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

As Fast Fashion's Waste Pollutes Africa's Environment, Designers in Ghana Are Finding a Solution

In a sprawling secondhand clothing market in Ghana’s capital, early morning shoppers jostle as they search through piles of garments, eager to pluck a bargain or a designer find from the stalls selling used apparel from the West

ACCRA, Ghana (AP) — In a sprawling secondhand clothing market in Ghana’s capital, early morning shoppers jostle as they search through piles of garments, eager to pluck a bargain or a designer find from the stalls selling used and low-quality apparel imported from the West. At the other end of the street, an upcycled fashion and thrifting festival unfolds with glamour and glitz. Models parade along a makeshift runway in outfits that designers created out of discarded materials from the Kantamanto market, ranging from floral blouses and denim jeans to leather bags, caps and socks.The festival is called Obroni Wawu October, using a phrase that in the local Akan language means “dead white man’s clothes.” Organizers see the event as a small way to disrupt a destructive cycle that has made Western overconsumption into an environmental problem in Africa, where some of the worn-out clothes end up in waterways and garbage dumps. “Instead of allowing (textile waste) to choke our gutters or beaches or landfills, I decided to use it to create something ... for us to use again,” said Richard Asante Palmer, one of the designers at the annual festival organized by the Or Foundation, a nonprofit that works at the intersection of environmental justice and fashion development.Ghana is one of Africa's leading importers of used clothing. It also ships some of what it gets from the United Kingdom, Canada, China and elsewhere to other West African nations, the United States and the U.K., according to the Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association. Some of the imported clothes arrive in such poor shape, however, that vendors dispose of them to make room for the next shipments. On average, 40% of the millions of garments exported weekly to Ghana end up as waste, according to Neesha-Ann Longdon, the business manager for the Or Foundation’s executive director. The clothing dealers association, in a report published earlier this year on the socioeconomic and environmental impact of the nation’s secondhand clothing trade, cited a much lower estimate, saying only 5% of the items that reach Ghana in bulk are thrown out because they cannot be sold or reused. In many African countries, citizens typically buy preowned clothes — as well as used cars, phones and other necessities — because they cost less than new ones. Secondhand shopping also gives them a chance to score designer goods that most people in the region can only dream of.But neither Ghana's fast-growing population of 34 million people nor its overtaxed infrastructure is equipped to absorb the amount of cast-off attire entering the country. Mounds of textile waste litter beaches across the capital, Accra, and the lagoon which serves as the main outlet through which the city’s major drainage channels empty into the Gulf of Guinea.“Fast fashion has taken over as the dominant mode of production, which is characterized here as higher volumes of lower-quality goods,” Longdon said.Jonathan Abbey, a fisherman in the area, said his nets often capture textile waste from the sea. Unsold used clothes “aren’t even burned but are thrown into the Korle Lagoon, which then goes into the sea,” Abbey said.The ease of online shopping has sped up this waste cycle, according to Andrew Brooks, a King’s College London researcher and the author of “Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Second-hand Clothes.” In countries like the U.K., unwanted purchases often end up as charity donations, but clothes are sometimes stolen from street donation bins and exported to places where the consumer demand is perceived to be higher, Brooks said. Authorities rarely investigate such theft because the clothes are "seen as low-value items,” he said.Donors, meanwhile, think their castoffs are “going to be recycled rather than reused, or given away rather than sold, or sold in the U.K. rather than exported overseas,” Brooks said.The volume of secondhand clothing sent to Africa has led to complaints of the continent being used as a dumping ground. In 2018, Rwanda raised tariffs on such imports in defiance of U.S. pressure, citing concerns the West's refuse undermined efforts to strengthen the domestic textile industry. Last year, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said he would ban imports of clothing “from dead people.”Trade restrictions might not go far in either reducing textile pollution or encouraging clothing production in Africa, where profits are low and incentives for designers are few, experts say.In the absence of adequate measures to stop the pollution, organizations like the Or Foundation are trying to make a difference by rallying young people and fashion creators to find a good use for scrapped materials.Ghana's beaches had hardly any discarded clothes on them before the country's waste management problems worsened in recent years, foundation co-founder Allison Bartella said. “Fast forward to today, 2024, there are mountains of textile waste on the beaches,” she said.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

What Bird Flu in Wastewater Means for California and Beyond

Wastewater in several Californian cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, recently tested positive for bird flu. But understanding disease risk and exposure to humans isn’t so straightforward

Since the first avian influenza outbreaks hit the U.S. early this year, health and agriculture experts have struggled to track the virus’s spotty path as it spreads in dairy cow herds and an unknown number of humans. Infection risk still seems low for most people, but dairy workers and others directly exposed to cows have been getting sick. Canada’s first human case was just reported, in a teenager who is in critical condition. To get a better handle on the unsettling situation, scientists are picking up a pathogen-hunting tool that’s been powerful in the past: wastewater surveillance.In the past couple of weeks, wastewater samples in several locations mostly scattered around California—including the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose—tested positive for genetic material from the bird flu virus, H5N1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Wastewater Surveillance System reported detections at 14 sites in California during a collection period that ended on November 2. As of November 13, across the U.S., 15 sites monitored by WastewaterSCAN, a project run by Stanford University and Emory University researchers, reported positive samples this month. But finding H5N1 material in wastewater doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a risk to human health, says WastewaterSCAN’s co-director Alexandria Boehm, a civil and environmental engineer at Stanford University.Analyzing trace amounts of viral genetic material, often shed by fecal matter in sewers, can alert scientists and public health experts to a possible increase in community infections. Wastewater sampling became instrumental in forecasting COVID cases across the U.S., for instance. But the way H5N1 affects both animal and human populations complicates identifying sources and understanding disease risk. H5N1 can be deadly in poultry. Cattle usually recover from symptoms—such as fever, dehydration and reduced milk production—but veterinarians and farmers are reporting that cows have been dying at higher rates in California than in other affected states. Cats that drink raw milk from infected cows can develop deadly neurological symptoms. The current cases in humans haven’t caused any known deaths (most people have flulike symptoms, although some develop eye infections), but past major outbreaks outside of the U.S. have resulted in fatalities.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Scientific American spoke with Boehm about the latest bird flu detections in wastewater and the ways that scientists are using these data to better track and understand disease prevalence and exposure—among animals and humans both.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]When did WastewaterSCAN start tracking H5N1?We noticed something very unusual in Amarillo, Tex. [In the spring of 2024,] after flu season, we saw really high levels of influenza A [one of the four flu virus types that infect humans] RNA nucleic acids in their wastewater. This was surprising because we know influenza A in wastewater tracks with cases in the community—but there were not very many cases in the community, and it was after flu season. We also then heard on the news that they had discovered cattle infected with avian influenza in the same area in Texas. So we worked in collaboration with the local wastewater treatment plants and public health officers to test the wastewater. And we found that, indeed, it was H5 [a subtype of avian influenza A virus] in their waste stream. We determined that most of that H5 was coming from legal discharges into the sanitary sewer from milk processing plants.Then when we scaled the H5 assay across the country, we were finding it in locations where, shortly thereafter, cattle were being identified as being infected [with the virus]. In June the CDC actually sent memos to the states asking them to try to measure H5 in wastewater, recognizing that the measurements can help to understand the extent and duration of the outbreak in the U.S.Has wastewater analysis been able to trace cases to any sources?We can’t always rule out that it’s wild birds or poultry or humans, but overall the preponderance of evidence suggests most of the inputs are likely from cow milk. That cow milk is getting into consumer homes, where people are disposing of it down the drain. I’m sure you have poured out milk down your sink—I know I have. It’s also coming from permitted operations where people are making cheese or yogurt or ice cream, and they might be starting with a milk product that has the avian influenza nucleic acids in it.I want to stress that the milk in people’s homes that might have the avian influenza RNA is not infectious or a threat to human health. It’s just a marker that some milk got into the food chain that originally had the virus in it. It’s killed because milk products are pasteurized—and that’s, by the way, why drinking raw milk or eating raw cheeses right now is not really recommended. The RNA that makes up the genome of these viruses is extremely stable in wastewater. It’s even stable after pasteurization. So you pasteurize the raw milk, and the RNA is still present at about the same concentrations.Detecting it in the wastewater does not mean there’s a risk to human health. What it does mean is that there are still infected cattle that are around the vicinity, and work still needs to be done to identify those cattle and remove their products from the food chain, which is the goal of the officials that are in charge of that aspect of the outbreak.How might we be able to better determine where the viral genetic material is coming from and assess human infection rates?It is very difficult because genetically the virus is not different [between sources]. It’s not like we can say, “Oh, the one in humans is going to be like this, and so let’s look for that.” We’re working really closely with public health departments that are really proactive in sequencing positive influenza cases. If we do start seeing it in [more] people, we will likely know it because we’ll see differences in the wastewater.I don’t want to be alarmist because right now the risk of getting H5N1 is very minimal, and the symptoms are really mild. But I think one of the concerns is that the virus could mutate during this influenza season coming up. Somebody who’s infected with [seasonal influenza] could also get infected with H5N1, and then it could maybe create a new strain that could be more severe. We’re hoping that the wastewater data, along with all the other data that people and agencies are collecting, will together help figure out what’s going on and protect public health better.What are trends are you seeing in your surveillance right now?Most recently, California is just lighting up. A lot of the wastewater samples in California are coming back as positive, even in locations that are very urban—such as the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. The question is: Why? In some of these locations, there actually are small operations where people are making dairy products with milk. But another explanation, like I mentioned earlier, is just the wasting of milk products.How do H5N1 levels in wastewater correlate to infections in animals?We’re sort of seeing it as an early indicator, or concurrent indicator, of cattle in the vicinity being infected with avian influenza. The first detections were in Texas, and we saw a lot of detections in Michigan for a while, and now the hot spot is California. As scientists, we’re going to analyze all this in the future. But anecdotally, the H5 detections in wastewater are following along with when herds are identified, and then once it’s sort of under control, we stop seeing it.Public health officials are using the data to say, “Okay, we got a positive in this location. What are the different sources that could account for it? Have we tested all the cattle that are contributing milk products to industries in this sewer shed? Have we gotten rid of all the infected herds in our state, because now we’re not getting any positives in the wastewater?”How else are scientists and officials staying on top of cases and spread?The [U.S. Department of Agriculture] and different entities around the country are pursuing it from an animal health perspective and a food safety perspective. So there is testing of cattle herds and milk products. There’s also testing of poultry, and then there’s testing of workers that are in contact with infected herds and infected poultry. On the clinical side, there is a push to get influenza-positive samples sequenced to understand what kind of influenza it is, as sort of a safety net to see if there might be some avian influenza circulating in people. So far, cases have been in people who are actually exposed to infected animals, who are working on farms, and perhaps in some of their family members.How has tracking H5N1 been different from or similar to COVID or other pathogens?All the other pathogens that we track have been conceptually similar to COVID, where humans are the source [of pathogenic material in wastewater]. We know that the occurrence of the viral or fungal material in wastewater match the cases. Bird flu is the first example where we’re using wastewater to track something that is primarily not, at least right now, from a human source but has potential human health implications for different reasons. It’s been a really great case study of how wastewater can be used not only for tracking human illness but also zoonotic pathogens—pathogens that affect animals. So now we’re thinking about what else wastewater could be used for. What other kinds of animal byproducts end up in the waste stream that might contain biomarkers of infectious disease? H5 is our first example, and I’m sure there will be more.

Generative AI Could Generate Millions More Tons of E-Waste by 2030

Generative AI could saddle the planet with heaps more hazardous waste

November 14, 20243 min readGenerative AI Is Poised to Worsen the E-Waste CrisisGenerative AI could saddle the planet with heaps more hazardous waste By Saima S. IqbalA server room in a data center. Every time generative artificial intelligence drafts an e-mail or conjures up an image, the planet pays for it. Making two images can consume as much energy as charging a smartphone; a single exchange with ChatGPT can heat up a server so much that it requires a bottle’s worth of water to cool. At scale, these costs soar. By 2027, the global AI sector could annually consume as much electricity as the Netherlands, according to one recent estimate. And a new study in Nature Computational Science identifies another concern: AI’s outsize contribution to the world’s mounting heap of electronic waste. The study found that generative AI applications alone could add 1.2 million to five million metric tons of this hazardous trash to the planet by 2030, depending on how quickly the industry grows.Such a contribution would add to the tens of millions of tons of electronic products the globe discards annually. Cell phones, microwave ovens, computers and other ubiquitous digital products often contain mercury, lead or other toxins. When improperly discarded, they can contaminate air, water and soil. The United Nations found that in 2022 about 78 percent of the world’s e-waste wound up in landfills or at unofficial recycling sites, where laborers risk their health to scavenge rare metals.The worldwide AI boom rapidly churns through physical data storage devices, plus the graphics processing units and other high-performance components needed to process thousands of simultaneous calculations. This hardware lasts anywhere from two to five years—but it’s often replaced as soon as newer versions become available. Asaf Tzachor, a sustainability researcher at Israel’s Reichman University, who co-authored the new study, says its findings emphasize the need to monitor and reduce this technology’s environmental impacts.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.To calculate just how much generative AI contributes to this problem, Tzachor and his colleagues examined the type and volume of hardware used to run large language models, the length of time that these components last and the growth rate of the generative AI sector. The researchers caution that their prediction is a gross estimate that could change based on a few additional factors. More people might adopt generative AI than the authors’ models anticipate, for example. Hardware design innovations, meanwhile, could reduce e-waste in a given AI system—but other technological advances can make systems cheaper and more accessible to the public, increasing the number in use.This study’s biggest value comes from its attention to AI’s broad environmental impacts, says Shaolei Ren, a researcher at the University of California, Riverside, who studies responsible AI and was not involved in the new research. “We might want these [generative AI] companies to slow down a bit,” he says.Few countries mandate the proper disposal of e-waste, and those that do often fail to enforce their existing laws on it. Twenty-five U.S. states have e-waste management policies, but there is no federal law that requires electronics recycling. In February Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts introduced a bill that would require federal agencies to study and develop standards for AI’s environmental impacts, including e-waste. But that bill, the Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2024 (which has not passed the Senate), would not force AI developers to cooperate with its voluntary reporting system. Some companies, however, claim to be taking independent action. Microsoft and Google have pledged to reach net zero waste and net zero emissions respectively by 2030; this would likely involve reducing or recycling AI-related e-waste.Companies that use AI have numerous options to limit e-waste. It’s possible to squeeze more life out of servers, for instance, through regular maintenance and updates or by shifting worn-out devices to less-intensive applications. Refurbishing and reusing obsolete hardware components can also cut waste by 42 percent, Tzachor and his co-authors note in the new study. And more efficient chip and algorithm design could reduce generative AI’s demand for hardware and electricity. Combining all these strategies would reduce e-waste by 86 percent, the study authors estimate.There’s another wrinkle as well: AI products tend to be trickier to recycle than standard electronics because the former often contain a lot of sensitive customer data, says Kees Baldé, an e-waste researcher at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, who wasn’t involved with the new study. But big tech companies can afford to both erase that data and properly dispose of their electronics, he points out. “Yes, it costs something,” he says of broader e-waste recycling, “but the gains for society are much larger.”

Demolition of Homes Built on a New Orleans Toxic Waste Site Begins

Demolition of abandoned homes constructed on a toxic waste site has begun in New Orleans

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Demolition of abandoned homes constructed on a toxic waste site began Wednesday in New Orleans, where Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan joined local officials touting plans to replace the homes with a solar energy farm.Homes in the area known as Gordon Plaza were built in the 1970s and 1980s and marketed to Black people and low- and middle-income residents who weren’t told that the site was a one-time landfill. As awareness grew and environmentalists raised concerns, the area was named a federal Superfund cleanup site in 1994. Amid reports that the soil was contaminated with lead and carcinogens, including arsenic, residents began a decades-long effort to be relocated at government expense. The city set aside $35 million in 2022 to pay for buyouts of residents’ homes.Shortly before excavators began tearing into the first house, Regan commended Mayor LaToya Cantrell, U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, City Council members and activists who worked to bring about the buyouts.Regan said the moment was “bittersweet” during a pre-demolition news conference livestreamed by WWL-TV. “After all, this is the demolition of a neighborhood that, despite all of the issues that they face, it holds sentimental value to so many people,” Regan said. “This is where so many people bought their first home after years of work and countless sacrifices.”City Council members Oliver Thomas and Eugene Green said they had family members who had moved into the subdivision with high hopes, only to learn of the environmental dangers. “I’m pleased to be here today in recognition of the families that went through so much for so long," Green said.New Orleans officials say they hope to use power from a solar farm planned for the site to supplement energy sources for the city's street drainage pump system. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

A hazardous waste site becomes ‘San Francisco’s Next Great Park’

After almost 150 years, a piece of San Francisco’s last remaining natural shoreline in Bayview-Hunters Point is now accessible to the public. First, it had to be cleaned up. The post A hazardous waste site becomes ‘San Francisco’s Next Great Park’ appeared first on Bay Nature.

Since he moved to Bayview at five years old, Darryl Watkins wondered why a neglected lot, called 900 Innes, was closed off. He often played basketball at India Basin Shoreline Park next to the yard sloping into the Bay, and peeked through the fence to find dirt, trash, neglected buildings, and a dilapidated cottage that housed shipbuilders over a century ago. It was in such disrepair that Watkins never imagined it could be a park. The parks he liked had clean bathrooms, trees, and nature—things found outside of his community. Over $200 million and four years of remediation and construction later, the fences enclosing the yard finally opened on October 19. It’s the first time residents will be able to step foot on the completely transformed property, with two new piers, a floating dock, a food pavilion, and access to some of San Francisco’s last remaining natural shoreline. The 900 Innes opening marks the completion of the second phase of a three-part plan that combines the existing India Basin Shoreline Park and 900 Innes property into one 10-acre waterfront park, while closing a major gap on the 13-mile San Francisco Blue Greenway-Bay Trail.  The 900 Innes Waterfront Park unveiling on October 19; section of the San Francisco Blue Greenway-Bay Trail; Mayor London Breed cutting the ribbon on opening day (Photos by Jillian Magtoto) The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (RPD)  is calling it “San Francisco’s Next Great Park” that will bring the city’s southern waterfront up to par with iconic public spaces such as Crissy Field, Washington Square Park, and Golden Gate Park. Beyond the flashy claims, the RPD wants the park to benefit local residents long burdened by a history of industrial pollution. “It’s southeast communities where the city has put all of its crap. We put our water treatment plants, we put our power plants, we put everything that no one else wanted in the city,” says David Froehlich, the RPD project manager of remediation for all three India Basin Park projects. “Whether we built a park here or not, we always promise the community that we would leave this site cleaner than it was when we purchased it.” Some Bayview-Hunters Point locals aren’t convinced RPD has done enough, while others are hopeful the park was indeed adequately remediated. “It’s been a long time coming,” says Jill Fox, who has lived across the street from 900 Innes Ave for over 30 years. “Our fingers are crossed that it will be a good thing for our community.” The old shipyard at 900 Innes Ave along San Francisco’s India Basin has long worn the past of industrial boating. The blacksmith shop, boatyard office, and tool shed had partially or almost completely collapsed. Old overhead power lines sparked and caught on fire, according to residents. The ground was blanketed with concrete, brick, glass, and wood fragments that thickened up to forty feet down into the water. It was sold to private businesses in 1991 and passed between different owners for decades, serving various roles as a homeless encampment, illegal drug lab, and construction storage yard. It remained undeveloped and inaccessible to the public until community members advocated for the property to be acquired by the RPD in 2014. “I always thought 900 Innes would be much better as a respite, a place to be with nature,” says Fox, who participated in the effort towards the lot’s public acquisition. “RPD had the funds and owned properties on either side of it.” A rendition of the India Basin Waterfront Park Project, the combination of the renovated India Basin Shoreline Park and the neighboring 900 Innes property. The result will be a 10-acre waterfront park, planned to be completed in 2026 (left); map of India Basin (right) (Photos courtesy of India Basin Waterfront Park) But the site was far from being a natural respite. Soil samples in 2017 revealed elevated levels of PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals from painting, waterproofing, and other boating activities, especially concentrated near boat launch sites. Before it could ever become a place for people, a significant cleanup was in order. “There were a lot of regulatory agencies that were involved,” says Froehlich. “And permits that I wasn’t typically used to.” Local, state, and federal agencies oversaw the remediation, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, California State Water Board, and the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board. They monitored the site as the RPD installed a temporary water barrier to push back the Bay water, like the rim of a massive inflatable pool, to remove layers of concrete and up to two feet of contaminated soil. In 2022, the last year of remediation, they discovered the contaminants spread deeper. They found lead, mercury, and PCBs up to seven feet below ground, according to the Remedial Action Plan. “We excavated down to a completely clean site and put clean cover on top of that, using soil from a virgin quarry in the East Bay,” says Froehlich. “So, in theory, it’s a completely clean site.” Water barrier installed during remediation (Photo by San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department)Still, some community advocates remain unsure. “We support a new and improved park in theory, but as long as it can be clean and safe,” says Bradley Angel, the director of Greenaction, a San Francisco-based health and environmental justice nonprofit. The city’s only Superfund site is just a third of a mile southeast from 900 Innes, a former naval laboratory that leaked petroleum, pesticides, and radioactive waste into the ground for 40 years. This contamination remained unknown until 2012, when the Navy discovered that the federally-contracted consulting firm Tetra Tech EC falsified their data. While the Navy allowed Tetra Tech to clear itself in an internal investigation, whistleblowers in 2017 alleged that the Navy mishandled cleanup efforts and covered up the extent of the pollution, in a lawsuit led by Greenaction against the EPA and Navy. Still, the RPD is confident that the former naval site has no effect on 900 Innes. No radioactive chemicals were found, according to RPD communications manager, Daniel Montes. But advocates like Angel haven’t forgotten.  “Greenaction and the community for many years regarding the Hunters Point shipyard Superfund site have called for independent community oversight of all testing and cleanup activities, and that’s fallen on deaf ears,” says Bradley. “Greenaction believes that there needs to be independent retesting of India Basin and the whole shoreline in Bayview, because we do not trust for good reason.” Angel is not just concerned by what might be in the ground at 900 Innes, but also what might be in the air. South of the new park, at 700 Innes, is a planned residential and commercial complex by BUILD LLC, a private developer that agreed to give about six acres of land to the RPD. Originally planned alongside the 900 Innes property, the RPD issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 2017 that combined the projected effects of both sites. Still the latest available EIR, it concluded that the joint project “would generate emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations significant and unavoidable with mitigation.” Bayview-Hunters Point sees about 97 more annual cases of asthma-related emergency room visits and three more heart attack-related visits per ten thousand people than greater San Francisco. The community is among four neighborhoods in the city with the highest rate of preventable hospitalizations related to air pollution, according to a San Francisco Public Utility Commission 2017 study.  While 700 Innes has been delayed, Angel says once construction begins, the area “won’t be a safe place for some people.” “I can’t comment on the 700 Innes impacts for air quality and what that development would do,” says Froehlich. But noted that with construction complete, now and going forward, 900 Innes park will have a very small impact on air quality. The neighboring 700 Innes site (Photo by Jillian Magtoto) As the RPD moves India Basin past its history of shipping pollution into one of public recreation, a new era of boating emerges. The park opening commenced the arrival of Rocking the Boat—a nonprofit that provides nature and boat education for youth from Hunts Point, New York, with origins similar not just in name. Based in an underserved community in the Bronx, home to aging treatment plants and heavy transportation emissions, the nonprofit was offered an opportunity from the RPD to continue their work at the shop building near the floating docks at 900 Innes, fixing boats and offering rides on the water every Sunday. In March 2025, they will recruit 16 eighth graders from the community to build a 14-foot whitehall from scratch, a type of rowboat that hauled people and small goods in both New York City and San Francisco into the 19th century. Their work will  just involve wood and a little bit of glue,” says Adam Green, who founded Rocking the Boat in 2001. “My hope is that the RPD uses shavings and sawdust we collect for mulch.” The park is newly landscaped with upland sage and native vegetation that run along concrete paths. Mulch and wood chips cover the areas in between. Rocking the Boat employees working at the shop building; Whitehall boats docked at the new floating piers (Photos by Jillian Magtoto) Watkins will work at the park he once thought would never be possible. He will be working at the same Shipwright’s Cottage he saw through the fence not long ago, now a museum, to welcome visitors when they first walk in.  “I think they brought me on to be a connector between the community and the project,” says Watkins. “Having people that really care about this park will help maintain it for years to come.” Darryl Watkins at 900 Innes Ave, just next to Shipwright’s Cottage (Photo by Jillian Magtoto)

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.