Submissions
The Australian Sustainable Business Group (ASBG) supports the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment (FOGO Recycling) Bill 2024 (FOGO Bill), especially as it is designed to extend the operational life of putrescible landfills across NSW.
ASBG also identified a number of issues with the Bill including:
- Finding that businesses captured need to install a FOGO weekly collection by 1 July 2026.
This is considered unfair as Local Government has until 1 July 2030 to do generally the same. - The definition of 'relevant premises' which captures sites for FOGO, can capture manufacturing sites with canteens.
However, most food manufacturing sites use higher order recycling of food wastes, e.g. stock food etc.
The use of the FOGO laws should prevent forcing higher order recycling to use FOGO a lower order option. - ASBG recommended that food sites not be required to prove higher level food recycling as this can lead to heavy administrative outcomes and some sites dropping their higher level food recycling to avoid the reporiting or similar requirements.
- Overall that all manufacturing sites with canteens be specifically exempted from the FOGO requirements.
This is justified as these sites will have good recycling systems in place for food and otherwise, consequently, do not require FOGO enforcement.
 ASBG's Comments and Issues on NSW FOGO Bill 2024 | 748 kB |
ASBG expresses concern the NHMRC is adopting the PFOS 4 ng/L guideline value recently issued by the US EPA.
The NHMRC’s methodology used includes a 300 fold safety factor in addition to other margins of safety added.
ASBG recommended the HBGVs be reviewed especially given FSANZ’s evidence that on 2% of foods examined show the presence of PFOS.
ASBG supported the use of WHO's approach to PFOA by the NHMRC, as the US EPA uses a non-threshold linear approach.
Consequently, the NHMRC has a PFOA HBGV of 200 ng/L compared to US EPA’s at 4 ng/L.
The NHMRC should also consider the knock-on impacts of setting lower PFAS HBGVs which will become hard limits in many documents.
This will include, soil and groundwater, largely affected by changes to PFAS NEMP 3.0, water limits, sewage acceptance, landfill acceptance and
will impact many wastes especially organic wastes including biosolids, compost etc, waste soils with PFAS, etc.
A submission by the US American Water Works Association, was critical of the US EPA’s science or lack of it, and also showed that increasing the
PFOS & PFOA limits from 4 ng/L to 10 ng/L would reduce drinking water treatment costs by 65%.
Finally ASBG recommended the NHMRC should publish contextual information to place is PFAS HBGVs in comparison with other major harmful substances.
This is to show the assumptions used, full safety margins used – over 300 x- and the concentrations being set in context with other harmful substances.
This will enable the public to balance the PFAS risks with other known risks.
| ASBG's Submission on the NHMRC Review of PFAS in Australian Drinking Water 2024 | 1032 kB |
ASBG has considerable concerns with the Paper. While Option 1, ongoing use of APCO is preferred
by ASBG it is incomplete, in that it requires considerable support by all Australian Governments to make a more
effective circular economy. Also used packaging should be treated as a part of the whole circular economy
process, where its recycling etc. represents only 10% of the waste stream.
The Paper is somewhat confusing as it seems to partly follow a Regulatory Impact Assessment, but
provides no cost-benefit analysis. All three Options should go through this process, but it seems on
the final regulation may be have an RIS.
The paper's preferred Option 3, the EPR scheme, lacks many details, and will be very expensive, where costs
of over $1b p.a. or more, are likely as a starting amount. EPR taxes on packaging materials will result in perverse
outcomes where good packaging materials will simply rise in price to just under their competitive poorer packaging
material (now taxed) rate. This undermines the incentives to change packaging materials to a more recyclable type.
Also concerning is there is no identification of how the $1b will be spent.
Regardless of which Option is used, the following is required and recommended overall is a better planning and
management, especially from a waste infrastructure perspective including:
- The commonwealth revamping its export ban on recyclable materials
- State and territory governments work with industry to a better, more consistent plan of strategic
planning, siting of recycling infrastructure and downstream residual waste management including
covering EfW and landfill supplies. - All parties to improve education on waste management.
- Local Governments to remove obstructions and reluctance to teaming up to provide sufficient waste /
recyclate flow rate to provide economies of scale for efficient and effective recycling facilities where appropriate.
| ASBG's Submission on the Reform of Packaging Regulation Consultation Paper 2024 | 1203 kB |
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 |
