Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Some of the biggest NSW waste companies broke rules meant to keep contamination out of landscaping products

News Feed
Monday, May 27, 2024

Some of the best-known waste companies in New South Wales are among those that broke safety rules that led to potentially contaminated soil fill being supplied to backyard landscapers, schools, childcare centres and parks across the state.As part of an investigation into soil contamination, Guardian Australia can reveal that Bingo Industries, Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings breached state regulations for testing a type of cheap soil made from recycled construction and demolition waste.The fill – known as “recovered fines” – is used in place of virgin materials in construction projects, and in public spaces such as sporting fields, but is also sold directly to consumers for home landscaping by landscape and garden stores.Some waste companies also sell the fill in bulk directly from their facilities.A previous Guardian Australia investigation revealed the state’s environmental regulator, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), had known for more than a decade that companies had breached regulations meant to limit the spread of contaminants.Now, more than 20 of those waste and recycling facilities have been named in documents tabled in the NSW parliament.The NSW Greens environment spokesperson, Sue Higginson, asked for the information about the identity of companies that engaged in practices highlighted by EPA investigations to be tabled, following the first Guardian reports.“It is deeply concerning that some of the largest producers of recovered fines have avoided their obligations to ensure their products do not contain harmful contaminants,” Higginson said.Widespread breachesRecovered fines are made from residues found in skip bins at construction and demolition sites.Recycling facilities process the waste, which would otherwise go to rubbish tips, to produce soil fill that is sold under names such as recycled turf underlay, budget fill, crusher dust or recycled road base.Each year facilities in NSW produce about 700,000 tonnes of fill made from recovered fines.They are required under NSW resource recovery regulations to test their products for hazardous contaminants such as lead. If they exceed legislated thresholds, they must dispose of the product and report the results to the EPA.But two EPA investigations, one in 2013 and one in 2019, found widespread breaches of routine sampling and testing requirements in the industry. The 2019 investigation looked at about 50,000 pieces of testing and sampling data taken by facilities in 2017 and 2018.In a second part of the investigations, the EPA itself took samples from waste facilities and tested them for contaminants.The investigations also found that instead of reporting non-compliant results to the EPA and disposing of contaminated products, some companies retested samples until they received a compliant result.Retesting of recovered fines is not prohibited under the regulations. But if any test shows a sample has exceeded a contaminant threshold, the product is considered non-compliant and not suitable for sale and reuse.The regulations do not require producers of recovered fines to test for asbestos, but the recycling and reuse of asbestos in any form is prohibited in NSW. They are required to test for a range of other contaminants including lead and other heavy metals, physical contaminants and pesticides.The regulator has now named the responsible companies in response to the NSW Greens’ questions, and the information was tabled in state parliament.Companies found in the 2019 investigation to have asked private laboratories to keep retesting samples when they exceeded contaminant thresholds were: Bingo Industries in Auburn, four Benedict Recycling facilities in Sydney, Breen Resources in Kurnell, South Coast Equipment Recycling at Warrawong, Hi-Quality Waste Management at St Marys and Brandown Pty Ltd at Cecil Park. The 2013 investigation also found two Benedict Recycling facilities were retesting samples. Twenty-one facilities were found in the 2019 investigation not to have been meeting EPA sampling rules such as the frequency with which samples should be collected and tested and what they were tested for: eight sites owned by Bingo Industries, four owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, KLF Holdings, Breen Resources, Brandown, Hi-Quality Waste Management, Budget Waste Recycling, Rock & Dirt Recycling, South Coast Equipment Recycling and Builders Recycling Operations. Aussie Skips Recycling and Hi-Quality Waste Management were also among 11 facilities found in 2013 to be breaching testing rules. In one case identified in the 2019 EPA investigation, 16 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated soil produced by KLF Holdings was supplied to an apartment complex in Bankstown, and the regulator was forced to order a clean-up. Guardian Australia contacted each of the waste companies. One – Builders Recycling Operations – could not be reached. Detailed questions were sent to the other nine. Five – Benedict Industries, KLF Holdings, Aussie Skips Recycling, Breen Resources and South Coast Equipment Recycling – did not respond. Budget Waste Recycling declined to comment.A spokesperson for Rock & Dirt Recyling said the company “does not propose to respond to your questions other than to reject the false premise that Rock & Dirt is supplying contaminated material to members of the public”.A spokesperson for Bingo said the company had long been an advocate for improved standards of compliance across the industry and supported rigorous enforcement of the regulations.How asbestos-contaminated mulch sparked the NSW EPA's biggest investigation - video“In response to the findings from the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA) investigations in 2019, BINGO Industries met all requirements and obligations for recovered fines,” they said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Afternoon UpdateOur Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“As part of the investigation, EPA visited and took samples from BINGO’s Kembla Grange facility in 2019, the only BINGO facility producing recovered fines at the time. The EPA subsequently confirmed that the samples taken by the EPA were compliant.”A spokesperson for Hi-Quality Waste Management said the samples of recovered fines taken by the EPA during its 2013 and 2019 investigations were found to meet the regulated thresholds for all contaminants.They said the company “regularly reviews and evolves its practices to ensure it is meeting the highest environmental, safety and operational standards”.“Hi-Quality recognises that recovered products are crucial to creating a more sustainable sector and welcomes the opportunity to work with industry and stakeholders to strengthen regulation and advance the sector.”A spokesperson for Brandown said several changes had been made since the 2019 investigation, including the introduction of new standards by the EPA to improve the management of construction and demolition waste in NSW.“To further strengthen these standards, Brandown has advanced its testing protocols and made operational changes to reduce potential risk.”Samples positive for asbestosThe regulator’s 2019 investigation found only 29% of waste facilities were testing for asbestos – which is not required under the regulations. When the EPA took samples at 14 facilities, it found eight had asbestos in recovered fines, and six of those received prevention notices ordering them to temporarily implement a stricter testing protocol.The facilities that received notices were two owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, Brandown, KLF Holdings and Builders Recycling Operations. According to public prevention notices published by the EPA, in the case of KLF Holdings and Builders Recycling Operations, 100% of the samples taken by EPA officials tested positive for asbestos.The EPA said most of the stockpiles where it found asbestos was present in 2019 were kept in storage at the facilities and were either disposed of or broken into smaller batches and reassessed.The EPA also found breaches of the legal thresholds for contaminants other than asbestos in samples it took from Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings.But despite recommendations from its own officials, the regulator abandoned plans for tougher regulations for recovered fines in 2022, when the Coalition government was in power, after pressure from the waste industry.One of the recommendations made by EPA investigators in 2013 was that recovered fines not be permitted for use in landscaping because of the higher risk for potential human exposure to contamination.The chief executive of the EPA, Tony Chappel, pointed to changes passed by parliament that increase maximum penalties for breaching resource recovery orders from $44,000 to $2m, or $4m where asbestos was involved.“We know we have more to do around recovered fines, which is why we are consulting with industry to make improvements and also finalising a recent compliance campaign to help us work on the areas that need prioritisation,” Chappel said.“Over the next 12 months, we will also conduct targeted programs to assess industry compliance and take enforcement action for identified non-compliance with resource recovery orders.”Higginson said the evidence the EPA had tabled in parliament was shocking.“These potentially contaminated materials may have wound up in consumer products and may also have been sold for use in public areas.“The history and evidence of non-compliance means we may never know how far and wide these companies … spread their potentially contaminated products.”

Exclusive: Facilities owned by Bingo Industries and Aussie Skips Recycling among more than 20 named in NSW parliament for breaching regulationsRecycling fill sold in Sydney stores tests positive for asbestosGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastSome of the best-known waste companies in New South Wales are among those that broke safety rules that led to potentially contaminated soil fill being supplied to backyard landscapers, schools, childcare centres and parks across the state.As part of an investigation into soil contamination, Guardian Australia can reveal that Bingo Industries, Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings breached state regulations for testing a type of cheap soil made from recycled construction and demolition waste.Companies found in the 2019 investigation to have asked private laboratories to keep retesting samples when they exceeded contaminant thresholds were: Bingo Industries in Auburn, four Benedict Recycling facilities in Sydney, Breen Resources in Kurnell, South Coast Equipment Recycling at Warrawong, Hi-Quality Waste Management at St Marys and Brandown Pty Ltd at Cecil Park. The 2013 investigation also found two Benedict Recycling facilities were retesting samples.Twenty-one facilities were found in the 2019 investigation not to have been meeting EPA sampling rules such as the frequency with which samples should be collected and tested and what they were tested for: eight sites owned by Bingo Industries, four owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, KLF Holdings, Breen Resources, Brandown, Hi-Quality Waste Management, Budget Waste Recycling, Rock & Dirt Recycling, South Coast Equipment Recycling and Builders Recycling Operations. Aussie Skips Recycling and Hi-Quality Waste Management were also among 11 facilities found in 2013 to be breaching testing rules.Following the 2019 investigation, the EPA issued prevention notices to six facilities after it detected asbestos in their recovered fines. In at least two instances the product had already been removed for use in the community.In one case identified in the 2019 EPA investigation, 16 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated soil produced by KLF Holdings was supplied to an apartment complex in Bankstown, and the regulator was forced to order a clean-up. Continue reading...

Some of the best-known waste companies in New South Wales are among those that broke safety rules that led to potentially contaminated soil fill being supplied to backyard landscapers, schools, childcare centres and parks across the state.

As part of an investigation into soil contamination, Guardian Australia can reveal that Bingo Industries, Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings breached state regulations for testing a type of cheap soil made from recycled construction and demolition waste.

The fill – known as “recovered fines” – is used in place of virgin materials in construction projects, and in public spaces such as sporting fields, but is also sold directly to consumers for home landscaping by landscape and garden stores.

Some waste companies also sell the fill in bulk directly from their facilities.

A previous Guardian Australia investigation revealed the state’s environmental regulator, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), had known for more than a decade that companies had breached regulations meant to limit the spread of contaminants.

Now, more than 20 of those waste and recycling facilities have been named in documents tabled in the NSW parliament.

The NSW Greens environment spokesperson, Sue Higginson, asked for the information about the identity of companies that engaged in practices highlighted by EPA investigations to be tabled, following the first Guardian reports.

“It is deeply concerning that some of the largest producers of recovered fines have avoided their obligations to ensure their products do not contain harmful contaminants,” Higginson said.

Widespread breaches

Recovered fines are made from residues found in skip bins at construction and demolition sites.

Recycling facilities process the waste, which would otherwise go to rubbish tips, to produce soil fill that is sold under names such as recycled turf underlay, budget fill, crusher dust or recycled road base.

Each year facilities in NSW produce about 700,000 tonnes of fill made from recovered fines.

They are required under NSW resource recovery regulations to test their products for hazardous contaminants such as lead. If they exceed legislated thresholds, they must dispose of the product and report the results to the EPA.

But two EPA investigations, one in 2013 and one in 2019, found widespread breaches of routine sampling and testing requirements in the industry. The 2019 investigation looked at about 50,000 pieces of testing and sampling data taken by facilities in 2017 and 2018.

In a second part of the investigations, the EPA itself took samples from waste facilities and tested them for contaminants.

The investigations also found that instead of reporting non-compliant results to the EPA and disposing of contaminated products, some companies retested samples until they received a compliant result.

Retesting of recovered fines is not prohibited under the regulations. But if any test shows a sample has exceeded a contaminant threshold, the product is considered non-compliant and not suitable for sale and reuse.

The regulations do not require producers of recovered fines to test for asbestos, but the recycling and reuse of asbestos in any form is prohibited in NSW. They are required to test for a range of other contaminants including lead and other heavy metals, physical contaminants and pesticides.

The regulator has now named the responsible companies in response to the NSW Greens’ questions, and the information was tabled in state parliament.

  • Companies found in the 2019 investigation to have asked private laboratories to keep retesting samples when they exceeded contaminant thresholds were: Bingo Industries in Auburn, four Benedict Recycling facilities in Sydney, Breen Resources in Kurnell, South Coast Equipment Recycling at Warrawong, Hi-Quality Waste Management at St Marys and Brandown Pty Ltd at Cecil Park. The 2013 investigation also found two Benedict Recycling facilities were retesting samples.

  • Twenty-one facilities were found in the 2019 investigation not to have been meeting EPA sampling rules such as the frequency with which samples should be collected and tested and what they were tested for: eight sites owned by Bingo Industries, four owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, KLF Holdings, Breen Resources, Brandown, Hi-Quality Waste Management, Budget Waste Recycling, Rock & Dirt Recycling, South Coast Equipment Recycling and Builders Recycling Operations. Aussie Skips Recycling and Hi-Quality Waste Management were also among 11 facilities found in 2013 to be breaching testing rules.

  • In one case identified in the 2019 EPA investigation, 16 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated soil produced by KLF Holdings was supplied to an apartment complex in Bankstown, and the regulator was forced to order a clean-up.

Guardian Australia contacted each of the waste companies. One – Builders Recycling Operations – could not be reached. Detailed questions were sent to the other nine. Five – Benedict Industries, KLF Holdings, Aussie Skips Recycling, Breen Resources and South Coast Equipment Recycling – did not respond. Budget Waste Recycling declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Rock & Dirt Recyling said the company “does not propose to respond to your questions other than to reject the false premise that Rock & Dirt is supplying contaminated material to members of the public”.

A spokesperson for Bingo said the company had long been an advocate for improved standards of compliance across the industry and supported rigorous enforcement of the regulations.

How asbestos-contaminated mulch sparked the NSW EPA's biggest investigation - video

“In response to the findings from the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA) investigations in 2019, BINGO Industries met all requirements and obligations for recovered fines,” they said.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“As part of the investigation, EPA visited and took samples from BINGO’s Kembla Grange facility in 2019, the only BINGO facility producing recovered fines at the time. The EPA subsequently confirmed that the samples taken by the EPA were compliant.”

A spokesperson for Hi-Quality Waste Management said the samples of recovered fines taken by the EPA during its 2013 and 2019 investigations were found to meet the regulated thresholds for all contaminants.

They said the company “regularly reviews and evolves its practices to ensure it is meeting the highest environmental, safety and operational standards”.

“Hi-Quality recognises that recovered products are crucial to creating a more sustainable sector and welcomes the opportunity to work with industry and stakeholders to strengthen regulation and advance the sector.”

A spokesperson for Brandown said several changes had been made since the 2019 investigation, including the introduction of new standards by the EPA to improve the management of construction and demolition waste in NSW.

“To further strengthen these standards, Brandown has advanced its testing protocols and made operational changes to reduce potential risk.”

Samples positive for asbestos

The regulator’s 2019 investigation found only 29% of waste facilities were testing for asbestos – which is not required under the regulations. When the EPA took samples at 14 facilities, it found eight had asbestos in recovered fines, and six of those received prevention notices ordering them to temporarily implement a stricter testing protocol.

The facilities that received notices were two owned by Benedict Industries and one each by Aussie Skips Recycling, Brandown, KLF Holdings and Builders Recycling Operations. According to public prevention notices published by the EPA, in the case of KLF Holdings and Builders Recycling Operations, 100% of the samples taken by EPA officials tested positive for asbestos.

The EPA said most of the stockpiles where it found asbestos was present in 2019 were kept in storage at the facilities and were either disposed of or broken into smaller batches and reassessed.

The EPA also found breaches of the legal thresholds for contaminants other than asbestos in samples it took from Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings.

But despite recommendations from its own officials, the regulator abandoned plans for tougher regulations for recovered fines in 2022, when the Coalition government was in power, after pressure from the waste industry.

One of the recommendations made by EPA investigators in 2013 was that recovered fines not be permitted for use in landscaping because of the higher risk for potential human exposure to contamination.

The chief executive of the EPA, Tony Chappel, pointed to changes passed by parliament that increase maximum penalties for breaching resource recovery orders from $44,000 to $2m, or $4m where asbestos was involved.

“We know we have more to do around recovered fines, which is why we are consulting with industry to make improvements and also finalising a recent compliance campaign to help us work on the areas that need prioritisation,” Chappel said.

“Over the next 12 months, we will also conduct targeted programs to assess industry compliance and take enforcement action for identified non-compliance with resource recovery orders.”

Higginson said the evidence the EPA had tabled in parliament was shocking.

“These potentially contaminated materials may have wound up in consumer products and may also have been sold for use in public areas.

“The history and evidence of non-compliance means we may never know how far and wide these companies … spread their potentially contaminated products.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Under Trump, E.P.A. Explored if Abortion Pills Could Be Detected in Wastewater

Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency found that they could develop methods to identify traces of the medication if necessary — a practice long sought by the anti-abortion movement.

Senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency directed a team of scientists over the summer to assess whether the government could develop methods for detecting traces of abortion pills in wastewater — a practice sought by some anti-abortion activists seeking to restrict the medication now used in over 50 percent of abortions.The highly unusual request appears to have originated from a letter sent from 25 Republican members of Congress to Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, asking the agency to investigate how the abortion drug mifepristone might be contaminating the water supply.“Are there existing E.P.A.-approved methods for detecting mifepristone and its active metabolites in water supplies?” the lawmakers asked at the end of the public letter, sent on June 18, an effort led by Senator James Lankford and Representative Josh Brecheen, both of Oklahoma. “If not, what resources are needed to develop these testing methods?”Scientists who specialize in chemical detection told the senior officials that there are currently no E.P.A.-approved methods for identifying mifepristone in wastewater — but that new methods could be developed, according to two people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.Abortion pills have emerged as a major focus for the anti-abortion movement since the fall of Roe v. Wade, as growing numbers of women in states with abortion bans have turned to websites and underground networks that send the pills through the mail, allowing them to circumvent the laws.The widespread availability of abortion pills — which women usually take at home in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy — has inspired many anti-abortion activists to push for new approaches to curtail their use. That has included a campaign by one prominent group to raise awareness about environmental harms they say are caused when the medication and fetal remains enter the sewage system.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Britain missing out on potential £2bn recycling industry by exporting plastic waste

Exclusive: Government failure to close loophole allows 600,000 tonnes to be shipped abroad each yearA plastic recycling industry potentially worth £2bn and 5,000 jobs is dying in the UK because of government failure to close a loophole that allows 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to be exported each year.The Guardian can reveal that in the past two years 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have shut down due to the scale of exports, the cheap price of virgin plastic and an influx of cheap plastic from Asia, according to data gathered by industry insiders. Continue reading...

A plastic recycling industry potentially worth £2bn and 5,000 jobs is dying in the UK because of government failure to close a loophole which allows 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to be exported each year.The Guardian can reveal that in the past two years 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have shut down due to the scale of our exports, the cheap price of virgin plastic and an influx of cheap plastic from Asia, according to data gathered by industry insiders.Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries increased by 84% in the first half of this year, in what critics say is unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism.In particular, UK exports soared to Indonesia – a country struggling with an environmental crisis from plastic pollution – amounting to more than 24,000 tonnes. The total plastic waste exports in the first half of the year came to 317,747 tonnes.Used packaging is sorted at a Lampton recycling centre in London. Across the country 21 such factories have closed in the past two years. Photograph: Peter Dazeley/Getty ImagesExporting hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste to countries without the capability to process it properly increases the chance of serious environmental pollution as well as putting the lives of waste workers at risk.James Mcleary, managing director of Biffa polymers, said the industry was facing challenges and units were closing across the country.Plastic recycling facilities that have closed in the past two years include Biffa’s Sunderland factory, which had capacity to process 39,000 tonnes each year of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) plastic – used in packaging – and three Viridor facilities. Vanden Recycling is also closing its plastics processing site in Whittlesey, Peterborough.Keeping the waste material collected from households within the UK to be cleaned, sorted, processed and turned into recycled products, is better environmentally, captures the carbon within the plastic, and creates jobs and growth, experts say.But policymakers have not made the key changes needed to stop incentivising plastic waste exports.I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life has been wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a binMcleary said the continued export of waste plastic should be an affront to our civilised society. He cited the deaths of 200 young people in Turkey that were exposed earlier this year by ISIG Meclisi, which carried out the first ever analysis of workplace deaths in the country’s recycling industry. The UK was the largest exporter of plastic waste to Turkey in 2023.The investigation, called Boy Wasted, revealed that two people are crushed, ripped, or burned to death in the sector every month, and that this has been the case non-stop for the past 10 years.Mcleary said there was a need for a level playing field for the UK plastic recycling industry. “I don’t like closing plants, it’s jobs and it’s people lives,” he said.“Fundamentally I believe you need to take responsibility for our waste ourselves. It is just common sense as a human being. I don’t want my rubbish to end up in Malaysia. I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life has been wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a bin outside my house.A waste worker at a landfill site near Istanbul. The UK is the biggest exporter of plastic waste to Turkey. Photograph: Sedat Suna/EPA“There are lines as a civilised society we should not cross – it is not acceptable.”Mcleary said the loophole that made it cheaper for companies to export plastic rather than keep it in the UK needed to be closed. “We are asking for a level playing field. We don’t want the market tilted towards us.”“This has been pointed out over a number of years by ourselves and others. Yet today we are in a perfect storm and factories are closing.”skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionHe welcomed the UK’s plastic packaging tax, which is imposed on producers who fail to include at least 30% of recycled plastic in their products, as a way of driving demand to use our own stock of plastic waste in the UK. But he wants it to be more ambitious by raising the requirement for products to have a minimum recycled content to 50% by 2030 to encourage manufacturers incorporate more of it into their products and reduce the use of virgin plastic.Building a UK plastic recycling industry to keep the plastic waste thrown out by householders within the country had the potential to become a £2bn industry, hiring 2,000 people directly and 3,000 indirectly and would also restore public confidence in recycling, Mcleary said.“People in the UK should care where their plastic goes,” he added. “If they think they are recycling they should know it is being recycled, and know that it is being recycled in a responsible fashion.”Viridor has closed three plastic recycling factories in the past three years; in Avonmouth, Skelmersdale and this year its Rochester sorting plant.A UK recycling plant sorts plastic waste into bales, ready to be processed. Photograph: Teamjackson/Getty ImagesAn industry source said it was important that policymakers started seeing waste as critical infrastructure.“If we were to stop exporting plastic waste, and we were to meet our increased recycling target of a 65% recycling rate for municipal waste by 2035, we would need to build 400 new factories across the UK – 20 of them would be sorting facilities and 20 would be processing facilities turning the material back into products,” the source said.“This is a key growth area and has a carbon benefit because it stops the plastic being incinerated and used in energy for waste.“But the risk is now that we are exporting material and the investment and the jobs to other countries.”The government said it was committed to cleaning up the nation and cracking down on plastic waste.“For too long plastic waste has littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways, and threatened our wildlife,” a spokesperson said. “Our packaging reforms will collectively underpin £10bn worth of investment in new sorting and processing facilities, while delivering the deposit return scheme will ensure more plastic is recycled and not chucked away as litter or left to rot in landfill.”

UK plastic waste exports to developing countries rose 84% in a year, data shows

Campaigners say increase in exports mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia is ‘unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism’Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”. Continue reading...

Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”.In 2023, the EU agreed to ban exports of waste to poorer nations outside a group of mainly rich countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The ban comes into force in November 2026 for two and a half years and can be extended. The UK does not have a similar ban in place.Data analysed by the The Last Beach Cleanup, a US group campaigning to halt plastic pollution, showed that the increase in UK exports in the first half of 2025 was mainly to Indonesia (24,006 tonnes in 2025, up from 525 tonnes in 2024) and Malaysia (28,667 tonnes, up from 18,872 tonnes in 2024).Total plastic waste exports remained relatively high in the first half of 2024 and 2025, at 319,407 and 317,647 tonnes respectively. The percentage of UK plastic waste going directly to non-OECD countries was 20% of total plastic waste exports in 2025, up from 11% in 2024.The Last Beach Cleanup analysed data from the UN Comtrade database to reach its findings. Jan Dell, who works for the group, accused UK ministers of “hypocrisy” by failing to ban exports to poorer nations.“The UK is hypocritically saying, ‘we’re part of the high ambition coalition’, at the plastics talks. But behind the scenes, it is refusing to set a date to stop exporting to poorer countries,” she said. “We see it is increasing exports of its own plastic waste to places like Malaysia and Indonesia.”She added: “It is unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism.”After the collapse of the UN plastic treaty talks in August, Emma Hardy, under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said she was “hugely disappointed” an agreement had not been reached but was proud of the UK’s work towards an ambitious treaty.Britain was part of a “high ambition” coalition of nations calling for the treaty to include binding obligations on reducing plastic production and consumption, she said.Campaigners are calling for the UK, one of the top three countries exporting plastic waste, at about 600,000 tonnes a year, to follow the EU and ban exports to non-OECD countries. They also want to close a loophole that makes it cheaper to export plastic waste rather than recycle it in the UK.Plastic products, such as these found in Klang, Selangor in June, are often fly-tipped from factories processing imported plastic waste in Malaysia. Photograph: Basel Action NetworkThe Conservative government said in 2023 that it intended to ban plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries – but it never happened.Wong Pui Yi, a Malaysia-based consultant for Basel Action Network, a group championing global environmental health and justice, said there were “good guys and bad guys” in the waste trade.“A lot of waste traders are looking to reduce costs,” she said. “If waste falls into the hands of the bad actors, one of the easiest ways to reduce costs is to avoid environmental controls. In developing countries, it is easier to avoid environmental controls due to weaker laws and lower enforcement capacity.”In July, the UK’s exports of plastic waste to Malaysia dropped to 2.8% (1,500 tonnes), most likely due to the country’s new import restrictions. But as one country bans or tightens imports, as happened with China in 2018, the trade shifts elsewhere.The rise in UK plastic exports to Asia is likely to be an underestimate, experts say, because a lot goes to the Netherlands and other European countries where it can be shipped on. The UK also exports plastic to Turkey.James McLeary, the managing director of Biffa Polymers, a UK recycling firm, said the UK should take responsibility for its plastic waste.“It is just common sense as a human being” he said. “I don’t want my rubbish to end up in Malaysia. I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life is wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a bin outside my house.”Earlier this month, an investigation called Boy Wasted revealed that, for the last decade, two people were crushed, ripped, or burned to death in the recycling sector in Turkey every month.Adnan Khan, a Canadian journalist whose work on refugee labour in Turkey sparked the investigation, said that while Turkey had a licence system for recycling plastic waste, “my research shows that it is pretty easy to get a licence and the oversight is low. It’s a broken system.”All EU plastic waste exports should be banned to anywhere outside the EU, he said. “I would go further and say every country should take care of its own trash.”Defra did not respond to a request for comment.

A Bay Area startup sold a plastic recycling dream. Neighbors call it just another incinerator

The Sonoma County company Resynergi says it will depart the state, just as Gov. Newsom sends CalRecycle back to the drawing board on potentially nation-leading rules governing plastic waste and plastic products.

In summary The Sonoma County company Resynergi says it will depart the state, just as Gov. Newsom sends CalRecycle back to the drawing board on potentially nation-leading rules governing plastic waste and plastic products. The plan sounded like a magic bullet from the future to solve one of the world’s most vexing environmental waste problems.  In Rohnert Park, just north of San Francisco, a startup company called Resynergi planned to use a form of “advanced recycling” to reuse plastic. Its process would chemically transform old plastic, blasting bits of it with microwaves until they turned into an oil that could then be used to make new plastic.  But the process – known as pyrolysis – was a hard sell to Sonoma County neighbors, who protested so much that the company withdrew its application and now plans to move out of state.  The fight that boiled over in Rohnert Park in recent months is a window into the tensions ahead for California as the state overhauls nation-leading regulations governing plastic pollution and packaging. (CalRecycle, formally known as the Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling, will hold a public hearing about those rules Oct. 7.)  While California is establishing some of the most forward-thinking plastic responsibility and recycling rules in the country, a dirty secret is that most plastic recycling methods are ineffective at best and illusory at worst.  Millions of tons of plastic go to the state’s landfills each year, and millions more are shipped to Southeast Asia, where plastic is rarely recycled. Instead it is illegally dumped, and often burned. Last year, Attorney General Rob Bonta brought suit against ExxonMobil for “perpetuating the myth … that you can recycle plastics, including single use plastics, and that it’s sustainable and good for the environment … It’s not true. It’s a lie.” ExxonMobil has since countersued Bonta for defamation. California’s regulators, meanwhile, are working to implement a 2022 state law that moves the state toward a circular economy for plastic – by making companies that produce packaging and single-use plastic items responsible for what happens to them after people throw them away. Those companies, along with environmental groups, have been weighing in as CalRecycle has been writing regulations, now years in the making.   Recent comments by Gov. Gavin Newsom suggest the state is aiming to strike a balance, finding a way to encourage recycling companies while hitting the state’s goals – all while avoiding more air pollution or other environmental impacts.  As for Resynergi, local and environmental advocates say that the way local, county, and regional regulators handled the company points up the challenges the state will face as it regulates plastic and defines whether and how it can be recycled.  “It does make me nervous, since it took seven years to get any enforcement on a facility that’s a two hour drive from the Capitol,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste.  A credible solution to plastic waste? Resynergi’s departure came as Sonoma County officials began to ask more serious questions about its operations, almost a decade after the company first arrived.  In 2017, company founder Brian Bauer chose Rohnert Park, a small, middle-class community surrounded by farmland, to develop and test his process. He set up shop in a development called SOMO Village – a 200-acre neighborhood with homes, a high school, and commercial space. Developers market it as a climate-conscious place, built to be carbon-neutral, which Bauer said was a draw for Resynergi.   In early conversations, according to Bauer, Sonoma County officials “suggested” his business could follow simpler recycling guidelines. Sheri Cardo, a spokesperson for Sonoma County’s Department of Health Services, confirmed the department had talked with Bauer about its operations as a recycling research and development site, and that his characterization was accurate.   In 2023, when Bauer sought to expand operations, he approached the city of Rohnert Park’s planning division for permits.  Officials told Bauer his facility was considered a heavy manufacturing site, and that Resynergi’s location – 600 feet from a school – demanded an environmental review, according to documents obtained by residents through a public records request. In a response late last year,  Resynergi argued that such a review could take too long, and moving quickly “could make or break substantial investment from a large strategic investor.” Within a month, planning officials had flipped and were now siding with Resynergi, granting it a more flexible, less burdensome administrative use permit. The decision avoided additional public review.  But to operate legally, Resynergi had to secure approval from county officials and the regional air district. In California, pyrolysis is classified as a type of incineration, associated with toxic and hazardous waste. Businesses must obtain a solid waste permit from local authorities, who enforce the state’s public resources code. In the past, three facilities have received permits to use pyrolysis, two for the purpose of destroying medical waste. All are now closed, according to CalRecycle. California counties issue waste permits on behalf of CalRecycle. The Bay Area Regional Air Quality Management District permits and controls pollution that microwaving plastic could produce. Resynergi’s microwave incinerator at 1200 Valley House Drive, in Rohnert Park, on Aug. 26, 2025. Photo by Chad Surmick for CalMatters County officials started looking into the company when they realized Resynergi’s plans would make the company a fully operational and “fixed component in the county’s waste system,” said Cardo, the county spokesperson.  “Although your facility might be considered a recycling facility in vernacular language, it is not under state law,” wrote Christine Sosko, Sonoma County’s director of environmental health. CalRecycle spokesman Lance Klug said in an email that Sonoma County’s response followed state standards. But environmental advocates say the way city and county officials handled Resynergi reflects regulators’ confusion about the processes for advanced recycling  – confusion fueled by the plastic industry.   Jane Williams, director of California Communities Against Toxics, argues that federal and state law make it clear that pyrolysis facilities have to follow rules as incinerators. “It’s really interesting for me to see, having worked on these incinerators for so long, how these guys pulled strings,” Williams said. “They pulled whatever out of their pockets so they could convince people this is a recycling facility.”  The American Chemistry Council, a trade group supporting the plastic industry, disagrees. And Resynergi’s Bauer said he doesn’t think his company’s process counts as incineration.  “Communities across California and the country are searching for credible solutions to plastic waste,” Bauer wrote in an open letter to the community. “This city has the chance to lead by example.”  Community fears toxic air pollution  People living in and near SOMO Village found out that Resynergi planned to burn plastic on a larger scale when the Bay Area Air Quality Management District notified the public of the company’s permit application. The community protested, filling city council rooms at each meeting and waving signs depicting polluting smoke stacks. Some parents spoke through tears to their city leaders. “Our air is not your experiment,” one poster read.  Among the local opponents of Resynergi was Stephanie Lennox. She lives about 20 minutes from Rohnert Park in rural Forestville, but her two daughters go to Credo High School right next to the facility. She wondered about emissions and the risk of an explosion.  “My Lord, don’t we need a solution to our global plastic pollution,” Lennox said. “But my daughters’ lungs are not part of your beta testing phase for your ‘world’s global plastic solution.’” Kirsten Van Nuys is hugged after addressing the city council at Rohnert Park City Hall to protest the recent operation of Resynergi’s microwave incinerator at 1200 Valley House Drive, on Aug. 26, 2025. Photo by Chad Surmick for CalMatters First: Resynergi’s microwave incinerator at 1200 Valley House Drive, in Rohnert Park. Last: Annabelle Royes, 9, stands in front of Rohnert Park City Hall to protest the operation of Resynergi’s microwave incinerator on Aug. 26, 2025. Photos by Chad Surmick for CalMatters Local organizers said they wanted city and county leaders to follow state law and the federal Clean Air Act.   When plastic is burned, additives like flame retardants or other chemicals that don’t break down can create toxic emissions, said Veena Singla, a researcher at the University of California San Francisco. Resynergi applied to the regional air district to obtain a permit for pollution control equipment in April, after the company had already begun operating their technology. In August, the air district issued three notices of violation to Resynergi for constructing and operating without a permit.  Bauer admitted to operating the equipment without a permit. The company never burned plastic in Rohnert Park he said; it did burn plastic at “prototype levels” in Santa Rosa. But, Bauer added, Resynergi was trying to follow the rules as he understood them. As a startup, he said, “you don’t even know if you will get a prototype to work. You’re also trying to figure out how the permitting process works.”  Millions spent to sway regulations Resynergi’s departure wasn’t because of a community outcry, Bauer said. The turning point, he said, was “the pull from other states; how they treated climate technologies such as ours …combined with the overall culture of accepting what we’re doing.” Plastics manufacturers and industry advocates like the American Chemistry Council have campaigned to redefine terms and loosen environmental regulations for the process Resynergi is developing. After the lobbying, 27 states have reclassified pyrolysis as manufacturing instead of solid waste operations, said Davis Allen, a researcher for the Center for Climate Integrity. That classification helps operators get around federal air requirements, he added.  Resynergi’s Bauer told CalMatters that “one of those (states) is a candidate,” and that the company will move out by the end of the year.    An analysis by the climate accountability newsletter HEATED found the chemistry council and groups aligned with it have spent as much as $30 million to promote the concept of advanced recycling as a mainstream and established one. That language aims to sway not just state laws, but federal clean air policy as well.   Between 2021 and 2022, when lawmakers were discussing plastic producer legislation, the American Chemistry Council spent more than $1.6 million on lobbying state legislators, according to publicly available data published by the Secretary of State. The American Chemistry Council’s Ross Eisenberg says that pyrolysis and other chemical recycling processes do work. These processes turn “hard-to-recycle plastics into the raw materials for high-quality products while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and fossil energy use during production compared with virgin production,” he said.  “America’s plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to modernize and expand recycling capacity and improve efficiency,” Eisenberg said, adding that the companies are “advocating for smart policies that enhance collection and sorting so more plastics can be remade into new products.” This year, the Environmental Protection Agency said it isn’t taking further action on the matter, but industry representatives said they’ll continue to lobby at the federal level. Ambitious rules and tough realities for plastic California’s goals to reduce plastic pollution and make producers responsible for plastic waste are ambitious in size, scope, and speed. Within seven years, state law seeks to reduce plastic packaging by 25%, make single-use plastic packaging 100% recyclable or compostable, and divert most of that packaging into recycling.  Allen, from the Center for Climate Integrity, says laws like this can be a good idea – as long as regulators focus more on reducing plastics and less on recycling them.  “Almost any solution that is based on the idea that plastics can widely be recycled just isn’t really going to work,” Allen said. “There just aren’t easily available solutions to a lot of the problems that limit the effectiveness of recycling.” Single-use plastic bottles on a conveyor belt at greenwaste recycling facility in San Jose on July 29, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters. But in March, regulations aimed at achieving the state’s goals were dealt a setback after two years of hearings. The day they were due, Gov. Newsom directed CalRecycle to start the regulatory process over.  The governor asked for changes “to minimize costs for small businesses and families – while ensuring California’s bold recycling law can achieve the critical goal of cutting plastic pollution,” said Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesperson for the governor, in an email to CalMatters. The Plastics Industry Association and the American Chemistry Council hailed the governor’s announcement as an opportunity. “We believe California’s regulations should be clear, technology-neutral, and performance-based,” said the council’s Ross Eisenberg. According to Klug, the CalRecycle spokesman, the state “remains committed to fostering business innovation that promotes a safe and clean future for all Californians.”  But environmental organizations like the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Surfrider called the decision disappointing.  Williams, the California Communities Against Toxics activist, said she’s concerned that more recent draft language may encourage pyrolysis facilities like Resynergi, which, she says, don’t belong in the state.    If California “rolls out the red carpet,” she said, “The only thing that will stop a whole new fleet of incinerators being built in California now is open, persistent community opposition.”  Resynergi also took part in CalRecycle workshops for the regulations. The company’s departure announcement praised the “innovative spirit of California … instrumental in the company’s growth.”  Brian Bauer said he’s hopeful the state plastic regulations will ease regulations for companies like his, but he plans to return to California either way.  “So it might be a couple years,” Bauer said. “We’ll be back to California in due time.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.