Submissions
ASBG took the initiative in preparing a submission to the EPA requesting clarification of how the on-site / off-site rule operates. Put simply this rule means material only becomes a waste once it has been taken off site. Consequently, materials moved and or stockpiled for clean up, remediation, demolition, unexpected finds etc, are not considered waste and can be further processed and used on site under WHS and Contaminated land management laws not subject to waste laws. Considering the recent findings of EPA v Grafil case and a high variation of its interpretation among various EPA officers there is much confusion over how this rule should operate and where are its boundaries. For general remediation, earthworks and demolition work, classification of on-site materials as waste would make construction a far more complex, unnecessarily so in ASBG's opinion. The submission identifies what is believed to be the on-site / off-site rule, what is meant by on-site or a site, and where there are many gray areas. A series of case studies is used to assist the EPA tease out where the boundaries sit.
 ASBG's Submission on the On-Site / Off-Site Rule - 2019 | 892 kB |
ASBG submission on NSW's 20 Year Waste Strategy focuses on the current generally NSW policy led legislation and policy actions which are filling NSW landfills faster than ever. The need for new waste infrastructure is critical especially landfills which offer a safety valve if diversion approaches fail to perform. Energy from Waste plants are also considered an important component to better managing NSW's wastes into the future. ASBG also supports greatly expanded recycling, but the end markets for such products must be first identified. Two key areas that will make a difference is downcycling and reduction of contamination to meet export market requirements. While recycling back to a raw material is to be encouraged, such actions have in the medium term limited application in NSW. Recycling also has an environmental limit; when the recycling requires more natural resources than to make it, such collected material is far better off being downcycled including incineration or perhaps landfilled. ASBG also reviewed the Waste Levy and found only 19% is dedicated to waste management. Since business and industry contribute 65% of the levy, a similar percentage of grant moneys should be allocated back in proportion to the levy paid if real landfill diversion is the goal.
| ASBG's Submission on NSW's 20 Year Waste Strategy 2019 | 1109 kB |
ASBG generally is quite supportive of the Consultants reporting on contaminated land: Contaminated Land Guidelines. A few issues raised included the preferred keeping of the four stages for assessment and remediation of contaminated land rather than going to a seven stage framework. The three additional stages can be easily incorporated into the main four stages as required additional information. ASBG considered moving to a seven stage process would confuse many involved in the property sector, insurance agents and financiers than the current four stage framework which is also similar to the US EPA's approach. There were also a few issues with the need for detailed technical reports for major remediation projects using treatment processes on site. It requirements were loosely related to a risk based approach, but could lead to excessive details which may not be required or proportional to the risks posed.
| ASBG Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Land Submission 2019 | 673 kB |
Preparation of Queensland’s EfWP is a golden opportunity for Queensland not to go down the narrow path that NSW EPA has with its EfW. ASBG’s submission was largely about avoiding a one rule fits all approach and permit flexibility in its EfW. Multiple examples are provided where and MSW style EfW rule set would prevent many innovative and alternative EfW projects getting started. Manufacturing can often use fuel/raw material additives in thermal process, which ASBG considered can be largely covered by Queensland’s existing End of Waste Codes instrument.
| ASBG\'s Submission on Queensland’s Energy from Waste Policy - August 2019 | 743 kB |
ASBG supports the overarching principles of the proposed changes to the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (AAQ NEPM), but identifies a number of issues with the approach and future directions especially how the AAQ NEPM will be used. A key issue is that AAQ NEPM standards are routinely incorporated in jurisdictional planning and operational conditional policies. When inserted they are often applied as impact limits on industrial sites, not as ambient standards as the NEPM requires. Application is not limited to new sites, but is increasingly being applied to existing sites, ignoring grandfathering, which has been a cornerstone of air pollution control in the past. ASBG considers this practice, which considerably tightens the standards, needs to be recognised and considered in the AAQ NEPM variation. An effort was made to identify the way in which the AAQ NEPM standards are enforced with industrial sites being subject to the tightest application, in contrast to for example wood heaters which are barely addressed as a pollution source. Also addressed is the exemption of prescribed burns which is increasingly being identified as a double standard.
| ASBG's Submission on the AAQ NEPM Variation - August 2019 | 937 kB |
