Industry information session, EP Framework requirements for use of incinerator bottom ash (IBA)

Nick Horsburgh:
Alright everyone.
Hello.
Thank you to all those who have joined so far. Yeah, we'll get a few more streaming in as the as the time goes by, but welcome to the session today.
My name is Nick Horsburgh. I'm a senior policy officer in our waste and land unit in the policy and regulation branch here and EPA Victoria and I'm joined by my colleagues today and fellow presenters Mark Bannister, the manager of our Waste and Land Unit in Policy and Reg’, Shamali De Silva, scientist in the Land and Waste Sciences area of EPA and also Motla Bellville Leshoele, who will be the be joining us shortly, who's the manager of our Permissioning Projects and Improvements area in our Permissioning unit. And Motla has graciously offered to just fill in for Julia Gaitan from our permitting area, who unfortunately is feeling unwell and not able to present today, so thank you Motla for offering to fill in.

Just before we begin today, I'd just like to acknowledge traditional owners on the land on which I am calling in from today, actually quite a number of us are calling in from today, here at 200 Victoria Street in Carlton, the EPA Victoria offices.
So for us here in 200 Victoria Street, that would be the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, just like to pay my respects to elders, past and present.

And I'd also like to acknowledge the unique spiritual and cultural significance of land, water and all that is in the environment to the Aboriginal people and traditional custodians of the land.
So why are we here today?
I'm hoping you're all in the right spot.

We're here today to talk to you about pathways under the Environment, protection and framework for the use of incinerator, bottom ash or incinerator, bottom ash, aggregate from thermal waste to energy facilities, and we're going to be taking a particular focus on on those thermal waste energy facilities which are receiving as part of the feedstock municipal solid waste.
So that's a particular focus of the session today, just a bit of a background about why we felt this webinar would be valuable and why we wanted to hold this today.

So interest in waste to energy is significant and growing in Victoria and driven by a number of factors such as the introduction of the Victorian waste to energy scheme and just general circular primary objectives such as the objectives from version of waste from landfill.
It's recognized that as a result of these policies, there will be a number of them waste to energy facilities coming online in the next few years and that these are cities will be producing significant volumes of residues, including incinerator, bottom ash and therefore the interest in pathways for use of this material is going to be high and and is growing.

Fortunately, in Victoria, we're pretty well placed actually for this as we have existing approval pathways available under our legislation that can enable the use of this waste stream.
So we're gonna talk to those today.
So just yeah, go into the slide about the purpose of today's session.
We'll go over some of the basics of the environment, protection and framework here in Victoria, focusing particularly on the permissions and waste frameworks we'll look at.

Also, the specific tools required for the management, transport and receipt of incinerator bottom ash or incinerator bottom ash aggregate.
I'll then take you through some of the instruments that apply to the use of this waste stream.
Well, then share some high level high level findings from EPA Sciences investigation into incinerator bottom ash and incinerator, bottom ash aggregate and then outline the process by which someone would go through to apply for a permission or approval under our framework playing to the use of those wastes and also some key considerations that would be relevant if you are considering applying for a permission to use this type of these types of waste.

There are a few things which are out of scope, but today's session I just want to be quite upfront about these.
So there are other types of residues produced from thermal waste to energy facilities such as air pollution control rediues, APCR.
We're not gonna talk to those in any detail here today, although conceptually just in a broad level, many of the same instruments or pathways would be available for the use of those residues, but we're not going to go into any detail about those today.
Umm, we're also not gonna talk about other forms of thermal waste to energy.

So by that I mean pyrolysis or gasification, or the residues from those and finally, we're not gonna talk about the requirements from other regulatory frameworks or planning frameworks that relate to waste to energy, such as planning approvals or cap licences under our new waste to energy framework and waste to energy regulations.
We're focusing today just on the Environment Protection framework and the role of EPA and more specifically around EPA's role in the management and enabling the use of treated incinerator bottom ash or incinerator bottom ash aggregates just a little bit of housekeeping before I move on.

So we're expecting a lot of people to attend today.
So what we're using is the webinar Q&A function rather than an open chat.
If you have a question you should be able to pop it in that Q&A Section.
So there should be a little Q&A tab at the top of the your screen if you submit your question through that process after a quick review from our behind the scenes crew, your question will then be made visible to all.

Being been up front that there will likely be questions that we don't get to at today's session just because of the expected number of questions.
What we're going to do after the session is in the next month is develop some web content which will be informed by the key themes raised through those questions, and we'll also use that web content to include a link to the recording of this session.
So as I just mentioned, we won’t speak about the roles of other regulators here today, but I'm just gonna flash this image on the screen, which just sets out again just an indication of some of the different uh entities in, in regulation of waste to energy in Victoria.

So noting there are planning authorities with specific roles and our new regulator Recycling Victoria, who administer our cap licensing scheme. Again, what we're focusing on today is really just EPA's role, which is around regulating the risk of harm to human health and the environment from pollution of waste and in particular, the specific role of EPA in relation to, as I said, the management and enabling the use of IBA or IBAA.

Some key takeaways that we would like you to take away from today's session:
First and foremost, we really want to make it clear that there are existing pathways under the environmental framework here in Victoria that can enable the use of IBA or IBAA, and these are subject to case by case approval.
But the pathways exist now and a very key message is that EPA approval, if attained, should serve as a strong signal to potential off takers or users of waste or other persons interested in your waste.
That the waste is suitable for the proposed use, subject to the conditions and limitations in that approval.
So we want to be very clear about that.
It's a very strong signal to obtain that approval from EPA to say this waste can be used for these purposes.

The existing approval pathways that we will talk to today provide a good degree of flexibility to account for varied incinerator bottom ash and incinerator bottom ash characteristics, composition and also variation in the proposed uses.
So there's a lot of flexibility inherent in that tool, which is a good thing as we know, there is likely to be some variation in the characteristics of properties of IBA produced in different facilities in Victoria.
We'll also talk a little bit about EPA science investigation and we want to make it clear that this investigation conducted by our science colleagues has significantly advanced our understanding into this waste stream and that knowledge that we've gained from that process has enabled us to hopefully communicate more effectively with people such as yourself on the call as potential IBA producers or receiving users and to investigate safe uses for this waste stream.

So these are some key takeaways from today's session and you'll see these messages sort of reiterated as we go throughout the the content.
Just on the content and the agenda, so this is just an indicative agenda here.
Mark Bannister in a second who will take us through an overview of the basics of the waste framework.
I'll then take us through some specific approval pathways that apply to the use of IBA in Victoria.
We’ll break for questions and then we'll move on to a discussion of the high level science findings for further questions.
And then finally finishing up with the discussion about the process by which someone would go about applying for an application to use IBA and some of those key considerations that EPA would take into account when assessing an application of that type.

And we'll hope to have you add up here at 2:45.
So that's the plan for today.
But with that said, I will hand over to Mark.
So welcome, Mark, and he's going to take us through some of the basics of the waste framework in Victoria. Mark over to you.

Mark Bannister:
Yeah.
Thanks Nick.
So I'm Mark Bannister, the manager of the waste and Contam Land policy unit at EPA Victoria.
Many of you will have heard me talk about waste framework in the duties and the regulations before, but I know many, many of you will be new to this space or from other jurisdictions and overseas as well.
So just wanted to make sure we've put the rest of the presentation in context for you. The new Environment Protection Act in Victoria has just ticked over the first two years of operation.

So it came into effect first of July 2021 and it was based on a review of the EPA and its functions.
Our previous Act was written in 1970, had been added to over time, and like anything that's been added to eventually comes, becomes a bit of a patchwork.
So it was completely overhauled, which went live recently.
You'll note that in the in the Act itself, in the primary legislation, the cornerstone I guess is the duties based model.
So this will be familiar to many of you from the OH&S space – a lot of modern legislation is tending to move towards duties based models now.
So environment is no exception, but you'll find in the act the general environmental duty being the headline duty, but also a series of waste duties, which I'll explain in a moment.

It also establishes new permissions tiers, so previously we only had licences as an option you'd remember.
For those of you operating in Victoria licences were kind of a catch all for some of the activities and now we have permits and registrations as well, which can also help manage some of the broader range of areas that we need to cover.
It also establishes similar to the 1970 Act a waste levy structure.
So the new Environment Protection regulations also needed a complete overhaul as a result of the changing primary legislation, we have kept a number of descriptive features, I guess notably around waste codes.
Even though many of them have changed, we have tried to go for national alignment. There we have possibly changed a few things, but the regs essentially enlivened parts of the duties.

Lawful Place is a good example.
So where you deposit waste how do you describe how you achieve that and when permission different types of permissions apply. I'll talk about classification more in a moment, but it also helps understand where where waste classifications sit, which types are waste and carry, which types of classifications and which types of obligations.
It also establishes the process for determining those classifications.
So that's a very broad overview and particularly for those outside Victoria, very much the big change has been around the duties based model.
OK, so the waste duties that I mentioned before essentially come down to three main elements.
So classification is incredibly important. If classification isn't done correctly. If we don't know who, how it's gonna be transported or where it should go to.

So the classification up front does belong to the producer or in some cases you'll have consultants and others helping with that through the accredited consigners special role.
So yeah, producer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that that waste gets to a lawful place.
And really to achieve that you need to understand what type of waste you have now.
In many cases this is very simple, normal, everyday household items can be classified quite easily, but when it comes to more complex situations, manufacturing bespoke chemicals.
There might be different types of products that get used and disposed of at the end of bespoke manufacturing that need particular handling.
And of course, in the case of waste to energy, you'll have that residual that you want to do something with
So it's not limited to disposal by any means.
Many of these materials can be safely reused, but in classifying it ensures we set ourselves on the right path.
The transporter also has a strong duty.

Now this is put in place simply to ensure the waste is getting to the right place because ultimately the transporter is a key player in that system.
So it's important to understand and have taken all the steps to understand what they're carrying, where it needs to go, and that it is also a lawful place.
So the two players, I guess in the supply chain – and noting often be much more complex than just two operators – also need to understand where the waste is ultimately headed and what it's ultimate fate is so lawful place in and of itself.
It can be quite a complex thing to navigate because we're no longer just looking at straight disposal to landfill or can it be processed, reprocessed, sorted and stored. A whole bunch of different things can happen to the waste before it reaches its final destination, and hopefully in many cases where used lawful place can take a number of different variations and that's a big change in the new framework is finally trying to capture as many tools as we could to enable that to happen.
And I think that’s a big focus of today's talk.

So yeah, we've got standard licences.
Most hazardous reportable priority waste will need a licence and I'll cover the range of possibilities in a moment, but just to say that the waste duties are somewhat new they belong to I guess if number of different parties and the supply chain and for parties generally outside of that any new day to day operation, the general environmental duty still applies.
So whether you're the user of materials derived from waste, or whether you're classifying your waste, or you're transporting it somewhere, still need to consider other elements of the general environmental duty to prevent harm for some other preventative duty.
OK, so types of industrial waste in Victoria, we have the three types: industrial priority and reportable priority.
So I'll start with industrial waste because it is the base level, I guess any waste from a commercial or industrial source would generally be considered industrial.

We have also changed the regulations to capture things once they're they hit the point of first contact and they sorted or stored to make that industrial waste.
And that's simply so we can we can manage the kind of challenging problems we've had around stockpiling and so on in the past, but those industrial waste duties come with three main elements of mentioned before, you know, making sure that you understand where it's going, the duty versus depositing industrial waste that the endpoint make sure it's right and the receiving site, but also that transporter being the key point.
So I won't run over those again, but priority waste starts to introduce a few more duties
So this is where you might have a generally priority waste or something where there's special handling requirements of some kind.
There could be just diversion from landfill in the case of E waste, making sure we have investigated alternatives to disposal, but also inherent in some of those ways to the fact that you need to understand the risk of them.
So not all waste is completely benign.

For example, you do need to understand that you know some of it may have contained hazardous substances, may need special handling, may need a conversation with your transporter, or the receiver around you know any particular items that need to be contained or managed along the way.
So that's a duty.
Rather than being prescriptive, but you must make sure that you've communicated all the potential issues related to that waste and not hide anything.
Reportable priority waste.

Most people will be familiar. Instead of a a controlled or trackable waste type system where you've got a transaction system and waste tracker in Victoria and the transporters also will need vehicle permissions.
Generally a registration except for the more hazardous substances and that's a requirement to make sure that that's tracked and the vehicle has a transport permission.
What's important to note about these is if you have reportable priority waste you also have the two duties that are up the chain there in terms of priority and industrial waste.
And I think the diagram to the bottom left encapsulates that nicely, but generally any reportable waste make a note reportable priority waste isn't just about hazard, not always hazardous waste
It is sometimes tied to mismanagement, like tyres.
It's probably a good example where they don't always end up at the right destination, so tracking requirements are on those.
There's a number of different types of waste that we may just want to assess.
We may want to have a role in assessing or understanding before they're reused or before they're taken to a particular facility.
So reportable priority waste can sometimes attached to those wastes.
So it's by no means just an assessment of its hazard. There are other elements to it.

So classifying industrial waste, I guess is always challenging because it's just so many different types.
Attempts to make this more straightforward are always challenging as well, because there will be wastes that don't clearly fit in any different bucket, but in Victoria we've gone with a pre-classified system and then a series of steps, I guess, which help you classify anything that might sit outside that range or we have perhaps where there's disagreement over the particular properties of the waste.
So if we start with the pre classified list, the very long list in schedule five of the regulations, which cover as many common materials as we could, we could basically fit in, in regulations.

It also covers a lot of the I guess the international codes so many be familiar over the years with the NEPM based codes which started around the movement between states.
A lot of those are now put in the regulations where possible.
We've added a few back in for national consistency.
We've collapsed a few codes together like contaminated soils, also for national consistency.
So there's been a bit of work put into that, but it's important to remember we have a pre classified code that will generally tell you straight away where you see it in the hierarchy of duties.
Have you got an industrial waste, a priority waste or reportable priority waste?

There might be a good example here where some types of timber are perfectly benign and others might contain treatment where we need to manage that material with care.
Mirror code arrangements can help describe that where you have a hazardous and nonhazardous variation of the code, and sometimes this is just inherent in the code itself.
We don't have mirror codes for everything as yet, but I'm sure over time we'll look at those ways that need further examination.
But we'll be discussing the pathways such as for IBA.

The way you can actually you know if you need to look at those codes again and understand how they apply, how you go about that and how indeed you reuse materials that might have had reportable priority waste classification.
Step 2 has the has the classification process.
This describes what the difference is sometimes between the mirror codes, what's considered hazardous and what's not.
I would also add that many of the properties in there are inherent in a lot of ways and therefore you'll find on occasion some things we will be caught in reportable priority waste simply because it contains one or more properties which might lead you to reach out to EPA and say we need alternative uses for this material.

We might need a permit for the reuse.
We might need a designation depending on the different type of way, so that's in general terms and not specific to IBA.
Alright, so priority waste categories for those have operated in Victoria, you'd be pretty familiar with A, B and C. Category D is new but largely applicable to soils only and is really there for big projects where there's a need for movement of cut and filll balances over a large distance.
But just to highlight that really these categories apply more to disposal.
So when you need to take a material to landfill, really you must consider these categories.

They may be relevant for other activities in terms of the numbers, but generally when you're taking to a treatment facility or some other kind of use, either the conditions that the license or the conditions of the permission might describe what can and can't be done in terms of contaminant loading.
So for example, treatment plants might be able to treat up to the mid cat range and not beyond.
So we understand that you need to match the material you have the waste material we have with the treatment capability.
And so that's always important.
Similarly, it describes the levy.

You know, a lot of, I guess the decision points around category ended up with to be around what type of landfill you can send it to.
And of course that affects the levy rate and I guess for that reason, soils containing asbestos only and packaged waste asbestos.
I've also been brought up as additional category simply because there is no other alternative to umm to landfill at the moment.
OK, so lawful place in Permissioning is one of the more, I guess, complex parts of the system.
So important to sort of highlight and understand that the license, the license as is in the previous system, very important part of EPA permission and activity which is likely to cause some kind of emission need, need special management and conditions in terms of the treatment of hazardous and waste and so on.

Uh, in additionally, now look very large materials recovery facilities bought into that simply because of the combustion risk.
And of course, some of the big fires documented in Vic just to make sure that we've got an ongoing understanding of how those activities are managed, permits a little more straightforward, but can also carry financial assurances.
And again, permits where a licence isn't required, simply because the complexity activity isn't there.
You might not have the emissions, it might be more about storage.

Umm, the permit it might apply and and registration is a very wide category which we use to really just to signify that a particular facility has registered with EPA for a particular activity 
it's usually you know, sorting, storing, recovery of waste transfer stations, that kind of activity . I'm able to accept the waste and lawful place you've registered with EPA and that comes with basic conditions and general environmental duty.
I think probably what's more of interest for today is the use pathways.
So we'll have a particular pathway for reportable priority ways, which we're gonna cover in detail, but other things you may have seen, Victoria determinations, declarations of use are two primary means of moving what was a waste material into some other kind of use.
So this is where you're transitioning basically wanting to move away from the waste duties and move it into a more general space, but it's really and limited around where you are now using this material.

So we're now finished with it. We're putting it into a use. The declarations of use are a simple, self assessed way of being able to understand what kind of actual you know what, what it really any risks associated with the material you're putting forward it it's really there to really endeavor to put confidence into the into the system. 
How do we how you understand any risks? How do you understand that it is fit for use and ready to go determinations are where EPA actually put that forward?

So we've got four of them out already and we've got more on the way. So this is where we’ve put out a specification and you see if you meet that.
Of course, there's always arguments over where waste starts, and we're waste ends, but these tools are useful in order to where you're not sure where or if It's not clear,  these can often help you form where that end is, where you're passing it on to A to another use and not difficult to use.
And we'll cover regulation 63 is really there just to say there are some uses which are allowed without any form of declaration or permission.
OK, so bringing this all back to incinerator bottom ash.

I guess quickly, umm, as Nick was saying as we expecting this to be a growing part with more waste energy facilities coming online and being proposed now obviously moving into more the municipal solid waste territory as opposed to more bespoke waste energy type facilities.
We know that the common uses, there's certainly overseas, are secondary aggregates within concrete granular material for road bases and alike material for embankments and subgrades and any fine aggregate replacements for bound applications.
And similarly, we know APCr is also used in that case, particularly for around black coal.
What IBA may contain, you know, depends on the treatment.

But I guess it can contain heavy metals, organic compounds or other toxic contaminants.
And of course, in Victoria and in wider Australia, generally this is new to us.
So we're building confidence in this area as to what IBA might look like in Australia.
So we're gonna cover this more, but , you know, the various permissions, the various applications you can go through.
We have the pathways, but we need to build confidence in what we're dealing with in the treatment process and how we go about using them, whether there are any restrictions of use items like that.
So obviously potential risk from leaching into the soil surface, water, groundwater and also the dust.
So things that we need to consider going forward.
And very quickly, before I pass back to Nick, currently bottom ash is pretty classified as N205 and you'll see that the three yeses on that table means that it is a reportable priority waste.

So that includes the tracking and transport requirements, but I guess the good news is that at least there is an approval pathway for the supply and use of RPW, which is really to say, OK, we don't always know what the risk is. This might be of particular type of waste or material that we don't understand as well, and the permits are just there as a way of it's essentially as close as you'll get to EPA and endorsing a particular type of material going into a use.
So they do have value despite the hoops that you do need to jump through and approval.
So I'll pass back to Nick.
Thanks Nick.

Nick Horsburgh:
Thank you, Mark, if you can all hear me and I've managed to get myself off mute correctly.
Yeah.
Thanks for that run through Mark just before I jump into this next section just to call out a recommendation from our behind the scenes crew that as attendees you can like certain questions.
Just wanted to make you aware of that and that might help us determine the most popular questions that people want answered.
So just wanted to do a call out that you can like questions as an attendee, if you think that's a good question and would like to have that posed to the panel.

Umm, but thank you, Mark.
What I'm gonna do now is go through a little bit more specificity around the actual pathways under the framework for the use of IBA or IBAA.
So Mark has gone through this a little bit, but just to reiterate under the environment protection act 2017, a tiered permission framework has been introduced.
It's not just licenses, as under the old legislation, which was focused on works approvals and licenses, and focused really just on the top tier or highest risk, highest complexity activities.
We now have 3 tiers of permissions with essentially decreasing cost and complexity associated with those permissions as you go down the pyramid.

That being said, licenses do remain reserved for our highest risk, highest complexity activities, and these are development licenses and operating licenses under the new framework, which replace works, approvals and licenses respectively from the old legislation.
These have a detailed assessment process, including the setting of specific conditions and include a long process of actually going through the process of going through application and receiving your license.
So yeah, these are reserved for the highest risk, highest complexity type activities.
There is also a type of license called a pilot project license, although that's reserved for research and demonstration type activities, not for commercial scale operations.

The next tier down is permits and these are introduced to cover a range of activities for which a license was not proportionate but for which a simplified lighter touch, but still case by case approval, was required to retain assurance and oversight from EPA’s perspective to make sure that activities are conducted in a way which makes sure that human health environment is protected appropriately. These are significantly lower cost and burden compared to licences and they have mostly standardized conditions with a more streamlined assessment process.
As these are case by case though they are flexible so they can account for variability.
Within a cohort of activities or a sector can account for variation between different sites and different operations.
So still a lot of flexibility inherent within the permit tier. 

Registrations are our lowest tier of permission as Mark mentioned.
And these are very simple, automatically granted permissions with uniform conditions across all persons conducting a certain type of activity.
And these are primarily used in our framework to authorize small scale waste receivers as well as for authorizing vehicles to transport waste.
So with that in mind, this is sort of a key slide.
This slide provides a a general overview of the permission requirements required for the management of residues from thermal waste to energy facilities such as incinerator bottom ash.

Just before I jump into the detail of this slide, I just want to note that the activity codes and the descriptions for these activities are set out in schedule one of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021.
So if you'd like more information about these activities and the full descriptions of what those activities are under our legislation, please refer to schedule one of the EP regs, 2021.
Starting in the top left here, so with waste being received at a thermal waste to energy facility, so waste to energy is an activity for which a license is required under our framework and that licence category is A08.
So you'll need to consider whether or not that applies to you if you are planning on running an operation in Victoria, that is a waste to energy operation.

Just note that other approvals may be required under different frameworks, so planning approvals or a cap license administered by Recycling Victoria if applicable.
So just be aware those other obligations may exist.
However, as we've mentioned today, we're just focusing on the requirements of the Environment Protection framework.
As Mark has also mentioned, the waste residues produced looking specifically at bottom ash produced at the back end of these facilities would be pre classified as N205 as an RPW.

There are really three main things you can do with that waste at the back end of a waste to energy facility.
You can of course send that material direct for disposal, which would need to go to a licensed landfill, at least a category A05A, which would also need to be an A01 license if it was receiving the waste as reportable priority waste.
If you don't have capacity on your side or space on your site to treat material to render it suitable for direct use and you will need to send it to an offsite facility for further processing or treatment, that is possible, although that receiving facility - the site that's doing the further processing or treatment - would be something that would be a facility that would likely trigger an A01 licence requirement for the receipt, storage or processing of an RPW under our framework.

Now I guess the light blue arrow is really the focus on what we're talking about today. If you are able to treat IBA your site to the point at which it is suitable for a use, there are pathways under our framework to use that material directly or to supply that material directly to others for their use.
And that pathway is the A16 supply or use of reportable priority waste permit and I'll talk a little bit more about this permit in the next slide.
But just before I do move on, I just wanted to note the box in the bottom left.
I'm just reiterating, as Mark mentioned, the movement of RPW, if any of these purposes, the transport of RPW would be something that would trigger a vehicle registration requirement.
So simple vehicle registration to transport IBA as well as the use of EPA waste tracker app.
So what is the A16 supply or use permit?

So this permit was specifically designed for the new framework in recognition that waste, including RPW, can have value and can be suitable for use.
And this is consistent with the concept of promoting circularity in the waste sector while continuing to ensure degree of basic oversight to ensure that this waste is being used in a manner which suitably protects human health and the environment.
So some key features of this permit. It has a 42 business day assessment timeframe.
So that's the maximum assessment timeframe.
An a application fee of roughly $2000 as a one time application fee.
When you applied to EPA, it can remain in force for a maximum of five years - that's limited by our act.

However, if you're conducting that same activity at the end of that five year process and your systems,  processes and general nature of your activity has not substantively changed, there's a very simple renewal process that can be applied for at the end of that five years just to renew the permit for another five years.
And that can be done multiple times.
So that's how we account for enduring activities in this tier.

As a permit, it has mostly standardized conditions, with the ability for some specific conditions to be added if required.
One of the best things about this permit is that it is highly flexible, so it's not limited to a particular type or particular types of reportable priority waste, nor is it limited to a particular type of use.
So it can conceptually account for varied characteristics of RPW or varied types of waste, and also varied types of uses that waste may be suitable for.  So again, a good instrument for a scenario where there might be varying properties of or characteristics of IBA produced from different facilities and which might be suitable for different types of uses.

And just again harking back to a key message that we wanted to share at the start, if an A016 permit is obtained while the waste does remain RPW, it is nonetheless a very strong signal to off takers and other people interested in your waste that EPA has assessed the activity and EPA is satisfied that that waste is suitable for the proposed use.
So again, sort of a stamp of approval for lack of a better term from the authority that we've looked at your waste.
Then we're saying that it is suitable for that.
One of the other parts of this permit is just that, uh, there is some proportionality and flexibility already built into the permit deliberately, which includes part of the mechanism being that a single permit can authorise supply to numerous receivers.
And I'll talk about that on the slide here.

So we recognize that in many scenarios where a producer is producing waste that is suitable for a use, there's likely to be quite a number of offtakers.
It's not likely just be one or two, it could be many different off takers to accommodate that.
The A016 permit was designed specifically with a mechanism that we refer to as supply or use and what this means is that if a supplier holds the permit, the receiving users can be exempted from the requirement to hold their own permits, provided that they are receiving that waste in accordance with the limitations and requirements set out in the suppliers permit.
So that might include if that suppliers permit, says the waste is suitable for these types of uses but not these other ones provided that the receiving user is receiving the waste only for one of the approved purposes and meets any other requirements and the suppliers permit, they would not also need to hold their permit.

There is still the ability if there is no upstream permitted supplier or if the supplier does not wish to get the permit for each of those receiving users to get their own individual permit to authorize the receipt of the waste for use.
However, from an efficiency perspective and how the tool is designed to operate is as per the left hand side of the screen here, that mechanism where a single permitted supplier can provide to a number of exempted receivers.
Now, just before we jump into questions and we're running a tiny bit behind schedule here.
But I just wanted to talk quickly about another instrument on the framework which is referred to as specific designations.
The specific designations are a tool which can be used to reclassify a waste, again subject to an application and a case by case assessment by EPA.

Designations are not a form of permission, so they do not provide anyone authority to conduct certain activities or any authority to receive waste.
However, by reclassifying waste, for example, from a reportable priority waste down to a priority waste or industrial waste, this can open up different pathways for sending this waste or use.
So for example, if a specific designation was granted to reclassify, a reportable priority waste down to industrial waste, the pathway would no longer be an A-16 supply and use supply or use of RPW permit.
It would likely to be a a declaration of use - one of those other tools that Mark mentioned earlier on, and this declaration of use would need to be developed between each between the producer and each individual off taker or receiving user.
And this is sort of set out in a very basic level in the green diagram at the bottom of this slide.
Note also that if that designation was obtained, the waste would no longer be classified as reportable. Waste duties, such as the use of waste tracker would no longer apply to that waste.

That being said, there's a few things that need to mention with designations.
So designations are not intended in any way as a routine alternative pathway to the use of A16 permits, nor for any other type of permission.
They're a tool like specific exemptions under our framework, which can be used to introduce flexibility in limited circumstances where EPA determines that, in this case, reclassification is appropriate. They're also much more inflexible compared to what A16 permits can authorize and also more limited in terms of scope, as for example, they can't easily specify waste as being suitable for a particular use and not suitable for another type of use.
So as such designations are gonna represent a very high bar and also be much more conservative and restrictive compared to what A16 permits can authorize.

So I guess that's a key message here.
This is an instrument that does exist, and may have some applicability in some cases to IBA, but I think the key message here is that if you are producing your planning to use IBA or IBAA, the A16 permit is highly likely to be the pathway for this given its specific function of authorizing the use of waste and and its flexibility to account for varied characteristics and uses of waste.
So that brings us just a few minutes late.
We'll might make up a bit of time towards the end or just run a bit over time, but this is our first question break.
So Mark, gonna pop yourself on camera as well.
We'll take a few questions during that and we might have more time for people to absorb the material and ask questions as we get towards the end of the session.
But yeah, we'll spend maybe 7 or 8 minutes right now doing some questions and then we'll move on to the science section.
So Ruby and Nick from our behind the scenes crew.
Please feel free to ask some questions of mark and myself.

Nick Huggett:
Will do.
Thanks, Nick.
So we have a few questions in the chat.
So thanks everybody for putting them in there.
We have one here from Mark and is Vic EPA discussing and harmonising its thoughts with other state EPA's.

Nick Horsburgh:
Yep.
Good question, Mark.
I might, I know Mark has some thoughts on this as well, but I think the answer to that is yes.
I think it's early days.
I think a number of other regulators in Australia are similarly coming across this waste stream and expecting it to be relevant to their jurisdictions in the future.
So we've been in discussions with our colleagues from WA and I think the number of them are on the call.
So welcome to them.

Umm to discuss, you know, some of the similar challenges we're having under our framework with respect to this, this waste stream, I will say, yeah, as mentioned, it's early days at the moment, but we are kind of exploring and sharing notes as it comes to the regulation of waste to energy residues in particularly IBA, so early days.
But definitely that's on our mind about the value of nationwide sort of consistency in the regulation of this waste stream.
Don't know Mark if you have any other particular things to add on that one, yeah.

Mark Bannister:
Yeah.
One of the benefits is I've probably talked to my Interstate colleagues more than I ever had previously say, and that's a good thing because we all have different frameworks, different legislations, different governments and you know, as I always say, you know, Australia is made up of six separate States and territories with their own laws.
But it doesn't mean we can't share the information.

Can be on the same page as much as possible, and where we do, we are reviewing Regs.
We do tend to talk together, you know the different departments as well.
So it's not just the EPAs, different departments too, so it's certainly happening more than ever before and hopefully the benefits of that, yeah, we'll be seeing it in the coming years.
And I think particularly with this waste energy I was at a recent science symposium, how about the heads of EPA, you know, waste energy was a theme there as well.

So yeah, just making sure that we we're talking together, we're sharing the learnings.
We're not really reinventing the wheel where we don't need to.

Nick Huggett:
Thanks Nick and Mark, one more question here from Andrew.
It's does the scope of IBA include the bottom ashes from existing wood burning boilers and heaters at sawmills et cetera?
Or is it focused on MSW and industrial waste incinerators?

Nick Horsburgh:
Thanks, Nick, and thanks Andrew.
I'm look, I think this is a a tricky one.
I'd say the N205 the waste code doesn't limit it to only certain types of feedstocks, so it very much could conceptually be pre classified as that waste code.

The focus of this work has really been around output derived from MSW and industrial waste.
So that's sort of the more specific focus of this discussion, but that's not to say that waste code wouldn't apply to those circumstances.
I'd say that's a bit of a tricky one.
It might be worth engaging with our permissioning crew as well about that if that is a circumstance that applies to your activity just to make sure that we're aware of the specifics of that scenario.
But it's not to say that you know, it's limited by feedstocks, I think N205 could well apply to that waste depending on the circumstance.
Mark, any thoughts on that one?

Mark Bannister:
Now, look.
I see. Yeah, it's not specific to any particular type of bottom ash as Nick was saying.
I think it's very broad. I mean obviously different ash from different facilities is gonna have different risk profiles.
So I guess that's why the permissions are there to help us assess and  sort that through different treatment processes too.
So yeah, we're talking to the pathways team in permissions where possible to align the right pathway for you.

Nick Huggett:
Thanks, Nick and Mark.
So one more question here from Basil, I think this is partially answered in the comment, but maybe we can address it here as well.
Is can EPA Vic be used in WA or waste to energy plants?
And we've clarified that saying is Victoria applicable in all Australian states or every state in Australia that have their own EPA IBA?

Mark Bannister:
Uh, do you want me to comment on that one?

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah, jump in

Mark Bannister:
The yeah, no, each you will have to consider it in each State.
It's only where there's a Commonwealth law that can override everything.
Would it be applicable in all states?
And as I said before, it is very much the six States and two territories model in each will have their own laws.
So even in between, if you were to bring that into Victoria where you'd need to consider our system, and in WA absolutely need to speak to your local authorities, like I said, we'll continue to share the information and the knowledge.

But WA are somewhat ahead of us in that respect, with facilities being well going through commissioning, understand, then yes, you'll need to talk to your, to your local regulator and they will need to approve all of that. If you're going to operate in Victoria, come to speak to us.
But yeah, each state and territory will have their own laws that you will need to comply with.

Nick Huggett:
Thanks both you happy for one more before we move on.

Nick Horsburgh:
Yep, one more, I think.
Then we'll hand over to Shamali.

Nick Huggett:
Yep, one more we have here is can you explain more about the differences between determinations and declarations of use?
Can I apply for determination for instance?

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah.
Like I said, Mark mentioned determinations and he'll jump in a second, again to it's gonna reiterate some of that.
So determinations are made by EPA.

They're legal instruments that we design that apply generally to all persons who can meet the requirements of their determination, and provided that you meet the requirements of that instrument, you are authorized to receive the waste for the purposes of use, provided that activity isn't also a permissioned activity.
Declarations of use are not setting of a general requirement. They apply to the exchange of information between a producer and a supplier, sorry producer and receiving user that is reserved again for lower risk waste types, but they are sort of specific in the sense that information relating to that particular waste and the risk associated with that type of waste is part of that exchange of information.
So there isn't a need for EPA to be involved or to develop an instrument.

As to the question of whether or not someone can develop a determination or apply for a determination.
The answer to that is no, because the determination is a legislative instrument, so it has to be developed by EPA and applied broadly, not to a specific operator.  Anything else to add on that one Mark?

Mark Bannister:
No.
Look, I'd say probably the analogy.
Or do you know the states for those are familiar with?
You know Queensland end of waste codes and NSW resource recovery orders, or at least the order part of it is similar to determination. The EPA has to issue it and in our case, the determinations are very much limited to wider uses of waste fill material, organic material, things that might have very broad application that get a lot of players.

Declarations of use, again, we didn't want, I guess another approval mechanism.
So they're there for you to run essentially.
But what we were asking for is really to state the quality, any issues? 
It's very much like SDS or the safety data sheets.
Since you get around the acronym SDS and other kinds of information sharing to make sure that people have confidence in how to use it and they're able to meet, don't forget the general duty also applies.
So they need to be able to meet that general duty and not do something with that material that causes harm.
So yeah, and that's what they're there to do.

So they're the very much the low lower burden pathway.
And of course you have A16 there.
It's the permission where there might be specific conditions that you need to meet that EPA set.
Thank you, Mark.

Nick Horsburgh:
I'm just gonna set the context a little bit about what we're presenting today.
So as we've outlined IBA or IBA use is new to Victoria and as such at EPA we performed an investigation into this waste stream.
But for a few different purposes, one of which was just to generally build our understanding of the waste and the environmental and human health considerations associated with the use of that waste also to facilitate our communication with again yourselves, many folks in industry who are proposing to produce or use IBA.

And then finally, to gather some information to support our future assessments of applications to use this waste.
So what we're gonna do today is just provide a high level overview of some of the key findings from that work and then use that to provide a bit of context for discussion we'll have later on around the process for applying for an EPA approval and the kind of things that we're gonna be keen to know more about if you do submit an application to use this waste stream.
So this is a bit of context setting.

I will now hand over to Shamali, so welcome Shamali over to you.

Shamali De Silva:
Thanks Nick
I'm Shamali de Silva, scientist in chemicals and land based sciences in EPA science.
Uh, next slide.
So as Nick mentioned, this when it is a new technology in Australia and so as the waste to energy derived iincinerator bottom ash, the new waste stream.
So to understand this new waste stream EPA Science carried out a comprehensive literature review.
We reviewed over 130 peer reviewed literate government reports and industrial publications.
In this review, we focused on the waste to energy incineration technology, IBA composition, treatment methods, common practices for IBAA reuse, and also the contaminants fate and behavior and the environment.
We also explored various testing methods used to evaluate IBA.

Next slide.
Umm, so there are different waste to energy technologies, such as the biological processes for an example in anaerobic digestion is out there and also the thermal processes like incineration, there’s pyrolysis, plasma technologies and so many more.
These thermal technologies use heat to convert waste into energy.
In this review, we focused on the incineration, which is a thermal technology and municipal solid waste or MSW feedstock.
This is just because we were able to find more literature and research on this.
MSW incineration. The incineration burns based in the presence of oxygen producing heat, and this heat is used to generate electricitywhich is connected to the grid.

When waste is incinerated, it reduces its mass by around 80 to 90% and leaves the remaining 20 or 10% as it is for disposal.
The leftover weight where we have two different types.
One is the air pollution control residues and the other one is bottom ash, so the air pollution controls residues or we call it the APCR, sometimes also the industry refers to as fly ash is not the coal fly ash which is representative.
APCR, so the air pollution control residues contained the finer particles.
That which are desorbed with the desorbed contaminants from the waste itself and which are able to escape into the gaseous phase and get collected into the bag house dust and end up as APCR is used.
The bottom margin at the hand, which is the non combustible portion of the waste and collected in the the bottom of the ash chamber. According to literature, the IBA has a larger particle size and highly heterogeneous and also less contaminated compared to APCR. Note that this whole presentation is all about the incinerator bottom ash.

Our next slide, Nick.
Thank you.
The fresh bottom ash is chemically reactive and also contains significant amount of ferrous and non ferrous materials.
So these metals are very precious and they are recovered using various techniques for ferrous materials.
It's sorted using magnetic separations and also the for the nonferrous materials like copper, tin alumnium are sorted using eddy current techniques.
These recovered materials and metals are later reprocessed to produce new metal products.
So that's really basic energy facilities, especially in Europe for an example, they produce approximately around 20 million tons of bottom ash and they are able to recover 1.2 million tons of iron and 250 tons of aluminium.
The specific timeframe for these statistics not clear, but comparing the volumes of waste and recovery the numbers looks promising.
After sorting of these recyclable materials, the incinerator bottom ash, what we call IBA undergoes additional size separation and sorting resulting in what is known as incinerator, bottom ash aggregates or IBA aggregates next slide.

The fresh IBA, when you think about the fresh IBA stuff, is highly alkaline.
It's pH is around 10 to 12.512, so incineration we know that it forms oxide, so the alkalinity is more likely.
Likely due to this presence of various oxides, many the calcium, silica, the sands and the quads, iron, aluminum, etcetera that IBA also contains various elements like nickel, cadmium, zinc and aluminium the listed ones in this diagram is just a few only it's even missing like silver and gold which we reported to be recovered from this ash.
Interestingly, the concentration of these elements reported as you can see, varied across the literature if it take for an example, cadmium, as an example, the cadmium concentrations ranged from .3 to .3 milligrams per kilogram to 61 milligrams per kilogram and also have a look at the late it's from 98 to 6500 milligrams per kilogram.

Possible reasons for these variations may include differences in feedstock type, the quality variations in combustion process design and temperature.
Next slide.
As per the literature, it's clear that IBA aggregates contains contaminants to ensure it's safe, free for use and to minimize the environmental impact.
There are various treatment methods like separation, thermal treatment and stabilization that is in use.
These are more likely the commercially available methods. One example of a separation treatment method is the washing.
So as per literature suggests that watching incinerator bottom ash with water is more effective than using chemicals and reducing the leaching of heavy metals.

For example, washing can reduce leaching of chloride and sulfate by 60%.
There are technologies like thermal technologies for treatment, but which requires high temperatures and also because it's high temperature It's highly energy intensive and expensive, but this can be used to contain contaminants within its matrix.
So whether aging is another effective and widely used technique to reduce PH and leaching of heavy metals.
However, as per the literature, relying on aging and bettering as a treatment method is effective only for a limited period.
Once the IBA is released into the environment, it's conditions are reported to reverse depending on the characteristics of the receiving environment.

But when aging treatment is combined with chemical stabilization techniques such as hydration, carbonation, and oxidation, it becomes a superior, more effective treatment option.
So this combined treatment process allows these minerals to bind and encapsulate heavy metals like contaminants, and prevent leaching.
Also, during maturing and aging process IBA aggregates can produce a reasonable amount of hydrogen gas.
It's also could be a problem.
So mainly due to the hydration reactions of aluminum.
So these various treatment techniques, uh, play a very important role in reducing these leaching of contaminants from IBA aggregates.
When IBA aggregate undergoes proper treatment and the contaminants are managed to a safe level for reuse, it opens a range of beneficial reuse options.

Next slide.
So after metal recovery and proper treatment, the IBA aggregates can be considered for reuse as bound to unbound material.
Whether it be agriculture use or as a replacement for primary aggregates in constructions.
This means that we are diverting these aggregates from landfill disposal.
It's an important because it's contributions to environmental sustainability.
Usually the IBA aggregates are used in road constructions, asphalt, basement, concrete as a landfill cover and so on.
There are various other users, however due to the presence of contaminants and their potential mobility, the IBA reuse of IBA is regulated by environmental agencies.

Also, we should not forget that IBA aggregates related pratices should meet engineering civil engineering specs too as well.
Per literature IBA contains various elements like soluble sauce and that may affect the performance and strength.
IBA aggregates are much lighter in density compared to the virgin original aggregates that it needs to be mixed with.
Because of that, it needs to be mixed with natural aggregates to meet the civil engineering specs and also IBA contains a significant amount of chlorine which can increase the corrosion of steel in a concrete structures and also the metallic aluminium.
If we find aluminum in the ash, it can generate hydrogen gas so that can result in volume expansion in cement and concrete.
So there are structural issues relating to these properties.
The fate and behaviour of contaminants in the environment is influenced by various factors.

Contaminants. When we think about the contaminant solubility, the volatility, this determines the movement and how they spread, while environmental conditions like temperature, pH, the moisture levels can impact the degradation and transformation of these contaminants, not only that, also the characteristics of the receiving environment such as the composition of the soil, the presence of water, trees, living organisms, they all contribute to the fate and behaviour of these contaminants.
So the understanding of these factors is very important in assessing and managing the environment, backdrops, contaminants by understanding contaminants, fate and behaviour, and environmental conditions, we can better predict how contaminants will spread, saving the environment and its impact on the environment and human health.
So this type of knowledge is very helpful for us to create mitigation measures to reduce the risk of harm when contaminants are released.
Next slide.
When making decisions about managing solid debates such as reusing IBA aggregates, it is important to think about the potential risk.
So one common method is to evaluate the risk by studying the total concentrations of the contaminants.

How easily they can be released and what's happens to the environment.
So to do this one these assessments in general or be used total concentrations and these total concentrations are measured using acid digestion method and also to evaluate the leaching risk we have many leaching tests in practice.
What I meant worldwide, but an example leaching test, EN 12457 is a common method in Europe.
European Union 12457 itself has various variations like, 12571A1B and so on.
So this means other countries have adopted the common method too. So there are existing methods which with slight variations and there are also various other methods as well.
So these different test methods differ in the test setup like they could be a batch test, a percolation test, column test or monolith test.
And also there are liquid to solid ratio, what we call L2S ratio can differ and also the particle size is different.
The test duration is different and units used are different.
Reporting units can be different.

For a example, most of European methods use reporting units like milligrams per kilogram and always helping method is milligrams per liter.
Umm, so when it comes to assessing how contaminants leach from waste is a complex process that cannot be determined by just single test but still to access the safe reuse of these materials.
EPA Victoria uses different testing methods.
In Victoria, we use the Australian standard leaching procedure and AS 44392 S leaching potential also for long term durability assessment we have the MEP test which we call multiple extraction procedure and also LEAF test leaching and environmental assessment framework.
We can do that and also our focus just tell that we also can do the TC TCLP testing for visibility as well.
However, it is important to choose the most suitable and relevant test, fit for purpose test to evaluate the safety of the intended reviews.
Next slide.
So in summary, the waste Incineration offers direct advantages such as energy production, precious metal recovery and also waste volume reduction.
But reusing incinerator bottom ash aggregates posts challenges, usually presence of contaminants. There are considerations and concerns about leaching.

Luckily, there are we have treatment methods to enhance the quality of IBA aggregates for reuse.
IBA aggregates has been considered suitable for reuse in various bounds and unbound materials in the leachability and total concentrations of contaminants.
It's very important for decision making that regulations regarding IBA aggregates reuse differ across jurisdictions.
It is very important to ensure that testing is fit for purpose to evaluate the safety and risk of waste reuse.
At EPA, we will continue to work on this topic as our state of knowledge settles.
Thank you.

Nick Horsburgh:
Thank you very much Shamali for taking us through that.
Nick Horsburgh:
And yeah, Marks online as well.
We'll take a few questions, and Motla as well.
Hello Motla.
We'll take a few questions.
We've just got a shorter question break here and before we jump into the Permissioning section and we'll have a bit of a longer break. I know there are some questions on the chat around processes for A16 permits and how those things operate.
So we might leave those to a little bit towards the end of that permissioning section and focus just on some science related questions for now.
But yeah, over to our behind the scenes crew, if there's any any specific questions around the science side of things, we'll take those now.

Nick Huggett:
So thank you everyone.
We have one question here.
What about the evolving gases?
If IBA, while it's still reactive, are they considered negligible and is that reactive behavior translated into storage guidelines?

Scott Jones:
Yeah. Good day.

Nick Horsburgh:
Scott looks like you're equipped to answer that one.

Scott Jones:
Yeah, I thought I'd just jump in there.
So look, it would depend very much on the nature of the IBA itself, the feed stocks and the like as to the level of that reactivity in general, the risks of the material need to be understood by the generator, and anyone who would be receiving it in terms of the generator.
Those sort of considerations might be taken into account in terms of the licensing for storage of that sort of waste, and again, as sort of discussed previously, permit conditions potentially for storage and handling of that waste at a receiving site, if you like.
Umm, it's. Yeah, I think that that probably covers the way we're looking at it in terms of guidelines, not at this stage.
But if it became something that EPA saw as a general approach that was worthwhile, we'd look into it. Yep.

Nick Huggett:
Thanks, Scott.
Uh, we have another question here from Tim.
I think Mark you’re best to answer this one.
Explain why you still consider IBA as an RPW. The processing is designed to reduce the hazardous properties. There's a risk that considering IBA as RPW suggests that still hazardous in nature and may diminish the product value.
Are EPA considering use of a determination to provide an ongoing pathway to enable use.

Mark Bannister:
Yeah, that's a great question.
And thanks to Tim and this comes up a lot in in reuse in general with a lot of material.
So I would say no in first and foremost, RPW is not just a reflection of the hazard.
It might be reflection of other issues.
I've used the example of tyres around the management, but I think in this case it's probably more about building, building the confidence that we can perhaps move forward to other steps like determinations. We very much wanted to look towards that.
But just don't have the facilities and the treatment processes yet to put it in place.
But I would ask, you know, think about damage that can be done by having a material which isn't fit for use, whether that's a product or a waste.
You know, there's plenty of examples.

You know, he's a big one, like Teflon, for example.
And the issues we've had around that, you know I think we wanna make sure we get it right and instill confidence.
And so it's a step at a time we will have to go through these processes at 1st and I think we can instill that confidence we can move forward because the alternative is we have something set in and determination which is very conservative we they're unable to meet umm and it reduces your your pathways anyway.
So we just wanna make sure.

Yeah, there is scope in in the future, for sure. We do need to look at that and recognise that you know when you're always first to this kind of approval, there's always the challenges in getting it accepted and then establishing confidence, but we hope we can do that quickly and we hope we got, I think the tools do at least deal with it in the first instance and get it up to that point.

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah, might jump in and I'll hand it over to you just in a second.
So you had your hand up and I think look, this is exactly right, Mark.
I think it's about kind of in the long term, we're hoping to establish more confidence and comfortability working with this waste stream.
I think the evidence is in EPA's prior approach, so we continue to assess our instruments and in the concept of where we are comfortable or not.
And we've got a number of determinations which we have put in place for waste streams that we have established practices for that we are comfortable with that we have seen you know, been used safely in number of circumstances.
So are we assessing a determination at the moment?

No, we're not looking at a determination at this point for incinerator bottom ash. But in the future, this may be a pathway as Mark mentioned, depending on how the sector matures and how the growth of the use of this material progresses in Victoria.
But at this stage we're not looking at that.
But just wanted to show that there is evidence that EPA does continue to assess its tools and instruments available to it under the framework in the application and management of our framework.
So I'll just say that, but uh Scott, over to you, just had your hand up.

Scott Jones:
Yeah.
Yeah.
I just wanted to add to this from what we've we've looked into through the literature and and the like there, there is some complexity to around the treatment trains that take IBA to IBAA and they may need to be specific for reuses given some of the risks that that are extent in the IBA in the first place and that's going to be dependent on feedstocks and and that that process in the firstplace, the actual thermal process and how well that's controlled.
So umm, at this stage that less generic approach might actually be more flexible where permission could be sought for specific reuses that are tailored essentially from the treatment trying to get to IBA if you like.

Nick Horsburgh:
Thank you, Scott.
Umm, behind the scenes crew I might actually just move us on.
I know we're a few minutes behind schedule.
Just to remind everybody, we're not gonna get to every question, but we will build some content based off the themes raised in the questions.
So keep asking questions even if we're not able to get them today, we will accommodate that.
And reflect that in our content that we develop post webinar to help you get a bit of a better overview of the use of this waste stream.
So please keep asking your questions.

Apologies, we're not able to get to everything today, but thank you for your interest and thank you for posting them.
Umm, I'm just going to move on now and we'll hand over to Motla in just a second.
And what Motla is gonna take us through is just the process by which someone would go through to apply for permission to use in scenario bottom ash or bottom ash aggregate and also some of those, some of those key considerations which EPA would look into when you are applying for the use of that material.
So over to you Motla.

Motla Bellville Leshoele:
Thank you.
Thanks Nick.
You can hear me.
Hear me?

Nick Horsburgh:
Yep.

Motla Bellville Leshoele:
Well, I'm in a box.

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah, we can hear you all mate.

Motla Bellville Leshoele:
So Motla uh manager for one of the permissioning functions so there are three managers in permissioning I’m one of those three.
So I manage the projects improvements this year. Julia Gaitan looks after permits.
So this conversation will be a lot more common between you and her, and then there’s Richard Gerardi who looks after Permissioning licences now on this screen giving the conversation for this morning.
Now that you know the Science, you know the policy, the next step is how do you make your application.
So the EPA has got a a portal which we use now to make applications.
The portal looks sort of like what you see on the screen.

So for those who don't interact with us as much, you just need to register yourself to be able to make an application and then start to apply - that goes to all different types of applications that EPA can help you with.
So that's probably as much as I'll say with that first slide.
Let's go to next slide, please.
So then in going through that first line, which is the portal, the portal has got a lot more information that is gonna ask you questions.
So the key things that the portal is trying to ask you is what is the activity that you are proposing?
What are the potential risks to human health and the environment that you can see from the activity?
So there will be specific information that EPA will be looking to. For example, you're making a statement that needs to be backed with evidence, so we’ll be looking for supporting information to support any statement that you're making so EPA in its normal way of doing business, we do produce some guidance to support businesses.

You go through this process, which is in part of what Shamali has been talking about.
The work that we are doing today is to try and build what sort of information may be necessary in the A16 space.
Next slide please.
I'm sure I'm going too fast, but I think people wanna talk about A16s.
So A16 permits, Nick Horsburgh went into some lengths to try and explain how A16 permits work.
So I just try to be as short in here.
The main thing here in Permissioning will be looking at what is the waste because we understand that most of these facilities operate slightly differently.
The feedstock is slightly different.
So what is the waste that is produced at the end?
What are you planning to do with this waste?
So you may have found business in market for the waste that you produce, but are the associated risks with these waste.
So we just want to, that's probably the simplest way to think about the permissioning.

Uh, questions going to ask, what are you producing as a waste?
What are you planning to do with it?
What are the risks like of this thing that you are producing.
Next slide please.
So Shamali has gone to some lengths to try and educate us a little bit, so I'm not the scientist, but I'll try and summarize what in terms of permission, we've been looking at giving, we work very closely.
So it's better to provide us the information so that our science counterparts will be able to provide support in getting to the answer which is a yes, that you're probably hoping for.

So I think even in the beginning we talked about this, uh, IBA being new to Victoria, that is, we're still learning.
Collecting information between industry and other government departments to understand what are safe reuses of this material because there's benefits of using this as opposed to taking it to landfill.
But in that regard, some of the work that Shamali and Scott and others have been doing to try and help us get ready for these before, identify this things that we should be shared with industry, which Shamali has tried to put forward to you, but just to summarize. So the information that you're putting as a package to us, you're looking at the risk framework that is able to identify the hazard from this waste.
We need to be able to understand how the producer of these IBA is able to minimize those risks.
We need information particularly around the feedstock with information around the treatment processes, like what quality I would produce.
We need to understand your testing.

Your sampling methods that are adopted so the testing of the sampling should be fit for purpose.
I think Shamali spoke on this one quite extensively, but I would like to reiterate, should be fit for purpose.
Should include concentrations leachability, as you talked a bit about the all the different techniques we need to consider for measuring the leachability.
We should also consider the physiochemical like the physical piece size.
Those titles in the chemical makeup of the contaminants, which again Science has gone through, that again I can't say this enough.
The methods of something that you're using should be reflective of how this material is going to be used in the real world.
Particularly we are looking at it uh if you're thinking long term.
What is this going to do in the environment is going to have any impact to human health or the environment?
OK, that's my summoning.

Which probably lends to these question of fate and behaviour of contaminants in the environment, because we are trying to divert this waste from taking it to landfill.
But you can see that we are cautious in doing this.
We don't want to create a legacy that we need to clean up at some point, so we need to understand how this is going to behave in the proposed use space.
So in helping us understand that we're looking for multiple lines of evidence.
So Shamali is going through a lot of literature reviews, so we're looking at some testing you've done.
Looking at literature review that you've done to support so several lines of evidence that supports the proposed use.
Uh, basically, we we're looking at, uh, considerations of the fate and behavior of this IBA in the receiving environment in particular.
So you need to include so this information needs to be included in the list framework.
Because remember, the A16 permits for the supplier.

So somebody else will be exempt from requiring a permit, so we would require you to have an extensive risk assessment that is able to manage the risk for those that are going to be exempt from requiring A16 permit.
So you understanding how you're going to use this waste in the environment, putting that into your risk framework would help us to condition the permits that are the way that the receivers of this waste can use it safely.
It goes without saying that, uh, information around the proposed uses is important for us because you are making bespoke conditions, looking at the risk framework for those intended users.
Just one last point that I've learned to come up on a little bit about this about the long term impacts that we can see, which is questionable.
About the leachability testing, which could be done in different ways depending on short term long term type work, but we need to understand given this is going to be in the environment for quite some time that you are actually the proposed methods or the methods of detecting that you've done feed for purpose.

Motla Bellville Leshoele:
I think that's as much of us was going to speak and Nick will come back in and talk about his big slide.

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah.
Thanks.
Thanks Motla.
Thank you for that.
And and yeah, I guess just to reiterate, I think those key messages again from EPA perspective looking at you know what is the risk inherent in the your waste and it's gonna be specific to the type of waste produced from your facility depending on your feedstock, your process and your treatment methods.
And then that question about faded behavior.
So how does the contaminants in that IBA, those risks present when actually in use in the environment?
So I think when you think about it at a high level, that seems like quite obvious, I would say.
But just highlighting they are really key factors for EPA when we're looking at the use of this waste and the types of things that we really care about.

And we've got one more question and answer session, which we'll get to in just a second.
But just before we do, I just wanted to bring this slide back up again and do a little mini recap of some of the key points that we've discussed today.
Before we go to that Q&A session and let you all go about your days, so just a reminder that an EPA license is required for the operation of a thermal waste to energy facility in Victoria.
So that's likely to be an A08 category license.
So just bear that in mind if you are proposing to conduct that activity in Victoria.
And also obviously, bear in mind that there are other approval types as well through other frameworks and through other entities like Recycling Victoria and Planning framework, but you'll need to be cognisant of those as well.

Another key message is that IBA is pre classified as a reportable party waste under the Environment Protection Act and environmental regulations and as an PPW, certain duties and obligations apply to the management, transport, receipt and use of that IBA or IBAA.
As we've discussed earlier on, IBA or IBAA must be taken to a licensed treatment facility or licenced landfill for disposal unless EPA approves its use.
And the good news being that the pathways do exist right now to enable us to approve the use of that material I'm and as an RPW unless it's being reclassified the pathway for the use of that material would be an A-16 that supply or use of reportable party waste permit and noting that if someone has a permit to supply report or priority waste to a bunch of receivers provided that those receivers are receiving that material in accordance with the circumstances and limitations set out in that suppliers permit, they will not also need a permit as well.
So again, thinking it through that one permit to supply can supply to a large number of receiving users in terms of the application process, which Motla just took us through here.

So applications will need to be submitted through the EPA portal, and if you're unsure about which application you need to go through or what approval replies to your type of activity, we do have a permissions pathway or permissions proposal pathway form which you can submit to EPA for some informal but more directive guidance around what types of permissions or approvals might apply to your activity.
So that brings us to the end of the presentation and we've got one final Q&A session, which we'll spend maybe 10-15 minutes or so just answering a few questions.
I see there's a few from all across the science permissions and other areas, so it might hand over to our behind the scenes crew for some questions.

Nick Huggett:
Not a problem.
Thanks Nick.
So we've had quite a few questions on how A16 permits are to be applied.
So we've tried to group some similar ones together.
Hopefully we can answer them all.
So first one, at what point can an application for A16 be made i.e.
At what stage in the development of the waste energy facility and does a confirmed list of the receivers and use need to be provided as part of the application?

Nick Horsburgh:
Thank you, Nick.
I might jump to this one.
We've got Motla obviously here as well and also Sarath from our permitting team is on the line as well, has a phone to friends situation, but we might just kick off and saying that in terms of when you can apply for an A16 permit, there's not a set point at which EPA says OK now you can apply for this thing.
I guess what it's likely to be later towards the development of facility, because what you'll need to do is submit to EPA all the information that we need to be enable us to make a determination on your activity.
So that's likely to be only after you've done some initial testing or some evidence you have information to clarifying what exactly the feedstock mix is gonna be for your facility and how the treatment technologies and other kind of things you've got in place are and how they're performing.
So it's likely to be later in the process.

What you need is this permit at the point at which before you start supplying this for use basically so you can proceed through the development of facility and the operation under the license framework and then obtain the A16 later in the process.
You don't need to apply for those things at the same time, so that would be my response to the initial question I'm in regards to.
Sorry, the second question was a confirmed list of receivers.
I believe the permit doesn't need to include as a condition the list of all the receivers there.
There's the ability for a class of premises or type of premises to be exempted.
So what would you be expected to do is to obviously maintain a list, or at least knowledge of where your waste is being sent to which EPA could obtain if we needed to.
But generally speaking, you don't need to have a list submitted on your permit and recorded on your permit for each type of thing we would like you to have a framework in place which sort of enables you to identify the types of the types of receiving environments or users who would be able to suitably receive your waste.

So there might be sort of a framework expectation for you that you look at that and set limitations about types of operations that can and cannot receive the waste or if there's a certain location which shouldn't be receiving a waste because of particular risks.
For example, would expect you to do that, but we don't need necessarily a list of spelt out facilities.
In some cases it might be limited and in some cases it might be only three or four different facilities depending on different RPW being generated and different processes, but that's not a necessity for the basic theme permit to operate Motla and Sarath.
Anything to add on your end in relation to that question?

Motla Bellville Leshoele:
Yeah.
No, I think it's OK.
Uh, in terms of efficiency, really the best time would be when your you've commissioned your plan is operating efficiently to then go through this process, you can still come in early, but the problem is if you come into early when you're so commissioning lots of changes could happen to your treatment trying you still testing a little bit.
So terms of efficiency wait until you're settled.
You're operating then.
That's probably the best time to do it, but again, we won't stop you from applying it anytime.
But yeah, the last one I think you answered it on points.
I'm not gonna add anything there, so we really are looking at not the list of businesses but It's just looking at the types of environments and types of, you know where it could be used safely, so the way to describe that would be sufficient so that those kinds of businesses or entities who feed that particular way of this description are trying to do.

And then use that material.
But we will need a way of view to keep it register with receiving your waste.

Nick Horsburgh:
Thank you, Molta

Nick Huggett:
I think you just added a little follow up question on the A16 permit there.
Can I hold an A16 permit and accept IBA from multiple producers?

Nick Horsburgh:
That's an interesting question.
It's not really the intended way that the A16 would operate like I think conceptually could be possible, I suppose.
But again, if each of those producers had a supplier permit, you wouldn't actually need the permit at all.
If you are receiving from a permitted supplier, so again I think that could occur, but it's not really the intended operation of that mechanism.
Generally what we want is either a supplier to be the one holding the permit or in many or there is a need for the user to be the one holding the permit, but likely just to come from a single facility because if it's coming from different facilities, it's gonna be potentially different waste, different characteristics and properties which you as the receiving user will need to account for and there'll be a lot of information requirements I suppose associated with that permit.

If you've got waste being received, that might be variable from different types of producing facilities, so conceptually possible.
I think it's not, it's not really the intended operation of that permit, but.
Umm.
Yeah.
So I I think from an efficiency perspective as Motla alluded to the intended operation is really meant to be about as much as possible permitted supplier would to be the one holding that permission and the receiving users to be exempted as provided they're complying with the limitations of that permit.

That's really the preferred operation and if we did need to go down to the next level of the user holding the permit, probably easier from both the users from the user perspective for that to be coming really just from one supplier.
But yeah, it's conceptually possible I suppose, but probably not the most efficient way of operating that scheme.

Nick Huggett:
Thanks Nick.
Uh, we have a question here.
Will EPA Vic need sampling and testing of the IBA produced by the facilities in Victoria before assessing applications for A16 permits or can reference facilities overseas or Interstate be used?

Scott Jones:
Yeah, I can.
I can talk to essentially the way we look at it.
In Science and the assessment of that information, basically what we'd be looking for is, is multiple lines of evidence.
Umm, now literature review or information from literature internationally and for those generators who might have international partners, for instance, who got their hands on that sort of material.
All of that stuff would be considered.
Absolutely.
What I will say is it doesn't take much of a difference in the process or the feedstock to essentially be talking about IBA that can be in some cases quite different.
And again, remembering that we're we'll be looking at specific reuses as to their safety.

Nick Huggett:
Fantastic.
Thanks, Scott.
And we have another one here.
Umm from our science.
Umm will the findings of EPA scientific investigation be released or published?

Shamali De Silva:
I will go for that, Nick.
So there's a scientific report, but still it is in a draft, so it won't be available immediately, but we can consider it in future.
So should I think?

Nick Huggett:
Thank you.
We have one another one here.
Maybe for Nick, are we able to share the slides after this has been finalized?

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah.
Thanks Nick.

Nick Huggett:
Yeah, this.

Nick Horsburgh:
Look at this stage.
We're not proposing to send out the slides.
Look, we'll consider that.
But I think what we are proposing to do, as I mentioned at the start of the session is provide a link to a recording of the presentation.
That webinar within the next month, along with the web content that we're going to develop based on the questions that both we did and didn't get to.
So based on the themes raised for the question, so by providing that recording, we think it's better because some of the slides are quite image heavy and it probably not getting the full context.
If you just received the slides, probably easier to have someone speaking to them and explaining how what that slide actually is meant to mean.
So that's the proposed proposal at the moment that we'll consider sharing the slides as a pack, but I think certainly you'll have them in the form of a link to this webinar where you'll be able to access the slides after the fact on your own time.

Nick Huggett:
Thanks, Nick.
We have one here.
Did you analyse some European samples and check that they were allow its use in Vic?

Shamali De Silva:
I'm.
I'll answer that.
Yeah.
So with the science, but what we did is a desktop study.
We didn't do any testing or lab studies, but it will be nice to have some other examples when we have the IBA access issues.
So this funding is just all about that.
I stopped at studying literature review.
We didn't do any lab analysis.

Nick Huggett:
Thank you.
And we have a few more questions here.
We're still happy to take questions, Nick.

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah, sure.
I think we've got about 3 or 4 minutes and then will let everyone go about their days.
But yeah, few more questions.

Nick Huggett:
Not a problem.
So we have a question here.
So N205 is for bottom ash.
Why is bottom ash aggregate still N 205?

Nick Horsburgh:
I I I'll start off with this, and we might see some Science perspectives on it.
Look, I think the bottom I show get is IBAA is a term that often is used to refer to this post treatment material.
The fact of the matter is that under our framework. It would still be classified as bottom ash and I think our expectation is that obviously we're talking about raw IBA.
It's not gonna be suitable for use, so it's likely that the IBA or IBAA us really an expectation of what you will achieve to enable that material to be to be safely used.
So it remains pre classified under that waste code.
However, as we've discussed, there are plenty of options or tools available to authorize the use of that waste stream, but our view is that it remains pre classified as N205 unless a specific designation has been obtained to reclassify it.
Any views from science, colleagues or anyone else on that one?

Scott Jones:
Well, yeah, actually, Nick, I would go as far as to say there's probably not much to add there.
We look at it from the point of view of risk IBA is it comes out of an incinerator N205 is appropriate. And as you say, there are various tools for for dealing with that as we go forward, permits or designations and the like.
But again, the principle is that the material is safe for reuse if that's the pathway that's being looked at.

Nick Huggett:
OK.
Thank you, Nick.
Maybe one more question here.
Has the EPA engaged with environmental regulators in UK and Europe, where the reuse of aggregate has been in place for some time and addressing its longevity?

Nick Horsburgh:
Yeah.
Thanks, nick.
We have done some engagement with regulators internationally and particularly as part of the science investigation as well.
So thank you the science colleagues for conducting some of that.
We have done also a lot of looking at the laws around the use of IBA in those jurisdictions.
So obviously the desktop analysis as well as some of those conversations I'm, I guess with respect to the longevity side of it, that was part of the assessment part of the considerations looked at by our science colleagues about what are some of the long term, what are some of the impacts associated with the use of this material in the longer term.

Scott Jones:
Yeah.
Look, I think just in general that in a in a similar way that we've been speaking about doesn't take much difference in in terms of the process as the feedstocks to come up with fairly different outputs and you see that in the literature internationally too in that we're often talking about ranges of contamination profiles for instance, which makes things somewhat difficult.
And I suppose the other general statement we can say is that long term studies of potential impacts to the environment are actually pretty thin on the ground.
Umm.
And and again, they're often with specific parameters, which, particularly in there in the sort of thinking of general tools or general approaches to IBA in Victoria and IBA in Victoria, and the reuse isn't particularly helpful.
So as it's been said a few times in this seminar, so far as that knowledge base grows and as knowledge base of individual facilities and their treatment trains and the like grows.
We can revisit that sort of thing.

Nick Horsburgh:
Cool.
Thank you, Scott.
Behind the scenes crew, I might wrap us up there.
We're right on 245, which was the time I promised to let everyone go.
So if you'll humour me for just one more slide and I will say first of first of all, thank you very much for joining us today.
I know it's been a long session, we've covered quite a lot of ground, so hopefully that has been valuable and you feel like you've learned a little bit about the pathways for the use of IBA within Victoria from our presentation today.
I just wanted to call out a few links on our website so there is some information on our website that's the EPA.Vic.Gov.au website right now, which relates to some of the material that we've talked about today.
So you can go on to the website and search for a page around how to apply for an A16 supply and use of reportable priority waste permit.
So the permit that we've been talking about today in relation to IBA, you can also search for a page which lists out all the different types of permits that are available under the Environment Protection framework as well as the list of standard conditions that apply to those permits, including A16.
So that's of interest to you can search for that information as well.

And then finally, with respect to the permissions proposal pathway form that we've discussed a few times, that's also available through EPA’s website, if you would like to find that form and submit it for further information about your proposal.
I'm just the last thing I'll say.
Is I just going back to what I mentioned around our promise to develop some web content based on the questions posed during the session?
So we will do that.
We'll aim to let that within the next month or so, and that will include a link to a recording of this session as well as content developed on the themes raised by the questions, including those we didn't get to.
So apologies if we didn't get your question.
Hopefully that will be reflected in the content that we developed.
I'm you'll see.

You'll see that reflected in the content we developed and the next month.
That is all for today.
Thank you once again for joining and thank you to our presenters and behind the scenes crew for running the session and have a wonderful rest of the day.
Thank you everybody.