Submissions
ASBG discussion and recommendations on the Financial Assurance (FA) Policy and Guidelines commenced with the inclusion of the risk of financial stability, where sites which can internally financially cover known risks and are not of a very-high environmental risk should be considered a medium risk for requiring a FA. ASBG is concerned the risk based approach, while good in principle is too blunt and inflexible as one small clean up or penalty notice can place a site into the high risk category making a FA likely. Application of the Cost Estimate Guidelines is expensive and is estimated to cost similarly to a $1.5 m FA for the first year. Consequently, only FAs above $1.5m should use the guidelines and other means used for lower valued FAs. EPA should also encourage a voluntary approach to rectify environmental issues similarly to that used in voluntary Management Proposals used for contaminated land remediations.
ASBG recommended special treatment of the non-C&D recycling sector, as they are in a financial squeeze. Waste levy moneys could be used to assist in any FA requirements placed on this sector.
Other issues were also discussed including consistent definitions and use of terms under the financial and insurance sector and clarification of the use of insurance policies as FAs.
ASBG wrote to the EPA in relation to concerns that members could not comply with their PIRMP and other training and testing requirements due to internal COVID19 risk controls.
The EPA has since sent a general email to all sites holding Environment Protection Licenses requesting those who cannot meet their environmental obligations due to COVID19 issues to email the EPA. Cases will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Addressing consistency and balances of Authorised Officers and Enforcement Officers of environmental law is a challenge for the NSW EPA. The draft Powers and Notices Guidelines is a welcome improvement over prior guidelines which form a basis for Officers to reasonably and effectively carry out their duties. ASBG makes a few minor recommendations to the draft Guidelines, but is more concerned with the entire process where large variations between officers and regions occurs and the poor behaviour and knowledge that some take into the field.
 ASBG Submission on EPA's Powers and Orders Guidelines - 2020 | 608 kB |
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 |
