Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Primary Production Waste PRIMARY PRODUCTION WASTE The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council PRIMARY PRODUCTION WASTE The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:21): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation a question relating to the disposal of primary production waste. Leave granted. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Riverland is a significant contributor to South Australia's wine industry, producing around 50 per cent of the state's total annual crush. I am advised that each year the region accumulates approximately 1,000 hectares' worth of treated pine posts, including approximately 2,500 kilometres of poly irrigation piping. This waste can only be disposed of at specific landfill sites and, as a result, I am advised that there is significant stockpiling on properties or illegal and dangerous disposal. My questions to the minister are: 1.	What is the state government doing to address the abundance of treated pine posts and poly irrigation piping in the Riverland? 2.	Is the government aware of the amount of unwanted posts and poly piping in the Riverland and has it considered providing an EPA-approved landfill site in the region? 3.	Will the government provide financial assistance to dispose of stockpiled posts at remote EPASA-approved landfill sites at McLaren Vale, Dublin and Inkerman? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:22): I thank the honourable member for his most important question. Coincidentally, this issue was raised recently in an article in the Murray Pioneer on 15 October, where the member for Chaffey in the other place commented on the disposal of pine posts from private land. I am happy to inform the house that I have in fact written to the member for Chaffey on this matter. I understand that treated timber posts used by irrigators and in vineyards, as the honourable member outlined, are most commonly treated with copper chrome arsenate (CCA), a water-based heavy metal mixture used to preserve timber. As I stated in my letter to the member for Chaffey, CCA-treated timber is not subject to normal biodegradation and cannot be composted. I am advised that it should not be burnt due to the high risk of causing environmental harm from toxicity associated with the release of chromium and arsenic compounds. I can appreciate the challenges that these issues pose in managing the disposal of unwanted timber posts. I sent the member for Chaffey in the other place a report on CCA-treated timber in South Australia for his information. I am happy to get that report for the honourable member as well, if he would like. This report was prepared by the Environment Protection Authority and provides an overview of CCA-treated timber and potential waste management solutions. Of course, the member can get a copy of this report for himself at the epa.sa.gov.au website. To further help industry better manage CCA-treated timber waste issues, Zero Waste SA has worked with the South Australian Wine Industry Association to develop the treated timber waste management guidelines, which I also provided to the member for Chaffey for his information. The guidelines aim to assist the wine industry to understand its waste management obligations in relation to treated timber posts and to provide measures that can be implemented in wineries. A copy of the guidelines can also be obtained from the EPA's website. Management strategies outlined in the document include options for re-use, avoidance, stockpiling, landfill disposal and resource recovery. Sir, I can see you are fascinated by this topic, so I will briefly detail some of these options, if you would like. First is re-use. Where possible, it is recommended that CCA-treated timber be re-used to benefit other applications. Re-use options identified for CCA-treated timber include fence posts, landscape timber, parking lot bumpers, guard rail posts, composting bins, planter boxes, shipping crates and walkway edging. Some broken vineyard posts are used for agricultural fencing across South Australia, I am advised. Some vineyards have altered trellis design by purchasing substantially taller posts, as well. As posts often snap at ground level, a taller post, once snapped, usually has a length that enables it to have an ongoing use, hence reducing the reorder of new posts and it is probably quite economical. I am also aware that there is a product on the market called Ocloc which is a repair bracket that can be fixed to damaged and broken trellis posts and this can also reduce the need to reorder new posts. The second issue is avoidance. It is suggested that, as a longer-term management strategy, the use of CCA-treated timber should be reduced and avoided in favour of other alternatives including plastics, steel, aluminium, fibreglass, brick, stone or cement, composites and wood species with a natural resistance to decay, depending on what it is to be used for, and timber treated with other preservatives such as ammonium derivatives of copper that do not contain arsenic or chromium—for example, ammoniacal copper quaternary. Third, there is stockpiling and landfill disposal. As I informed the member for Chaffey, landfill disposal is the current accepted method for dealing with CCA-treated timber across the country. In South Australia, engineered landfills and storage sites to accept this material have been specifically licensed by the EPA. The EPA's report provides guidance on the identification and separation of CCA-treated timber from other mixed waste streams. Fourth, there is, of course, resource recovery. I am advised that the potential to commercialise resource recovery technology for CCA-treated timber has been previously explored in South Australia, but no commercial outcomes have been identified thus far. Possible resource recovery technologies for the end-of-life disposal of CCA-treated timber include metal extraction, energy recovery, carbon recovery and fibre recovery. I am advised that there are several examples of treated timber being used in commercial waste to energy facilities. For example, a cogeneration facility in Pennsylvania accepts treated timber as an energy feedstock to produce electricity. Additionally, a facility in France accepts all types of contaminated timber and recycles the material in three steps, via crushing, thermal treatment and, finally, separation. I am also told that a range of products utilising recycled CCA-treated timber is listed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinarian Medicines Authority, the national body responsible for the registration of CCA in Australia. The economic viability of establishing resource recovery technology for CCA-treated timber would require a thorough consideration of issues, including whether there would be an ongoing, consistent supply of this material as a feedstock.