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.

Giant Heaps of Plastic Are Helping Vegetables Grow

News Feed
Friday, May 17, 2024

Each year, on our fruit-and-vegetable farm in New England, my family covers about a quarter of our 50 acres with plastic mulch. Rolls of it, five feet wide and 4,000 feet long, sit on a machine that my father and I cordially call the plastic layer. From the back of a tractor, it feeds out the mulch over a perfectly raised bed, before turning soil onto the plastic’s edges to hold it tightly for the growing season. At the end of each row, the machine stops and raises up. I walk over, throw my leg across a three-foot-wide mound, and plunge my shovel through the thin layer of plastic until it’s free from the tractor. Over the next few months, tomatoes, squashes, and melons will grow in these beds much more efficiently because of the mulch. But at the end of the growing season, we will be left with a heap of used and useless plastic.We will return to the fields and slice the rows down the center, gripping one flap at a time and wiggling, pulling, kicking the buried edge out from under the soil. By the end of a row, the plastic—already tattered by weeds, degraded by the sun’s ultraviolet rays, and caught by feet and tractor tires—has ripped countless times. I try to roll it up neatly, but thin plastic coated in dirt, plant remnants, rotten tomatoes, and a slime of biofilm is nothing neat. I drive to a corner of the farm and dump the plastic on the same pile that my grandfather started 40 years ago.Growing on plastic mulches has been the industry standard for decades. It makes the most sense financially for farmers; in many ways, it makes the most sense environmentally, too. Using plastic mulch saves water; it reduces the use of chemical pesticides; it increases a farm’s yield. It also means that each year the United States must somehow dispose of more than 100 million pounds of plastic—at times, the annual total has been estimated to be upwards of 200 million pounds—easily enough plastic to cover most or all of Rhode Island.Mulches and other agricultural plastics just scratch the surface of the world’s plastic problem. Packaging, textiles, cars, and every other sector that depends on plastic produces waste. But because plastic mulches are typically too thin and too dirty to easily recycle, it is frequently infeasible or too expensive to turn them into new plastic mulches. Most become garbage, a single-use plastic whose utility is tough to replicate but that creates intractable waste.In Florida, where the sun shines warmer than at home, the rows of plastic stretch out farther, touching the horizons. There plastic is laid daily in quantities that would cover the entirety of my family’s farm. Buddy Hill manages thousands of acres of tomatoes, and he told me that “you can’t make the yield on bare ground that you can on plastic. It’s a night-and-day difference.” The benefits for each crop vary, but for tomatoes, studies have found increases in yield by as much as a third when tomatoes are grown on plastic mulch instead of bare ground, a comparable increase to most of the plant’s fruit and vegetable counterparts.In other words, plastics in agriculture, or plasticulture, changed what was considered possible for fruit and vegetable crops. Plastics cover greenhouses and allow for growing beyond the constraints of seasons. Small plastic tubes laid beneath the plastic mulch slowly drip water to the area where the crops need it, improving irrigation and using water up to 80 percent more efficiently than aboveground systems. Lower water volumes wash fewer fertilizers out of the soil and into local waterways and ecosystems. Plastic mulch also moderates soil temperature and disease prevalence. And it keeps weeds in check: Under those thin plastics, the heat and lack of light kills any weeds that begin to sprout. Fewer weeds means fewer chemicals needed to control weed growth, and fewer hours spent pulling weeds by hand.Alternatives to plastic mulch—mainly, biodegradable plastic mulches—do exist. But they are more expensive and, depending on the crop and the climate, may degrade more or less quickly than the farmer needs them to. Farmers either lose the benefit of the mulches when they degrade too quickly, or end up with intact mulches that restrict their ability to cultivate later crops. Agricultural areas in California and Florida, where planting happens multiple times each year, need plastic that can be completely removed for quick crop turnarounds.Plasticulture fits better in the system of commercial agriculture, designed to feed people efficiently. Small-scale, highly labor-intensive farms might be able to avoid both plastic use and industrially refined fertilizers and pesticides. But as long as the economics of growing food in places with ample space and shipping it around the country make sense, the mounds of dirty plastic will keep accumulating. Courtesy of John Gove Farmers have a few other options. Piling up used plastic in a corner of the farm might work at first for small operations, but as the pile grows, pieces ride the wind and end up in neighboring fields, forests, and waterways. Eventually the pile of old plastic needs to be disposed of. On our farm, as on many other Massachusetts farms, that pile—40 years’ worth of mulch—was hauled away to a landfill or incinerator one dumpster at a time. In other states, including Florida, where open burning is allowed, black smoke billows from piles scattered across farms—another stream of carbon pumping into the atmosphere. Plastic is a product of fossil fuels; both its creation and disposal make it one of the biggest contributions to global warming.In Stuttgart, Arkansas—Rice and Duck Capital of the World, a welcome sign declares—Revolution Sustainable Solutions is making recycling work. The company gathers dirty plastic from the miles of surrounding farmland, as well as from collection centers throughout the Midwest, then chops the plastic into manageable pieces, washes it, shreds it into flakes, washes it again, and dries it. The company then extrudes the flakes into plastic resins, much of which becomes trash bags.These thin products could be ruined if a grain of sand made its way into the production line. So Revolution focuses on collecting polytube (used for irrigation) and silage bags, the long, tall, caterpillar-looking tubes that store animal feed, both of which are thicker than plastic mulches and therefore less contaminated. The greater surface area of plastic mulch holds more dirt; some mulches, to increase their strength and reduce their thickness, are embossed with a pattern that holds on to even more contamination. Plastic recycling generally follows the same script: Take something large and dirty, chop and clean it, then extrude. But whereas polytube and silage bags might be worth washing to recycle, used plastic mulch can be up to 80 percent contamination by weight, requiring extensive cleaning. It usually costs more to recycle than it does to make it new.Karl Englund, an environmental-engineering professor and extension specialist at Washington State University, specializes in exactly this type of low-value feedstock. One key to making mulch viable for recycling, he told me, could be to find outlets that do not require clean feedstock. Mulch could be turned into highway barriers, for instance, or specialized incinerator fuel, which, in the right environment, burns cleaner than coal. Or the mulch could be dry-cleaned, or gathered in a way that helps it leave the field with less contamination. Most of these ideas, though, are still in an experimental phase.As spring arrives on my family’s Massachusetts farm, we are organizing our supply of plastic mulches. Black rolls for early crops, helping to warm the soils; white ones for the mid-season crops, reflecting some of the sun’s heat; and biodegradable mulches for the melons and other crops that sprawl and naturally retain soil moisture and suppress weeds once established. A few remnants of last year’s biodegradable films flap in the wind among the cover crops emerging throughout our fields. Our 50-acre farm, just like the farms with thousands of acres in Florida, California, and around the world, functions within a system that works for the moment but that is contributing, season by season, year by year, to a future where the piles of plastics gathered throughout the world become altogether unmanageable.

Plastic allows farmers to use less water and fertilizer. But at the end of each season, they’re left with a pile of waste.

Each year, on our fruit-and-vegetable farm in New England, my family covers about a quarter of our 50 acres with plastic mulch. Rolls of it, five feet wide and 4,000 feet long, sit on a machine that my father and I cordially call the plastic layer. From the back of a tractor, it feeds out the mulch over a perfectly raised bed, before turning soil onto the plastic’s edges to hold it tightly for the growing season. At the end of each row, the machine stops and raises up. I walk over, throw my leg across a three-foot-wide mound, and plunge my shovel through the thin layer of plastic until it’s free from the tractor. Over the next few months, tomatoes, squashes, and melons will grow in these beds much more efficiently because of the mulch. But at the end of the growing season, we will be left with a heap of used and useless plastic.

We will return to the fields and slice the rows down the center, gripping one flap at a time and wiggling, pulling, kicking the buried edge out from under the soil. By the end of a row, the plastic—already tattered by weeds, degraded by the sun’s ultraviolet rays, and caught by feet and tractor tires—has ripped countless times. I try to roll it up neatly, but thin plastic coated in dirt, plant remnants, rotten tomatoes, and a slime of biofilm is nothing neat. I drive to a corner of the farm and dump the plastic on the same pile that my grandfather started 40 years ago.

Growing on plastic mulches has been the industry standard for decades. It makes the most sense financially for farmers; in many ways, it makes the most sense environmentally, too. Using plastic mulch saves water; it reduces the use of chemical pesticides; it increases a farm’s yield. It also means that each year the United States must somehow dispose of more than 100 million pounds of plastic—at times, the annual total has been estimated to be upwards of 200 million pounds—easily enough plastic to cover most or all of Rhode Island.

Mulches and other agricultural plastics just scratch the surface of the world’s plastic problem. Packaging, textiles, cars, and every other sector that depends on plastic produces waste. But because plastic mulches are typically too thin and too dirty to easily recycle, it is frequently infeasible or too expensive to turn them into new plastic mulches. Most become garbage, a single-use plastic whose utility is tough to replicate but that creates intractable waste.

In Florida, where the sun shines warmer than at home, the rows of plastic stretch out farther, touching the horizons. There plastic is laid daily in quantities that would cover the entirety of my family’s farm. Buddy Hill manages thousands of acres of tomatoes, and he told me that “you can’t make the yield on bare ground that you can on plastic. It’s a night-and-day difference.” The benefits for each crop vary, but for tomatoes, studies have found increases in yield by as much as a third when tomatoes are grown on plastic mulch instead of bare ground, a comparable increase to most of the plant’s fruit and vegetable counterparts.

In other words, plastics in agriculture, or plasticulture, changed what was considered possible for fruit and vegetable crops. Plastics cover greenhouses and allow for growing beyond the constraints of seasons. Small plastic tubes laid beneath the plastic mulch slowly drip water to the area where the crops need it, improving irrigation and using water up to 80 percent more efficiently than aboveground systems. Lower water volumes wash fewer fertilizers out of the soil and into local waterways and ecosystems. Plastic mulch also moderates soil temperature and disease prevalence. And it keeps weeds in check: Under those thin plastics, the heat and lack of light kills any weeds that begin to sprout. Fewer weeds means fewer chemicals needed to control weed growth, and fewer hours spent pulling weeds by hand.

Alternatives to plastic mulch—mainly, biodegradable plastic mulches—do exist. But they are more expensive and, depending on the crop and the climate, may degrade more or less quickly than the farmer needs them to. Farmers either lose the benefit of the mulches when they degrade too quickly, or end up with intact mulches that restrict their ability to cultivate later crops. Agricultural areas in California and Florida, where planting happens multiple times each year, need plastic that can be completely removed for quick crop turnarounds.

Plasticulture fits better in the system of commercial agriculture, designed to feed people efficiently. Small-scale, highly labor-intensive farms might be able to avoid both plastic use and industrially refined fertilizers and pesticides. But as long as the economics of growing food in places with ample space and shipping it around the country make sense, the mounds of dirty plastic will keep accumulating.

A farm worker pulling plastic mulch out from below the dirt
Courtesy of John Gove

Farmers have a few other options. Piling up used plastic in a corner of the farm might work at first for small operations, but as the pile grows, pieces ride the wind and end up in neighboring fields, forests, and waterways. Eventually the pile of old plastic needs to be disposed of. On our farm, as on many other Massachusetts farms, that pile—40 years’ worth of mulch—was hauled away to a landfill or incinerator one dumpster at a time. In other states, including Florida, where open burning is allowed, black smoke billows from piles scattered across farms—another stream of carbon pumping into the atmosphere. Plastic is a product of fossil fuels; both its creation and disposal make it one of the biggest contributions to global warming.

In Stuttgart, Arkansas—Rice and Duck Capital of the World, a welcome sign declares—Revolution Sustainable Solutions is making recycling work. The company gathers dirty plastic from the miles of surrounding farmland, as well as from collection centers throughout the Midwest, then chops the plastic into manageable pieces, washes it, shreds it into flakes, washes it again, and dries it. The company then extrudes the flakes into plastic resins, much of which becomes trash bags.

These thin products could be ruined if a grain of sand made its way into the production line. So Revolution focuses on collecting polytube (used for irrigation) and silage bags, the long, tall, caterpillar-looking tubes that store animal feed, both of which are thicker than plastic mulches and therefore less contaminated. The greater surface area of plastic mulch holds more dirt; some mulches, to increase their strength and reduce their thickness, are embossed with a pattern that holds on to even more contamination. Plastic recycling generally follows the same script: Take something large and dirty, chop and clean it, then extrude. But whereas polytube and silage bags might be worth washing to recycle, used plastic mulch can be up to 80 percent contamination by weight, requiring extensive cleaning. It usually costs more to recycle than it does to make it new.

Karl Englund, an environmental-engineering professor and extension specialist at Washington State University, specializes in exactly this type of low-value feedstock. One key to making mulch viable for recycling, he told me, could be to find outlets that do not require clean feedstock. Mulch could be turned into highway barriers, for instance, or specialized incinerator fuel, which, in the right environment, burns cleaner than coal. Or the mulch could be dry-cleaned, or gathered in a way that helps it leave the field with less contamination. Most of these ideas, though, are still in an experimental phase.

As spring arrives on my family’s Massachusetts farm, we are organizing our supply of plastic mulches. Black rolls for early crops, helping to warm the soils; white ones for the mid-season crops, reflecting some of the sun’s heat; and biodegradable mulches for the melons and other crops that sprawl and naturally retain soil moisture and suppress weeds once established. A few remnants of last year’s biodegradable films flap in the wind among the cover crops emerging throughout our fields. Our 50-acre farm, just like the farms with thousands of acres in Florida, California, and around the world, functions within a system that works for the moment but that is contributing, season by season, year by year, to a future where the piles of plastics gathered throughout the world become altogether unmanageable.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Humans Pollute the Environment With 57 Million Tons of Plastic Each Year, Study Suggests

Scientists used A.I. to model local waste management in 50,000 municipalities worldwide and say the results suggest a need to improve access to waste collection systems

Plastic pollution in Madagascar Mouenthias via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 If you organized the plastic pollution that entered the environment in 2020 in a line, it could circle the Earth more than 1,500 times. Simply dumped into a pile, the refuse would fill up New York City’s Central Park in a layer as high as the Empire State Building. Put another way, that’s about 57 million tons (52 million metric tons) of plastic waste that was not properly disposed of—and pieces of it could now be floating in the ocean, sitting at the top of a mountain or even infiltrating your bloodstream. In a new study published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, scientists tallied these numbers, creating the first-ever global plastics pollution inventory. “It hasn’t been done before,” study co-author Costas Velis, an expert in resource efficiency systems at the University of Leeds in England, tells New Scientist’s Madeleine Cuff. Researchers used artificial intelligence to model waste management in more than 50,000 municipalities around the world and predict the total amount of plastic that enters the environment. The plastic pollution measured in the study represents just one-fifth of the global total of plastic waste. But the results, the authors argue, demonstrate how improving access to waste collection services across the world can reduce the scale of the problem. “Uncollected waste is the biggest source of plastic pollution, with at least 1.2 billion people living without waste collection services forced to ‘self-manage’ waste, often by dumping it on land, in rivers, or burning it in open fires,” Josh Cottom, lead author of the study and a research fellow in plastics pollution at the University of Leeds, says in a statement. This “self-managed” plastic waste makes up more than two-thirds of the modeled plastic pollution, per the statement. Plastic burning has become a substantial problem, with 30 million tons of plastic burned in 2020 without environmental oversight—an uncontrolled process that can release carcinogens, particulate pollution and heavy metals that have severe consequences for human health, alongside greenhouse gas emissions. The study also calculated the largest contributors to plastic pollution in the world: India is in first place, producing 10.2 million tons a year; Nigeria is in second; Indonesia is in third; and China—which had been ranked in first place according to other models—instead comes in fourth. The U.S. ranks 90th, with more than 52,500 tons of plastic pollution produced annually. In the words of Interesting Engineering’s Sujita Sinha, the findings outline a “trash apocalypse.” The ranking highlights a large gap in plastic pollution between the Global North and Global South. Even though low- and middle-income countries produce less plastic waste in total, a larger portion of it is disposed of improperly, which overall becomes a greater source of plastic pollution. Even low-income countries with limited plastic pollution are considered hotspots when scientists analyze their plastic pollution per capita. Higher-income countries, on the other hand, produce more plastic waste but have more efficient waste disposal systems, so less of it turns into pollution. However, “we shouldn’t put the blame, any blame, on the Global South,” Velis tells Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein. “And we shouldn’t praise ourselves about what we do in the Global North in any way.” He adds that people’s ability to dispose of waste properly depends on their government’s power to provide the necessary services. Therese Karlsson, science and technical advisor to International Pollutants Elimination Network, tells the Associated Press that the study doesn’t focus enough on the plastic waste trade through which wealthy countries send their waste to poorer ones. While the study says this trend is decreasing, Karlsson, who was not involved in the paper, disagrees on the basis that overall waste trade is increasing, which she adds is likely an indicator for an increase in plastic waste trade as well. Now, the scientists are calling for waste collection to be seen as a basic necessity ahead of negotiations on a global plastic waste treaty planned for November in South Korea. The study also nearly coincides with Plastic Overshoot Day, which was projected for September 5—the day of the year where the Earth’s plastic waste production surpasses our waste management systems’ capacity to process it. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

A fifth of the world's plastic garbage is either burned or littered

Patchy garbage collection services result in more than 50 million tonnes of unmanaged plastic waste each year, and the majority of this is incinerated

More than half of uncollected plastic garbage is burnedTim Gainey/Alamy Around 1.5 billion people around the world do not have access to garbage collection services, and how they dispose of their plastic waste has become a serious environmental problem. Most of these households resort to burning their plastic waste or dumping it in the environment, according to a new analysis, which argues comprehensive collection services are the only way to make a dent in global plastic pollution. Costas Velis at the University of Leeds, UK, and his colleagues used waste data from local governments, as well as census data, to model the flow of plastic waste in city regions around the world. An AI algorithm was then trained on this data to predict how waste is generated and dealt with for more than 50,000 city regions globally. This bottom-up approach provides an “unprecedented” look at how plastic waste is treated and why it becomes pollution in different countries, says Velis. “It hasn’t been done before,” he says. Velis’s team estimates that 52.1 million tonnes of plastic waste, a fifth of the global total, becomes pollution every year, mostly generated in poorer countries where garbage collections are unreliable or non-existent. Instead of being dealt with properly, most of this plastic waste is incinerated in homes, on streets or in small dumps, without any environmental controls. Around 57 per cent of uncollected plastic garbage is dealt with in this way, the researchers estimate, with the remaining 43 per cent left to litter the environment. Burning plastic not only produces greenhouse gases, but also releases cancer-causing dioxins, particulate pollution and heavy metals, all of which are damaging to human health. In general, low-income countries produce much less plastic waste per person, but much more of that waste ends up polluting the environment. In higher-income countries, by comparison, the vast majority of waste is collected and processed, with littering the largest cause of plastic pollution. The findings underscore the need for low-income countries to receive support to establish comprehensive waste collections for all citizens, says Velis. India, Nigeria and Indonesia were flagged as the countries with the highest plastic pollution rates. The research comes ahead of talks set to take place in November in Busan, South Korea, where countries will consider adopting the world’s first plastic waste treaty. Velis is calling for the treaty to contain measures requiring countries to steadily increase the proportion of their waste handled by proper facilities, with high-income countries providing greater funding assistance. “The absence of waste collection is the biggest contributor to the [plastic pollution] problem,” he says.

SpaceX violated environmental wastewater rules at Starbase facility, officials say

Both Texas and federal officials have reportedly found that SpaceX violated environmental regulations discharging wastewater at its Starbase facility. SpaceX responded to the reports, saying that state and federal regulators gave it permission to continue operating its deluge system while it worked toward getting the appropriate permits. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not confirmed waiving the permit requirements as of press time. The latest development in SpaceX’s long-running struggle with environmental regulations at its Boca Chica launch site was first reported by CNBC. SpaceX purchased land on the Gulf of Mexico in 2014 and has developed it to host the development and launch of Starship, its next generation rocket.  Why wastewater matters SpaceX won approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for regular launches from the site in 2023—so long as the company met standards set out by various agencies, including rules designed to limit the environmental impact of launches.  After Starship’s first test flight in April 2023 damaged the launch pad, SpaceX built a deluge system that dampens the energy from Starship’s 33 Raptor engines, releasing 422,000 gallons of water per flight, much of which is immediately vaporized. Monday’s news suggests more delays ahead as the company seeks to win approval not just for its next launch, which was expected as soon as September, but also for a higher launch cadence. Yesterday, the FAA suddenly postponed a series of public meetings to discuss increasing launches and landings at Boca Chica. “The FAA is seeking additional information from SpaceX before rescheduling the public meetings,” the agency told Payload in a statement. SpaceX says The company posted a statement on social media that stressed the company’s efforts to comply with environmental rules, including only using clean water in the system. However, SpaceX filings say ablation of its launch structure can contaminate the water, and a Texas ecologist told CNBC that mercury measurements by the company concerned him. SpaceX submitted its request for an individual permit to the TCEQ on July 1, about a year after installing the deluge system.  This story originally appeared on Payload and is republished here with permission.

Both Texas and federal officials have reportedly found that SpaceX violated environmental regulations discharging wastewater at its Starbase facility. SpaceX responded to the reports, saying that state and federal regulators gave it permission to continue operating its deluge system while it worked toward getting the appropriate permits. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not confirmed waiving the permit requirements as of press time. The latest development in SpaceX’s long-running struggle with environmental regulations at its Boca Chica launch site was first reported by CNBC. SpaceX purchased land on the Gulf of Mexico in 2014 and has developed it to host the development and launch of Starship, its next generation rocket.  Why wastewater matters SpaceX won approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for regular launches from the site in 2023—so long as the company met standards set out by various agencies, including rules designed to limit the environmental impact of launches.  After Starship’s first test flight in April 2023 damaged the launch pad, SpaceX built a deluge system that dampens the energy from Starship’s 33 Raptor engines, releasing 422,000 gallons of water per flight, much of which is immediately vaporized. Monday’s news suggests more delays ahead as the company seeks to win approval not just for its next launch, which was expected as soon as September, but also for a higher launch cadence. Yesterday, the FAA suddenly postponed a series of public meetings to discuss increasing launches and landings at Boca Chica. “The FAA is seeking additional information from SpaceX before rescheduling the public meetings,” the agency told Payload in a statement. SpaceX says The company posted a statement on social media that stressed the company’s efforts to comply with environmental rules, including only using clean water in the system. However, SpaceX filings say ablation of its launch structure can contaminate the water, and a Texas ecologist told CNBC that mercury measurements by the company concerned him. SpaceX submitted its request for an individual permit to the TCEQ on July 1, about a year after installing the deluge system.  This story originally appeared on Payload and is republished here with permission.

Rising Waters From Tropical Storm Debby Put North Carolina Waste Sites at Risk

Tropical Storm Debby brought intense rainfall and flooding threats to North Carolina on Thursday, highlighting the vulnerability of hog lagoons and wastewater treatment plants.

While rain pelted North Carolina and raised the threat of flooding across the state, officials were monitoring almost 70 dams and lagoons holding animal waste that had overflowed or were at risk of failing on Thursday, a number that more than doubled between the morning and the afternoon.At least 17 animal feeding operations were included in the monitoring. At least three had taken on enough water from Tropical Storm Debby to raise the waste within the lagoons to higher levels than permitted, although they were not necessarily overflowing, according to a North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality tracking website.Most of these animal operations are large-scale hog lagoons that mix the urine, feces and other waste from swine with water and anaerobic bacteria. The resulting slurry is stored in open-air pits that turn bright pink as the bacteria digest the sludge to reduce the odor.The pollution enters waterways when open pits overflow or when the earthen walls of a pit fail. Hog waste that has been sprayed on nearby fields can flow downstream if the fields are oversaturated, although spraying is not allowed when it’s raining. Dead animals, killed in the flooding, can also pollute waterways.North Carolina has issued permits to more than 2,500 animal facilities, the majority of which raise pigs. North Carolina is the nation’s third largest hog producer, and in 2023, the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services counted eight million swine on farms across the state.During Hurricane Florence in 2018, at least 110 lagoons released pig waste or were at imminent risk of doing so.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

NSW waste industry faces crackdown on recycled soil after asbestos found in more than half facilities tested

Exclusive: Watchdog says it ordered disposal of more than 600 tonnes of soil fill, fined three facilities and is considering ‘significant changes’ to rules following Guardian investigationFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastThe New South Wales environment watchdog has vowed to crack down on the waste industry after new tests found asbestos at seven of 13 facilities producing or handling cheap landscaping products.A 15-month Guardian Australia investigation revealed earlier this year that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) had failed to act after compliance campaigns in 2013 and 2019 found potentially contaminated products had been distributed across the state – including at childcare centres, schools, residential areas and parks – thanks to widespread breaches by the industry. Continue reading...

The New South Wales environment watchdog has vowed to crack down on the waste industry after new tests found asbestos at seven of 13 facilities producing or handling cheap landscaping products.A 15-month Guardian Australia investigation revealed earlier this year that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) had failed to act after compliance campaigns in 2013 and 2019 found potentially contaminated products had been distributed across the state – including at childcare centres, schools, residential areas and parks – thanks to widespread breaches by the industry.The chief executive of the EPA, Tony Chappel, said the watchdog was now considering “significant changes” to the regulations that govern recovered fines – soil fill made from recycled construction and demolition waste.The fill is used in place of virgin materials in construction projects and public spaces such as parks. It is also sold for home use by landscape and garden stores.The EPA visited the 13 facilities to carry out new testing in late 2023 and early 2024. In addition to the asbestos found at seven sites, six had recovered fines that contained glass and chemicals above the legal limits and pH levels outside the allowed range.Chappel said the industry had been given ample opportunity to improve “but it’s time to reassess the regulatory settings”.“The levels of non-compliance we’re seeing are concerning and it’s frustrating to see these issues continue despite working with industry over many years,” he said in a statement.The watchdog will now review the regulations and will consider changes to the testing and sampling regime, where soil products made from recovered fines can be used and how producers are required to manage stockpiles “to improve environmental outcomes across the industry”.“Significant changes to the rules governing recovered fines are being considered by the NSW EPA,” Chappel said. “We’ll also work with industry to improve quality control at the source of material and tracking of that material as it moves through the supply chain.”As a result of the latest tests, nine facilities were required to dispose of more than 600 tonnes of non-compliant recovered fines.The EPA said two facilities had already supplied recovered fines from non-compliant stockpiles to customers and were required to organise an asbestos assessor to assess the risk for each customer.The EPA did not name the seven facilities where it detected asbestos, but prevention notices published on the EPA register show that Rock & Dirt Recycling in South Windsor, operated by N Moit & Sons, and Gow Street Recycling in Padstow were among them. The EPA also did not name the six facilities that it found had breached limits for glass, chemicals and other contaminants and pH levels.Separately, fines totalling $45,000 were issued to three Sydney facilities – Rock & Dirt Recycling, Aussie Skips Recycling in Strathfield South and Canterbury-Bankstown council’s Kelso Waste, Storage and Transfer facility at Milperra – for alleged licence breaches on standards for managing construction waste, including failure to properly label stockpiles.More fines were likely to come, the EPA said, without identifying which facilities might be affected.A Canterbury-Bankstown council spokesperson said the council did not produce recovered fines at Kelso but a “stockpile of recycled soil supplied from an external company did show samples of excess glass and council has had the company take the materials back”.Rock & Dirt Recycling, Gow Street Recycling and Aussie Skips Recycling did not respond to requests for comment.‘I wasn’t crying wolf all those years ago’The full results of the EPA’s 2013 and 2019 investigations, as well as internal calls from its own officials to crack down on the sector, remained secret until they were obtained by Guardian Australia last year under NSW government information public access laws.In one internal document, the EPA estimated up to 658,000 tonnes of material that had not complied with state regulations could have been used in the community every year.But the EPA walked away from a proposal to tighten regulations in 2022 after opposition from the waste industry.skip past newsletter promotionOur Australian morning briefing 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 promotionAmong the revelations was a 2019 finding that 43% of facilities that produce recovered fines had gamed the testing regime – which was designed to limit toxic chemicals and physical contaminants such as glass and rigid metals in the landscaping products – by asking private laboratories to repeatedly test samples found to contain contamination until they achieved an acceptable result.Waste facilities making recovered fines are required to test their product for hazardous contaminants, such as lead, and report results to the EPA if they exceed legislated thresholds. Retesting of recovered fines is not prohibited, but if any test shows a sample has exceeded a contaminant threshold, the product is considered non-compliant.The facilities are not required to specifically test for asbestos, but the recycling and reuse of asbestos in any form is prohibited.In May, Guardian Australia revealed that some of the biggest waste companies in the state – including Bingo Industries, Aussie Skips Recycling, Benedict Recycling and KLF Holdings – were among those named in state parliament as having broken testing and sampling rules or to have requested retesting in 2013 or 2019.Jason Scarborough led the 2013 investigation which, among its recommendations, said use of the products should be restricted to deeper construction works and its use for landscaping should be prohibited. He welcomed the news the regulator was considering changes to the regulations and said it was “overdue”.“I wasn’t crying wolf all those years ago,” he said. “I’m hopeful that this might actually create some positive change.”He said breaches by the industry represented both a regulatory and a market failure. “If we are moving to a circular economy, consumers have to have confidence that the recycled materials they may be buying are safe and fit for purpose.”In April, Guardian Australia bought four recovered fines products at Sydney landscape stores and had samples of each tested by two private laboratories.Two did not comply with state regulations on pH levels and one was found to contain asbestos fibres. One of the products that passed the laboratory tests contained large physical contaminants, including glass and a metal screw.The EPA has confirmed it is investigating the product found to contain asbestos and looking into the original source of the material.The results prompted the EPA to express concern about the “poor product and levels of non-compliance we are seeing in the industry”.Chappel said the regulator would also closely consider any findings of a review by the office of the NSW chief scientist into minute traces of asbestos in recovered products and whether they posed a risk to public health.The findings are expected later this year.

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.