Submissions
This high level review of NSW Resource Recovery Frameworks covers a broad range of issues regarding the beneficial reuse of wastes. Key issues and recommendations include:
- Expand use of soil conditioners, for specific land areas, such as denuded farmland. All published RROEs can be applied anywhere in NSW, hence the most sensitive land is the trigger. Certain low risk materials have high concentrations of minerals which are currently replaced in farmland by fertilisers. By specifying land zones, such as denuded farmland, and having more specific delivery controls such an approach can help farmers and reduce waste to landfill.
- Specific use of scientific methodologies to set criteria which can vary according to land areas and their local environments. Some extracted materials come from high background areas and may breach their RROs even if going back into the same soil types.
- Publish the scientific methodologies with specific cases used to make RROEs. ASBG provides evidence of ALARA being used rather than good scientific methods and risk weighted approaches.
- Improve environmental protection by increased policing, teaming with landowners etc, use and support of industry based quality control methods and better forewarnings of emerging contaminants.
- Reform environment licensing and planning legislation to remove road blocks and assist emerging, new and innovative processes at pilot plant and small scale commercial demonstration plant scales
- Ensure the RRF is open to all technologies and process that can meet the scientific based environmental conditions and avoids picking ‘winners’.
- Implement the End of Waste provision for wastes, which meet risk criteria, to avoid the need for Waste Storage licences at post producers’ sites. It will also draw the line of when a RRO material is a waste or can be treated as a product, reducing EPA’s oversight.
- NSW EPA to adopt the standard AS 4964 for asbestos measurement.
- All methodologies used to make RROE criteria are transparent and based on good scientific methods, which should be ring-fenced from other influences, such as public or local opinion.
- NSW Waste Classification Guidelines to add in general fill material criteria, but where these limits can be subject to exemptions where specific RROEs are used for lower risk source materials.
- Improved sampling methods which are standardised—to remove sampling from RROs—but also accept demonstrated statistical methods.
Given the scope of the review there are many case studies and other supporting documents, member experiences and other details which are better conveyed on a case by case basis.
ASBG's submission welcomed most of the changes in the draft POEO (General) Regulation 2022. In particular the amendments to the Pollution Incident Response Management Plan testing which currently requires a test redo within 30 days of any pollution incident. This is to be changed to a Material Harm level pollution incident, a win for ASBG from our 2019 submission.
There were four issues with the draft Reg:
- The application fees for Chemical Storage, prescribed waste: ASBG considers the fee for Prescribed Waste Storage licence of $5,402 too high given its simplicity.
- Clarification on the changes to Extractive Industries: This change can capture unintended activities such as site rehabilitation and needs clarifying.
- Clarification on waste storage: Clarification on how the 5t threshold works as well as removing the capture of RRO materials sent to other processing sites, such as concrete and asphalt plants
- Changes to the National Pollution Inventory: EPA to source its quality data for Cat 2 fuels from NGERs using the new Inter-governmental Agreement on data. EPA to develop new emissions estimation techniques with industry input and connection for use by all jurisdictions.
 ASBG's Submission on the Draft POEO (General) Regulation 2022 | 905 kB |
ASBG is concerned the EfW Regulation is far broader than it needs to be, capturing a wide variety of waste processes which it deems are Energy from Waste (EfW).
Of concern is that all fuels even containing small portion of waste derived fuel are captured. If captured there are two types of EfW processes: those generating electricity or heat for export, and those using the energy internally. The first is limited to only selected sites within NSW, The latter is not permitted if the site is replacing natural gas or LPG with a waste derived fuel.
Other concerns is the poor definitions under thermal treatment of:
- Waste derived fuel in terms of blended fuels, e.g. petroleum based with waste derived fuel. It seems a trace of waste in for example a diesel, would render the mix captured and subject to the EfW Reg. restrictions.
- Minimum operating temperatures are needed or even mechanical shredding etc. could be captured as these occur above ambient temperatures - a statement used by EPA in past. ASBG recommended at least 200oC and with higher temperatures for different process types.
- A minimum change in chemical composition e.g. >10% or higher which permits small changes in composition, such as browning reactions in wood, from being captured.
- Thermal treatment of biosolids is exempt, but does this mean sites using for energy extraction as an RDF are exempt from the EfW Regulation?
Advanced Recycling (Chemical processes turning waste plastic into hydrocarbon streams) is specifically captured and also required to remake 75% of its plastic inputs in to plastic. This requirement is fundamentally flawed as it will greatly limit Advanced Recycling in NSW. ASBG recommended that Advanced Recycling be preferably left out of the EfW Reg. altogether. If not then the focus should be on restricting it to generating at least 10% non-fuel hydrocarbons, giving it a reasonable chance of more plants being developed in NSW. If not then most plastic which could have been utilised in these processes would either end up being landfilled or burnt as RDF.
Lastly the requirement that RDF, PEF etc cannot replace natural gas or LPG seems to based on limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). However, if the RDF used contains a threshold amount of biomass which is renewable, this position will generate more GHGs not less. ASBG recommended adjusting the EfW to recognise the renewable content in the RDF being used and permit its use if there is a net GHG reduction over the current fuel it replaces.
| ASBG's Submission on the Draft Thermal Energy from Waste Regulation 2022 | 1117 kB |
A summary of the submission includes:
- The EPA will revoke the Recovered Fines (batch) and (continuous) RROEs in July 2022. While the batch RROE is to be replaced along with Recovered Soil RROE, the knock-on effect will result in large volumes of C&D recyclate going to landfill while the industry adjusts, which may require planning permission etc. ASBG calls on the Government to reassess the infrastructure needs resulting from this likely 1 MT the first year impact on limited inter landfill space if the transition is undertaken poorly.
- The RROs include s3.3 where a processor is in breach of the RRO, even if all testing undertaken so nil asbestos, but asbestos is found later. ASBG raises the issue of third parties liabilities under RROEs as most fill using RROEs is supplied under third party contracts, rather than directly with the processor. Often transporters are contracted by consumers to make the arrangements for fill, but some are unaware of the liabilities involved. ASBG recommends the EPA in issuing Clean Up Notices, better recognise the role of third parties in asbestos contamination of fill and also provide better guidance on this issue as well as providing guidance on evidence collecting on criminal behaviour under waste laws.
- Asbestos waste, being based on its presence causes perverse outcomes which continues under the draft RROEs. In addition, the EPA’s ad hoc variations to asbestos measurement lack scientific rigor and may not stand up in court. For example, it specifically requires the reporting of a positive asbestos finding when a detection occurs below the limit of detection. There are many changes which are not supported by experts and peer reviewed. So EPA if it wants to use these ad hoc changes should undertake a similar process the US EPA does, then apply for NATA certification on the changed method.
In this submission ASBG addressed two main issues and their sub-issues including:
- Intended revoking of the Recovered Fines Orders and Exemptions (RF RRO/E), which ASBG recommended against as around 30% or 2.1Mt of masonry C&D waste relies on this exemption. Instead the EPA should adopt better quality control measures to improve quality of the products delivered from each users. Given the scale of material ASBG recommended a transitionary approach where each facility is audited in order of non-compliance and reviewed and has various levels of quality control requirements applied.
- Draft Recovered Soils Order and Exemption (RS RRO/E). ASBG noted its closeness to the ENM RRO/E, hence differences between the two will make it easy to swap to suit. Consequently the RS RRO/E should have the same limits. ASBG also questioned the opaque method used to determine RRO/E limits and subsequent variations between each. ASBG recommended EPA upgrade its waste sampling and measurement documents and support them with scientific peer reviews and public consultation. Conductivity and asbestos were singled out as examples:
- Conductivity as it is a de facto sodium measure can also capture beneficial ions especially calcium, consequently conductivity should be overruled where sodium is low and beneficial ions are dominant.
- EPA added in a number of ad hoc changes to AS4964 Asbestos in soils measurements, but these lacked any explanation, scientific assessment or peer review and cannot become an accredited NATA test and probably have difficulty standing up in court. ASBG recommended the EPA need to adopt a system similar to the US EPA where all methods are subject to an extensive validation process, peer review and public consultation.
