driver.
Technologies should be flexible in order that they can both manage inconsistency in feed
materials, and retain the potential to respond to future changes in waste management;
technologies should represent a long-term solution without constraining the ability of future
communities to strive for their own sustainable development.
No prescriptive definition of a preferred technology should be made, innovation should be

encouraged; this has both an economic and a legislative element.
Technology is not the only fix, and should not be developed in isolation. For instance,
partnerships for behavioural change related to waste minimisation should be investigated.
Inefficiencies in technologies used previously have the potential to undermine future EfW
projects (negative historical legacy of EFW).
Opportunities for co-generation of energy, and co-firing with existing fossil fuels should not
be overlooked.
There is significant concern about the uncertainty associated with the operation of EfW
technologies, both because a significant number of the technologies is unproven at a process
plant scale, and because of the non-homogeneity of the feedstream; these concerns should be
addressed through a formal communication strategy.
Scale of application of EfW technologies could include both distributed and centralised
operations, this will vary between regional and metropolitan areas.
Competition from other sources of green energy should not be overlooked.
New, innovative EfW technologies have the potential to lead to new opportunities.
Companies proposing EfW projects should have credibility.
Economic Considerations
The economic considerations covered at the workshops included both project-specific financial
considerations, as well as potential future levy structures. Both of these sets of considerations are
included below:

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 76
Existing landfill levies and energy costs are currently too low to render EfW technologies
economically viable (even if they are proven to have better environmental performance and
are accepted by stakeholders in the area); levy structures may need to be re-evaluated to
ensure that the true cost of landfilling and energy provision are reflected; funding is
required to support initial plants/pilot projects, government support is necessary in this
context.
EfW projects must internalise all externalities and ensure that they had made adequate
provision for such considerations as planning for closure.
The fact that overseas solutions are not necessarily economic in Australia should be
acknowledged, addressing this could be included in any community education process.
The economic viability of projects has the potential to be undermined by siting

requirements, especially if this results in significant transportation distances.
Public-private and private-private partnerships should be investigated.
Further market research into the need for green electricity may be required.
The number of jobs created and/or destroyed and the investment in the local community
should be quantified.
There is a perceived lack of venture capital to support such projects.
Tradeable certificates such as RECs were highlighted as having a significant role to play
in ensuring that EfW projects are economically viable.
Installation costs for remote communities should not be underestimated; the potential for
EfW projects to add an economic burden to local government and/or communities should
be highlighted.
Monopoly situations should be avoided.
Assessment tools and Indicator sets

A number of the comments from the workshops referred to specific management tools and/or
potential indicators which exist, or require development. These are detailed below:
Assessments should include a complete consideration of sustainability criteria including

economic, social and environmental, this should include job creation, costs to local
communities, noise, odour etc.
Highest resource value must be defined and quantified.
Life Cycle Assessment should be used to compare between potential EfW technologies
and to determine whether EfW or alternative recycling processes are preferred.
The entire project life cycle from project selection to closure and post-closure should be
considered.
A uniform database should be established that facilitates comparison of projects,

significant research is required in this area.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 77
EfW projects should be monitored and audited and should be required to report their
performance in a transparent manner.
All indicators constructed should be transparent, defendable and understandable.
Results of the Citizens Juries

Stakeholders voted in a citizens jury as to whether EfW has a role to play in the recovery of
resources from waste. Stakeholders were required to indicate whether:
EfW has no role to play in any form;
EfW has a role to play but that role is determined on a case by case basis; or
EfW always has a role to play in any form.
The intention of this straw poll was to identify any poles of very strong opposition or strong
support to EfW projects. While there were some reservations about the structuring of the
question, the majority of workshop participants (76% + 22% = 98%) expressed support for the
concept of EfW having a role to play in resource recovery from waste. Only a small minority of
participants (2%) expressed absolute opposition to EfW.
The break down of voting at Workshops is presented in Table D-2 below.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 78
Table D-2: Results of Citizen's Jury Voting

Strongly No
Location
Contingent
EfW has a role to

EfW has no role play but that role
to play in any is determined on
form
case by case
issues
Strongly Yes
EfW always
has a role to
play in any
form
Canberra
14
Sydney
38
Hobart
0.5
22
0.5
Perth
23
14
Melbourne
35
14
Shepparton
10
Darwin
Adelaide
25
Dubbo
Townsville
Brisbane
22
Totals
6.5
205
58.5
2%
76%
22%
It is noted that the majority of those supporting EfW suggested that projects must be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis. This highlighted the need for mechanisms such as the Sustainability Guide
to provide the assistance in deciding those case-by-case instances.
(Note: the discrepancy between total votes cast in the ballot above and the workshop participant
summary is caused by the Project Manager and the Chairman not voting at workshops and also
from participants who left early from a workshop. A half vote was recorded in two instances where
the participant voted half way between the two categories.)

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 79
Suggestions for Re-drafting the Sustainability Guide

A draft framework of project scoping principles was developed by the working group of the EfW
Division of the WMAA. This framework was tested at the several of the smaller afternoon
sessions. Below are the suggestions for new project scoping principles, suggested changes to the
existing framework and a summary of the issues that were grouped for discussion under different
PSPs.
It should be noted that the linearity of the principles was questioned. A repeated suggestion was
for the progression of the principles to be non-hierarchical.
New Project Scoping Principles

There was strong support expressed for the addition of a project scoping principle (PSP) to cover
all aspects of community interaction with EfW projects. It was felt that by having this as a separate
PSP the Sustainability Guide would clearly communicate the importance of community
involvement in the development of EfW projects. There was concern that this message could be
diluted if community aspects were contained within the discussion or incorporated into an existing
PSP.
A suggested wording for this PSP, the nullth principle, was put forward by the Melbourne
afternoon session, identifying the purpose of the project as being:
Measures to ensure a communication and consultation plan that demonstrates ongoing
accountability and transparency.
It was suggested that this principle cover community issues such as:
Involvement,
Education,
Provision of information,
Consultation,
Participation,
Engagement,
Perception (Historical negative context),
Awareness,
Health issues,
Employment,
Transparency,
Accountability,
Siting,

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 80
Waste Minimisation,
Waste Hierarchy,
Impacts on Recycling.
Suggested Changes to the Existing Framework

There were suggestions to change the wording on two of the other project scoping principles
PSP2 and PSP3.
The first suggestion was to change Technology to Process in PSP2, resulting in:
Project Scoping Principle #2 - Selection of Optimum Conversion Process.
The second suggestion was to add optimal social outcomes into PSP3, changing it to:
Project Scoping Principle #3 - Systems Quality Control for Assurance of Optimum
Environmental and Social Outcomes.
No other direct wording suggestions were recorded. However it should be noted that PSP5
Measures to Compensate for the Inadequacies of the Prevailing Market Conditions was
recognised as being the least developed of the PSPs and consequently requires further
consideration and development.
Grouping of Issues under PSP Framework

Below is a summary of the issues that PSPs 1 5 (with the changed wording) should cover in their
discussion. It is suggested that individual workshop notes be consulted for further elaboration on
the detail within each issue.
Project Scoping Principle #1 - Best Use of Available Materials
Aim: To demonstrate that use of the available residual materials for conversion to energy
represents the most sustainable use in both the short and long term.
Highest Resource Value,
Recovery of materials for reuse,
Competition for waste materials from recycling,
Continuation of recycling source separation,
Use of organics for compost and agriculture,
Waste Minimisation and the Waste Hierarchy,
Controls of feedstock to allow for best use,
Mass balance of energy use.
Project Scoping Principle #2 - Selection of Optimum Conversion Process

Aim: To demonstrate that the selected EfW process is the most efficient conversion technology for
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 81
the available fuel source(s) in the circumstances. Conversion inefficiency means wasted resource
value.
Technology selection (consideration of alternatives),
Cost of technology,
Feedstock preparation (heterogenous to homogeneous),
Use of existing infrastructure (co-firing),
Cogeneration,
Siting of technology,
Worlds best performing technology,
Transport implications,
Materials handling requirements,
Pilot facilities to prove performance,
Redundancy,
Closure plan for technology.
Project Scoping Principle #3 - Systems Quality Control for Assurance of Optimum Environmental
and Social Outcomes
Aim: To demonstrate that where the available residuals cannot be presented entirely fit-forpurpose, that the selected conversion processes and management systems can control
unacceptable by-products or pollutants or unintended environmental impacts.
Emissions to air (in particular dioxins, furans and particulate),
Emissions to land (ash heavy metal implications),
Emissions to water,
Systems for control of contamination (outputs),
Systems for control of feedstock (inputs),
Water use,
Stockpile management,
Pollutant inventories,
Quality assurance,
Feedstock flexibility,

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 82
Greenhouse gas balances,
Training and competency standards,
General environment issues,
General health implications,
Design of plant (aesthetics),
Regulation (licence conditions),
Hazardous materials.
Project Scoping Principle #4 - Management of the Commercial Interface between Waste

Generation and Energy Requirements
Aim: To ensure that energy demand cannot stimulate waste generation, and that conversely,
waste availability will not unsustainably stimulate energy consumption.
Encouragement of waste generation,
Waste minimisation,
Renewable energy,
Energy efficiency (demand management),
Venture capital and resource security,
Supply contracts (time),
Gate fee structures,
Transport costs.
Project Scoping Principle #5 - Measures to Compensate for the Inadequacies of the Prevailing
Market Conditions
Aim: To oblige proponents to quantify any required normalisation of market conditions to meet
ESD objectives - which may include impact of landfill levies, incentives or subsidies - to
demonstrate an internalisation of the environmental externalities.
Impacts of landfill levy,
Impacts of renewable energy certificates,
Impacts of carbon credits,
Internalisation of externalities,
Market forces,
Other market based instruments,

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 83
Current subsidies within energy generation.
Introduction and General Discussion

Suggestions were also made with regard to the content that the Sustainability Guide should
include by means of an introduction to Energy from Waste and also by means of a general
discussion that provides a context for the EfW debate. These included (in no particular order):
General benefits of EfW,
Philosophical framework and drivers for EfW,
Current energy generation, usage and transmission,
Policy setting for EfW,
Ecological Sustainable Development and Triple Bottom Line issues,
Fate of landfill,
Greenhouse gas issues and EfW,
Regulatory framework,
Methodologies for assessing Highest Resource Value,
Methodology for assessing the impacts and benefits of EfW projects,
Economic issues,
Integrated waste management,
Regional solutions,
Need for research and development,
Need for information on technologies and waste availability,
Role of the three levels of government,
Need for action now versus development of new technologies.
Suggestions for the Industry Code of Practice

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

The question What is the role of an Industry CoP? featured as a starting point for discussion.
Some participants questioned the value of a CoP, concerned that the Industry was too young to
develop a Code. Others concerned that the CoP would not be used at a state planning level and
was therefore of limited value. Others queried the distinction between a Code of Ethics and a
Code of Conduct.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 84
Overall however, there was support for the concept of a Code of Practice, the key question being
the level of detail to be included in the CoP. For instance, whether to have a Code that was
predominantly at a strategic level or whether to develop a nuts and bolts, highly prescriptive and
operational document.
It was generally felt that the Code would be more operational than the Sustainability Guide, but
would not have the level of detail included in project licence conditions. Another observation
based on the development of the Clinical Waste Management Code of Practice was that the entire
process lasted six years and required several iterations to develop the detail and consensus on
the CoP.
The issue regarding the level of detail was not resolved. What was supported was the fact that
consensus was required in order for the CoP to be of any value and that community input into the
development of the CoP was also necessary.
Who is the Energy from Waste Industry?
The scope of the EfW Industry was debated. A functional description of the Industry as being
those elements providing the feedstock, providing and operating the processes and
marketing or managing the outputs suggested that the industry comprised:
Waste suppliers,
Technology providers,
Operators,
Product purchasers,
Waste planners regional groups,
Community groups and NGOs (ultimately determine the go/no go status of a project),
Consultants and advisors (included on the periphery cf. traffic consultants).
It was noted that there were differences between the generation of heat and the generation of
electricity, potentially requiring differentiation the CoP owing to different participants. The issue of
size of operation was also flagged, i.e. the Code should not discriminate against smaller scale
industry members.
Role of Government
A nationwide Code of Practice was seen as a measure of proactively engaging with government at
all levels, especially if consensus amongst the majority of industry could be achieved. It was
suggested that a nationwide CoP could play a part in supporting commonality and consistency
between state legislatures. This would be the case if the CoP was able to be called up in state
legislation, highlighting the need for the CoP to be endorsed by regulators.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 85
Benefits Associated with an Industry CoP

Some of the benefits of having a Code of Practice that were identified during discussion included:
Industry credibility,
Industry bargaining and leverage,
Assistance in gaining statutory approvals by being a signatory,
Recognition,
Setting standards of operation within the Industry,
Providing assurance to the community regarding compliance with licence conditions,
Assist in dealing with local governments and community groups.
Ownership, Evolution and the Role of the Waste Management Association of Australia
It was generally recognised that the CoP would need to be owned and administered by one
organisation in order to ensure that the Code is updated and revised on a regular basis (eg. every
three years). A potential role for the Waste Management Association of Australia to play in this
regard was noted.
Against this it was recognised that there are requirements to resource this evolutionary approach
and that the regulation of the CoP could be problematic.
Compliance with an Industry CoP
Associated with the notion of an Industry Code of Practice was the issue of managing noncompliance with the Code, i.e. what is the mechanism for assessment and enforcement?
Suggestions included:
Expulsion of member,
Accreditation with independent auditing (external to WMAA),
Legislation to catch free-riders / 'cowboys',
Potential for legal action,
Self regulation through environmental management systems,
Market forces,
Conditions of supply contracts,
Removed from list of signatories.
Legal Implications
In addition to issues surrounding compliance with the CoP, a number of other legal issues were
also identified, such as the potential for the CoP to be called up in legislation and the implications
of the the CoP with regard to competition policy.
Also at issue was the liability issue associated with dependence on a CoP to establish regulatory
performance. It was not known whether a disclaimer would be sufficient to manage that liability.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 86
Suggested Details to be Included in the Industry CoP

The discussion below presents some of the specific suggestions that were made for inclusion into
an Energy from Waste industry Code Of Practice.
Adherence to the Principles of the Sustainability Guide
Workshop participants generally agreed that one of the fundamental ingredients of the CoP should
be to agree to adhere to the principles within the Sustainability Guide. Some went as far as
suggesting the the CoP should be a guide to implementing the sustainability guide.
Community Involvement
It was felt that a commitment to ensuring an ongoing process of community involvement should be
significant requirement under the CoP. This would involve some mechanism to undertake
community education/information /consultation/involvement in a credible fashion.
Aspects of Corporate Citizenship
An undertaking to be a good corporate citizen was suggested for inclusion in the CoP. Specifically
this would cover aspects such as:
Open and transparent communication with community, including reporting, provision of

monitoring data,
Commitment to work between government and industry,
Commitment to ongoing R&D on the reduction of environmental impacts.
Concepts of Best Practice and Continuous Improvement

The issue of best practice received a mixed reaction, owing in part to the difficulties associated
with defining best practice and the changing nature of what comprises best practice. Alternative
suggestions were put forward regarding a commitment to continuous improvement, without the
setting of an initial benchmark. Still others wanted to see a commitment to beyond compliance
and the setting of industry competency standards.
In general the value of a commitment to best practice and to continuous improvement was
recognised and that a requirement of this involved some uniform level of education/understanding
within the industry.
Environmental Management
The Code should cover environmental issues such as air emissions, water usage and
management of solid by-products such as ash. Other aspects of environmental management also
mentioned included issues such as noise, traffic, odour, litter, dust and waste tracking.
Community Involvement
The Code should ensure a process of community involvement by providing a mechanism for
consultation that demonstrates openness and accountability.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 87
Annexure D-1: Energy from Waste Sustainability Project - Summary of Stakeholder

Workshop Outcomes
Location
Date
Time
Venue
Attendance
Canberra
18-Sep
9am - 12noon
Rydges Capital Hill
23
Sydney
24-Sep
9am - 12noon
The Mercure Hotel

Sydney
46
Hobart
25-Sep
9am - 12noon
The Lands Building
22
Perth
1-Oct
9am - 12noon
The River Room
42
Melbourne
8-Oct
9am - 12noon
City of Banyule Rethink

Centre
54
Shepparton
10-Oct
10am - 1pm
Parklake Motor Inn
16
Darwin
22-Oct
9am - 12noon
Darwin City Council Civic

Centre
14
Adelaide
24-Oct
9am - 12noon
Radisson Playford Hotel
32
Dubbo
29-Oct
9am - 12noon
Dubbo Council Civic

Centre
Townsville
6-Nov
9am - 12noon
Townsville Civice Centre
Brisbane
7-Nov
9am - 12noon
Hilton Brisbane
32

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 88
Appendix E
Development
Australias
National
Strategy
for
Ecologically
Sustainable
Available online at http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/strategy/index.html.

Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) aims to provide
strategic directions and a framework for government to direct policy and decision-making. The
Commonwealths 1992 definition of ESD was:
A pattern of development that improves the total quality of life both now and in the future, in a way
that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends (NSESD 1992).
This strategy had 3 core objectives:
1. To enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic
development that safeguards the welfare of future generations.
2. To provide for equity within and between generations (intra-generational and inter-generational
equity).
3. To protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life support
systems.
Seven guiding principles for achieving these objectives are proposed. These are that:
decision making processes should effectively integrate both long and short-term economic,
environmental, social and equity considerations,
where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation,
the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies should be recognised
and considered,
the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy which can enhance the
capacity for environmental protection should be recognised,
the need to maintain and enhance international competitiveness in an environmentally sound

manner should be recognised,
cost effective and flexible policy instruments should be adopted, such as improved valuation,
pricing and incentive mechanisms, and
decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect
them.
It is identified in the strategy that the guiding principles and core objectives need to be considered
in their entirety, and that no objective or principle should predominate over the others.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 89
Appendix F Literature Review

The literature review was prepared by Warnken ISE Pty Ltd and can be downloaded in its entirety
from: http://www.wmaa.asn.au/efw
Introduction
This literature survey was prepared as a supporting information document for a project on the
development of a set of Sustainability Guidelines and an Industry Code of Practice for the recovery
of Energy from Waste. These documents are being developed by the Energy from Waste Division
of the Waste Management Association of Australia under a grant provided by the Australian
Greenhouse Office and with the support of industry sponsors.
In the Draft Implementation Plan for the above project, the aims of the literature review were
identified to be to:
1. Review guidelines, codes of practice, case studies and legislation as they relate to
sustainability of the energy from waste industry,
2. Highlight whether current guidelines address highest resource value of materials,
3. Discuss whether current guidelines have a mechanism for trade-offs between technoeconomic, environmental and socio-political criteria,
4. Identify whether current guidelines utilise life cycle assessment and life cycle thinking as
streamlined approaches to EfW issues,
5. Identify and comment on any EfW projects which have been assessed on the basis of
sustainability,
6. Assess what tools are available for the evaluation of sustainable EfW projects,
7. Assess what legislative mechanisms are available to improve sustainability outcomes,
8. Highlight significant issues encountered by established EfW projects, and
9. Develop a glossary of EfW terms.
This document represents a synthesis of information which is available in the open literature within
the context of these aims. A database of the literature sources consulted during the course of this
work can be made available. This information resource can be made available to the greater EfW
Division membership through the division website.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 90
Definitions of Sustainability and Sustainable Development

The concepts of sustainability and sustainable development may be interpreted in different ways,
but the most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development comes from a report entitled
'Our Common Future', otherwise known as the Brundtland Report1,2. This definition suggests that:
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Sustainable development thus focuses on improving the quality of life for earth's inhabitants,
without increasing the use of natural resources beyond the capacity of the environment to supply
them indefinitely.
In practical terms Environmental Resources Management (ERM)3 suggests that sustainability can
be promoted by stepping back from what we are currently doing and looking at the more complete
(and often more complex) picture. One example presented in their work is that, although recycling
schemes are seen as an important step forward, it is better to look at the ways in which the total
volume of waste produced can be reduced, through better processes and product design, a step
which can lead to waste minimisation. EfW has a role to play within the context of this overall view
of sustainable development.
A 1997 report completed on behalf of the European Commission by ECOTEC Research &
Consulting Limited suggested that a shift is required in the pattern of development from the current
pattern of production and consumption to a new pattern which can accommodate sustainable
growth whilst reducing the demands on the environment. The report identifies three progressive
growth paths required to shift a region towards sustainable development:
business as usual in which all current environmental standards are met;
minimisation in which industry and consumers go beyond current standards and employ best
available technologies and techniques for minimising their demands on the environment; and
sustainable development in which economic growth continues whilst reducing the impact it
has on the environment.
Australia's National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development5 defines ecologically

sustainable development (ESD) as:
'using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes,
on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future,
can be increased'.
On this basis, the three principles that are necessary to understanding sustainable development
are identified to be intergenerational equity, the precautionary approach and biodiversity
conservation. Together these approaches aim to prevent and reverse adverse impacts of
economic and social activities on the ecosystem, while continuing to allow the sustainable,
equitable development of societies5.
In summary, therefore, although no interpretations of sustainability specific to Energy from Waste
were found, a number of generic interpretations of these concepts are available. For other generic
statements of the principles of sustainability as interpreted by various entities, please refer to the
list provided by the Environment Policy Institute at Brock University in Canada4.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 91
Energy from Waste (EfW) Definitions and Technologies

What is Energy from Waste?
The term 'Energy from Waste' (EfW) covers the suite of technologies or processes whereby the
inherent energy value of a waste stream is recovered in whole or in part. This energy may be
recovered as heat (for heating or industrial process requirements), electricity, or a combination of
the two. To provide some context of the scale of these facilities and the type of energy they
produce, it is reported in the United States that over 80 percent of 102 EfW facilities surveyed
produce electricity. Twenty of the 84 facilities that produce electricity cogenerate steam and
electricity, and only 18 of the facilities produce only steam7.
A distinction is made at the outset between incineration for which the primary purpose is the
destruction of waste, and Energy from Waste for which the key focus is energy recovery. This
literature review does not cover incineration except where the term is used to include some form of
energy recovery.
The most common waste stream from which energy is recovered is the domestic/municipal waste
stream, although some components of the construction and demolition (C&D) and commercial and
industrial (C&I) streams may be suitable for EfW. Biosolids are also used in some facilities.
Technologies used for Recovery of Energy from Waste
Various technologies are available for the recovery of energy from waste. The main categories of
these technologies, various configurations of which have been used successfully around the world,
are presented here. Common to all of these approaches is the potential advantage of preceding
the processes with a separation step for removal of recyclable waste stream components for
material recovery. This contributes towards optimal resource recovery, reduces the extent of
contamination and may also increase the calorific value of the fuel stream. This review includes
discussions on both direct (combustion) and indirect (pyrolysis, gasification) options for energy
recovery from wastes.
Mass Burn Incineration
In mass burn incineration energy is recovered from waste by combustion. Mass burn incineration
is the most common method of energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste.
In mass burn incineration a heterogenous fuel stream is burned. This stream is characterised by
high variability/uncertainty in the composition of the stream, and the potential for contamination
with hazardous materials. For this reason this option has potential for significant environmental
impacts relating to exposure of the environment to both gaseous and ash outputs from the
process. Flue gas treatment may include injection of dry urea directly into the combustion
chamber to limit the production of nitrous oxides (NOx), passing gases through a scrubber reactor
to treat acidic pollutants (SO2 and HCl), injecting active carbon to remove residual organic
compounds such as dioxins and removal of particulates and heavy metals using a bag house
filter8. Ash produced from the process also needs to be appropriately managed, with management
requirements being dependant on the chemical composition of the ash.
Public perception of incineration is a significant issue when planning new mass burn incinerators
due to the legacy of old plants and issues encountered with these. Modern plants are generally
required to meet the standards in directives/legislation developed to combat air pollution from
waste incinerators.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 92
Refuse Derived Fuel

One major drawback of burning a mixed waste stream as described above is that the fuel is likely
to be heterogeneous, may have a high moisture content and may be supplied large fragments.
The water content will lower the recoverable energy content per unit mass of fuel. The
heterogeneous nature, variability in stream composition and potential hazardous content of the
stream can result in inconsistent emission levels, thereby adding to the difficulty of cleanup, and
impeding design for maximum efficiency. Furthermore, burning mixed waste neglects materials
recycling which is potentially (but not always) a higher resource value option for the waste.
In RDF systems, waste separation is undertaken to remove the combustible fraction and increase
the homogeneity of the material, via a combination of unit processes including screening for
removal of glass, grit and sand, shredding, air classification and magnetic separation for metals
removal. This is referred to as pre-treatment. The extent to which noncombustible materials are
removed varies from application to application. Some systems also utilise air classifiers, trommel
screens, or rotary drums to further refine the waste9. The resultant refuse derived fuel (RDF) is
often co-fired with coal for energy recovery.
The advantages of separation of the combustible and non-combustible material include an
increase in the energy value of the fuel. A sample produced in Rome's RDF plant was found to
have an energy content of 20.5 GJ/t, but calorific values will differ significantly from fuel to fuel,
and may be closer to 12 to 13 GJ/t. Another advantage of RDF is that its processes are
potentially more efficient than mass burn incinerators in terms of energy recovery, and potentially
require less effluent treatment7.
Even though the fuel quality is improved through the RDF process, resulting in more efficient
combustion, a disadvantage of RDF is the additional cost associated with fuel preparation. Sale of
recyclable materials contributes some additional revenue stream, but may not be sufficient to
offset additional capital costs.
Direct Energy Recovery
In addition to use for energy generation via incineration in dedicated incinerators, Refuse Derived
Fuels are often used as part or whole substitute for fuels in industrial applications which require
energy for their production processes, such as cement kilns. This potentially represents a more
efficient energy recovery option.
Cement kilns have been used with varying degrees of success as a combination waste disposal
mechanism and energy recovery for waste streams such as tyres. Issues associated with both
gaseous streams and components of the waste which are incorporated into the clinker must be
considered in such operations.
Gasification and Pyrolysis
Mass Burn Incineration technologies as discussed above are designed to manage heterogeneous
streams with high inherent variability. Gasification and Pyrolysis are two technologies designed for
energy recovery from more homogeneous waste streams.
Gasification refers to thermal decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in an
oxygen restricted environment. The process produces a mixture of combustible gases (primarily
methane, complex hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon monoxide). This gas can either be used in
a boiler or stripped of CO2 and used in combustion turbines or generators. The gasification
process generally requires a heat supply for initiation and is thereafter either self sustaining once
the operating temperature is reached or may need to be maintained by recycling a small
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 93
proportion of the energy produced from the combustion of the fuel gases9.
Thermal pyrolysis differs from gasification in that the thermal decomposition takes place in the
absence of oxygen. This process modification results in the creation of an energy rich oil and
combustible solid residue (known as char) together with the fuel gas.
A number of advantages of pyrolysis and gasification over mass burn technologies are identified.
Firstly, it may be feasible to gasify significantly smaller volumes of waste than may be treated in
mass burn incinerators. This suggests greater scope for application of this technology in smaller
communities than the large cities which typically support incinerators today. Furthermore, there is
less need to keep the gasifier running 100% of the time as start-up periods are significantly less
than for mass burn incinerators. Finally these systems are also able to operate at less than 100%
of capacity so there is flexibility when there is a decline in waste availability. This is in contrast to
MBI where operating at below 100% capacity reduces the economic viability of the operation.
The major environmental benefit of these processes are that they retain pollutants (the sulphur,
heavy metals etc.) in the ash instead of the gas phase. The solid waste (ash) streams are
generally easier to manage than off gases.
The potential requirement for fuel preparation to provide the relatively homogeneous feedstock
required is one disadvantage of these processes. The fuel material requires shredding prior to
gasification. The savings made by not requiring the level of gaseous emission controls, may offset
fuel preparation costs, resulting in a potentially economically viable process9.
Biological Mechanisms Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion relates to the organic breakdown of wastes via biological degradation to
produce a relatively stable solid residue (digestate) similar to compost, and biogas, a mixture of
methane and carbon dioxide which may then be used as fuel. Anaerobic digestion is particularly
suited to wet, organic material and as such has been used for the treatment of sewerage sludge
for over a century5.
Compared to other EfW processes, anaerobic digestion recovery of energy for the purpose of
electricity generation is about twice as efficient as recovery of energy from landfill, only a third as
efficient as recovery via mass burn, and a fifth as efficient as gasification.
Potential negative impacts will be similar to other solid waste management options and with proper
planning can be minimised to acceptable levels. Advantages include that the input of waste, seen
as a liability, can be reduced to a saleable soil conditioner and that all the greenhouse gas
generated by digestion is burnt for energy recovery rather than letting some of it escape to the
atmosphere as would occur in landfill9.
Biological Mechanisms - Landfill Gas
Landfill gas is generated by similar biological processes to those which are utilised in anaerobic
digestion technologies, but this category refers to in-situ gas generation from landfill sites. The
resulting gas consists of a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane (in roughly equal quantities),
with a large number of trace components, with the methane content of the gas (typically around
40-60% by volume) making it a useful fuel. The gas is formed when the waste deposited in
landfills breaks down as a result of microbial action. It is collected through a series of wells drilled
into the landfill site.
Bioreactor landfills refer to landfills that are managed to maximise the production of landfill gas. In
this sense they are more like an anaerobic digestor than a landfill. The accelerated generation of
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 94
landfill gas is accomplished by increasing the rate of anaerobic decomposition through the recirculation of leachate (a liquid generated from the anaerobic decomposition process) and also
through the occasional addition of sewerage sludge.
The captured landfill gas is combusted in one of a variety of technologies (including gas turbines,
dual fuel (compression ignition) engines and spark ignition engines) for energy recovery. These
engines may range from a few hundred kilowatts to several megawatts. Fuel conversion efficiency
ranges from 26% (typically for gas turbines) to 42% (for dual-fuel engines).
In Australia, the installed electricity generating capacity from landfill gas was approximately 72MW
in 1997. In 1998 there were15 projects in operation10.
The UK, however, currently has approximately 150 sites generating electricity which is fed into the
grid. The UK landfill gas resource is estimated to be equivalent to around 6.75TWh per year
(around 2% of current UK electricity demand). This equates to around 850MW of installed
capacity.
The number of schemes using landfill gas in the UK is expected to rise as EU directives to control
methane emissions to the atmosphere are put into effect. In the longer term, beyond 2025, the
number of new landfill gas recovery schemes is expected to decline as the implementation of the
EU Landfill Directive diverts organic wastes away from landfill and thus reduces methane
generation5. One of the problems related to the removal of green waste in a landfill is, therefore,
the potentially reduced generation and recovery rates, making recovery facilities less economically
viable.
Plasma Processes
Various plasma processes have been developed which have the potential advantages of 100%
diversion of waste from landfill, the recovery of energy from this waste stream, and the main waste
product being an inert glassy slag. Integrated facilities can be designed to produce negligible or
no liquid or gaseous wastes.
The Solena Group11 describes one such process, namely Plasma Gasification Vitrification (PGV).
The PGV systems completely disassociate all waste matter (organic and inorganic) for energy
recovery and material recycling. A Plasma Gasification Reactor (PGR), which houses one or more
plasma arc torches, is used for this process. These torches generate, through electric power, a
high temperature environment of between 5,000 to 14,000 C. The extreme temperature of the
plasma system completely disassociates the atoms in any organic material into simple gases while
simultaneously melting all the inorganic materials. This process of thermal depolymerisation /
steam gasification is called Plasma Gasification Vitrification (PGV).
An example of a plasma arc plant in operation is located near Kyoto in Japan, which uses
technology developed by Nippon Steel. Two plants each process 300 tonnes/day. The cost of
construction of these two plants was 10.7 billion yen for the first and 21.3 billion yen for the
second.
Plasma arc technologies use significant amounts of energy in their operation (parasitic load). The
amount of electrical energy that can be generated from these processes is contingent on the
amount of inorganic material in the feedstream, with a preference for lower amounts. The Solena
technology using a combined cycle gas turbine and a feed stream of sorted Refuse Derived Fuel
(15 MJ/kg), can operate at an electrical efficiency of approximately 30%*.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 95
Assessment of the Sustainability of an EfW Development

A number of broad objectives are identified which must be considered when assessing the
sustainability of any of the above EfW options. These objectives include environmental, sociopolitical and techno-economic factors. Some of these objectives which have been presented in
literature are discussed below.
Not presented here are the detailed performance measures which will be used to assess
sustainability of options. Such performance measures are to be identified and developed through
other aspects of this project and used to provide a set of measures which reflect preferences and
values in the Australian context. These may include those afforded by life cycle impact
assessments and other environmental decision support tools, but will vary from situation to
situation. Reference 12 contains further reading on indicators which may be used for assessment
of Energy Projects.
It is noted that the issues presented here are by no means exhaustive, and are presented to
encourage debate around what makes a sustainable EfW project.
Recovery of Highest Resource Value
There is an intuitive recognition of the value in recovering energy from waste materials that would
otherwise be disposed of to landfill. There is also the notion, however, that some waste materials
may have a higher resource value than conversion into energy. Community preferences also tend
towards increased recycling as opposed to energy recovery with the ultimate destruction of the
resource. Equally, where fuel is unavailable or very expensive, the conversion to energy could a
preferred option over resource recovery.
As a guideline for this higher order use the traditional waste management hierarchy is often
consulted to determine desired outcomes. In the traditional hierarchy, reuse is designated a
higher resource value than recycling of a material. In more sophisticated applications a distinction
is made within recycling between closed loop or direct recycling (material going back into the same
or similar product) and open loop or indirect recycling (material having one use before reaggregation into the biosphere). The difficulty with this simplistic normative approach is that it
does not account for the complexities of impact and energy usage within re-use and recycling
operations, and furthermore does not take into accounted the avoided economic and
environmental costs associated with extraction and use of primary fuels.
This has been recognised within the new waste hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance
and Resource Recovery Act (WARRA) 2001 in NSW which suggests that resource management
options be considered against the following priorities:
Avoidance which includes reducing the amount of waste generated by households, industry and
all levels of government.
Resource Recovery - including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery.
Disposal - including management of all disposal options in the most environmentally responsible
manner14.
The first of these, avoidance, suggests that efforts should be put in place to encourage the
community to reduce the amount of waste it generates and to be more efficient in its use of
resources. Thus resource recovery (including EfW) systems should not encourage the generation
of waste. The second, resource recovery, suggests that the options for reuse, reprocessing,
recycling and energy recovery at the highest net value of the recovered material must be
maximised. This encourages the efficient use of recovered resources while supporting the
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 96
principles of improved environmental outcomes and ecologically sustainable development.

Resource recovery, which includes energy recovery, can also embrace new and emerging
technologies14.
This definition is not prescriptive and gives no guidance in terms of assessing one resource
recovery option against another. Part of the challenge of this current project is to provide guidance
to the user of the guidelines in the assessment of highest resource value in the context of Energy
from Waste projects.
As mentioned previously, various environmental decision support tools, such as Materials Flux
Analysis (MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), are available for evaluating options on the
basis of environmental performance. In the context of this current work, however, it is suggested
that these tools are problematic for use by the broad range of stakeholders that are involved in
Energy from Waste projects.
Furthermore, the presentation of outcomes from such analysis, especially as single point
indicators, without communicating the assumptions inherent in the development of such indicator
sets is questionable. The challenge, therefore, is to develop a set of metrics which are accessible
to both technical and non-technical stakeholders. Such a set of metrics has an important role in
the assessment of EfW projects.
Potential for Current and Future Competing Uses for the Waste, and Preventing
Unnecessary Generation of Waste
When planning Energy from Waste facilities, consideration should be given to potential availability
of the fuel in the future. Changing demand patterns, and potential future competing uses for the
fuel will affect the sustainability of the project. An example of this is when a higher resource value
usage becomes economically or environmentally feasible in the future. The continued supply of
fuel will be necessary to ensure the sustainability of any Energy from Waste project. In predicting
the availability of fuel supplies, therefore, sufficient provision should be made to ensure that the
plant does not discourage more appropriate, higher value recovery.
Impact on the Environment - Pollution Concerns
One of the most significant limiting factors with regards to the impact of the general public and
local/national authorities are concerns about pollution, which include air pollution, leaching of
heavy metals from ashes etc.
In order to meet the requirements of legislation and to protect the community, incinerators in
particular require installation of various pieces of air pollution control equipment. Such equipment
may include dry scrubbers, baghouse/ fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, an
ammonia deNOx system, dry sorbant injection, after-burn system, mercury control system, and
other technologies9. Investment in such environmental control systems can be significant, and
may constitute up to 60% of plant equipment costs.
Impact on Demand for Landfill Space
A positive contribution of energy recovery from waste is that the combustion of waste potentially
reduces the volume by up to 90 percent. The remaining ash is either used in products (depending
on its composition) or buried in landfills representing a significantly lower volume of solids which
require disposal. The ash is divided into two categories: bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash is
deposited at the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash is composed of small particles that rise
during combustion and are removed from the flue gases with fabric filters and scrubbers. Fly ash
is usually considered to be the more significant environmental problem9.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 97
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance and effective communication is significant when obtaining a community
'license to operate' for an EfW facility. A study across five countries in the European Union of
public acceptability of energy from waste and energy from biomass residues found differences in
acceptability across different countries. These were attributed to many factors, including different
cultures in energy and waste disposal, different regulatory approaches, and differences in the level
of consultation with local communities prior to planning16. The study found that in many areas
where schemes have been successfully developed, the local community was involved in extensive
consultation, and that schemes that failed to gain consent have also failed to gain support from the
local communities, particularly local authority officer and councillors and the local media.
Visual Impacts of EfW Facilities
One less readily identifiable but significant impact of EfW facilities is the visual impact which it may
have on the surroundings. Design of such facilities should thus include aesthetic considerations,
and plants should be designed to be as tidy and visually unobtrusive and appealing as the process
and space requirement will allow7.
Subsidies
Subsidies are one area which can affect the economic viability and sustainability of energy
projects. De Moor et al17 reported that in the OECD, higher subsidies are given to the more
environmentally damaging fuels - coal subsidies are the highest, followed by oil, then nuclear
power and finally natural gas. The proportion of total funding (around five per cent) devoted to
sources of renewable energy, the most environmentally friendly sources, is the lowest.
The guidelines entitled Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living 18, published by the
World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme and the WWF-World
Wide Fund For Nature suggest that charging and pricing systems should be used to achieve
improved standards of efficiency. They suggest that energy prices should reflect the full social and
resource cost of the product, and that charges should also be used as an incentive for saving
energy. No additional criteria for evaluating these 'costs' were proposed in those guidelines.
Summary
A number of different issues have been highlighted from literature which will contribute to
determining the sustainability of EfW projects. These include that the feed to the process must be
sustainable and EfW should represent the highest resource value, pollution (visual, air and solid)
issues must be addressed, and subsidies should be awarded to assure the economic viability of
projects which represent achievement of meeting the highest sustainability considerations.
It is recommended that these issues should be included amongst those addressed in the
Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice for EfW projects. It is expected that further issues will
be identified during workshops and by other stakeholders during the course of this project which
will be used to augment this list.
Available Guidelines for Assessing the Sustainability of Energy from Waste

Projects
Apart from one brochure focused on promoting EfW projects as sustainable, developed by the UK
Department of Transport and Industrys New and Renewable Energy Programme, no other
sustainability guidelines addressing EfW were found.
A number of best practice documents and issues papers were found for renewable energy19,20,21,
and one for Energy from Waste published by the UK DTI21, but only passing reference is made to
sustainability issues as applied to EfW in these documents.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 98
Two reports are currently being prepared which are worthy of mention here. IEA Bioenergy, is
currently preparing a position paper on energy recovery from MSW and its role in sustainability.
One major focus of this report is the greenhouse gas implications/benefits from EfW projects.
The US Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has prepared a draft report that provides a
discussion about what constitutes "sustainable biomass" electricity. Although the report does not
focus exclusively on EfW in the context of this project, it does address the use of paper, garden,
food and wastes from municipal sources. It is intended that this report, though not providing a
definition of sustainable biomass for energy generation, will provide support to building consensus
around such a definition. The consensus building approach is based on identifying sustainable
and unsustainable aspects of biomass, sustainability criteria, technology types and existing
research and analysis that can be used to support or oppose any given biomass project. The final
report is expected to be published late 2002.
A number of generic sets of principles of sustainability are also presented in this current document.
These are presented in the following chapter. In the last chapter of this literature review these
documents are synthesised and their relevance to EfW is presented.
Principles for Evaluation of Projects along the Lines of Sustainability

Many organisations have sought to establish operating principles that could guide development on
to a more sustainable pathway. These are discussed in reference 19 and include:
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development24
The Bellagio Principles
Canadian International Development Agency's Framework for Sustainable Development
Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living18
Changing Course
Defining a Sustainable Society
Guideposts for a Sustainable Future
Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy
The Natural Step: The Four System Conditions
Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development2
Whilst none of these focus specifically on energy, or for that matter, Energy from Waste, some do
make mention of energy within their recommendations. Relevant sections of four of these
guidelines are summarised below to give some indication of the types of principles contained
therein. Many of the others are fairly similar in their content, referring to generic concepts. The
implications of these principles for development of the EfW Sustainability Guide and Code of
Practice
are
summarised
in
Table
3
of
Section
10.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 99
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

In June 1992 the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), (the 'Earth
Summit') was held in Rio de Janeiro. Government representatives from 178 countries attended.
The outcomes of this conference included the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development24
which is a statement of 27 principles upon which the nations have agreed to base their actions in
dealing with environment and development issues. These are listed in Annexure F-1.
The principles relate to aspects of both a procedural nature (eg principle 17) and to a more
substantive nature (eg principle 2). Furthermore, certain of the principles are included as
guidelines or policy directive and do not necessarily give rise to specific legal outcomes (eg 5, 22
and 25). Some of the principles relate to action primarily on the international level (eg principles 2,
6, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) and others (eg 10, 11, 13, 16 and 17) imply actions specifically at the
national level. The principles address imbalances between developing and developed countries
(eg principles 5 and 6) and recognises the role that all members of society have to play in
sustainability (principles 21, 22 and 23).
The Bellagio Principles
This set of principles, presented in Annexure F-2, was developed during a meeting of an
international group of measurement practitioners and researchers from five continents in Bellagio,
Italy. The outcome of this meeting was a set of principles which are an expression of core values
and aim to serve as practical guidelines for the entire assessment process from system design
and identification of indicators, through field measurement and compilation, to interpretation and
communication of the result. With broad acceptance, it is expected that a common foundation will
emerge, even though details of system design and indicator choice might vary greatly in any given
application.
These principles serve as guidelines for the whole of the assessment process including the choice
and design of indicators, their interpretation and communication of the result. The principles are
interrelated and should be applied as a complete set.
Four aspects of assessing progress toward sustainable development are covered by the
principles. Principle 1 deals with the starting point of any assessment - establishing a vision of
sustainable development and clear goals that provide a practical definition of that vision in terms
that are meaningful for the decision-making unit in question. Principles 2 through 5 deal with the
content of any assessment and the need to merge a sense of the overall system with a practical
focus on current priority issues. Principles 6 through 8 deal with key issues of the process of
assessment, while Principles 9 and 10 deal with the necessity for establishing a continuing
capacity for assessment25.
Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living
These guidelines to sustainable development18, published by the World Conservation Union, the
United Nations Environment Programme and the WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature propose
long-term energy strategies for all countries. Key aspects of these strategies with specific regard
to energy include:
- increased efficiency in energy generation from fossil fuels, and increased use of alternative,
particularly renewable, energy sources;
- increased efficiency in the distribution of energy;
- reduced energy use per person in all sectors, and major increases in the efficiency of use in the
home, industry, business and transport
With regard to energy production from biomass, the guidelines propose "continued development
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 100
of biomass-based fuels where they can be derived from crop residues, surpluses, or are produced
on land not otherwise needed for food growing, or are not of higher value under natural or seminatural vegetation."
Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development
Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD) aims to provide
strategic directions and a framework for government to direct policy and decision-making5. The
strategy incorporates many aspects of the other sets of principles discussed here.
Three core objectives of the principles are identified:
to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic
development that safeguards the welfare of future generations
to provide for equity within and between generations
to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support
systems
Seven guiding principles for achieving these objectives are proposed. These are that:
decision making processes should effectively integrate both long and short-term economic,
environmental, social and equity considerations
where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation
the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies should be recognised
and considered
the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy which can enhance the
capacity for environmental protection should be recognised
the need to maintain and enhance international competitiveness in an environmentally sound

manner should be recognised
cost effective and flexible policy instruments should be adopted, such as improved valuation,
pricing and incentive mechanisms
decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect
them
It is identified in the strategy that the guiding principles and core objectives need to be considered
in their entirety, and that no objective or principle should predominate over the others.
With specific reference to energy, the strategy states the challenge to be To limit production of
harmful emissions without reducing economic efficiency, improve the availability, efficiency and
affordability of alternative energy sources, and improve the technical and economic efficiency of
urban and non-urban transportation. Additional objectives include lowering of greenhouse gas
emissions and promoting the research into- and use of- renewable energy. No specific reference
to energy from waste is made in this strategy.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 101
Other Industry Guidelines and Codes of Practice Towards Sustainability

To provide a basis for development of sustainability guidelines and codes of practice for EfW
Projects, some examples of the contents of Sustainability Guidelines and Codes of Practice for
other sectors is provided here. Whilst conducting the literature survey it was identified that most
guidelines that are publicly available relate to general development (such as for a city or a region).
It is hoped, however, that this section will provide a basis for the development of sustainability
guidelines and a code of practice specifically directed at Energy from Waste projects in Australia.
The implications of the guidelines and codes of practice presented in this section for the EfW
Sustainability Guide are summarised in Table 3 of section 10.
Guidelines for Environmentally Sustainable Projects in Wales
A guide prepared for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment Agency Wales
(EAW) and the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) by ERM provides guidance on how to make
projects more ecologically sustainable, with the aim of bringing additional and long-term benefits to
the economy, society and environment of Wales3. Guidelines are provided for, amongst others,
the assessment of energy infrastructure projects in terms of environmental sustainability. These
guidelines identify key considerations which may be taken into account when assessing projects:
Consideration of how the project is impacting on the environment and how negative impacts can be
mitigated and opportunities from positive impacts maximised. For example, has an environmental
assessment or appraisal of the project been undertaken?
Consideration of alternatives which are potentially more sustainable (e.g. different fuel, technology,
process, raw materials, site );
Consideration of maximisation of environmental sustainability opportunities - the project may be

promoting a sustainable means of energy production but it could still have negative impacts or perhaps
positive impacts which are not fully utilised.
Ensuring that benefits of the project are maximised by maximising efficiency and the long term legacy eg
by considering what the site/facility will be like in 50 years?
Ensuring that the development is appropriate to the area through work with local communities,
businesses, local authorities and services providers to maximise the local ownership of any
new/improved generation or distribution systems;
Maximising the opportunities to raise awareness of sustainable energy production and its linkages to
resource conservation, greenhouse effect and other environmental pollution, degradation and inequality
issues.
A selection of suggested actions which could be implemented or integrated into projects is also
presented in this work. These include to:
identify, assess and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project through an EIA or
environmental appraisal and ensure that any negative impacts are avoided or mitigated and any positive
impacts are maximised, through seeking advice and guidance from environmental groups and
organisations if necessary;
consult and work with local communities, business, industry, local authorities to develop generation
capabilities which will maximise natural resource conservation (through energy efficiency, use of
renewable fuels), clean technology and innovative energy generation and transportation systems;
maximise the sustainability of the project e.g. by using best environmental practice in any construction,
undertaking an energy audit to identify potential areas for conservation, minimising the construction
footprint of any new facilities/pipelines/transmission lines , planting native wild flower and tree/shrub

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 102
species in any landscaping or post-construction restoration, using clean emissions and production
technology or renewable fuels;
maximise the long term added value and sustainability of the project by giving a clear commitment to
manage any land which forms part of the project, in a sustainable manner; maximise opportunities to
encourage people to think more sustainably about their use of energy. Advertise widely the benefits of
energy efficiency in the home, office, factory and recreational area and reach out to schools, community
groups, businesses and industry to increase awareness.
A selection of suggested targets which could be used to report the progress and success of the
project could include:
reduction in CO2 obtained against a business as usual scenario;
number of buildings (or floor space of buildings/offices) which have been fitted with energy
saving/efficient devices;
It is suggested that the core values and ideas expressed in this Welsh set of guidelines represent
a good starting basis for the development of sector specific guidelines such as that which is being
explored for energy from waste.
Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Development British Wind Energy Association
The British Wind Energy Association has developed a set of guidelines for development of wind
energy facilities. The layout of these guidelines merit mention here. For each step in the project
timeline, from site selection to decommissioning and land reinstatement, guidance is provided on
what are identified to be the three key elements of the process, namely:
1. Technical and commercial considerations;
2. Environmental considerations; and
3. The need for dialogue and consultation26.
Code of Practice Development of the Shellfish Industry, British Columbia, Canada
In Canada the British Columbia Shellfish Aquaculture Industry has developed a Code of Practice
to serve as a guideline to shellfish aquaculture companies to ensure their operations are
conducted in a manner that works in concert with the marine environment. The CoP aims to
"provide guidance for addressing and minimising negative environmental impacts and
maximising positive impacts related to normal farm practices on shellfish aquaculture tenures.
The CoP will promote the responsible development and management of a viable and responsible
BC shellfish aquaculture sector". General areas covered by this CoP include siting, tenure
modification, waste management, access, private property and riparian rights, noise & light, odour,
visual quality, interaction with wildlife, transplant and import of stocks, biofouling control, use of
vessels, vehicles and marine equipment, equipment & construction standards, use & storage of
chemical, fuel & lubricants, and operations and training27.
The Province of Manitoba, Canada's, Sustainable Development Code of Practice
This Province of Manitoba's sustainable development code of practice28 is a generic code for
development within the province. In this guideline it is recommended that the decisions and
activities of the public sector should strive towards:
a.
integrating economic, environmental, human health and social considerations;
b.
ensuring the most efficient and effective use of human, natural and financial resources with due
consideration of full-cost accounting;

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 103
c.
including processes for informing those affected by decisions and actions in a timely manner and
ensuring meaningful opportunity for public consultation and due process, including, where
applicable, collaborative decision making, consensus building and alternative dispute resolution;
d.
being carried out in an equitable manner;
e.
minimising waste and utilising environmentally, socially and economically sound and viable
substitutes for scarce resources;
f.
being based on sound science and research;
g.
recognising the value of, and integrating where possible, traditional knowledge and intergenerational
considerations;
h.
being effective stewards in the management of the economy, environment, human health and social
well-being for present and future generations;
i.
recognising that all departments and agencies share responsibility for the pursuit of sustainable
development in Manitoba;
j.
anticipating, mitigating and preventing adverse impacts to the economy, environment, human health
and social well-being;
k.
conserving renewable and non-renewable natural resources; and
l.
ensuring local decision making is consistent with global environmental, economic and social
responsibilities.
Mechanisms proposed to assist in meeting these aims include:
complying with the requirements of applicable regulations, laws and policies; ensuring that submissions
to authorities, regulations, policies and procedures are consistent with the Principles and Guidelines of
Sustainable Development; ensuring administrative policies and procedures are streamlined, coordinated
and integrated, ensuring enforcement procedures are fair and equitable;
providing employees with information, work skills training and education in sustainable development
practices; ensuring meaningful opportunity for public consultation; ensuring assessment of proposed
programs and projects is carried out to determine and address sustainability impacts; rewarding
innovative actions (social, scientific, technological, financial) for initiatives having proven sustainable
development benefits; participating, where possible, in resource management initiatives at the local level
and supporting groups interested in human and natural resource management issues,
Employing the 4Rs (reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering) in its use of resources and the
management of waste, ensuring efficient use of water, energy and other resources in its operations,
practising conservation of non-renewable resources and using viable substitutes for scarce resources.
Seeking opportunities, to harmonise provincial laws and processes internally and with other jurisdictions
based on uniform, common or appropriate social, health, development, environmental and natural
resources standards.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 104
Summary
This section has provided examples of sustainability codes of practice and guidelines for
sustainable development in other sectors. Whilst no such documents were found for the Energy
from Waste sector in particular, it is proposed that the structure of these guidelines provide a
starting point for development of those for EfW projects.
Policies and Legislation Governing Development of Sustainable Energy from Waste

Projects in Australia
One of the aims of the literature search was to provide an overview of the policies and legislation
which support or promote renewable energy projects in Australia.
It was identified that the Commonwealth Government does not play any regulatory role with
respect to Energy from Waste issues. These are managed at a state level through environmental
protection and waste management legislation (see Table F-1).
Environment Australia is in the process of ascertaining requirements for a national policy on
Energy from Waste. This is likely to be additional to a national policy on Energy.
At present, much of the policy debate surrounding issues of EfW have been caught up within the
greenhouse gas debate. Some of the Commonwealth Governments responses to global
greenhouse gas concerns include:
The establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO). The AGO has released the
National Greenhouse Strategy, which provides a framework for Australias response to its
greenhouse gas commitments.
The AGO also developed the Renewable Energy
Commercialisation Programme (RECP) which provides grants for new technology
development in the area of renewable energy. Several EfW projects have received funding
under this programme. Furthermore, the Remote Renewable Power Generation Program
provides financial support to increase the use of renewable energy generation in remote parts
of Australia that presently rely on diesel for electricity generation.
Drawing up of the national renewable energy programme, and the Renewable Energy
(Electricity) Act of 2000. The Act sets a mandatory target of an additional 9 500 GWh/a of
renewable energy target for all electricity retailers and wholesale purchasers by 2010.
Retailers and purchasers who do not meet this target can elect to pay a penalty. .As part of
this programme Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which represent a tradeable
commodity on the basis of each MWh of renewable energy which is generated, have been
implemented. The Act further identifies the organic component of MSW to be an eligible fuel
for the generation of Renewable Energy Certificates, providing a significant market driver to the
development of EfW projects.
Establishment of the Office Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER)29, to oversee

implementation of the renewable energy target.
The Greenhouse Gas Abatement Programme provides funding to projects aimed at

reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the main focus being projects with the potential
to abate more than 250,000 tpa CO2-e.
A summary of the current status of policy and legislation around the states in Australia is
presented in Table F-1.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 105
Table F-1: Australian State Government Policy & Legislation Regarding EfW Projects
State/Territory
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
Sustainable
Energy Office
Sustainable Energy
Development
Authority (SEDA)30
Department of
Business, Industry
and Resource
Development
Office of
Sustainable Energy,
EPA
Sustainable and
Renewable Energy
(Energy SA)
Funding Programs
for EfW
Carbon Targets
related to Electricity
Renewables
Investment
Programme funding
NSW Electricity
Retailer Greenhouse
Benchmarks
Queensland
Sustainable Energy
Innovation Fund
State Energy
Research Advisory
Committee
(SENRAC)
TAS
VIC
Sustainable Energy
Authority
WA
Sustainable Energy
Development Office
(SEDO)
Renewable Energy
Assistance
Programme

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Specific Waste
Legislation
No Waste by 2010
Waste Avoidance
and Resource
Recovery Act
2001
Waste
Management and
Pollution Control
Act 1999
Environmental
Protection (Waste
Management)
Policy 2000
Environment
Protection (Waste
Management)
Policy 1994
Development of
Tasmanian Waste
Strategy
Environment
Protection
(Resource
Efficiency) Act
2002
Waste
Management Bill
under
development
Waste Planning
and Management
ACT NOWaste30
Resource NSW
EfW Policy
Protection of the
Environment Policy
(PEP) under
development
Department of
Infrastructure,
Planning and
Environment
Office Sustainable
Resources, EPA
Waste Management
Committee (SA
EPA)
Department of
Primary Industries
Water and
Environment32
EcoRecycle
Victoria33
Waste Management
Board
Bioenergy policy on
wood waste under
development
Page 106
Constraints to Energy from Waste Projects

In the development of a Code of Practice and Sustainability Guidelines for Energy from Waste
projects, it is necessary to identify and address the constraints to realisation of these projects.
Experience from established and popularised EfW projects has shown that the two primary
constraints are:
economic risks and
community/NGO objections
Economic Risks
Economic risks surrounding EfW projects primarily relate to costs and availability implications
associated with supply of the material used for generation of energy. Costs of material are
influenced by a number of factors, including competition for suitable material, which will potentially
increase as the market grows, gate fees, transport costs and the degree of pre-treatment required
(which depends again on quality of material and technology chosen for processing). The value of
recoverable RECs represents a further significant consideration in terms of EfW projects.
In addition to supply issues, given the uncertain and changing policy and regulatory conditions, it is
difficult to fully account for costs for licensing an EfW facility. This which may imply costly
administration, public participation, marketing; pollution control equipment and management
procedures, and hence on-going management costs. Not being able to accurately plan for these
costs is a potential limitation to such facilities.
Community and Environmental NGO Objections
Community concerns regarding EfW facilities largely relate to concerns about health issues. Past
negative experience with incineration facilities (such as the Waverly Woollahra incinerator) and
existing EfW projects such as Liddell power station have led to mistrust of such facilities. Such
experience has also contributed to a distrust of licensing authorities with respect to approval of
such facilities.
Environmental NGOs have expressed a number of issues in opposition to EfW. These include:
Depletion of native forests for biomass energy,
Preferences for non-polluting solar- and wind power,
Preference for material recycling with perceived socio-economic benefits of job creation
etc,
Concerns about Dioxin formation and other pollution issues, and
Empowerment of local communities.
It is essential that communication strategies regarding EfW projects address these issues and
maintain ongoing interaction with these stakeholder groups to ensure that all viewpoints are
addressed.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 107
Summary
This literature review has presented an overview of information contained in publicly available
literature. A number of aims were identified at the start of this literature review, and a summary of
the extent to which these aims have been achieved is presented below.
1. Review guidelines, codes of practice, case studies and legislation as they relate to
sustainability of the Energy from Waste industry
A number of generic guidelines for sustainability were reviewed. No documents were,
however, found in the course of this literature review which relate directly to Energy from
Waste within the context of the guiding the sustainable development of EfW projects.
2. Highlight whether current guidelines address highest resource value of materials
A review was provided of the traditional waste hierarchy and the new Waste Avoidance and
Resource Recovery Act (WARRA) in NSW. These guidelines do not provide decision makers
with the tools to distinguish between options for resource recovery, an issue which needs to be
explored in the context of this current project.
3. Discuss whether current guidelines have a mechanism for trade-offs between technoeconomic, environmental and socio-political criteria
No record of such guidelines were found in open literature. Various tools were, however,
identified in the course of this study for making such tradeoffs, although outputs from these are
potentially too detailed for use for large groups of non-technical stakeholders.
4. Identify whether current guidelines utilise life cycle assessment and life cycle thinking as
streamlined approaches to EfW issues
Whilst life cycle thinking and LCA tools are widely used to support environmental decision
making, no reports of their application to EfW decisions was found.
5. Identify and comment on any EfW projects which have been assessed on the basis of
sustainability
No such reports were found during the course of this literature review.
6. Assess what tools are available for the evaluation of sustainable EfW projects
No record of such tools was found in the open literature. The challenge, as has been
previously identified, is to develop a such a set of metrics which are accessible to both
technical and non-technical stakeholders.
7. Assess what legislative mechanisms are available to improve sustainability outcomes
A number of Australian Commonwealth and State government initiatives which support growth
of renewable energy, and in particular the greenhouse gas abatement benefits associated with
renewable energy, were identified. The difficulty remains the establishment of what constitutes
a sustainable renewable (in this case Energy from Waste) activity.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 108
8. Highlight significant issues encountered by established EfW projects

Established and popularised EfW projects were used to conduct a review of the types of
issues which must be considered in the context of Energy from Waste. The aim of the planned
stakeholder workshops associated with another aspect of this overall project, is to develop a
comprehensive list of such issues which reflect stakeholder values.
9. Develop a glossary of EfW terms
A comprehensive glossary of EfW terms was developed and is attached as an appendix to the
literature review.
As a starting point for the development of the sustainability guide and code of practice documents
in the scope of this current project, Table F-2 presents a synthesis of the various general principles
and guidelines for sustainability discussed in this document which are potentially significant in the
context of EfW, and a comment on their relevance to EfW projects.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 109
Table F-2: Summary of Other Principles & Guidelines, & Comments as they may be applied to EfW Projects
Principle
Relevance to EfW Sustainability Guidelines and Code of Practice
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be guided by a clear vision of

sustainable development and goals that define that vision
The guidelines should include a clear description of sustainability and

how Energy from Waste fits into this framework.
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should consider the well-being of social,
ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state as well as the direction and rate of change of that
state, of their component parts, and the interaction between parts, and consider both positive and
negative consequences of human activity, in a way that reflects the costs and benefits for human and
ecological systems, in monetary and non-monetary terms
Sustainability represents a holistic viewpoint of the impact of an operation

and this should be accounted for when evaluating potential impacts of the
EfW operation.
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should consider economic development and
other, non-market activities that contribute to human/social well-being.
Consideration of alternatives which are potentially more sustainable (e.g. different fuel, technology,
process, raw materials, site );
Consideration of maximisation of environmental sustainability opportunities - the project may be
promoting a sustainable means of energy production but it could still have negative impacts or perhaps
positive impacts which are not fully utilised.
Assessment of an EfW project must include comparison with a

comprehensive set of alternatives, including non-EfW options for the
waste material and also of non waste sources for energy generation.
minimising waste and utilising environmentally, socially and economically sound and viable substitutes
for scarce resources;
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on an explicit set of
categories or an organising framework that links vision and goals to indicators and assessment criteria,
a limited number of key issues for analysis, a limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to
provide a clearer signal of progress, standardising measurement wherever possible to permit
comparison
Provide guidance on the objectives and criteria which may be used to

assess sustainability of a proposed or existing EfW facility.
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should adopt a time horizon to capture both
human and ecosystem time scales, and take into account the needs of current and future generations,
define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance impacts on
people and ecosystems and build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions where we want to go, where we could go.
Provide guidance on selecting both spatial and temporal system

boundaries for evaluating EfW projects. Past experience should guide
future planning.
Ensuring that benefits of the project are maximised by maximising efficiency and the long term legacy
eg by considering what the site/facility will be like in 50 years?
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should develop a capacity for repeated
measurement to determine trends, be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty
because systems are complex and change frequently, adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new
insights are gained and promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision- making.
improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and
by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and
innovative technologies.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
The information contained in the documents should continue to be

developed as experience and needs in the field of EfW change, and as
understandings of sustainability continue to evolve.
Local and
international knowledge must be incorporated into this evolutionary
process.
The owners of these documents must be clear and responsibility must be
taken for their ongoing evolution, implementation and dissemination.
Page 110
Principle
Relevance to EfW Sustainability Guidelines and Code of Practice
Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development should be assured by clearly

assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making process, providing
institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation supporting development of
local assessment capacity.
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part
of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
Evaluation and addressing of potential and existing environmental

impacts of EfW projects must be integral in all steps of the project life
cycle.
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant
level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the
environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and
activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States
shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely
available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy,
should be provided.
Stakeholder consultation must represent an integral part of the project life

cycles.
All steps in the project must be transparent and information must be
made available to the public.
Maximising the opportunities to raise awareness of sustainable energy production and its linkages to
resource conservation, greenhouse effect and other environmental pollution, degradation and inequality
issues.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
The precautionary principle is recommended in addressing potential

environmental issues. Note that this does not mean postponing project
development, but rather involves being proactive in preventing
environmental degradation.
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities
that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a
competent national authority.
Environmental Impact Assessments for new facilities, and changes to

existing facilities, should be conducted.
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use
of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the
cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and
investment.
Costs, taxes, levies, penalties and incentives should represent the true
cost of an activity, including environmental costs. Novel ways for
accomplishing this without a strong legislative framework should be
developed.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 111
Literature Review References

The documents listed below are those referred to in this current document. A full database of all
reference sources consulted will be made available.
1. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1987 p. 43.
2. Environment
Australia,
'Ecologically
Sustainable
Development
http://www.ea.gov.au/esd/index.html, accessed 5 August 2002.
Home
Page',
3. Environmental Resources Management, 'Maximising the Environmental Sustainability of the

West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme: A Guide for Project Applicants and
Programme Managers.' Prepared for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment
Agency Wales (EAW) and the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) , October 2000. Found
online at www.wefo.wales.gov.uk/newprogs/objective1/ob1-envi.
4. Principles
of
Sustainability:
A
Compilation.
Available
http://www.brocku.ca/epi/sustainability/sustprin.htm. Accessed 24 July 2002.
Online
at
5. Environment Australia, National Strategy for Sustainable Development, found online at

http://www.ea.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/index.html, accessed 30 July 2002.
6. UK Department of Trade and Industry, 'Renewable Energy Programme Website', found online
at http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/main.html, accessed 3 August 2002.
7. International
Renewable
Energy.
Found
Online
at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/contents.html.
Accessed
July 2002.
8. Vienna University of Technology (1999), 'ALTENER Waste-for-Energy Nett IV Study', prepared
for the European Union Directorate for Energy, contract number 4.01030/D/97-030.
9. Cardiff
University,
Waste
Research
Station.
Found
online
http://www.wasteresearch.co.uk/ade/Currentprojects.htm. Accessed 24 July 2002.
at:
10. Australian
Greenhouse
Office,
'Biomass
Applications',
found
online
at:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/reis/technologies/biomass/bioapp.html.
Accessed
11 September 2002.
11. The Solena Group, found online at http://www.solenagroup.com. Accessed 19 July 2002.
12. Schipper, L., Unander, F. and Marie-Lilliu, C., (2000), 'The IEA Energy Indicators Effort:
Increasing the Understanding of the Energy/Emissions Link', IEA: COP 6, The Hague, 13-14
Nov 2000.
13. Jackson, D.V. (1988), 'A Review of Developments in the Production and Combustion of
Refuse Derived Fuel', in Proceedings of a Seminar on Recovery Energy from Municipal and
Industrial Waste through Combustion, A. Brown, P.Evemy and G.L. Ferrero eds, Essex:
Elsevier.
14. NSW Government (2001), Waste Avoidance And Resource Recovery Act, Updated 18 January
2002.
15. Resources NSW, found online at http://www.resource.nsw.gov.au/about.htm, accessed 25 July
2002
16. AEA Technology, (2001), Comparison of public acceptability of energy from waste and energy
from
biomass
residues
in
5
EU
states.
Available
online
at
http://www.etsu.com/integrate/INTEGRATEReport_for_web.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2002.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 112
17. de Moor, A. and P. Calamai, Subsidising Unsustainable Development, Report Commissioned

by
The
Earth
Council,
ISBN
0-9681844-0-5.
Available
online
at
http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/econ/sud.
18. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1991). Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland,
Switzerland.
19. National Biofuels Roundtable (1994), 'Principles and Guidelines for the Development of
Biomass Energy Systems: Draft Final Report'. National Fuels Roundtable.
20. European Commission, 'Green Paper Towards A European Strategy For The Security Of
Energy Supply', found online at www.europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/, accessed 29
July 2002.
21. British Biogen, found online at http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk/gpg/index.html, accessed 2
August 2002.
22. UK Department of Trade and Industry (1996), 'Energy from Waste: Best Practice Guide',
revised edition. Published by the DTI.
23. The Sustainability Report (2001), found online at http://www.sustreport.org/home.html.
Accessed 26 July 2002.
24. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992), 'Declaration of
Principles', Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992.
25. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (1997), 'Assessing Sustainable
Development Principles in Practice', International Institute for Sustainable Development:
Canada, Eds: Peter Hardi and Terrence Zdan ISBN 1-895536-07-3.
26. British Wind Energy Association (1994), 'Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy
Development', found online at http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/pdf/bpg.pdf.
27. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Government of British Columbia (2002), 'British
Columbia Shellfish Aquaculture: Code of Practice', Final Draft available online at
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/shellfish/FinalCOPSubmission%2002July03.pdf. Accessed
25 July 2002.
28. Province of Manitoba, Canada (2001), 'Provincial Sustainable Development Code of Practice.
Found online at
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/susresmb/code/Code-Prac.doc.
29. Office of Renewable Energy Regulator (2002), http://www.orer.gov.au accessed July 2002.
30. ACT NOWaste, http://www.act.gov.au/nowaste/, accessed 20 July 2002.
31. The Sustainable Energy Development Authority, http://www.seda.nsw.gov.au/, accessed 25
July 2002.
32. Department
of
Primary
Industries,
Water
&
Environment,
http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Home/1?Open, accessed 25 July 2002.
Tasmania,
33. EcoRecycle Victoria, http://www.ecorecycle.vic.gov.au/, accessed 25 July 2002.

34. Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., and Moberg, A., (2000), 'Life Cycle Assessments of
Energy
from
Solid
Waste'.
Found
online
at
http://www.fms.ecology.su.se/pdf/LCAofenergyfromsolidwaste.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2002.
35. Integrated Waste Services Association, found online at http://www.wte.org/index.html.
Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 113
Annexures from the Literature Review

Annexure F-1: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Principles
Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and
productive life in harmony with nature.
Principle 2: States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the
sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other
States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs
of present and future generations.
Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the
development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
Principle 5: All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable
requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the
needs of the majority of the people of the world.
Principle 6: The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most
environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and
development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
Principle 7: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and
integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have
common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the
international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment
and of the technologies and financial resources they command.
Principle 8: To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and
eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.
Principle 9: States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by
improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the
development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies.
Principle 10: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.
At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is
held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the
opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and
participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings,
including redress and remedy, shall be provided.
Principle 11: States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives
and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by
some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular
developing countries.
Principle 12: States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead
to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental
degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental
challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing
transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.
Principle 13: States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other
environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further
international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities
within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.
Principle 14: States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of
any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.
Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according
to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Principle 16: National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use of
economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution,
with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 114
Principle 17: Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities
that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent
national authority.
Principle 18: States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other emergencies that are likely to
produce sudden harmful effects on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international
community to help States so afflicted.
Principle 19: States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected States on
activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at
an early stage and in good faith.
Principle 20: Women have a vital role in environmental management and development.
therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.
Their full participation is
Principle 21: The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilised to forge a global
partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.
Principle 22: Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in environmental
management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly
support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable
development.
Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be
protected.
Principle 24: Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international
law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as
necessary.
Principle 25: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.
Principle 26: States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations.
Principle 27: States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfilment of the
principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable
development.

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 115
Annexure F-2: The Bellagio Guidelines

Principle
1. GUIDING VISION
AND GOALS
2. HOLISTIC
PERSPECTIVE
3.
ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS
4.
ADEQUATE
SCOPE
5.
PRACTICAL
FOCUS
6.
OPENNESS
7.
EFFECTIVE
COMMUNICATION
8.
BROAD
PARTICIPATION
9.
ONGOING
ASSESSMENT
10. INSTITUTIONAL
CAPACITY
Description
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be guided by a clear

vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should
include review of the whole system as well as its parts,
consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state as
well as the direction and rate of change of that state, of their component parts, and the
interaction between parts, and
consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a way that
reflects the costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in monetary and nonmonetary terms
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
consider equity and disparity within the current population and between present and
future generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-consumption and
poverty, human rights, and access to services, as appropriate,
consider the ecological conditions on which life depends,
consider economic development and other, non-market activities that contribute to

human/social well-being
adopt a time horizon long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time scales
thus responding to needs of future generations as well as those current to short term
decision-making,
define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance
impacts on people and ecosystems
build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions - where we want
to go, where we could go
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on:
an explicit set of categories or an organising framework that links vision and goals to
indicators and assessment criteria,
a limited number of key issues for analysis
a limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer signal of

progress
standardising measurement wherever possible to permit comparison
comparing indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction

of trends, as appropriate
make the methods and data that are used accessible to all
make explicit all judgments, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and interpretations
be designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users
draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve to engage decisionmakers
aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear and plain language
obtain broad representation of key grass-roots, professional, technical and social

groups, including youth, women, and indigenous people - to ensure recognition of
diverse and changing values
ensure the participation of decision-makers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and
resulting action
develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends
be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems are
complex and change frequently
adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained
promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision- making

Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development should
be assured by:
clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making

process
providing institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation
supporting development of local assessment capacity

Edition 1 - 22/12/03
Page 116

Archive Bio Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archive Bio Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

NATIONAL OFFICE: PO Box 994, ROCKDALE NSW 2216

Energy from Waste Division

Completed with significant sponsorship from

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

For Review by Reference Group

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

Structure of the Sustainability Guide

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

The Initial Conditions and Context

Energy Recovery: A Binary Decision

The Potential Impacts of Energy Recovery from Urban Wastes

Origins of the Sustainability Guide

Development of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

The Purpose of the Sustainability Guide and Code of Practice

Key Stakeholder Groups

Applicability to Individual Stakeholder Requirements

Editorial Focus and Sustainability Guide Formats

Section 2: Background and Context

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) as the Primary Determinant

The Nature of the Waste Considered

Broad Characteristics of Residual Urban Wastes

Community Perceptions of Energy Recovery Projects

Energy Recovery Systems and Technologies

Interaction with the Community

Issues to be Evaluated and Assessed for a Successful Project

Section 3: Project Scoping Principles for EfW Projects

Introduction to the PSPs

Profiling EfW Projects and Proposals

PSP1: Best Use of the Available Materials

PSP2: Selection of the Optimum Conversion Pathway

PSP3: Control of Environmental Impacts and Outcomes

PSP4: Control of Social Impacts and Outcomes

PSP5: Assurance of Project Commitments

PSP6: Management of the Commercial Interface

Section 4: The Assessment Tools

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

Appendix A Working Group Members

Appendix B Reference Group Members

Appendix D Stakeholder Workshops and Results

Appendix E Australias National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development

Appendix F Literature Review

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

The Initial Conditions and Context

One unintended consequence of the rapid economic

Sustainability in this context, or ecologically sustainable

This Sustainability Guide focuses on the sustainable use of the

the spent, surplus and discarded materials that originate

the spent, surplus and discarded materials that originate

iii) the discarded or waste materials that originate from the

Sustainability Guide for EfW Projects and Proposals

Energy from Waste Division, Waste Management Association of Australia

In addressing societys urban waste streams from a

efforts can be made to avoid the materials being initially

ii) strategies can be employed to limit or minimise the

This Sustainability Guide seeks to address and define those

These potential sources of energy could be described as

they have no further practical value or market for reuse,