Asbestos uncertainty threatens waste targets

Questions around the safety of recycled construction and demolition waste could derail the state government’s plans to reduce landfill.

Additional testing of recycled construction and demolition waste being used as road base has reconfirmed it is asbestos free but uncertainty remains over the accuracy of testing and is putting government recycling targets at risk.

A project to crush construction and demolition waste for use on the Great Eastern Highway widening was halted two weeks ago amid concerns the material could contain asbestos fibres.

New testing this week has shown there is no trace of asbestos and a stockpile has been cleared for Main Roads WA to use on the project.

But a decision on whether any more recycled material will be used on the project is subject to a review of testing regimes ordered by Transport Minister Troy Buswell.

If testing regimes are deemed inadequate, targets to double the state’s level of C&D waste recycled by 2015 could be at risk.

The Waste Authority pitched recycling C&D waste as the biggest target for improvement in its waste strategy, released in March.

The waste made up more than 50 per cent of the total 8,046,098 tonnes generated in Western Australia in 2009-10. Only 29 per cent of the C&D waste was recycled – the lowest of all the states.

New South Wales had a recovery rate of 70 per cent despite it being the country’s biggest generator of C&D waste.

The key driver for recycling in Sydney was a fee of $120 to $180 per tonne for disposal of waste at landfills – significantly higher than the cost of recycling. 

But the closure of the region’s hard-rock quarries more than five years ago also made transporting virgin rock uneconomical and increased demand for recycled concrete.

WA’s waste strategy intends to increase the C&D waste recovery rate to 60 per cent by 2014-15 and 70 per cent by 2019-20. 

But the ability to achieve those targets relies on key state projects, such as the Great Eastern Highway expansion, using recycled materials.

The agreement between the Waste Authority and Main Roads was expected to see more than one million tonnes of C&D waste diverted from the state’s landfills – more than one third of the overall amount of C&D waste expected to be recycled at 2014-15 targets.

Despite local governments such as the City of Gosnells and City of Canning having used the same material in some of their road projects, it was a landmark agreement for Main Roads, which changed its specifications to allow recycled material to be used for the first time.

While some projects using recycled C&D material are permitted to contain asbestos up to levels of 0.001 per cent, there is zero tolerance for any trace of asbestos in civil works.

Contracted recycler Capital Resources told WA Business News the 85,000 tonnes of material supplied to Main Roads to date was tested and proven to be safe.

It physically examined the product to identify asbestos as well as having the material independently tested by laboratories.

The most recent testing done by laboratories on the east coast, ordered by Main Roads, has subsequently found the stockpile to be free of asbestos to a level of no more than 0.001 per cent.

Capital Resources general manager David Markham said it was the most accurate testing available in Australia. 

The tests were sent to the east coast because they could test to a finer level than labs in Perth. Local labs could only test the absence of asbestos to a level of 0.01 per cent.

But waste management company Eclipse Resources has questioned how such large quantities can be cleared from contamination with 100 per cent assurance, given that it is often asbestos fibres which can cause the most harm from inhalation and are the most difficult to detect.

Managing director Rob Sippe said Main Roads’ processes could not conclusively rule out the presence of asbestos.

“Unless stringent testing is put in place to guarantee that there is no risk of asbestos fibres and exposure to humans, then don’t use materials which have potential for contamination,” Mr Sippe said.

Eclipse accepts waste mainly from construction projects to back-fill quarries for sequential land use, which it argues is recycling. 

It has refused to pay the government’s landfill levy because of this assertion and is currently locked in a Supreme Court battle with the Department of the Environment over whether it should be classified alongside other landfill operators.

Asbestos was freely used in the WA construction industry from the 1920s to the mid-1980s, which would mean a significant amount of waste from demolition could not be recycled if the government decided current processes were inadequate.

A report into the C&D recycling market by engineering consultancy Hyder, undertaken late last year, found recyclers could not completely guarantee material was free of asbestos.

“Due to widespread use of asbestos material over many years, even resource recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible efforts to avoid any asbestos coming on to their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products,” it said.

Even the states with the highest levels of C&D recycling were struggling with concerns over asbestos contamination.

Such a situation had the potential to “completely destroy the C&D resource recovery sector”, the report said.

“So long as there is zero allowable limit of asbestos in end products and no way for even the most diligent operators to guarantee this outcome, all operators carry continual risk of being in breach of legal requirements.”

The report suggested states consider allowing a small amount of asbestos contamination but any changes to legislation would have to be examined carefully and any potential impacts on human health completely ruled out.

Road base was the most common use for recycled C&D material. While it has been accepted as safe by local governments, state government projects would make up the bulk of demand for the product.

The Hyder report found there was already little incentive for WA operators to recycle waste because recycling facilities were often not close enough to make it economical and it was still relatively cheap to dump waste at inert landfills, despite the state government increasing the cost to $12 per cubic metre in 2010.

Another report by Encycle Consulting found that the levy increase had not seen any significant changes in operators preferring to recycle rather than send waste to landfill, as was an intention of the levy increase.

It also stated there was a lack of demand for recycled products.

The Master Builders Association of WA said some builders used recycled goods in construction but only if it was stipulated by the client.