Submissions
ASBG welcomes the replacement of the zero level for PFAS Cat 1 Regulated Waste, with concentration limits in the consultation paper. The
proposed classifications of certain contaminated soils as non-regulated wastes are also welcomed. While the main thrust of the proposed
changes are supported, but there are some issues requiring consideration:
1. What is meant by Other PFAS – needs a definition, otherwise can relate to millions of compounds.
ASBG calls for PFASs of concern to be published by DES, suggesting these would likely be liquid not solid or gaseous and generally
immobile.
2. The thresholds levels given for Category 1 Regulated Waste as they are lower than some EoWs – issues for recycling future wastes.
ASBG recommends the DES review its PFAS limits given that Biosolids and Coal Combustion Products EoWs permit higher or similar PFAS
levels which can be applied in or on land anywhere in Queensland. A Cat 1 and Cat 2 Regulated Waste classification would also impact such
EoW material at its end of life, for reuse
or recycling purposes.
3. Implications of removal of PFAS from the Regulation’s dictionary.
ASBG recommends not only removing PFASs listed but all Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) listed in Schedule 19, Part 1 Item 5, to be
replaced with reference to the POPs list in the Stockholm Convention. Where new POPs including PFASs of concern are identified by DES,
these should be published in a guideline type document, with explanation and scientific justification, for easier change than a regulation
permits.
 ASBG Submission on QLD PFAS as Regulated Waste 2024 | 994 kB |
ASBG welcomed the NSW Office of Chief Scientist and Engineer's Asbestos Discussion Paper. ASBG answered the 12 questions making 5 recommendations. On thresholds and screening levels, ASBG suggested 6 types of beneficial reuse methods: burial, soil amendment, in bonded materials, as a fuel, output streams from asbestos treatment processes. Under the option of burial, ASBG put forward 4 levels. The highest concentration level to be deep buried with a cap etc. A lower concentration level with a smaller cap, use in foundations, and surface exposure. Obviously risk assessments will be required to determine the airborne exposure risk of fibers over time. Use as a soil amendment can already be based on the contaminated site criteria, this could be extended for non-food agriculture if the soil has other beneficial properties.
ASBG recommended OCSE use a suitable independent 3rd party to prepare appropriate documentation, test methods etc. supported with research for beneficial use of asbestiform materials and contaminated soils etc.
ASBG raised the recent increases in asbestos waste fines to $4m, pointing out this is causing issues for Resource Recovery Orders and Exemptions, requiring urgent attention. However, this may require legislative changes to the POEO Act, which is a political decision and would be difficult.
Finally ASBG identified that asbestos treatment systems are commercially available , such as the UK. Also an Australian company MCi is operating a serpentine carbonation plant in the Newcastle area. As serpentine can contain 5 -15% white asbestos, the NSW asbestos waste criteria can make difficulties in its operation and legal selling of carbonated serpentine. OCSE should note there is a tension between asbestos waste and greenhouse gas sequestration methods.
| ASBG Submission on OCSE Asbestos Discussion Paper 2024 | 947 kB |
ASBG's submission on the Review of the NSW Waste Levy included the following recommendations:
- The philosophy for the waste levy change from punishing waste to landfill to also support certain waste types which have no real alternative to to landfill with a levy discount To generally follow the Queensland model of 50% levy reduction for recycling residues and more.
- Levy discounts to include industrial wastes from a site where a standard of waste minimisation has been achieved.
- That the levy not increase more than the current CPI rate.
- The waste levy be hypothecated to NSW waste management actions and outcomes.
- A new waste authority be formed to prepare strategic plans, allocate financing, require cooperation from Councils, assist in gaining planning approvals in relation to all waste infrastructure and its management.
- Ensure that adequate and appropriate waste infrastructure is located reasonably close to its generation locations. This also includes the urgent siting of new landfills for the greater Sydney area and other waste management facilities like Energy from Waste etc.
- Ensure appropriate recycling facilities or other waste management options are made available to reduce waste to landfill where practical.
- The liquid waste levy be removed, as it is a punitive measure against industry.
- Avoidance of long haul and export of wastes and residues outside of the local areas and especially NSW
| ASBG Submission on the Review of the NSW Waste Levy 2024 | 1218 kB |
The NSW EPA released its draft Greenhouse Gas Assessment Guide for Large Emitters (the Guide), which set out how large emitters, those > 25,000 tpa CO2-e emissions must complete NSW Planning requirements including Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Plans (GHGMP) and EPA requirements - Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Plans (CCMAP). The Guide represents an expanded template for the requirements for smaller EPL holders for doing CCMAPs, so has quite broad implications. ASBG supports the general thrust of the Guide, especially it's the consideration of Scope 3 emissions as being encouraged but not required. ASBG identified three main issues with the Guide including:
- Avoidance of duplication and overlap with the Commonwealth systems, such as National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting and the Safeguard Mechanism and development of documents to identify where such reporting replaces parts of GHGMPs and CCMAPs.
- Excessive enforcement of NSW’s NSW Climate Change (Net Zero Future) Act 2023 targets, which may generate an uncompetitive environment for NSW EPL holding organisations from lower cost and higher CO2-e. ASBG explores various options where the export of NSW local jobs and importation of higher carbon intensity products could be avoided.
- Ensure the definitions used to account for carbon emissions are consistent and compatible with the Commonwealth’s and also the International Standards Organisation’s (ISO) series of ISO 14001 standards on greenhouse gases.
| ASBG Submission on the Draft Climate Change Assessment Requirements | 869 kB |
The submission covers many areas on asbestos waste, but largely focuses on the un-scientific presence based threshold for asbestos waste. The OCSE is considered a good chance whereby a set of reasonable asbestos concentration thresholds for various RROE uses can be applied.
ASBG pointed out may of the perverse outcomes of the presence based approach including:
- Removing asbestos materials unnecessarily causing increased exposure and consuming limited landfill space.
- Virtually banning any type of alterative asbestos waste management option, other than landfilling, which in the Greater Sydney area will be largely exhausted by 2028 with no replacement identified.
- Increases the costs of asbestos waste management across all areas especially recycling, hence increases illegal disposal of asbestos wastes and increases recycling liabilities.
- Having a large difference between contaminated land limits and waste limits causes considerable issues.
- Preventing the use of asbestos waste and asbestos forms (e.g. serpentine) in future carbon sequestration processes, via carbonation reactions, undermining NSW’s use of technological choices in meeting NSW’s Net Zero Targets.
ASBG recommends firstly to remove, or redefine, the use of a presence based limit in the definition of asbestos waste, replacing it with a scientifically supported practical limit as used for all other environmental contaminants. Additionally, ASBG calls for a scientific based assessment on the setting of general and case specific acceptable threshold for asbestos wastes to reduce the volumes sent to landfill. This would be seen as consistent with contaminated site criteria. In addition, another limit for the deeper burial of asbestos soils, such as in infrastructural projects, for moderately low concentrations of asbestos, with overarching design, cap, land title and call before you dig requirements. Both of the above can be enshrined in Resource Recover Orders and Exemptions or by other means.
| ASBG Submission on OCSE's Asbestos Management Review 2024 | 1637 kB |
