Submissions
ASBG prepared a submission on the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) Consultation Regulation Impact Statement Phasing out certain waste exports (RIS). This is the second submission and one that focus on the RIS document.
ASBG considers the RIS is non-compliant with COAG's Best Practice Regulation: A Guide for Ministerial Councils and National Standard Setting Bodies. Specifically this consultation RIS provides no economic nor risk assessment which can be reviewed nor does it show how the Waste Export Ban benefits Australia. Consequently, ASBG recommends an economic and risk assessment be undertaken and the RIS redone with public consultation.
ASBG identified costs associated with WEB placed on paper exports which resulted in a net loss of $275 million p.a. Australia simply does not have the paper recycling mills to accept many paper and cardboard types which can only be served by overseas mills. Also Australia has neither the supply nor the required approximately $1b CAPX to build specialised paper mills which can operate commercially selling its excess into the export market. Note Australia simply does not have the manufacturing base to absorb the quantities of recyclates which a large proportion is sourced from our imports.
ASBG recommends a third option be included in the RIS: Use a gate keeper (Basel Convention) approach to screen recyclates for export. This should cover the issue of prevention of environmental and health harm caused by exported Australian recyclates. This additional option should be included in the redo of the RIS.
 ASBG's Submission on the Waste Export Ban RIS 2020 | 1082 kB |
ASBG commented on comment on the Council of Australian Government’s Banning exports of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres discussion paper.
In general ASBG considered the Waste Export Ban somewhat confusing in how it will achieve the outcomes consistent with the National Waste Policy's circular economy principles. ASBG members indicated the WEB will simply result in much of the exported recyclates being landfilled in the short term. Paper and cardboard is most affected with 1.2 MT being currently exported and with the closure of Australia largest newsprint mill in Albury, about half of old newspapers will only be recyclable overseas.
ASBG recommends modifying the value-adding criteria to recognised bona fide recyclate which has a positive value and meets international standards and country acceptance criteria as being products and not wastes. This is supported by the Hazardous Waste (Export and Import) Act which defined waste as materials to be disposed of. The Commonwealth may also play a gatekeeper role where export countries with suspect environmental credentials require additional assessment and approval.
| ASBG's Submission on COAG's Waste Export Ban 2019 | 904 kB |
ASBG took the initiative in preparing a submission to the EPA requesting clarification of how the on-site / off-site rule operates. Put simply this rule means material only becomes a waste once it has been taken off site. Consequently, materials moved and or stockpiled for clean up, remediation, demolition, unexpected finds etc, are not considered waste and can be further processed and used on site under WHS and Contaminated land management laws not subject to waste laws. Considering the recent findings of EPA v Grafil case and a high variation of its interpretation among various EPA officers there is much confusion over how this rule should operate and where are its boundaries. For general remediation, earthworks and demolition work, classification of on-site materials as waste would make construction a far more complex, unnecessarily so in ASBG's opinion. The submission identifies what is believed to be the on-site / off-site rule, what is meant by on-site or a site, and where there are many gray areas. A series of case studies is used to assist the EPA tease out where the boundaries sit.
| ASBG's Submission on the On-Site / Off-Site Rule - 2019 | 892 kB |
ASBG submission on NSW's 20 Year Waste Strategy focuses on the current generally NSW policy led legislation and policy actions which are filling NSW landfills faster than ever. The need for new waste infrastructure is critical especially landfills which offer a safety valve if diversion approaches fail to perform. Energy from Waste plants are also considered an important component to better managing NSW's wastes into the future. ASBG also supports greatly expanded recycling, but the end markets for such products must be first identified. Two key areas that will make a difference is downcycling and reduction of contamination to meet export market requirements. While recycling back to a raw material is to be encouraged, such actions have in the medium term limited application in NSW. Recycling also has an environmental limit; when the recycling requires more natural resources than to make it, such collected material is far better off being downcycled including incineration or perhaps landfilled. ASBG also reviewed the Waste Levy and found only 19% is dedicated to waste management. Since business and industry contribute 65% of the levy, a similar percentage of grant moneys should be allocated back in proportion to the levy paid if real landfill diversion is the goal.
| ASBG's Submission on NSW's 20 Year Waste Strategy 2019 | 1109 kB |
ASBG generally is quite supportive of the Consultants reporting on contaminated land: Contaminated Land Guidelines. A few issues raised included the preferred keeping of the four stages for assessment and remediation of contaminated land rather than going to a seven stage framework. The three additional stages can be easily incorporated into the main four stages as required additional information. ASBG considered moving to a seven stage process would confuse many involved in the property sector, insurance agents and financiers than the current four stage framework which is also similar to the US EPA's approach. There were also a few issues with the need for detailed technical reports for major remediation projects using treatment processes on site. It requirements were loosely related to a risk based approach, but could lead to excessive details which may not be required or proportional to the risks posed.
| ASBG Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Land Submission 2019 | 673 kB |
