Submissions
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.
ASBG supported the general thrust of the draft Clean Air Strategy (CAR) and the ongoing process of improving ambient and local air quality for the people of NSW. While this is supported it must be balanced with NSW being able to provide well-paying jobs, which industry in particularly provides. A number of issues were raised including:
- Application of new air standards on existing industrial sites - there is a trend to apply newer air standards to existing sites, especially from the Ambient Air Quality NEPM (AAQ NEPM). However, there are a number of NSW Government policy positions which should prevent this. (see submission for details)
- Air emissions by industry in perspective - In NSW's most stressed n the Sydney Air shed, industrial emissions are a minority, with motor vehicles and wood heaters and BBQ combustion being larger sources. So why is the CAS focusing on reducing industrial emissions, especially in other cleaner air sheds when the cost-benefit is quite low compared to other source control? ASBG also questioned why industrial NOx emissions i increased by 50% (7.9% to 11.9%) from 2014 to 2018.
- Application of new air standards and policy on new industrial sites - The AAQ NEPM recent new standards on PM, NOx SOx and O3 are the world's tightest. This will exclude or make very expensive many types of new industrial development, particularly large thermal systems. ASBG recommends a cost-benefit study be done to identify the types of industry NSW does not want and prefers.
- Concern on the cost impacts of the revised Load Based Licensing scheme (LBL) - The 2016 LBL scheme came with massive cost increases, which could force some sites to close. ASBG recommended the implementation of LBL on sites should be subject to a similar negotiated process with appeal as applies to Environment Protection Licences. A negotiated process should avoid many site closures.
- Funding arrangements under the Net Zero Plan (NZP) and other assistance. NZP provides a series of welcome grants and financial packages, which all must focus on reducing greenhouse gases (GHS). ASBG points out that the CAS is largely focused on local air pollution not global, and there can be conflict such as reducing NOx can increase GHG emissions. Also the CAS is largely missing any financial assistance to industry to reduce its air emissions, unlike other international schemes where taxes similar to LBL are fully hypothecated to funding industry emission reduction.
| ASBG Submission on NSW Clean Air Strategy - April 2021 | 772 kB |
ASBG’s Submission on EPA’s Regulatory Strategy, covers three issues:
- Clarification on the extent of the EPA’s regulation of health issues and minimisation of overlap with Safework NSW, especially where s127 POEO Act defence is not included in EPLs.
- Improved reference to the EPA’s Principles, especially Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and the Precautionary Principle. Here the draft ignores economic considerations and does not use or reference the full definition of ESD under s6 POEA Act.
- Application of the risk-based approach and use of a science-based approach, especially to help overcome the contrary presence-based approach for contaminants currently used for asbestos waste.
| ASBG’s Submission on NSW EPA’s Draft Regulatory Strategy 2021 | 799 kB |
