Waste Management

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 37 | Comments: 0 | Views: 630
of 119
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

SPEC ECIA IALLY LLY CO COMM MMIS ISSI SION ONED ED RE REPO PORT RT  A SP

 WASTE MANAGEMENT:  WASTE MANAGEMENT: THE NEW LEGISLATIVE CLIMATE Caroline Hand

MS c

 

IFC

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 A SP SPEC ECIA IALLY LLY CO COMM MMIS ISSI SION ONED ED RE REPO PORT RT

 WAS  W ASTE TE MA MANA NAGE GEME MENT NT:: THE NEW LEGISLATIVE CLIMATE Caroline Hand MSc

 

Thorogood Publishing Ltd

Other Thorogood

10-12 Rivington Street 

Professional Insights

t : 020 7749 4748

London EC2A 3DU. 3DU.

f : 020 7729 6110 e: [email protected]

Applying the Employment Act 2002

 w : www.thorogood.ws

– Crucial Developments for Employers and Employees  Audrey Williams

© Caroline Hand MSc 2006

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

Commerciall Litigation: Damages Commercia and Other Remedies Robert Ribeiro

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any  form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior

IT Governance David Norfolk 

permission of the publisher.

This Report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way  of trade or otherwise, be lent,

Email – Legal Issues Susan Singleton

re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of  binding or cover other than in

Employee Sickness and

which it is published and without

Fitness for Work

a similar condition including this condition being imposed upon

Gillian Howard

the subsequent purchaser purchaser.. No responsibility for loss

Software Contract Agreements

occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a

Robert Bond

result of any material in this publication can be accepted by  the author or publisher.

Special discounts for bulk quantities of Thorogood books are available to corporations, institutions, associations and other organisations. For more information

A CIP catalogue record for

contact Thorogood by telephone on

this Report is available from

020 7749 4748, by fax on 020 7729 6110, or

the British Library.

email us: [email protected] [email protected] s

ISBN 1 85418 367 2 Printed in Great Britain by Marston Digital

 

The author Caroline Hand is a freelance writer and lecturer on environmental legislation and policy, specialising in waste management. She is Consultant Editor of Croner’s Waste Management information Management information service and has been responsible for providing the quarterly updates since 1992. Along with Jeff Cooper of the Environment Agency, Caroline also gives regular seminars on waste management for Croner Training. Her previous responsibilities include two years as Specialist Assistant to the House of Commons Environment Committee.

 Acknowledgem  Acknow ledgements ents The information in this report is drawn from various sources, but I would particularly like to acknowledge my debt to Jeff Cooper, Richard Hawkins and the  ENDS Report , all of whom have provided invaluable insights into the team at at ENDS current developments surrounding waste.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

iii

 

Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................vi

1

P O L I C Y F R AM E W O RK

1

Principles of environmental environmental and and waste legislation legislation .................................2 UK policy .................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................4 ..4 Achieving the objectives objectives .............................................................................4

2

O V ERVIEW O F WAS TE R EG U LATIO N

7

Definition of waste.......................................................................................8 Permitting and licensing licensing of waste waste facilities ............................................11 Duty of care and fly-tipping......................................................................18 Other recent legislation with relevance relevance to waste ..................................20

3

H A Z AR DO U S WA STE

24

Introduction................................................................................................25 Hazardous waste arisings.........................................................................26 What is hazardous hazardous waste? ........................................................................27 Duties under the hazardous waste waste regulations ......................................38

4

LANDFI LAN DFILL LL REGUL REGULA ATIO TIONS NS AND AND THEIR THEIR IMP IMPACT 43 Introduction................................................................................................44 Overview of the the landfill directive directive .............................................................45 The co-disposal ban and the ‘hazardou ‘hazardous s waste crisis’ ..........................50 Waste Wa ste acceptance criteria (WAC) (WAC) ............................................................57 Technical details of the WAC....................................................................60 Characterization, Characterizati on, testing and sampling (WAP)......................................67 (WAP).............. ........................67 Conclusion..................................................................................................71

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

iv 

 

CONTENTS

5

P R O DU C E R R E S PO NS I B I L I T Y

73

General principles .....................................................................................74 Packaging ................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................74 74 End-of-life vehicles ....................................................................................79 Waste Wa ste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) ..............................84

6

LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND M U NIC IPAL WAS TE

90

Local authority authority responsibilities responsibilities ................................................................91 Local authorities and the landfill directive........... directive..............................................91 ...................................91 Landfill allowances allowances and trading scheme (LATS) (LATS) ....................................94 Implication of landfill diversion diversion targets targets ..................................................96 Changes to to planning planning principles principles ...............................................................99

G L O SS ARY O F A B BR EV IATIO NS

1 01

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 v 

 

Executive summary  This Report gives a brief overview of the most important changes to waste policy  and legislation over the last two to three years, and looks ahead to further changes in the pipeline for 2006. It will be of especial interest to industrial waste producers, even more so if some of their waste is hazardous. However, the changes documented here have implications for the whole of society society,, from householders to Government departments, and there is no individual or organization which will not be affected by at least one of the developments described. Chapter 1 outlines the main aims of EU and UK policy, focusing on the objective of shifting waste away from landfill to t o recovery and recycling. Chapter 2 moves on to examining the regulatory regimes which govern waste management. Wellestablished legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is not considered in detail; instead the focus is on newer developments such as the regulation of waste facilities under the Pollution Prevention and Control regime, and the recent initiatives to clamp down on fly-tipping. Chapters 3 and 4 examine the impact of two EU Directives that have brought about a major reshaping of waste management in the UK – the Hazardous Waste Directive and the Landfill Directive. The chapter on Hazardous Waste (Chapter 3) gives practical information for hazardous waste producers, detailing their new duties under the new Regulations and, in particular particular,, explaining how to assess whether waste is hazardous. Around 180 waste streams st reams became hazardous for the first time during 2005, and it is essential to know whether your waste is one of these. The chapter on the Landfill Directive (Chapter 4) and its impact scrutinizes the much-disputed ‘hazardous waste crisis’ which was predicted to arise from the co-disposal ban of 2004. What has happened to all the hazardous waste which was formerly landfilled at co-disposal sites? No-one knows for sure, but a recent survey has yielded some revealing information. What is certain is that industry’s waste costs are set to continue rising sharply as companies foot the bill for the additional treatment or specialized landfill required under the new regime. The second part of the chapter describes in detail the Waste Acceptance Criteria, and explains the practical steps which hazardous waste producers must take in order to comply with the Landfill Regulations. Many companies are not yet aware of their statutory duties to notify the Agency and ensure that their wastes

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 vi

 

E X E C U T IV E S U M M A R Y

are sampled, tested and characterized – requirements which can be both costly  and time consuming. The Packaging Regulations have been in force for eight years but are still a cause for concern for many businesses. Producer responsibility is now being extended to two further waste streams – end of life vehicles (ELVs) and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Chapter 5 outlines the current and proposed regulations, with information on how the WEEE Directive is to be implemented. Finally, Chapter 6 looks at the impact of the Landfill Directive on local authorities. It outlines the new system of landfill allowances and describes describ es how changes to planning policy are being introduced in order to encourage the development d evelopment of new waste treatment sites. Without a massive investment in new composting, treatment and energy recovery facilities, the UK cannot hope to meet its EU targets for diversion of waste from landfill.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 vii

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Chapter 1 Policy framework Principles of environmental environmental and waste legislation legislation ...........................2 UK policy ............................................................................................. ................................................................................................4 ...4 Achieving the objectives.......................................................................4

 

Chapter 1 Policy framework

Principles of environmental and waste legislation Most of our waste and environmental legislation has its source in Europe. All the major changes to the law described in this Report Repor t – such as the Landfill Regulations, Hazardous Waste Regulations, producer responsibility schemes and Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme – have been introduced in order to implement EU directives. The key principles of EU waste policy were taking shape as early as 1974 when the first Waste Framework Directive was published. General environmental principles which influence waste directives are: •

the Poll Pollute uterr Pays Pays Prin Princip ciple le – whic which h under underlies lies,, for for exa example mple,, prod produce ucerr responsibility legislation;



the Pre Precau cautio tionary nary Prin Princip ciple le whic which h state states s that that whe where re ther there e are are threa threats ts of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This is illustrated by the Waste Incineration Directive, which sets extremely stringent emission limits; and



the Pro Proxim ximity ity Pri Princi nciple ple (wa (waste ste to be dis dispos posed ed of at the the near nearest est sui suitab table le facility).

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

2

 

1 POLICY FRAMEWORK

The 1989 Community Waste Strategy gave legal expression to the concept of  the waste hierarchy . The UK’s revised National Waste Strategy sets it out as follows:

Waste reduction

Reuse

Materials recycling and composting

Energy recovery

Disposal (landfill and incineration without energy recovery)

The waste hierarchy  The waste diversion targets in the Landfill Directive (see Chapter Chapt er 6, Local authorities and municipal waste) illustrate how legislation is used to move waste up the hierarchy, encouraging waste producers to reuse, recover and recycle their waste where practicable, rather than consign it to landfill. Producer responsibility directives such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive also attempt to increase recycling and recovery. Of course, the primary aim of waste legislation is to ensure that waste management activities are carried out in a way which does not n ot harm the environment. The objectives of the Was the Waste te Framework Framework Direct Directive ive 75/442/ 75/442/EEC EEC,, amended by  91/156/EEC include: ‘ensuring that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and in particular without i)

risk to water, soil, plants or animals

ii)

causing nuisance through noise or odours

iii)

adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.’

When courts are called on to make judgements on the interpretation of waste law, such as in the recent Van de Walle case (see Chapter 2), they will refer back to these basic objectives of waste regulation.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

3

 

1 POLICY FRAMEWORK

UK policy  “The overall objective of Government policy pol icy on waste, as set out in the strategy  for sustainable development, is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible…the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste. This means a step-change in the way waste is handled handl ed and significant new investment in waste management facilities.” (Planning Policy  Statement (PPS) 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management , July 2005, available on www www.odpm.gov.uk.) .odpm.gov.uk.) This quote shows how UK policy directly reflects the EU objectives summarized above. As required by the Waste Framework Directive, Directive, the UK Government has produced a national waste plan, Waste Strategy 2000. 2000. As the title might suggest, this is already out of date and the strategy has been built upon by subsequent documents and reports. It has most recently been amended by a July 2005 document, Changes to Waste Management Decision Making Principles Prin ciples in Waste Strategy 2000 (available on www.defra.gov.uk), and supplemented by PPS 10. These policy documents, and the decision making principles set out to achieve their goals, are discussed further in the section on planning in Chapter Chapt er 6, Local authorities and municipal waste. Waste reduction is undeniably at the top of the hierarchy but it cannot really  be legislated for, and the Government is only able to offer exhortation and information to waste producers (for example, via Envirowise). When it comes to legislation and detailed policy measures, the Government’s objective has really  been to shift waste from landfill to recycling and recovery.

 Achieving  Achiev ing the object objectives ives Legislation Most directives are implemented through national legislation, and in the UK there has recently been a plethora of new statutory instruments implementing the Landfill Directive, Hazardous Ha zardous Waste Directive, End of Life Vehicles Directive and so on. Most of these sets of regulations transpose the specific targets and requirements of directives, such as the waste diversion targets and Waste Acceptance Criteria in the Landfill Directive or the national targets for recycling waste electrical and electronic equipment.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

4

 

1 POLICY FRAMEWORK

However,, Governments are free to adopt other approaches towards achieving However their environmental objectives.

Market mechanisms The UK has traditionally tended tend ed to leave more to the private sector and free market than have other Member States. So, for example, the Government is looking to the private waste companies to remedy the shortfall in treatment capacity for hazardous waste (see Chapter 4, Landfill regulations and their impact). Economic instruments such as the landfill tax, aggregates levy and Packaging Waste Recovery Notes can be used to divert waste from landfill. One of the chief barriers to increasing recycling has always been the lack of  markets, or fluctuating markets, for recycled materials. The Government has sponsored WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action Programme) to create markets and generally encourage voluntary efforts towards waste reduction, recycling and recovery. This can be seen as a necessary corrective to traditional market mechanisms, making them take account of environmental costs and benefits. The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee commented that ‘It is hard to overstate the importance of markets for recycled goods and materials. A step change is needed to ensure that waste is valued for the resources it contains’. (Eighth Report Rep ort of 2002-2003, The Future of Waste Management , available at www.parliament.uk/efracom). However, some take a more sceptical view such as well-known waste lawyer Richard Hawkins who sees little point in “using construction rubbish rub bish to produce building blocks as expensive as veined Carrera marble” marble ” and is unhappy that “even if the recycled recycl ed materials cannot find a market, their production must be subsidized by the tax  and/or rate payer until (hopefully) markets become established”. (The (The Practical Guide to Waste Management Law , by R G P Hawkins and H S Shaw, Thomas Telford, 2004.)

Success or otherwise? However worthwhile the environmental objectives of waste policy, little will be achieved if proposed EU legislation is poorly thought th ought out, ambiguously drafted and fails to take into account the specific situations of stakeholders within Member States. (Such allegations have been laid against aspects of the Landfill Directive.) Once a directive has been adopted, confusion will result if the new legislation is not communicated clearly to those affected, and subsequently backed up with adequate funding and firm enforcement. The Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, in its eighth report cited above, concluded that DEFRA

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

5

 

1 POLICY FRAMEWORK

‘does not seem to have a real sense of where it wants to go, and the Agency  still appears to be under-funded for its regulatory role. Once again, we question the Department’s ability to negotiate and implement European Union laws to the best advantage of the United Kingdom’. The subsequent chapters report both achievements and failures in the Government’s efforts to move the UK towards sustainable waste management. Recycling of municipal waste has increased and targets have been fully or nearly  nearl y  met; industry has taken steps to reduce the generation of hazardous waste; local authorities are putting into practice the environmentally sound principles of  integrated waste management. However, at the same time the Government has been the focus of sustained criticism from both waste producers and waste managers due to the lack of resolve, delays and uncertainty involved in implementing far reaching EU measures such as the landfill Wa Waste ste Acceptance Criteria and WEEE Directive. The new requirements have produced a dramatic upheaval in the waste management scene, challenging Government, industry  and regulators alike, and it will be some years before the overall balance of costs and benefits to society becomes apparent.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

6

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Chapter 2 Overview of waste regulation Definition of waste.................................................................................8 Permitting and licensing licensing of waste facilities ......................................11 Duty of care and fly-tipping................................................................18 Other recent legislation with relevance relevance to waste ............................20 ......... ...................20

 

Chapter 2 Overview of waste regulation

Definition of waste It is very important to understand the legal definition of waste, which is established at EU level. Materials will only be subject to waste legislation if they fall within the scope of the definition. For example, radioactive waste is excluded from the definition of waste because it is controlled under separate, specialized legislation. Of greater concern to industry is the fact that many useful materials, which have an economic value, are regarded in law as waste and subject to controls such as licensing, hazardous waste consignment procedures and the Duty of Care. The effect of court judgements over the years has been to broaden the definition of waste to cover almost all secondary materials. This will be discussed in greater detail below.

Legislation  WASTE  W ASTE

The definition of waste throughout the t he EU is taken from the revised W revised Was aste te Fr Fram ameework Directive 75/442/EEC, 75/442/EEC, as amended by 91/156/EEC 91/156/EEC.. Article 1 of the Directive defines ‘waste’ as ‘any substance or object which the holder discards, or intends to or is required to discard’. discard’. A list of waste categories follows, but the courts regard this as being for guidance only. The key word is ‘discard’: if someone is deemed to have discarded the material, it is waste regardless of  its value to subsequent holders. The interpretation of ‘discard’ was widened dramatically in the recent Van de Walle case (see below) to include the contamination of soil from an unintentional spillage. The following materials are excluded from the EU definition of waste: •

gaseous emissions



radioactive waste



wast wa ste e from from min minin ing g and qua quarry rryin ing g (thou (though gh wast waste e from from bui buildi ldings ngs at at mines and quarries is not excluded)

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

8

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION



natural, natu ral, non non-da -danger ngerous ous mat materia erials ls used used in agric agricult ulture ure suc such h as as manur manure e



waste waters.

CONTROLLED WASTE

UK waste controls apply only to ‘controlled wastes’ which are defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 1990 as •

household wa waste



commercial waste



industrial wa waste.

The precise meaning of these three types is spelled out in the Act and clarified in the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 588). 588). The term ‘household waste’ is used broadly to include wastes from institutions such as prisons, nursing homes and community halls. EU legislation refers instead inste ad to ‘domestic waste’ which refers only to waste from private dwellings. The hazardous h azardous waste legislation (see Chapter 3, Hazardous waste) uses the EU term. The term ‘directive waste’ was coined in 1994 to describe all wastes covered by  the EU definition. Threatened with EU infraction proceedings, the UK is having to extend the definition of controlled waste to cover agricultural and mineral ‘directive wastes’. This will come into force f orce during 2006 in England and Wales. It has serious implications for farmers who will no longer be able to burn and dump waste on their land in an uncontrolled fashion. Some will have to apply  for waste management licences. Hazardous agricultural wastes such as pesticides will be subject to the hazardous waste legislation, including restrictions on landfill. The collection of waste plastics from farms is another issue of concern: these can be recycled but a previous voluntary collection scheme failed due to ‘free riders’ making it uneconomic. Scotland has already extended its waste controls to mining and agricultural wastes, under the Was the Waste te (Scotland) (Scotland) Regulat Regulations ions 2005 2005 (SSI 2005 No. No. 22). 22).

Court cases The precise meaning of ‘waste’ has been hammered out in court cases over the  years.  yea rs. A fund fundame amental ntal prin principl ciple e of loo looking king at the disp disputed uted mat materia eriall fro from m the poin pointt of view of the producer is illustrated in a 1987 case, Berridge case, Berridge Incinerators Ltd v   Nottinghamshire  Nottinghamshi re County Council (1987) where the judge said, “If I have an old fireplace to dispose of to a passing rag and bone man, its character as a waste is not affected by whether or not I can persuade the latter to pay me 50p for it.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

9

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

In my judgement, the correct approach is to regard the material from f rom the point of view of the person who produces it…” However,, it is not always this straightforward and the definition However de finition of waste continues to be a moot point of lengthy court cases both in the UK and the European Court of Justice. Two Two recent cases illustrate how as time has passed, the th e definition has been extended to take in a greater range of materials that might not intuitively  be regarded as ‘waste’.

CASE STUDY: MAYER PARRY II Mayer Parry is a large metal recycling company. It stood to gain from selling Packaging Waste Recovery Notes (PRNs) (see the sec tion on Packaging in Chapter 5, Producer Responsibility) provided it could demonstrate that it was reprocessing the scrap that it collec ted. The Environment Agency took the view that the steelwo rks (Corus), not the metal recycler, is the reprocessor and therefore the one entitled to sell PRNs. The European Cour t of Justice’s (ECJ’s) decision in June 2003 determined that packaging waste is reprocessed at the steelworks, not at a scrap metal processing facility. This decision over turned the outcome of the previous judicial review in 1999. The implication for the definition of waste is that the metals remain waste even after treatment by Mayer Parry.

CASE STUDY: VAN DE WALLE This case concerns a Texaco filling station in Brussels where, unbeknown to the station operator, mo re than 800 litres of fuel had leaked into the soil f rom faulty storage tanks. When the local authority began work on the basement of an adjoining building in 1993,  they discovered oily water seeping in through a basement wall and, as a result, the building work had to stop. Texaco carried out some remediation work but the local authority considered that this was not sufficient and carried out fur ther remediation. In order to recover the costs, the Belgian government commenced criminal and civil proceedings against Texaco and three of its senior staff (including M Van de Walle). Texaco and the three managers we re charged with the offence of abandoning waste. At the first trial the defendants were acquitted. The prosecution appealed, but the Cour t of Appeal was uncer tain as to how the law should be interpreted. It therefore referred the matter to the ECJ to determine •

whether the spilled hydrocarbons and contaminated soil were ‘waste’, and



whether the oil company, as the supplier of the fuel, could be guilty of unlicensed disposal.

The ECJ considered that the definition definit ion of waste in the Waste Framework Direc tive covered both the spilled hydrocarbons and the surrounding contaminated soil. It was a rgued that since, in order to protec t the environment, there was a need to deal with the contaminated soil (either by removal or  remediation) it fell into the category of substances which the holder ‘is required to discard’.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

10

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

This judgement has immediate implications for the oil industry, but raises a much mo re serious concern for owners of contaminated sites. In the UK, it could mean that all contamination could be classed as controlled waste and thus fall within the scope of waste regulation. Anyone with a contaminated site could technically be regarded as operating an illegal landfill. Likewise, the regulators could find themselves obliged to ensure the remediation of all contaminated sites, regardless of costs and benefits. At present, the remediation of contaminated land is regulated and enforced under  the contaminated land provisions in Par t IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 but this carefully drawn up legislation could be rendered irrelevant if all contamination is classed as controlled waste.

Review of waste definition The European Commission is aware of the problems created create d by the Van de Walle Walle decision and is taking account of them in its current review of the Waste Framework Directive. It is seeking the views of Member States on the important imp ortant question of ‘when a waste ceases to be a waste’. DEFRA has also promised a general review of the definition of waste, to reflect recent judgments in the ECJ. The general gener al conclusion will be that even if a waste has been processed it will still remain a waste until the point at which it has been utilized as an end product. The Environment Agency, when deciding whether something is waste, will consider: •

standards of of re recycling



wheth wh ether er the there re are are mark market ets s for for the the rec recyc ycled led ma mater teria ial, l, and and



the th e risk risk to the the env envir iron onme ment nt fro from m proc proces essi sing ng..

Permitting and licensing of waste facilities Waste management facilities such as landfill sites, incinerators, treatment or composting plants, recycling activities and transfer stations are all regulated under a permitting regime. The purpose is to ensure that these operations are well managed and do not present a risk of environmental damage or harm to human health.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

11

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

The UK is currently undergoing a period of transition between regimes. The old system of waste management licensing is gradually being replaced by the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regime, which extends across all kinds of industries. A few licensed waste activities will remain once PPC is fully implemented: the Government is not yet certain how these will be regulated in the long term.

Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) The PPC regime is gradually replacing older regimes such as Integrated Pollution Control (IPC), Local Authority Air Pollution Control (LAAPC), waste management licensing and (for some companies) effluent discharge consents.

LEGISLATION

The regime originates with Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, implemented in the UK by the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. 1999. The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 1973) and Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000 No. 323) flesh out the regime with detailed provisions provisions and have been subject to a large number of amendments. A clear and comprehensive guide to the legislation has been issued by the  IPPC – A Practical Guide, Guide , fourth edition, available at: Environment Agency ( IPPC www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/ippcguide/index.htm).

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Industries covered by the regime must obtain a permit from the regulator (which ( which may be the Environment Agency, SEPA or the local authority). The permit per mit will lay down detailed conditions intended to protect the environment and, in particular, to minimize polluting emissions to air, water and land. l and. The conditions are wide in scope, covering waste minimization, good waste management and the conservation of resources as well as the control of emissions. Industries are being phased in to PPC between 2000 and 2007. The permit conditions will require the use of the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to minimize the environmental impact of the activity. BAT BAT extends to all aspects of management, not merely pollution control technology. For most industries BAT are laid down at EU level in BAT Reference (BREF) documents, though the regulator is able to take economic factors into account when setting permit conditions.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

12

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

PPC AND THE WASTE INDUSTRY 

By 2008 most waste facilities will be regulated under PPC. The regime covers •

all landfills



almost alm ost all inc inciner inerato ators rs and and co-i co-incin ncinerat erators ors (ap (apart art fro from m a few burn burning ing



 vegetation etc – see below)  vegetation below) most mo st was aste te tr trea eatm tmen entt pl plan ants ts..

These are regulated for the most part by the Environment Agency, although local authorities retain responsibility for certain smaller incinerators.

FIT AND PROPER PERSON (FAPP)

Waste Wa ste facilities which were formerly regulated under the licensing regime (see below) are classed as Specified Waste Management Activities (SWMAs) and must be managed by a Fit and Proper Person (FAPP). The three requirements of a FAPP are set out below. 1.

Absence of rele Absence relevant vant (env (environ ironmenta mental) l) convi convictio ctions. ns. This prov provisio ision n excludes persistent and deliberate offenders from holding a permit. Those guilty of unintentional breaches are normally allowed to continue operations provided the problem is rectified.

2.

Tech echnic nical al compe competenc tence. e. A FAPP FAPP must must hold hold a Certifi Certificat cate e of Techn Technica icall Competence (COTC) issued by the Waste Management Industry  Training and Advisory Board. Specific Spe cific courses and certificates apply  appl y  to a variety of waste activities (eg hazardous landfill; composting operations).

3.

Financ Fin ancial ial prov provisi ision. on. The The operat operator or must must make make provi provisio sion n to cove coverr the costs of the facility throughout its operational operati onal life, and after it is closed. The funds should be sufficient to ensure that the site does not present a threat to the environment either now or in the foreseeable future. This provision is particularly relevant to landfills, landfill s, which have the greatest potential for post-closure environmental impact (eg through leachate contaminating groundwater, or emissions of methane gas). Landfills are therefore subject to more stringent financial requirements than other waste facilities. For example, landfill operators must put away  cash deposits.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

13

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR FOR LANDFILLS LANDFILLS AND INCINERA INCINERATORS TORS  ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

The PPC regime in itself would not have had a major impact on the waste management industry, as the EU directive applies only to larger installations (for example, landfills accepting over 10 tonnes of waste per day). However, the UK Government has decided to use the PPC regime to implement other key directives, namely: •

The Th e Lan Landfi dfill ll Di Dire rect ctiv ive e 99 99/3 /31 1/E /EC C



The Was aste te Inc Incin iner erati ation on Dir Direct ectiv ive e 200 2000/ 0/76 76/E /EC C (WID (WID). ).

In order to do this, the Government is extending the PPC regime to all landfills and almost all incinerators. Many of the requirements of the Landfill Directive and WID will be included as PPC permit conditions, for example, the ban on landfills accepting liquid wastes. The Landfill Directive and its implications are considered in detail in Chapter 4.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE WASTE INCINERATION DIRECTIVE

WID has been implemented in the UK via the Was the Waste te Incineration Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 2980) and and Wa  Waste ste Incineration Incineration (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003 No. 170) under which incinerator operators were required to apply for a PPC permit p ermit by 31 March 2005. The new controls come into effect on 28 December 2005 for existing plant. WID applies to a very wide range of combustion processes, including some that have not traditionally been viewed as waste incinerators (such as roadstone coating plant). It imposes stringent stringen t pollution control standards on emissions to air, effluent discharges and solid waste (ash). Some of the limits, for example, the dioxin emission limit of 0.1ng/m3 and the nitrogen oxides limit of 200 mg/m3, can only be achieved with the latest state of the art technology.

PROBLEMS WITH WASTE OILS

Incinerator operators will have to upgrade their pollution abatement technology  and monitoring equipment in order to comply with WID. The large merchant incinerators and co-incinerators (such as cement kilns) will be able to pass on the costs to their customers. However, smaller ‘incinerators’ such as garage oil burners and roadstone plant will find it uneconomic to upgrade to WID and if  the directive is interpreted strictly, will have to cease burning waste oils. This is a matter of concern for these industries and the Agency. In 2002 it was predicted that most of the 2000 waste oil burners burner s in England and Wales would have to close down. However, However, the Government’ Government’s s view is that such small processes are not covered by WID. Garages will continue to be able to burn their own

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

14

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

waste oil, but will probably no longer be able to bring b ring waste oil onto their premises. The Government proposed in October 2005 that these small burners be excluded from the waste management licensing regime, in an effort to exempt them from WID. Roadstone plants and power stations currently burn about 500,000 tonnes of  waste oil from garages a year. If they continue to do so, they will have to upgrade in compliance with WID, which is likely to be uneconomic. The Government is looking into alternative disposal routes for waste oil such as: •

cem ce men entt kil kilns ns (a mo morre co cost stly ly op opti tion on))



steel ste el wo work rks s (on (only ly lim limit ited ed sc scop ope e for for usin using g was waste te oi oil). l).

Another possibility is the introduction of a voluntary producer responsibility  scheme for oil companies, obliging them to collect and regenerate some of their waste oils. The oil could be treated for reuse, or used as feedstock in refineries. The European Commission considers that there should be more emphasis on the regeneration of waste sump oils for use in lubrication products. Britain’s only waste sump oil regeneration plant, operated by OCC at Stourport, Stourp ort, has not been operating for some years.

 Waste  W aste management management licensing The waste management licensing regime, which took effect in 1994, is being superseded by PPC but still applies across several sectors. The Government has recently  adapted and extended the licensing regime to implement EU Directives on: •

trea tr eatm tment ent of end end-o -off-lif life e veh vehic icles les (E (EL LVs Vs), ), an and d



collecti coll ection on and rec recycl ycling ing of was waste te elec electric trical al and and elect electron ronic ic equ equipm ipment ent (WEEE).

Further details on ELVs and WEEE can be found in Chapter 5, Producer responsibility.

BASIC PROVISIONS

Like a PPC permit, a waste management licence is a permit which sets down detailed conditions of operation in order to protect the environment. The framework for the system of licensing is laid down in the Environmental Protection  Actt 19  Ac 1990 90,, with detailed provisions in the W the Wast aste e Ma Manag nagem ement ent Li Lice cens nsin ing g Re Regu gulalations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 1056), 1056) , as amended. The most recent amendments to the licensing regulations are found in SI 2005 No. 1728. 1728. Because of the very  many amending SIs, the regulations are difficult to follow and the Government

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

15

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

therefore plans to issue a consolidated version in the near future. The waste management licensing regime is administered and enforced en forced by the Environment Agency and SEPA. A waste management licence may only be issued to a Fit and Proper Person (as discussed under PPC above). Particularly with landfills in mind, the regime contains provisions provisions to prevent or control pollution from facilities which are no longer longe r receiving waste. Before a licence can be surrendered, the operator must obtain a Certificate of  Completion from the Agency to confirm that the site is stable and no longer presents a threat to the environme environment. nt. (This requirement has been carried over into PPC.) There is concern that the imposition of the co-disposal ban last year (see Chapter 4, Landfill regulations and their impact) will make it more difficult to achieve stabilization, leaving operators with closed sites to manage for many years to come. As with other environmental permits, the waste management licence is a public document available for inspection at the local Agency office. This enables waste producers to check that a site is properly licensed to receive their waste, and that it has a good record of compliance with legislation.

EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING

Obtaining a waste management licence can be a costly and lengthy procedure, involving detailed technical submissions from the operator. To To avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on activities which do not present much threat to the environment, environmen t, the 1994 Regulations included a long list of exemptions. These cover a variety of recovery processes such as: •

spread spr eading ing was waste te on on agric agricultu ultural ral lan land d as a ferti fertiliz lizer er or or soil soil impr improve overr



use us e of of gar garde den n was waste te as mu mulc lch, h, et etc c in in par parks ks



reus re use e of of cons constr truc uctio tion n was waste te,, eg eg in in roa road d bui build lding ing



smal sm alll sca scale le rec recy ycl clin ing g act activ ivit itie ies s



use us e of of was waste te so soil il in la land ndsc scap apin ing g



small sc scale co composting



stor st orag age e of of lim limit ited ed qu quan anti titi ties es of wa wast ste. e.

An up-to-date list of the exemptions can be found on the Environment Agency’s Agency’s website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/103599/exemptions_doc_2a_1132475.doc. tions_doc_2a_11 32475.doc. Operators wishing to take advantage of an exemption

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

16

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

merely have to register basic details with the Agency Ag ency and pay a small fee. Wa Waste ste management activities which are regulated under PPC are not covered by the licensing regime and do not have to register as exempt. A separate exemption scheme applied to the scrap metal industry, industr y, involving conditions of operation (eg working on an impermeable pavement) and a higher fee. Since the introduction of the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations last year, the conditions have become more stringent and a greater number of sites require a full waste management licence (see Chapter 5, Producer responsibility).

RECENT AMENDMENTS TO EXEMPTIONS

The introduction of the landfill tax in 1996 is believed to have resulted in widespread abuse of the exemptions. Producers of waste soils, aggregates, etc, unwilling to pay the new higher landfill charges, redirected their waste to exempt landspreading and landscaping projects such as unnecessary sound attenuation bunds or unduly bumpy golf courses. This deprived the landfill operators of useful waste which had provided daily cover. Some of the wastes which are spread on farms are particularly unpleasant – such as blood from abattoirs – and there were fears in Scotland that excessive spreading of these wastes presented a risk to health as well as an odour nuisance. In response, the exemptions were reviewed and amendments issued (in 2004 for Scotland, and 2005 for England and Wales). DEFRA botched the introduction of the England and Wales Regulations, Regulation s, which were issued no less than three th ree times within the space of a few weeks, following the discovery of various drafting errors and a change of heart by the Minister on the subject of composting exemptions. As of July 2005, the latest version was SI 2005 No. 1728. 1728. The main effect of the latest amendments is to tighten up the regulation of certain categories of exempt activity, notably: • landspreading •

reus re use e of co cons nstr truc ucti tion on an and d demo demoli liti tion on was waste te



stor st orag age e and and sp spre read adin ing g of of sew sewag age e slu sludg dge. e.

Before these ‘notifiable exempt activities’ are carried out they must be notified to the Agency, giving details of the waste and reasons why the activity will be of environmental benefit. The regulations regulation s limit the amount of waste that can be used and the extent of spreading. Further proposals for amendments to the exemptions were published by DEFRA in October 2005. These mainly concern the storage of hazardous waste. Those

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

17

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

wishing to store and burn waste oil in the future are likely to require a full waste management licence – although small garage burners may be taken out of the licensing regime altogether (see Problems (see Problems with waste oils above). The consultation paper is available at: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/hazwaste/pdf/consultdoc.pdf.

PERMITTING REVIEW 

Once PPC is fully implemented, only a small number of activities will remain within the licensing regime. The Government has been considering for some time how these waste activities should be regulated in the future. f uture. DEFRA plans to issue a consultation paper in February 2006, setting out proposals to bring all waste activities within an extended PPC regime. The new permitting regime will probably be implemented by changes to the PPC regulations, and will come into effect during 2008. It is likely to consist of three tiers: •

registered ex exemptions



standard permits



‘bes ‘b espo poke ke’’ per permi mits ts fo forr hig highh-ri risk sk si site tes. s.

Low risk waste sites would not have to comply with all PPC provisions, and existing sites would not have to apply for a new permit.

Duty of care and fly-tipping Despite many years of waste regulation, fly-tipping remains one of our most commonplace causes of pollution and local nuisance. The Environment Agency  recorded a 19% increase in fly-tipping incidents across England and Wales between 2001 and 2002 and DEFRA estimates that it costs £1 million a week to clean up. With the forecast shortage of disposal capacity for hazardous waste, it is feared that a greater proportion of hazardous waste could be fly-tipped in the future. Some local authorities – both urban and rural – have observed obser ved greater than average increases in fly-tipping, for example, the London Borough of  Lewisham which recorded 50% rises in the number of incidents in both 2001 and 2002 (figures taken from DEFRA’s 2004 fly-tipping strategy). The Duty of  Care and registration of waste carriers were two measures introduced to help deter, identify and convict fly-tippers.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

18

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

General waste offences The key criminal offences relating to the environmental impact of waste can be found in section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 1990. In summary, it is an offence to: • •

depositt wast deposi waste e other other than than on a lic licens ensed ed (or (or permi permitte tted) d) site, site, ie ie fly-ti fly-tippi pping ng contrav con travene ene the con condit dition ions s of of a was waste te mana manageme gement nt licen licence ce or PPC PPC permi permitt



carry out any waste management activity, including storage, treatment or transport, in a way which causes environmental damage or harm to human health.

Duty of care Most people dealing with waste are already familiar with the Duty of Care, as it has been in force since 1994. In summary, waste holders are responsible for their waste from cradle to grave and must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that no subsequent holder commits an offence of unlicensed disposal, etc, as detailed in s.33 of the Environment Environmental al Protection Act . This allows the regulators to prosecute waste producers for engaging cowboy contractors who fly-tip the waste and then disappear. To To comply with the Duty, waste producers must: •

draw dr aw up a Dut Duty y of of Ca Care tr tran ansf sfer er no note te



ensur ens ure e that that the was waste te does does not esc escape ape,, eith either er fro from m the the site site of  production or in transit



pass pas s the the waste waste to a reg regist istere ered d carrie carrierr (see (see below below), ), or or licen licensed sed/pe /permi rmitte tted d contractor, or exempt carrier eg a recycling charity 



ensur ens ure e that that the disp disposa osall or treat treatmen mentt facil facility ity is is licens licensed ed to tak take e the was waste te and is not likely to breach its conditions.

The Duty of Care transfer note now has to include the six-digit code from the European Waste Catalogue. For information on how to assign the code, see Chapter 3, Hazardous waste.

Carriers and prevention of fly-tipping Waste carriers must be registered with the Environment Agency: those convicted of fly-tipping will have their registrations regist rations revoked. (Waste producers who transport their own waste do not have to register as carriers, unless it is construction and demolition waste.) The Agency and local authorities have recently tightened up their regulation of carriers, since the introduction of new

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

19

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

the Anti-S powers under the Ant i-Soci ocial al Beh Behavi aviour our Act 200 2003 3 and Clean Neighbourho Neighbourhoods ods and Environment Act 2005 which allow them to stop, search and seize suspect  vehicle  veh icles. s. Driv Drivers ers who do not pro produc duce e thei theirr tra transfe nsferr not note e on req reques uestt can be iss issued ued with a £300 fixed penalty. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act increased Act increased the maximum fine in a magistrate’s court for unlicensed disposal disp osal to £50,000. The same applies to the offence of treating, keeping or disposing of controlled controlle d waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Convicted fly-tippers can be ordered to pay the costs of removing the waste and cleaning up the land. Site owners and occupiers may also have to pay for clean up if they  were implicated in the fly-tipping. The 2005 Act also removes the fly-tippers’ defence that they were acting on their employer’s instructions.

Other recent legislation with relevance to waste Waste Wa ste producers are sometimes unaware of the breadth of legislation relevant to waste management. In particular, the following areas of regulation must be taken into account when waste is classified, handled, treated, transported and disposed of: •

health hea lth and saf safety ety,, includ including ing che chemic micals als legi legisla slatio tion n such such as as COSHH COSHH and CHIP



carr rriiage of of da dange gerrous go goods



animal by-products



contaminated land



planning.

These are all specialized areas of legislation warranting separate reports of their own. The aim of this section is to highlight recent developments which affect waste producers, local authorities and the waste industry.

Carriage of dangerous goods If hazardous waste is to be transported by road, rail, air or sea, the consignor If hazardous must make sure that the waste is packaged, labelled and conveyed in compliance with the dangerous goods legislation. In 2004 the European ADR Agreement on the carriage of dangerous goods by road took full effect in the UK, replacing the previous national regulations. The implementing Regulations

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

20

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

are the Carriage of Dangerous Goods Goo ds and Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 568). 568). Equivalent Regulations apply to rail transport. Note that prior to transportation, the waste has to be classified in accordance with ADR. This is a separate procedure from classification under the Hazardous Waste Regulations and will result in the assignment of one of nine classes (eg Class 3: Flammable liquid or Class 6.2: Infectious substance). The class under ADR may not reflect the hazardous property identified under the Hazardous Waste Regulations (see Chapter 3, Hazardous waste for an explanation of the 14 hazardous properties). For example, a hazardous waste is found to possess hazard ‘H7: Carcinogen category 3’ but under ADR might be classified as ‘Class 3: Flammable liquid’. There is a Class 9 which covers environmentally hazardous substances such as asbestos and PCBs, but waste should only be assigned to this Class if there is no more appropriate classification.

 Animal by-products by-products The EU Animal By-products Regulation 1774/2002/EC now applies in the UK, and has been implemented by national regulations for England, Scotland and Wales. The relevant English SI is the Animal the  Animal By-products By-products Regulations Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2347). 2347). Most of the provisions apply to farmers and those who operate abattoirs, rendering plant or food processing plant. However, some of the new requirements impact on anyone who disposes with waste food of animal origin (meat and fish products, both cooked and uncooked). Examples include canteen waste from factories, out of date sausages from the supermarket shelves and leftover meat pies from bakeries. The EU Regulation bans the landfilling of animal by-products: in the UK, this ban applies to raw meat and fish but not to t o cooked catering waste. This means that waste containing animal by-products must be segregated from the normal commercial waste stream. Retailers are advised to give away meat products nearing their ‘use by’ date to avoid the need for separate disposal. The legislation is enforced by local authorities who are not making it a priority pr iority at present. Another effect of the EU regulation has been to increase the scope for recovery  of low-risk animal by-products such as catering waste. They may be composted in biogas or composting plant provided the conditions of the regulation are met.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

21

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

Contaminated d land Contaminate The contaminated land regime was introduced in 2000 and its provisions are found in Part IIA of the Environment Environmental al Protection Act 1990. 1990. The aim of the regime is for badly contaminated sites to be identified by the local authority  and remediated (cleaned up to an appropriate standard) at the polluters’ expense. Most of the responsibility for administering this regime falls to local authorities, but the Environment Agency takes on the most severely polluted sites (‘special sites’). There is an overlap between contaminated land and waste management licensing, in that when contaminated soil is excavated during remediation it is classed as waste, and generally qualifies as hazardous waste. This means that if a ‘dig and dump’ solution is chosen, the waste must go to hazardous landfill; if in if  in situ treatment is the chosen remedy, then the treatment plant will require a waste management licence. Unfortunately the licensing licensi ng regime was set up with landfill sites in mind, and is not really suited to short term remediation projects. Projects have been delayed due to the difficulty and complexity of obtaining licences, and it is not always easy for remediation projects to meet the conditions for licence surrender. The Government has tried to help the remediation industry by providing for ‘mobile plant licences’. However, the industry would prefer a separate remediation permit tailored specifically to contaminated land. In November 2005 the Environment Agency issued proposals for a new mobile treatment licensing (MTL) scheme. The new approach would allow operators to hold a single licence authorising several pieces of mobile plant. Operators would have to submit a ‘deployment form’ for each separate site. It is hoped that this new system will save operators both time and money, without compromising environmental protection. The consultation document is available on the Environment Agency  website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations. www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations. Since the introduction of the co-disposal ban (see Chapter 4, Landfill regulations and their impact) there are very few landfill sites which can accept contaminated soil. Treatment capacity will have to expand in the future. One practical solution is the development of ‘soil treatment hubs’ serving a large number of regeneration projects. Two major waste companies have already  formed partnerships with remediation businesses so that they can offer soil treatment at their landfill sites. A recent report indicates that a centralized hub offering soil washing and bioremediation could be more cost-effective than landfill.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

22

 

2 OV E R V IE W OF WA S T E R E G U L A T ION

Planning Local authorities, in their role as planners, must ensure that suitable provision is made for waste management in their area. Whereas in the past they may have taken a ‘predict and provide’ approach, they are now expected to use the planning regime to promote sustainable waste management, normally understood as moving as much waste as possible up the hierarchy. All are being forced by the Landfill Directive to divert municipal waste from landfill. New planning guidance was issued as Planning Policy Statement 10 in July 2005. See Chapter 1, Policy framework and Chapter 6, Local authorities and municipal waste for further details.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

23

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Chapter 3 Hazardous waste Introduction..........................................................................................25 Hazardous Hazardou s waste arisings...................................................................26 arisings................................ ...................................26 What is hazardous hazardous waste? waste? ..................................................................27 Duties under the hazardous waste regulations................................38

 

Chapter 3 Hazardous waste

Introduction The EU definition of hazardous waste now applies in the UK, having replaced the term ‘special waste’. About 180 waste streams previously regarded as nonspecial qualify as hazardous, with the implication that many companies have become hazardous waste producers for the first time. This chapter summarizes the procedure for assessing hazardous waste, indicating where specialist assistance assist ance may be required. In some cases, it is possible to determine whether a waste is hazardous merely by referring to a detailed list. However, for many waste streams, the producer must carry out testing and analysis to determine whether threshold concentrations of dangerous substances have been exceeded. Hazardous waste producers are confronted confronted with new duties and challenges. They  must: •

noti no tify fy th the e En Envi virron onme ment nt Ag Agen ency  cy 



follow foll ow the new con consig signmen nmentt proc procedu edure re wit with h its its att attenda endant nt pape paperwo rwork rk



avoid avo id mixin mixing g any haz hazard ardous ous was waste te strea stream m with with non-h non-haza azardo rdous us wast waste, e, or with another hazardous waste type



segregat segr egate e haza hazardo rdous us was waste te str stream eams s under under cert certain ain cir circum cumsta stance nces s



ensure ensu re that that if the the wast waste e is to be be landfil landfilled, led, it is is consig consigned ned to a haz hazard ardous ous landfill and meets the Waste Acceptance Criteria for hazardous waste (see Chapter 4 for a detailed explanation).

The introduction of the co-disposal ban in 2004 (see Chapter 4 for details) has brought about a dramatic fall in landfill capacity for hazardous wastes. Producers are now forced to consider alternative treatment and disposal options. Many have taken the practical and cost-effective step of re-examining re-examinin g and segregating their wastes to ensure that only the truly trul y hazardous wastes are consigned to hazardous landfill. Issues relating specifically to the landfilling  the landfilling of of hazardous waste are considered in more detail in Chapter 4, Landfill regulations and their impact.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

25

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Hazardous waste arisings The table and pie chart below show the tonnages of special sp ecial waste arising in the UK during 2002 by EWC code and the main treatment and disposal options employed. The figures are taken from the Hazardous Waste Forum Final Draft Status Report, available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/hazforum/  pfd/tctf-statusreport.pdf. Note that the figures are based on the old definition of ‘special waste’ so would not include the newly hazardous wastes discussed below. EWC codes refer to the chapters in the European Waste Catalogue, also discussed below.

EWC co d e

Industry/waste type

2 0 0 2 S p e c i a l wa s t e a r i s i n g s ( t o nn e s )

01

Minerals

110,720

02

Agriculture etc, food processing

4,170

03

Wood, pulp, paper, cardboard

2,790

04

Leather, fur a  an nd textiles

3,660

05

Petroleum, natural gas, pyrolytic treatment of coal

88,460

06

Inorganic chemicals

231,110

07

Organic chemicals

531,970

08

Coatings, adhesives, sealants, printing inks

90,360

09

Photographic

35,170

10

Thermal processes

171,560

11

Chemical surface treatment of metals etc

114,750

12

Physical surface treatment of metals and plasti cs

90,370

13

Oil wastes, wastes from liquid fuels

964,270

14

Organic solvents, refrigerants, propellants

57,750

15

Packaging, cloths, filter materials, protec tive clothing

44,490

16

Waste not otherwise specified

672,050

17

Construc tion and demolition wastes

1,255,970

18

Human and animal healthcare

18,880

19

Waste management, water treatment

343,830

20

Municipal wastes

92,520

99

Wastes not otherwise specified, not listed in chapter 1  166

69,850

Total

4,994,700

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

26

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Incineration 5%

Treatment 32%

Landfill 42%

Recycling/ reuse 21%  Figure 1: Treatment/dis posal routes for special waste waste in the UK in 2002 Treatment/disposal This pattern is already changing as the impact of the Landfill Directive is felt (see Chapter 4).

 What is hazardous hazardous waste? waste? Legislation The definition of hazardous waste derives from the EU Hazardous Waste Directive 91/689/EEC. 91/689/EEC. This has been implemented in Great Britain by the: •

Hazard Haz ardous ous Wast aste e (Engl (England and and Wale ales) s) Regu Regulat lation ions s 2005 2005 (SI (SI 2005 2005 No. 895)



List Li st of of Wast Wastes es (En (Engla gland nd)) Regu Regulat latio ions ns 200 2005 5 (SI (SI 2005 2005 No No 894) 894)



Hazard Haz ardou ous s Was Waste te (Wale (Wales) s) Regu Regulat latio ions ns 2005 2005 (SI (SI 2005 2005 No. No. 1806) 1806)



List Li st of of Wast Wastes es (W (Wale ales) s) Reg Regul ulat ation ions s 2005 2005 (SI (SI 200 2005 5 No. No. 1820 1820))



Specia Spe ciall Wast Waste e (Scot (Scotland land)) (Ame (Amendm ndment ent)) Regu Regulati lations ons 200 2004 4 (SSI (SSI 200 2004 4 No. 112), as amended by SSI 2004 No. 204.

For convenience, this body of legislation is referred to in this chapter as ‘the Hazardous Waste Regulations’.

26

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

The Environment Agency has produced comprehensive comprehensi ve guidance on the assessment of hazardous waste in its manual WM2 Hazar WM2  Hazardous dous Waste: Waste: Interpretation Interpretation of the Definition and Classification of Hazardous Waste which is required reading for anyone directly involved with the classification procedure. This is available on the Environment Agency website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

 Assessment procedure The flow chart below, which is based on the Environment Agency guidance, summarizes the procedure for determining whether any particular waste is hazardous.. This section of the chapter goes through the flow chart step-by-step. hazardous

 Figure 2: Environment Environment Agency methodology for classification of hazardous waste

27

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

STEP 1: IS THE WASTE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION?

Some wastes may possess hazardous properties but because they are not ‘controlled wastes’ (see Chapter 2) are not covered by the Hazardous Waste Regulations. The main categories are: •

radioac radi oactiv tive e wast wastes es which which do not pos posses sess s any any othe otherr hazar hazard d – sepa separate rate legislation applies



trade trad e efflue effluent nt and gas gaseou eous s emis emissio sions ns – regul regulate ated d under under PPC as poll polluutants rather than waste



domest dom estic ic was waste tes s from from priva private te hous househ ehold olds, s, with with the the excep excepti tion on of  asbestos.

Agricultural, mining and quarrying wastes were excluded at the time of  writing this report, but some will be reclassified as controlled wastes in the near future. Note that contaminated soil excavated during brownfield remediation projects does fall within the definition of hazardous waste. STEP 2: HOW IS THE WASTE CATEGORIZED IN THE EUROPEAN WASTE CAT CATALOGUE? ALOGUE?

The European Waste Catalogue (EWC) is a list of waste streams, divided into 20 chapters. It can be found in the List of Wastes Regulations and also in WM2. The list is drawn up at EU level and periodically updated. Each individual waste stream is identified by a six digit code. The entries cover both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, with hazardous wastes identified by an asterisk. The waste producer must find the most appropriate entry for each waste stream, using the following procedure. Look for an appropriate entry in Chapters 1-12 and 17-20, which relate to the following industries and activities: 1.

miner era al expl explo oitation

2.

agri ag ricu cult ltur ural al and and foo food d prod produc ucti tion on

3.

wood wo od,, pul pulp, p, pa pape perr and and ca card rdbo boar ard d

4.

leat le athe herr, fur fur and te text xtil iles es

5.

petrole petr oleum um refi refining ning,, gas gas purifi purificat cation ion and coa coall pyro pyrolysi lysis s

6.

ino norrganic ch chemicals

7.

organic che hem micals

28

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

8.

coat co atin ings, gs, ad adhes hesiv ives es an and d sea sealin ling g ink inks s

9.

photographic

10. thermal proce processes sses (power statio stations, ns, iron iron and and steel, steel, metallurg metallurgy) y) 11. chemi chemical cal surface surface treatment treatment of metals metals etc; non-ferr non-ferrous ous hydro-me hydro-metallu tallurgy  rgy  12. shapi shaping ng and physica physicall and mechanic mechanical al surface surface treatment treatment of metals metals and plastics 17.. co 17 cons nstru truct ctio ion n and demol demolit itio ion n 18. hum human an and anima animall health health care and and related related resea research rch 19. was waste te manage managemen mentt and water water treatm treatment ent facili facilitie ties s 20.. mu 20 muni nici cipa pall wast wastes es.. If no suitable entry can be found, look in Chapters 13-15: 13. oil wastes 14. waste organ organic ic solvent solvents, s, refrige refrigerants rants and propell propellants ants 15. waste packa packaging, ging, cloths, cloths, filter filter material material and and protectiv protective e clothing. clothing. If these chapters do not yield an appropriate entry, look in Chapter 16, ‘wastes not otherwise specified in the list’. The option of last resort is the series of ’99 entries’ at the end of the industryspecific chapters, eg 20 03 99 ‘municipal wastes not otherwise specified’.

IS THE WASTE AN ABSOLUTE OR MIRROR ENTRY?

For many waste streams there is only one appropriate entry. en try. If this is not marked with an asterisk, the waste is definitely not hazardous (eg 15 01 02  plastic  packaging ). ). If it is marked with an asterisk, aster isk, the waste is definitely hazardous (eg 16 09 03* peroxides, 03*  peroxides, for example, hydrogen peroxide). peroxide). A single entry with an asterisk is known as an absolute entry. ent ry. The EA guidance also has a letter ‘A ‘A’’ for ‘absolute’ or ‘M’ for ‘mirror’ alongside the entries in the list. The difficulty comes with mirror with mirror entries entries:: paired entries, where one is hazardous h azardous and the other is not. For example 08 01 13* sludges from paint or varnish containing organic solvents or other  dangerous substances 08 01 14

sludges from paint or varnish other than those mentioned in 08  01 13.

The hazardous entries are referred to as ‘containing dangerous substances’.

29

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

As long ago as the sixteenth century, it was recognized in medicine that “All substances are poisons; there the re is none that is not a poison. The right dose differdifferentiates a poison from a remedy” (Paracelsus). In classifying waste, it is important to understand: •

what wh at is is mea meant nt by by a ‘da ‘dang nger erou ous s subs substa tanc nce’ e’,, and and



how co conce ncent ntrat rated ed does does the the dang danger erou ous s subst substan ance ce hav have e to be be for for the waste to qualify as hazardous?

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE

This classification procedure depends on a knowledge knowledg e of the chemical composition of the waste. In some cases, for example where the waste is a single substance or an off-specification product, data on the composition will be readily  available (for example, from the safety data sheet). In other cases laboratory labor atory testing will be required. Ideally, the analytical technique should be one that indicates the main compounds present in the waste and their individual concentrations, not merely their constituent elements (eg ‘total mercury’). Appendix B of WM2 gives helpful guidance on the kinds of dangerous substances likely to be present in different waste streams.

STEP 4: DOES THE WASTE CONTAIN DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES?

The definition of dangerous substances is derived from European chemical safety  legislation (implemented in the UK as the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 1689) (CHIP). Approximately 2000 of the most commonly used hazardous chemicals are classified and assigned an entry in a register known as the t he Approved  Approved Supply List (ASL), available in paper or electronic ele ctronic form from the Health and Safety Executive. If a chemical is listed on the ASL, it is definitely a ‘dangerous substance’. Each chemical on the ASL is assigned one or more of the following fol lowing categories of danger: danger: •

explosive



oxidising



extremely flammable



highly flammable



very toxic



toxic



carrci ca cino noge gen n (ca (cate tego gory ry 1, 2 or 3)

30

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E



muta mu tage geni nic c (c (cat ateg egor ory y 1, 2 or 3) 3)



toxi to xic c for for re repr prod oduc ucti tion on (c (cat ateg egor ory y 1, 1, 2 or or 3) 3)



corrosive



irritant



dang da nger ero ous fo forr th the e en envi virron onm men entt



[sen [s ensi siti tisi sing ng]] (no (nott rel relev evan antt to to was waste te). ).

In addition, the chemical is assigned numbered risk phrases which spell out skin;; R50 in more detail the nature of the risk, for example R36 irritating R36 irritating to the skin very toxic to aquatic organisms. organisms. Together, Together, the categories of danger and risk phrases form the classification classification.. For example, hydrogen peroxide is classified as: O: R8 R8

(oxi (o xidi disi sing ng:: cont contac actt with with com combu bust stib ible le mat mater eria iall may may caus cause e fire) fire)

C: R34

(cor (c orro rosi sive ve:: ca caus uses es bu burn rns) s)..

It is not possible for the ASL to list every known hazardous substance: institutions whose activities produce less common substances (for example, research laboratories) should refer to the testing and classification procedures which accompany the CHIP Regulations. This will enable them th em to determine whether the substance is dangerous and, if so, to assign a category of danger and risk phrases. The services of a specialist analytical laboratory would be required. Chemical databases, some available free over the internet, may also be of help: WM2 lists some helpful sources.

STEP 5: DOES THE WASTE POSSESS ANY HAZARDOUS PROPERTIES?

A waste stream may contain one or more dangerous substances without necessarily being hazardous. For example, very low levels of known carcinogens such as PCBs and dioxins are present throughout the environment. It is the role of  legislators to set threshold concentrations above which these chemicals are deemed to be hazardous to health. Confusingly for the waste producer p roducer,, the thresholds differ according to the regulatory regime under consideration. A particular waste chemical may end up being classified as ‘highly flammable’ for transport by road but ‘carcinogenic’ under the CHIP Regulations. The Hazardous Waste Regulations contain thresholds taken directly from the Hazardous Waste Directive: these differ from the thresholds in the ASL, which are not relevant to waste.

31

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Even more confusingly, the Hazardous Waste Regulations are based around a list of 14 hazardous properties which look similar simil ar to the CHIP categories categorie s of danger, but contain significant differences. These are set out below. •

H1 Explosive



H2 Oxidising



H3 Highly flammable



H4 Irritant



H5 Harmful



H6 Very toxic, Toxic



H7 Ca Carcinogenic



H8 Corrosive



H9 Infectious



H10 H1 0 Toxi xic c fo forr rep eprrod oduc ucti tion on



H11 Mutagenic



H12 H1 2 Rele Releas ases es to toxi xic c gas gas in co conta ntact ct wi with th wa water ter or ai airr



H13 Afte Afterr dispo disposal sal,, wast wastes es pro produc duce e a lea leacha chate te with with any of the oth other er hazardous properties



H14 H1 4 Eco Ecoto toxi xic c (to (toxi xic c for for th the e env envir iron onme ment nt))

Note that: •

ther th ere e is on only ly on one e flam flamma mabi bili lity ty ha haza zard rd



haza ha zard rds s H9 H9 and and H13 H13 do not not hav have e an an equi equiva valen lentt in in CHIP CHIP..

At this stage of the classification procedure, the th e assessor is looking at the waste stream as a whole rather than the component chemicals. To determine whether the waste possesses one of the 14 hazardous properties, the concentration of  each dangerous substance in the waste is compared with the thresholds set out in the table below. Some of the thresholds are taken from the Regulations and others (for example, the ecotoxic thresholds) from WM2.

32

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

CODE

HAZARDOUS PROPERTY

THRESHOLD (% by weight)

H1

Explosive

Testing required

H2

Oxidising

Depends on the substance – see EA guidance

H3

Highly flammable

Liquids: Flashpoint ≥55˚C Solids: Testing required, or calculation from guidance

H4

Irritant, R41

H4

Irritant, R36,R37, R38

H5

Harmful

H6

Very toxic

H6

Toxic

H7

Carcinogen category 1, 2

H7

Carcinogen category 3

H8

Corrosive, R35

H8

Corrosive, R34

H9

Infec tious

H10

Toxic for reproduc tion, R60, R61, category 1 or 2

H10

Toxic for reproduc tion, R62, R63, category 3

H11

Mutagenic, R46, category 1 or 2

H11

Mutagenic, R68, category 3

H12

Releases toxic gas in contac t with water or air

Testing required

H13

After disposal, wastes produce another substance, eg a leachate, possessing any of the other hazardous proper ties

Depends on substances produced – see WM2

H14

Ecotoxic, R50 or R52 or R  R553

25%

H14

Ecotoxic, R50 and R51 and R52 and R53

0.25%

H14

Ecotoxic, R51 and R52 and R53

2.5%

H14

Ecotoxic, R54 or R55 or R56 or R57 or R  R558

Thresholds not yet set, so not hazardous waste

H14

Ecotoxic, R59

0.1%

H14

PCBs and PCTs

0.005%



10%



20%



25%



0.1%



3%



0.1%



1%

 



1%

 



5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/a: see WM2  

 

 

 



0.5%



5%



0.1%



1%

33

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Risk phrases in the table above R34

Causes burns

R35

Causes severe bu burn rns s

R36

Irr rriitating to to th the ey eyes

R37 R3 7

Irri Ir rita tati ting ng to to the the resp respir irat ator ory y syst system em

R38

Irr rriitating to to th the sk skin

R41 R4 1

Risk Ri sk of se seri riou ous s dam damag age e to ey eyes es

R46 R4 6

May Ma y caus cause e heri herita tabl ble e gene geneti tic c dama damage ge

R50 R5 0

Ver ery y toxi toxic c to aq aqua uati tic c orga organi nism sms s

R51 R5 1

Tox oxic ic to aq aqua uati tic c org organ anis isms ms

R52 R5 2

Harm Ha rmfu full to to aq aqua uati tic c or orga gani nism sms s

R53

May cau cause se long long-ter -term m effec effects ts in the aqu aquati atic c envi environ ronmen mentt

R54 R55

Toxic to flora Toxic to to fauna

R56 R5 6

Tox oxic ic to so soil il or orga gani nism sms s

R57

Toxic to bees

R58

May cau cause se long long-ter -term m adve adverse rse eff effects ects in the env enviro ironmen nmentt

R59 R5 9

Dang Da nger erou ous s fo forr the the oz ozon one e lay layer er

R60

May im impair fer ferttili litty 

R61 R6 1

May Ma y cau cause se ha harm rm to th the e unb unbor orn n chi child ld..

R62 R6 2

Poss Po ssib ible le ris risk k of imp impai aire red d fert fertil ilit ity  y 

R63 R6 3

Poss Po ssibl ible e ris risk k of of harm harm to th the e unbo unborn rn ch child ild

R68 R6 8

Poss Po ssibl ible e ris risk k of irr irrev evers ersib ible le ef effec fects ts

Note that thresholds are not appropriate for all the hazardous properties. Wastes suspected of being explosive, flammable or oxidising should be tested (eg using a flashpoint test for flammability). Infectious wastes are deemed to be those which require segregation and separate collection due to their infectious hazard: H9 does not cover everyday ‘clinical wastes’ such as nappies. In some cases, the waste will contain more than one dangerous substance with the same classification (for example, a mixture of acids which are classed under CHIP as corrosive:R35 corrosive:R35). ). Should the concentrations be added up if none of the

34

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

individual acids exceed the threshold? In this case, yes: ‘very toxic’ ‘toxic’, ‘harmful’, ‘corrosive’ and ‘irritant’ are all additive properties. properties. However, other properties – ‘carcinogenic’, ‘mutagenic’ and ‘toxic for reproduction’ – are  non-additive  non-additive.. Further guidance is given in WM2. The rules for additive and non-additive non-addit ive properties differ from those in CHIP. The Agency recognizes that circumstances will arise where it is not possible to obtain a detailed analysis of the waste. In such cases, the waste producer should attempt to test samples of the waste for hazardous properties or, if all else fails, use their experience and judgement to assess whether the th e waste possesses one of the 14 hazardous properties. Testing on animals should be avoided. However, the Agency warns that “it is not expected that a waste holder will assume an unknown waste is hazardous (or not) without rudimentary testing testin g of the components of the waste, or ascertaining the nature of the waste from informal sources”. sources”.

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

DEFRA retains the right to classify a waste as hazardous if it possesses one of  the 14 properties, even if it is not listed as hazardous on the EWC. Conversely, a waste marked with an asterisk can be reclassified as non-hazardous by DEFRA if they consider it does not possess one of the 14 properties. In conclusion, the assessment procedure for ‘mirror entry’ wastes can be complex, requiring chemical knowledge and laboratory facilities. Smaller waste producers without these resources should consult their waste contractor or consultant. Additional testing will be required if the hazardous wastes are destined for landfill (see Waste acceptance criteria in Chapter 4). All in all, costs for waste producers will rise as they either develop in house testing facilities or pay for outside expertise.

Newly hazardous wastes About 180 waste streams are newly hazardous. These include everyday items such as discarded televisions and computer monitors, fluorescent tubes, pesticides and end-of-life vehicles. Almost every business produces some of these wastes and will therefore have to comply with the Hazardous Waste Regulations. While larger companies have taken steps to prepare for the new requirements, many small and medium sized enterprises enter prises (SMEs) remain in the dark. An Environment Agency study carried out in June 2005 found that 28% of SMEs questioned were unaware of the new regulations.

35

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

DEFRA predicts that over the next year, hazardous waste arisings in England and Wales will increase from 5.08 million tonnes to 7.5 million tonnes. Waste producers need to examine their wastes against the new criteria, particularly  checking whether: •

a wast waste e previ previous ously ly rega regarde rded d as non non-spe -specia ciall is mar marked ked as an abs absolut olute e entry in the EWC (for example, fluorescent tubes)



a non-s non-spec pecial ial was waste te know known n to con contai tain n dange dangerou rous s subst substanc ances es in in low low concentrations is ‘caught’ by the new hazard categories. Hazards H10 and H11, for example, were often ignored under the Special Waste Regulations.

The Environment Agency is allowing facilities which deal with newly hazardous waste from waste  from hous househol eholds ds to continue storing, treating and disposing of them under their existing permit until 16 July 2006. After that, items such as fluorescent tubes will have to go to facilities which are permitted to take hazardous waste. (Industrial waste is already expected to comply with the regulations.) Producers of these wastes are already required to notify the Agency and follow the new consignment note procedure (see below).

 WASTE  W ASTE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ELECTRONIC EQUIPM EQUIPMENT ENT

Several of the newly hazardous wastes fall into the category of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), in particular televisions, monitors and fluorescent tubes. Not only must these be consigned as hazardous waste, they will also have to be managed in compliance with the new WEEE Regulations, due to come into force in June 2006. (See Chapter 5, Producer responsibility for further details.) There is a particular problem with recovering and disposing of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) (CRT s) from televisions and computer monitors. These are subject to challenging recycling targets under the WEEE Directive and also qualify qualif y as hazardous waste due to the phosphor and lead they contain. It is difficult to find markets for recovered CRT glass due to its hazardous nature, especially since June 2005 when the UK’s only CRT manufacture, Nippon Electric Glass, stopped taking the recovered glass. The market for CRTs CRTs in Western Europe has declined as consumers turn to flat screen TVs. CRTs are still manufactured in countries such as China but companies there are prevented from importing hazardous h azardous waste under the international waste shipments legislation. Perhaps the glass gl ass could still be landfilled, but as yet it is uncertain whether it will meet the Waste Acceptance Criteria for hazardous landfill (see Chapter 4).

36

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Duties under the hazardous waste regulations Notification As of 16 July 2005, producers of hazardous waste have a new duty to notify the Environment Agency each year. This applies to all industrial hazardous waste producers, however small the quantity of waste produced. For commercial waste producers, including shops, offices, dental, medical, veterinary and agricultural premises, there is a threshold of 200kg per annum of hazardous waste below which they do not have to notify the Agency. Waste carriers can be fined £300 if they take hazardous h azardous waste away from premises which are not notified or exempt. Failure to notify is also an offence punishable punishabl e by a £300 fine. The registration process is relatively straightforward, the details required being: •

name na me an and d add addre ress ss of wa wast ste e pr prod odu uce cerr



address of premises



SIC SI C cl cla ass ssifi ifica cati tion on of pr prem emis ises es



any an y othe otherr info informa rmati tion on the the Agen Agency cy may may rea reaso sona nably bly re requ quir ire. e.

It is the individual premises which must be notified – so companies with several sites will have to notify each one. However, this does not extend to site huts and similar temporary addresses. The Agency prefers to be notified electronically el ectronically via their website www.environment-agency.gov.uk/newrulesonwaste. Alternatively, hazardous waste producers can call the Agency on 08708 502858. Registrations will not be received by local Agency offices. Those wishing to notify  by post should send in a disk or form to the Customer Contact Centre in Rotherham. Detailed guidance can be found in the Agency’s notification guide, available at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/sitepremise_ regguide_1027669. The notification must be accompanied by a fee, which varies according to the method of notification (cheapest using the website). The Agency will then issue a premises code. As of July 2005, large numbers of waste producers had still not notified the t he Agency  – due in part to teething troubles with the Agency’s electronic system.

37

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Consignment procedure The Hazardous Waste Regulations introduced a new procedure for the consignment of hazardous waste, which differs in several respects from the old special sp ecial waste procedure. The Regulations give details of the paperwork required. In summary, the consignment note is a multi-copy form which is used to track tr ack the consignment from cradle to grave. Different parts are filled in by the consignor/waste producer, carrier(s) and consignee (waste management contractor). Points to note are: •

the was waste te produ produce cerr no long longer er has has to not notify ify the Age Agency ncy thr three ee days days ahe ahead ad of a consignment



there ther e is a new new syst system em of of multip multiple le colle collecti ctions ons rep replac lacing ing the carr carrier’ ier’s s round round



the pro produc ducer er must must kee keep p deta detaile iled d reco records rds of eac each h cons consign ignmen ment, t, indicating the: –

quantity  



nature



origin



destination



frequency of of co collection



carr rriier an and mo mode of tr transpo port rt



treatment me method.

These records must be kept in a register for three years. The waste contractor must send quarterly returns to the waste producer and the Agency to show that each consignment has been properly dealt with. This means that the producer and regulators may have to wait three months before they receive confirmation of disposal: under the t he old system, they were notified of each separate consignment. Waste Waste producers who are concerned about their waste have a legal right to request confirmation that the disposal or treatment has been carried out: this request must be in writing, and the contractor then has seven days to reply. ‘Paperwork offences’ relating to the consignment procedure are punishable by  a £300 fine.

38

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

Mixing and separation of hazardous waste The new Hazardous Waste Regulations introduce much greater restrictions on the mixing of hazardous waste. While this was mentioned in the old regulations, in practice much mixing was carried on, both by producers and contractors. The wording of the Regulations prohibits the mixing of hazardous waste with •

a dif diffe fere rent nt ca cate tego gory ry of ha haza zard rdou ous s was waste te



non-hazardous waste



any an y oth other er su subs bsta tanc nce e or or mat mater eria ial. l.

However, the Agency can allow mixing by disposal or recovery operations as a condition of their permit. This may be an essential part of the treatment: for example, a neutralization process where acid and alkaline wastes are mixed. Where hazardous wastes have been mixed in contravention of the Regulations, the holder has a duty to separate them. However, this is qualified by a proviso that the separation is ‘technically and economically feasible’ and necessary to comply with the Waste Framework Directive. In other words, the Agency will not require the holder to separate the wastes if the mixture does not present any threat to the environment which separation would ameliorate. At present, this duty only applies to those who transport, recover or dispose of hazardous waste, but the Government has proposed to extend it to producers. These provisions are not very specific and likely to be a source of concern to industrial waste producers. What are the ‘categories’ of waste which must not be mixed? The Environment Agency has told a leading contractor that it will take these to be the categories in Annex 1A of Schedule 1 to the Hazardous Waste Waste Regulations, as listed below. The Environment Agency has recently issued guidance gui dance on the mixing and segregation of hazardous waste, listing several waste types which can be mixed without breaking the law (available on the Agency’s website). For example, it is acceptable to mix hazardous and non-hazardous oil/water mixtures. They will focus enforcement efforts on those producers who deliberately dilute hazardous h azardous waste in order to avoid regulation.

39

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

ANNEX 1A OF SCH.1 TO THE HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS •

Anatomical substances; hospital and other clinical waste



Pharmaceuticals, medicines and veterinary compounds

• •

Wood preservatives Biocides and phyto-pharmaceutical substances



Residue from substances employed as solvents



Halogenated organic substances not employed as solvents excluding iner t polymerized materials



Tempering salts containing cyanides



Mineral oils and oily substances (eg cutting sludges, etc)



Oil/water, hydrocarbon/water mixtures, emulsions



Substances containing PCBs and/or PCTs



Tarry materials arising from refining, distillation and any pyrolytic t reatment (eg still bottoms)



Inks In ks,, dyes dyes,, pigm pigmen ents ts,, pain paints ts,, lacquers, varnishes



Resi Re sins ns,, lat latex ex,, pla plast stiicizers, glues/adhesives



Chemical substances arising from research and development or t  tea eaching ac tivi  tivities ties which are not identified and/or are new and whose effe c ts on man and/or the environment are not known (eg laboratory residues)



Pyrotechnics and other explosive materials



Photographic chemicals and processing materials



Any material contaminated with any congener of polychlorinated dibenzofuran



Any material contaminated with any congener of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.

 ADVANTAGES  ADVANT AGES OF WA WASTE STE SEGREGA SEGREGATION TION

While in the short term the duty to segregate segregat e hazardous wastes is likely to create extra work and expenditure, there are good environmental and financial reasons for doing it. Many companies are already re-examining and segregating s egregating their wastes to ensure that only onl y those which are truly hazardous are consigned as such. (In the past, p ast, there was much precautionary consignment of mixed loads.) As a consequence of the co-disposal co-disp osal ban, there is likely to be a shortage shortag e of capacity  for hazardous waste disposal and treatment in the short term (see Chapter 4) – a major incentive to reduce hazardous waste arisings. At the same time, the cost of hazardous waste landfill is rising sharply. If wastes are segregated it is easier to recycle and recover those with economic value. It also enables better characterization of each waste stream, and may help in identifying opportunities for

40

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

3 HA Z A R D OU S WA S T E

waste reduction. Finally, the segregation of hazardous wastes is an important safety measure. The mixing of incompatible incompatibl e wastes has long been a common cause of explosions, fires and accidents at waste facilities.

41

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Chapter 4 Landfill regulations and their impact  Introduction..........................................................................................44 Overview of the landfill directive.......................................................45 The co-disposal ban and the ‘hazardous ‘hazardous waste waste crisis’ ...................50 Waste Wa ste acceptance criteria (WAC)......................................................57 (WAC).................. ....................................57 Technical details details of the WAC WAC .............................................................60 Characterization, Characterizati on, testing and sampling (WAP)........ (WAP)................................67 ........................67 Conclusion............................................................................................71

42

 

Chapter 4 Landfill regulations and their impact 

Introduction The Landfill Directive has made a tremendous impact on the shape of waste management in the UK, and will continue to do so over the next decade. It has forced a wholesale shift away from landfill towards a range of other options. Costs for waste producers have risen; some waste producers are finding that there is nowhere for their wastes to go. The waste industry, relied upon by the Government to meet the demand for new facilities, has been be en late in responding to the challenge due to regulatory and market uncertainties but is now offering an imaginative range of new services. Local authorities have been compelled to expand their recycling operations at a rapid rate in order to meet stringent targets for diverting waste from landfill. Waste Wa ste producers must take far greater responsibility for their wastes, particularly where the wastes are hazardous. They have new duties to test, sample and characterize waste streams, and arrange for treatment. The well informed have been able to reduce hazardous waste generation and keep costs down; the uninformed are paying the price or even breaking the law. The Agency and Government, fearful of the looming hazardous waste mountains as landfills reject non-compliant wastes, have resorted to bending the rules at the th e eleventh hour. The implementation of the Landfill Directive has proved to be a dramatic saga with dire warnings of crisis, strong words exchanged, blame cast, emergency  summits and forums convened – and also an element of anticlimax as the direst predictions failed to come true. Whether all this has brought about any appreciable environmental benefit remains to be seen. Commenting on the failure to abide by the principle of subsidiarity  in drawing up this Directive, leading international waste lawyer and author Richard Hawkins comments that. ‘Many may consider that the landfill option would have been managed better by b y the Member States individually, individuall y, since many  geological and geophysical characteristics are unique to specific countries. Instead,

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

the principle of harmonized law was followed, and all the Member States were subject to the same targets and requirements. The problem is that the individual performance target dates were chosen without a clear rationale, let alone an open and transparent cost-benefit analysis’. He also points out that the th e original  justificati  justi fication on for the landfil landfilll divers diversion ion targe targets, ts, ie the reduc reduction tion of green greenhouse house gas emissions, was a spurious aim due to the low proportion proport ion of methane emissions arising from landfills and the availability availabilit y of collection and control systems (The ( The  Practical Guide to Waste Management Law , by RGP Hawkins and H S Shaw, Thomas Telford, 2004).

Overview of the landfill directive Directive 99/31/EC is concerned with three interrelated aspects of waste management: •

the clas classifi sificat cation ion of landfi landfill ll sites sites,, and and presc prescript ription ion of the the prec precise ise typ types es of waste they can accept



the div diversi ersion on of bio biodegr degrada adable ble mun munici icipal pal was waste te (BMW (BMW)) from from land landfill fill



engine eng ineeri ering ng and and env envir iron onme ment ntal al sta standa ndard rds s at lan landfil dfilll sites sites..

It is the first aspect which forms the th e focus of this chapter, as it has the most direct impact on industrial and commercial waste producers. The diversion of BMW from landfill is an issue of primary concern to local authorities, although of course it also has implications for the landfill operators, providers of recovery and recycling services and the general public. The relevant statute is the Wa the Waste ste and Emiss Emissions ions Trading Trading Act 2004 2004 (not the Landfill Regulations). This issue will be considered further in Chapter 6, Local authorities and municipal waste.

Engineering and regulation of landfill sites ENGINEERING

The new technical requirements for landfill sites were implemented by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 1559) and Scottish equivalent SSI 2003 No. 208. They are set down in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. Issues covered include: •

the requ requir irem ement ent for for a lea leach chat ate e colle collect ctio ion n and and seali sealing ng sys syste tem m



specific speci ficat atio ions ns for for landfi landfill ll liner liners s (eg a 5m 5m imper imperme meab able le barri barrier er for for hazardous waste sites)

44

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T



coll co llec ecti tion on,, trea treatm tmen entt and and use use of la land ndfil filll gas gas



monito mon itoring ring pro procedu cedures res,, eg to ass assess ess the com compos positi ition on and vol volume ume of  leachate, landfill gas, groundwater and surface water



general gene ral mea measur sures es to avo avoid id nui nuisanc sance e eg fenc fencing, ing, kee keeping ping acc access ess roa roads ds clean, dealing with noise, dust and vermin.

These engineering requirements have not had a major effect eff ect on the waste management industry, as most of them were already good practice in the UK. The main effect has probably been to close down old, badly engineered landfills which were in any case nearing the end of their lives. In the case of hazardous landfills, the cost of upgrading to the new engineering standards has put up gate fees. There has been one unexpected problem in that the Directive requires inert landfills to have a lining or geological barrier one metre thick. This Th is would prevent the use of inert waste in restoring quarries. The quarry industry is pressing the Agency to consider whether a lining is really necessary to protect groundwater – the Directive allows some flexibility where a risk assessment demonstrates that there is no threat to the environment.

REGULATION

Landfill sites are regulated by the Environment Agency, either under the PPC regime or the waste management licensing regime (see Chapter 2, Overview of waste regulation). By 2008 all landfills will be regulated under PPC. Some of  the requirements of the Landfill Regulations are being introduced via the PPC permitting procedure. Permit conditions cover the following issues: •

type ty pe and and qua quant ntit ity y of of was waste te acc ccep epte ted d



ope perrationa nall re requirements



moni mo nito tori ring ng and and con contr trol ol pro proce cedu durres



financia fina nciall provi provisio sion n to cov cover er opera operatio tional, nal, clo closur sure e and and after aftercar care e costs costs



accident pr prevention



ener en ergy gy ef effic ficie ienc ncy y (fo (forr the the lar large gerr land landfil fills ls))



report rep orting ing to the the Agen Agency cy on on waste waste acc accept epted ed and and resu results lts of moni monitor toring ing..

The Landfill Regulations make specific reference to the fees f ees charged by the site operator. They must cover the costs of setting up and operating the landfill, complying with the permit conditions, and ensuring that the landfill does not present any threat to the environment after it has closed. As yet no operator has been taken to court on this issue.

45

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Classification of landfill sites The Regulations classify landfills into three types: •

sites fo for in inert wa waste



site si tes s fo forr no nonn-ha haza zard rdou ous s wa wast ste e



site tes s fo for ha hazardous wa waste.

It is an offence to landfill waste in the wrong type of site. The effect of this was to outlaw co-disposal, ie the landfilling of hazardous industrial waste mixed with biodegradable non-hazardous waste. Hazardous waste must be landfilled at a hazardous-only site. This co-disposal ban took effect in July 2004. This, together with the introduction of the Waste Acceptance Criteria a year later, is the aspect of the Directive which has h as had the greatest impact on waste management in the UK and will be considered in detail later in this chapter.

 Waste Acceptanc  Waste Acceptance e Criteria (WAC) (WAC) and  Waste  W aste Acceptance Acceptance Procedures (WAP) (WAP) It is not enough for a hazardous waste to be consigned to a hazardous landfill. As from 16 July 2005, it will not be accepted unless it meets the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for hazardous landfill. The WAC include leaching limits for a variety of hazardous substances, as well as limits on parameters such as total organic carbon, pH, strength and stability. stabi lity. The WAC WAC are discussed in detail later in this chapter. The WAC impact chiefly on hazardous waste producers. producer s. There are no WAC for non-hazardous wastes, but inert wastes must meet standards for organic content and contamination. In order to ensure that the WAC are complied with, the Regulations set down  various  variou s waste accepta acceptance nce proced procedures ures (W (WAP). AP). These relate to samplin sampling, g, testing, inspection and monitoring of wastes, as well as the characterizatio characterization n which must be supplied by the waste producer. These issues are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Banned wastes The Regulations ban various wastes from landfill. The ban applies to wastes which are: •

liquid



explosive

46

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T



corrosive



oxidising



flammabl ble e or or hi highly flammable



chemic che micals als who whose se effe effects cts on huma humans ns or the the envi environ ronmen mentt are are unk unknow nown n



infectious



whole tyres



shredded ty tyres.

The bans are already in effect, although the bans on liquid wastes and tyres are being phased in via the permitting process. Liquid wastes will be completely  banned from 30 October 2007 and shredded tyres from 16 July 2006. Most of the substances were already excluded from landfill before the Regulations came into force. However, the bans on liquids and tyres tyre s have created some difficulties. Considerable volumes of liquid now require treatment, and the removal of liquid from landfills slows down the degradation processes which help to stabilize the waste. waste . Large numbers of tyres must now be found an alteral ternative disposal outlet: at this stage, using them as fuel in cement kilns and power stations seems the most promising option, although alth ough there are also new opportunities for recycling. Industry has successfully raised the recovery rate for tyres to an estimated 90% in 2005.

Treatment  Under the Regulations, all wastes destined for landfill must be pre-treated, unless the treatment would not bring about any environmental benefit.

A wide range of treatments are deemed to be acceptable. They do not have to be sophisticated chemical or biological processes. For example, at a major hazardous waste landfill the acceptable treatment for paint tins is to empty and crush them. Removing recyclables such as cans from the municipal waste stream also qualifies as treatment: however, compaction alone does not. The general guidelines on treatment are that it must: a)

be a thermal, chemical, biological or physical process (which includes sorting)

b)

change the characteristics of the waste in order to: •

reduce mass, or



redu re duce ce th the e haza hazard rdou ous s nat natur ure e of of the the was waste te,, or

47

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T



facilitate ha handling, or or



enhance recovery.

A leading waste management company has given the following examples of  acceptable treatment.  For industrial waste waste:: •

segre seg rega gati tion on at at sour source ce,, with with some some frac fracti tion on not not bei being ng land landfill filled ed



sort so rtin ing g at at a mat mater eria ials ls re recy cycl clin ing g fac facil ilit ity  y 



inci in cine nera rati tion on wi with th la land ndfil filll of of res resid idue ues. s.

 For mixed construction construction and demolition waste: waste: •

segre seg rega gati tion on of re reus usab able le bri brick cks, s, sla slate te,, tim timbe berr etc etc

 For contaminated contaminated soil: •

stabilization



soil washing



biol bi olog ogic ical al tr trea eatm tmen entt of of or orga gani nics cs



inci in cine nera rati tion on (t (the herm rmal al tr trea eatm tmen ent) t)..

With municipal waste, pre-treatment is already carried out as part of the local authority’s authority’ s strategy to reduce the landfilling of biodegradable waste. For example, paper,, glass and cans are collected separately for recycling in most local authority  paper areas. Finding the right treatment process is more of a challenge when the waste must be treated in order to meet the WAC. The waste management industry is seeking to develop new treatment techniques in order to deal with industrial wastes that are unable to comply, such as certain wastes from aluminium smelting. This is discussed further below in the section on WAC. If hazardous waste can be rendered stable and non-reactive through treatment (eg solidification) it can be landfilled landfill ed in a specialized cell at a non-hazardous waste site. It is known as stabilised non-reactive hazardous waste or SNRHW. Separate WAC apply to such wastes. The capacity for this kind of landfill is increasing as waste companies are investing in new cells: for some s ome wastes this will be the solution to the shortage of hazardous waste landfill capacity.

48

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

The co-disposal ban and the ‘hazardous waste crisis’ The co-disposal ban of 2004 brought waste into the media spotlight. spotlight . The Agency  had threatened that a crisis was approaching: mountains of hazardous waste would build up; industrial waste would be fly-tipped across the countryside and law abiding companies would have to keep their waste on site as there would be no disposal facilities to receive it. The warnings certainly seemed to be founded on fact. At a stroke, the co-disposal ban reduced the number of landfills accepting hazardous waste from around 200 to 12. Most of these landfills were in the north east, with none in Scotland, Wales or the south of England. The Government’s Hazardous Waste Forum estimated that over a million tonnes of hazardous waste would have nowhere to go.

Number of hazardous landfills permitted as at June 2005: 12 dedicated hazardous sites operational 4 hazardous sites pending  19 non-hazardous sites taking asbestos only in separate cells 6 non-hazardous sites taking a range of SNRHW.

Altogether, the total capacity (permitted and pending) is 4,444 tonnes per annum. Total hazardous waste landfilled in 2003 was 1,798,673 tonnes. (Figures supplied by Biffa and Enviros to ENDS conference on hazardous waste, Haymarket Conferences, July 2005.) A year on from the ban, the crisis has failed to materialize. While there have been some incidences of fly-tipping, the scale has been nowhere near what was predicted. The new Port Clarence hazardous waste landfill in the north east, operated by Augean, had to revise its profit estimates downward due to the lack of customers. Still, concerns remain and it is not certain what the long term trends will be.

49

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Missing waste? In evidence to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Alan Potter of the environmental consultancy Beyond Waste estimated that 700,000 tonnes of hazardous waste would ‘go missing’ – probably to non-hazardous landfill sites. The Committee recommended that the Government should investigate this claim (House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Fourth Report Repor t of session 2004-2005, March 2005, available at www.parliament.uk/efracom.). While the official response was scornful of Mr Potter’s estimates, the Government and Agency have still not succeeded in explaining where all the hazardous waste has gone. There is no doubt that arisings of contaminated soil from brownfield remediation have dropped dramatically since the ban. Contractors did their best to get as much soil as possible into landfill before the co-disposal ban took effect, leading to a marked peak in landfilling during the early part of 2004 (see Figure 3). However, this factor was scaled in to Mr Potter’s calculation.

50

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

 Figure 3: Hazardous Waste Generation Generation Hazardous Waste Chart prepared from Hazardous Waste Forum statistics by Jonathan Davies of Enviros and  presented at ENDS/Haymark ENDS/Haymarket et conference conference on hazardous hazardous waste, waste, July 2005. 2005.

The leading environmental journal ENDS journal ENDS Report carried out a survey of (larger) industrial waste producers and environmental consultants. The interesting findings are summarized in the bar charts over.

51

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

RESULTS OF ENDS SURVEY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCERS AND CONSULT CONSULTANTS ANTS

 Figure 4a: Explanations Explanations of current current trends in landfilling of hazardous hazardous waste waste

 Figure 4b: ‘Do ‘Do you anticipate anticipate problems in finding finding sufficient sufficient  landfill/treatment  landfill/trea tment capacity capacity after 16 July July 2005?’  Source: Paper presented by Julian Rose of ENDS at the ENDS/   Haymarket  Haymark et conference conference on hazardous hazardous waste, waste, July 2005 2005

52

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

While the consultants questioned suspected that around 70% of the ‘missing waste’ had been misconsigned as non-hazardous, the waste producers took credit for better waste segregatio segregation n and waste reduction. This is the explanation favoured by the Government and Agency, who take the ‘missing waste’ as evidence that the co-disposal ban has had the desired effect of reducing hazardous waste generation. Case studies from different industry sectors do bear out the claim that waste producers are finding alternative options for their waste, such as new recovery  methods or disposal abroad. (See case study below.)

CASE STUDY: NOVELIS This aluminium reprocessing company based near W  Wa arrington has three main waste streams: aluminium dross (which has been recovered for a long time) air pollution control (APC) residues from shredding scrap APC residues from treating acid gases. The 1300 tonnes of APC residues had all gone to landfill, but this would have been too costly under the new regime. Novelis was able to separate out the 300 tonnes of residues from shredding scrap and send them to non-haza rdous landfill. The waste from t reating acid gases was reduced by 25% through calculating the lime requirements more a ccurately. The remaining APC residues, which could not meet the WAC, have been sent for recovery and reuse in the construc tion industry. Sou rc  rc e: e: ENDS Repo r rt  July 2005.

However,, when it comes to SMEs the picture is probably less rosy. During the However ENDS hazardous waste conference, the manager of a small manufacturing company recounted how he could not afford to send his small number of asbestos tiles to hazardous landfill. He boldly commented that “I’d say 70% of companies on this industrial estate are packing up such waste at the end of the day  and dropping it over a hedgerow somewhere. It’s too costly for them to deal with it any other way”. (He later clarified that there was no evidence that his neighbours were actually doing this!)

53

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Costs to industry  There is no doubt that the cost of hazardous waste disposal has risen as a result of the co-disposal ban and WAC. Several respondents to the ENDS survey  estimated that their spending on waste would rise by at least 50% – the average predicted rise in spending was 34%. The main element of the cost increase is the greater transport costs as waste must be taken longer distances to one of  the few available sites. Corus reported that the costs of hazardous waste disposal have more than doubled to £180 per tonne: they are now sending waste to Germany for recovery. Augean Waste, Waste, the operators of the th e new hazardous waste landfill on Teesside (Port Clarence) estimate that the costs of hazardous waste landfill have trebled since the ban: b an: not because of the demand for capacity, but because of the new engineering requirements.

Future shortage of capacity  The ENDS survey reveals continued concern over the future availability of disposal and treatment capacity for hazardous waste. Of the respondents, 43% predicted that they would generate more hazardous waste in the year ahead, due mainly  to the ‘newly hazardous wastes’. While most had found landfill or treatment capacity for their wastes in 2004-5, they feared that they would not be able to in the following year. About a quarter had been able to reduce their the ir hazardous waste arisings since the ban but not all these felt they would be able to sustain the trend. The map below shows how hazardous waste arisings compare with estimated landfill and SNRHW cell capacity in 2004-5, revealing the shortfalls shortfal ls in southern England and Wales.

54

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

 Figure 5: Special landfill deposits 2002 Special waste arisings; landfill  Estimated landfill landfill capacity capacity July 2004-July 2004-July 2005  Hazardous Waste  Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment and and Capacity Task Force. Force. Final Draft Status Report 2004 available at :www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/wasteforum/pdf/tctf-statusreport.pdf 

55

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

 Waste aste accept acceptance ance criteri criteria a (WAC) (WAC)  W The WAC comprise limit values for leachability of different contaminants, criteria for strength and stability of waste plus p lus limits for parameters such as total organic carbon and pH. There are WAC for hazardous waste, inert waste, and stabilized non-reactive hazardous waste (SNRHW). Allied with the WAC are the Waste Acceptance Procedures (WAP) which set out a framework for sampling, testing, monitoring and describing waste: duties for which both to the waste producer and the contractor are responsible. The detailed WAC and WAP as laid down in the Regulations are summarized later in this chapter.

Delay in implementing WAC The WAC have been a problematic and controversial aspect of the new landfill regime. They should have been included incl uded in the 1993 Directive but were left out as the necessary technical work had not been completed. This resulted in a great deal of uncertainty, both for industry and regulators. Everyone knew that hazardous wastes would only be allowed into landfill if they met certain criteria, but no-one knew what those criteria were. The waste industry knew that additional treatment capacity would be required, but were reluctant to invest in new facilities as the precise standards of treatment were not known, and hence the market could not be accurately predicted. The Government and Agency were in a difficult position. If they made regulations or set formal criteria ahead of the EU WAC being issued, they could be accused of ‘gold plating’: however, by doing nothing they were contributing to the delay in necessary investment. The Agency did issue some temporary criteria but this was not viewed as satisfactory by the waste industry. Finally, the EU WAC were issued in 2003 as Decision 2003/33/EC. UK Regulations implementing the WAC appeared in 2004 and came into force – in an amended form – on 16 July 2005. The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, in Directive , was critical of the its 2005 Report on Waste Policy and the Landfill Directive, Government’s handling of the situation. The MPs concluded that: ‘The “uncertainty” “uncertaint y” referred to by witnesses is attributable both to confusion within the waste legislative framework itself, and a feeling that the Government and its agencies have not done enough to explain how it will work…. Uncertainty about the legislative and regulatory framework has a significant effect on the development of long-term strategies for

56

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

investment in the necessary treatment facilities by waste producers and the waste industry…The Government must in future avoid, wherever possible, agreeing to new European legislation without a full understanding of the details of how such agreements will be interpreted and implemented …the Government must engage with practitioners at the earliest possible stage to ensure that such proposals are practicable, enforceable and capable of implementation.’

Implications of the delay  The rushed way in which the WAC have been imposed has caused anxiety  amongst waste producers, particularly those in SMEs who are less well informed about environmental legislation. Agency inspectors are being bombarded with questions about what to do with oily rags. r ags. Some waste producers are still ignorant of the new requirements: others are belatedly realising that their wastes will not meet the WAC and do not know what action to take. The ENDS survey referred to above revealed that, although there is optimism about the future availability of hazardous waste landfill, there is likely to be a serious shortfall in treatment capacity. At least two waste companies judge that there is not enough treatment capacity for waste streams such as air pollution control residues, oily rags, contaminated packaging, oily sludges, contaminated soils, filter cakes and used protective equipment, many of which do not meet the WAC because of their high organic content. Taking the example of air pollution control residues, the existing treatment capacity is sufficient for less than half of the current UK arisings of 150,000 tonnes. The new underground Minosus storage facility in Cheshire (see below) could possibly take 50,000 tonnes, leaving 20,000 without a disposal route. Perhaps this could be stabilized and sent as SNRHW to a non-hazardous landfill, but this is uncertain. A consultant speaking to ENDS (Jonathan Davies of Enviros) commented that the lack of reliable data on waste treatment means it is impossible to t o tell if there is enough treatment capacity and whether there is time to construct it.

57

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Orphan wastes Certain industrial wastes are too highly contaminated to meet the WAC even if they are treated using the available technology. These wastes cannot legally  be accepted in hazardous landfill but have h ave nowhere else to go. The Agency has made a special exception for two wastes: • spen sp entt pot pot lini lining ngs s from from alu alumi mini nium um sme smelt lter ers, s, and and •

furna fur nace ce sla slag g fro from m lea lead d aci acid d bat batte tery ry re recy cycli cling. ng.

These wastes are allowed into landfill for the present, but the Agency has charged the producers to investigate all possible alternatives, including process redesign and recovery overseas, and draw up an action plan. The situation will be reviewed every three months. There is a possibility that the aluminium waste could go to a quarry on a remote Norwegian island, along with similar waste from other EU countries. For the battery waste, a solution is not forthcoming: the company  states that the only option would be an investment in new furnace technology  costing over £10 million. By allowing these wastes into landfill, the Agency is running the risk of infraction proceedings by the European Commission. Around 50 further waste streams have been identified by industry as potential orphan wastes, including the oily rags, filter cake etc referred to above. A representative of Biffa, a major waste management company, speaking at the ENDS conference gave an example of contaminated soil containing oil and asbestos. The WAC prescribe that sites taking asbestos waste must take only asbestos, and the asbestos waste must contain no other material. This means that the contaminated soil cannot be landfilled.

 Alternative options options for orphan orphan wastes The waste industry is seeking to develop new treatment processes for some of  the difficult industrial wastes, but this will take time. Two alternatives already  available are high temperature incineration and disposal at the Minosus facility. facility.

INCINERATION AND CO-INCINERATION

Biffa estimates that there is about 9000 tonnes of incineration capacity in the UK. Co-incineration – the use of combustible waste as fuel in cement kilns, lime kilns and power stations – is set to increase as the Agency grants permits to more of these combustion processes. This is a particularly good disposal option for tyres. While co-incineration is regarded with suspicion by the public, it does have environmental benefits in that the wastes replace fossil fuels, hence conserving resources.

58

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Merchant incineration capacity – where there is no energy recovery – is restricted to two incinerators. This is a costly option and regarded as being at the bottom of the waste hierarchy along with landfill (see Chapter 1). It is also regarded (unjustifiably) as a polluting industry by the public, so planning permission is difficult to obtain. Expansion is therefore unlikely in the near future.

CASE STUDY: MINOSUS Minosus runs a vast underground storage facility in an old Cheshire salt mine which can store up to 100,000 tonnes of haza rdous waste a year. It is permitted to take 42 wastes and does not have to comply with the WAC leaching limits (although other criteria do apply, and it cannot take wastes which are flammable, reac tive, volatile, radioac tive or biodegradable). The development was delayed due to planning objec tions – the applica tion was eventually called in by the Secretary of State – but began a ccepting waste in August 2005.

Technical details of the WAC Legislation The detailed WAC can be found in the Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 1375), 1375) , as amended by the Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1640). 1640) . The 2004 Regulations set the basic WAC for granular wastes and procedures for characterization, sampling and testing. The 2005 Amendment Regulations supply alternative criteria for monolithic wastes (ie blocks of stabilized material intended for landfill in a SNRHW cell). Through the 2005 amendment, the Government has allowed the relaxation of some criteria to three times over the limit, if compatible wastes are landfilled together in a SNRHW cell and a risk assessment shows there is no additional risk to the th e environment. The Regulations already  allowed for a relaxation of the criteria for wastes designated for mono-fill cells and mono-landfills (eg in house facilities taking only one waste stream). This section includes summary tables for the WAC to give a general idea of the requirements. Waste producers should refer to the Regulations themselves t hemselves for full details.

59

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Leaching criteria and other WAC INERT WASTE

The following inert wastes are acceptable at an inert landfill without testing provided they come from a single waste stream and from a single source: •

gla gl ass and and rela latted ma materi ria als



concrete



briicks, ti br tiles an and ce cera ram mics



soil and stones.

(See Table 1 to the Regulations for more specific details.) However, if there is any suspicion that the waste may be contaminated with organic matter, or any other contaminants, it must be tested. The table below gives WAC WAC for inert wastes which are tested. L/S = liquid to solid ratio (see section on test methods below).

LIMIT VALUES FOR LEACHING C o m p o ne n t

L / S=1 0 l / kg mg/kg dry substance

Arsenic

0.5

Barium

20

Cadmium

0.04

Total chromium

0.5

Copper

2

Mercury

0.01

Molybdenum Nickel

0.5 0.4

Lead

0.5

Antimony

0.06

Selenium

0.1

Zinc

4

Chloride

800

Fluoride

10

Sulphate

1000

Phenol index

1

Dissolved organic carbon Total dissolved solids

500 4000

60

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

LIMIT VALUES FOR ORGANIC CONTENT

P ar am et er

Value (mg/kg)

Total organic carbon

30,000

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

6

PCBs

1

Mineral oil

500

PAHs

100

The Environment Agency may allow a higher limit value in the case of soils, provided the Dissolved Organic Carbon figure is acceptable.

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE

Most non-hazardous waste does not require testing. However, there are certain restrictions if it contains asbestos or gypsum. Gypsum based waste and high sulphate bearing waste may only be disposed of in cells where there is no biodegradable biodegr adable waste. Wastes landfilled with gypsum based materials must meet the criteria for stable, stabl e, non-reactive hazardous wastes (see below). Asbestos waste must not contain any other hazardous substances. It must be disposed of in a separate, self contained cell, or in a landfill landfil l dedicated to asbestos. (This restriction is likely to present difficulties to those disposing of contaminated soils where asbestos is mixed with other waste – see Orphan wastes above.)

61

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

STABLE, NON-REACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE (SNRHW)

LEACHING CRITERIA (CAN BE APPLIED TO BOTH MONOLITHIC AND GRANULAR WASTES)

C o m p o ne n t

L / S =1 0 l / kg

mg/kg dry substance Arsenic

2

Barium

100

Cadmium

1

Total chromium

10

Copper

50

Mercury

0.2

Molybdenum

10

Nickel

10

Lead

10

Antimony

0.7

Selenium

0.5

Zinc

50

Chloride

15,000

Fluoride

150

Sulphate

20,000

Dissolved organic carbon

800

Total dissolved solids

60,000

Granular wastes must have total organic carbon of 5% or less, and the pH must be 6 or more. Acid neutralization capacity must be evaluated. situ shear strength of at least 50kPa. NonCohesive waste must have a mean in mean in situ cohesive waste must have an in an in situ bearing ratio of at least 5%.

62

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

ALTERNATIVE LEACHING CRITERIA FOR MONOLITHIC WASTES

C o m p o ne n t

M g/ m 2

Arsenic

1.3

Barium

45

Cadmium

0.2

Total chromium

5

Copper

45

Mercury

0.1

Molybdenum

7

Nickel

6

Lead

6

Antimony

0.3

Selenium

0.4

Zinc

30

Chloride

10,000

Fluoride

60

Sulphate

10,000

Dissolved organic carbon

Must be evaluated

The following parameters must also be evaluated for monolithic waste: •

pH of eluate



elec el ectr tric ical al con condu duc cti tiv vit ity y of of elu eluat ate e



acid ac id neu neutra traliz lizat atio ion n cap capac acit ity y of of crus crushe hed d mon monoli olith th..

The waste must have a mean unconfined compressive strength of at least 1MPa after 28 days’ curing. Also, it must have either •

dimens dim ensio ions ns of gr grea eater ter tha than n 40c 40cm m al alon ong g eac each h side side



a depth depth and and fra fractu cture re spa spaci cing ng whe when n hard harden ened ed of of grea greate terr than than 40cm 40cm..

 Prior to treatment  treatment , the waste must meet the following limit values: •

loss on ignition of 10%



tota to tall organic carb rbo on 6%.

63

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

HAZARDOUS WASTE

LEACHING CRITERIA FOR GRANULAR HAZARDOUS WASTE

C o m p o ne n t

L / S =1 0 l / kg

mg/kg dry substance Arsenic

25

Barium

300

Cadmium

5

Total chromium

70

Copper

100

Mercury

2

Molybdenum

30

Nickel

40

Lead

50

Antimony

5

Selenium

7

Zinc

200

Chloride

25,000

Fluoride

500

Sulphate

50,000

Dissolved organic carbon

1000

Total dissolved solids

100,000

It must also meet the following criteria: •

loss on ignition 10%



total or organic ca carbon 6% 6%

and the acid neutralization capacity must be evaluated. situ shear strength of at least 50kPa. NonCohesive waste must have a mean in mean in situ cohesive waste must have an in an in situ bearing ratio of at least 5%.

64

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

ALTERNATIVE LEACHING CRITERIA FOR MONOLITHIC HAZARDOUS WASTE

C o m p o ne n t

M g/ m 2

Arsenic

20

Barium

150

Cadmium

1

Total chromium

25

Copper

60

Mercury

0.4

Molybdenum

20

Nickel

15

Lead

20

Antimony

2.5

Selenium

5

Zinc

100

Chloride

20,000

Fluoride

200

Sulphate

20,000

Dissolved organic carbon

Must be evaluated

The following parameters must also be evaluated: •

pH of eluate



elec el ectr tric ical al con condu duc cti tiv vit ity y of of elu eluat ate e



acid ac id neu neutra traliz lizat atio ion n cap capac acit ity y of of crus crushe hed d mon monoli olith th..

It must meet the same criteria for strength, dimensions, loss on ignition and total organic carbon as non-hazardous monolithic waste. Note that the criteria crit eria for loss on ignition and total organic carbon apply to the untreated waste.

65

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Characterization, testing and sampling (WAP) (WAP) Waste Wa ste producers who intend to consign their waste to landfill must provide the landfill operator with the information required by the Regulations. A waste stream will not be accepted for landfill until the waste producer has drawn up a basic characterization.. This ‘constitutes a thorough determination, according to characterization standardized analysis and behaviour testing methods, of short and long-term leaching behaviour and/or characteristic properties of the waste’. The information in this section is based on the Environment Agency’s Ag ency’s official guidance on testing and sampling, available on the Agency’s website (see references below). The following information must be included: •

source/ e/o origi gin n of of th the wa waste



pro pr ocess pr producing the wa waste



pre pr e-tr tre eatment und nde ergone



composition, including an assessment of the waste against the limit   values for for leaching leaching and organic organic composi composition tion



smell, sme ll, colo colour ur,, consi consiste stency ncy,, physic physical al form form and and other other aspe aspects cts of of appear appearanc ance e



EWC EW C code code (see (see Cha Chapte pterr 3 on on Haza Hazardo rdous us was waste te for for an an expla explanat nation ion of  this)



hazardous properties (if applicable)



eviden evi dence ce to to demo demonst nstrat rate e that that the the waste waste is not not bann banned ed from from land landfill fill (see (see Banned wastes above)



landfill land fill cla class ss (haz (hazard ardous ous,, non-h non-haza azardo rdous us or inert inert)) appr appropri opriate ate for the waste



like li kely ly be beha havi viou ourr of of the the wa wast ste e in in lan landfi dfill ll



prec pr ecau auti tion ons s whic which h need need to to be ta take ken n by the the lan landfi dfill ll oper operat ator or



wheth wh ether er th the e was waste te ca can n be be rec recov over ered ed or re recy cycl cled. ed.

The points in bold are those for which detailed sampling and testing will be required, and which are considered further below. While contractors will be able to help in providing this information, the onus is on the hazardous waste producer. This is a significant new duty which will create extra work and costs for industry.

66

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

 WASTES  WASTES WHICH WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE REQUIRE TESTING TESTING

The testing requirements relate primarily to hazardous wastes destined for landfill. Non-contaminated inert wastes, non-hazardous wastes and construction wastes containing asbestos and destined for asbestos-only landfill landfil l do not require testing.

Hierarchy of testing Producers of potentially potentiall y hazardous wastes need to arrange for two separate sets of testing. 1.

Test esting ing to dete determi rmine ne wheth whether er the wast waste e is hazard hazardous ous acco accordi rding ng to the the Hazardous Waste Regulations, and to find out which of the 14 hazardous properties it displays. (See Chapter 3 on Hazardous waste).

2.

If the the waste waste is is hazard hazardous ous,, it must must be teste tested d for comp complian liance ce with with the the WAC. If it is not hazardous, further testing is not required and the waste can go to non-hazardous landfill.

The WAP include a three stage hierarchy of testing: 1.

Basic Bas ic chara character cteriza izatio tion n (as descri described bed abov above): e): the the respons responsibi ibility lity of of the waste producer.

2.

Regular Regu lar comp complian liance ce testin testing, g, to che check ck wheth whether er subseq subsequent uent loa loads ds of was waste te conform with the basic characterization: carried out in partnership between the producer and contractor.

3.

The contra contracto ctors’ rs’ brief brief inspe inspectio ction n of indiv individu idual al loads loads as they they arriv arrive e at the site.

Primary and secondary waste producers The Agency’s guidance on testing distinguishes between: •

primary prim ary pro produc ducers ers – the the indust industria rialist lists s whos whose e proces processes ses cre create ate the was waste, te, and



secon sec onda dary ry prod produc ucers ers – the the operat operators ors of of treat treatme ment nt plan plants ts or tran transf sfer er stations who take the waste from the primary producer and are then responsible for consigning it to landfill.

(Large companies which treat their own waste are both primary and secondary  producers.)

67

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

It is the treated waste which must comply with the WAC, so the secondary  producer is responsible for the detailed testing. The table below divides the elements of the basic characterization between the two classes of producer.

INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY PRIMARY INFORMATION PRODUCER

INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY SECONDARY PRODUCER

Source and origin of waste

Treatment applied

Process producing the waste

Composition and assessment against WAC

Appearance of waste

Hazardous proper ties

EWC code

Landfill class

Demonstration that it is not banned waste

Likely behaviour in landfill

Whether it can be recycled or recovered

Key variables for compliance testing

The Environment Agency considers knowledge of the process to be the key to success in drawing up the characterization: ‘given a sound understanding of  the process, it is relatively straightforward to decide what sampling needs to be done. But without that knowledge, even a substantial amount of data is not sufficient in itself to give full assurance that the waste has been assigned to the correct class of landfill’.

Sampling The 2005 Regulations made it a mandatory requirement to produce a sampling plan. While sampling must be carried out using procedures and techniques laid down in European Standards (listed in the Regulations), the sampling plan will  vary from from producer producer to producer producer,, depending on the nature nature of the process process and the heterogeneity of the waste. waste . The aim of the programme is to provide a reliable overall description of the waste, including the mean and standard deviation of  the parameters being measured. The Agency recommends that the basis of sampling should be the load (eg a skip). This means that the sampler is seeking to obtain an average figure (for each parameter) for the skip as a whole, rather than focusing on small hotspots of contamination. However, However, it is important to ensure that skips representing the ‘worst case scenario’ are included in the sampling programme. If, during subsequent compliance testing, just one skip fails the WAC, the whole waste stream is deemed to be non-compliant and will be rejected by the landfill operator.

68

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

Quality assurance is an important aspect of sampling. The official guidance considers aspects such as the type of container, preservatives and temperature of sample storage. The appropriate number of samples will depend on the nature of the waste and should be calculated using sound statistical principles.

Tests required The relevant tests are listed in the Schedules to the 2004 and 2005 Regulations, together with the European Standards which describe how they should be carried out. The leaching tests for granular wastes involve shaking a prepared sample of the waste with water, in a ratio of ten parts liquid to one part solid (L/S 10), then carrying out analysis of the leachate for the contaminant of concern. The Agency recommends that this be carried out as a two stage procedure. To test the leachability of monolithic wastes, a sample block of specified dimensions is suspended in a tank of water for 64 days. All wastes are tested for total organic content; hazardous wastes are additionally tested for pH and acid neutralization capacity; inert iner t wastes are additionally  tested for specified organic and flammable substances (see WAC above). While it is normally the treated waste that is tested, in the case of monolithic waste, the untreated waste must also be tested for total organic carbon and loss on ignition. If it fails these tests, it will be excluded from landfill even though subsequently treated.

Interpreting and reporting the test results The general principle is that if any one of the sampled loads fails the WAC, the waste is unsuitable for the intended class of landfill. However However,, the Agency guidance advises the waste producer to look at the variability of the data. If only a few  values  valu es excee exceed d the WAC and the vari variabili ability ty is high, it may still be possi possible ble to send the waste to landfill, provided the reason for the high values is known and a remedy is available. (See the Agency guidance for a more detailed discussion of variability and its implications.) If just a few hot spots of contamination are identified, it may be possible to remove them and treat them separately – the rest of the waste can then be consigned to landfill. The test results may also point to opportunities for further treatment. The basic characterization should include a report on the sampling and testing, to include the following information: •

test results



scale of sampli lin ng, eg eg a 20m3 container

69

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T



demonst demo nstrati ration on tha thatt the the limi limitt valu values es are not exp expecte ected d to to be be exce exceeded eded during the next compliance assessment period (eg over the next year)



eviden evi dence ce that that som some e of the the sam sample ples s were were coll collec ected ted at at times times wh when en ‘wors ‘worstt case’ waste quality was predicted.

Compliance testing and checking LEVEL 2 – COMPLIANCE TESTING

Periodic compliance testing is required for process waste produced on a continuous or regular basis. The waste producer draws up a basic characterization to demonstrate that the waste stream is acceptable in (hazardous) landfill, and then in co-operation with the contractor arranges arrang es for regular testing to ensure that the information in the characterization is still valid. Both waste producer and contractor should carry out compliance testing. The Agency recommends testing over a 12 month period, with a minimum of six  targeted samples per year. The Agency guidance recommends ‘targeted worst case sampling’ for compliance testing. If any of the tested samples fail the WAC, the whole waste stream is deemed to have failed. Contractors who do not wish to ban the waste stream can request another characterization and perhaps further treatment.

LEVEL 3 – SPOT CHECKS AT THE LANDFILL SITE

The contractor must check each load of waste as it arrives at the gate. They T hey will look for readily determinable qualities such as physical appearance, odour, colour, etc, mainly to confirm whether this is the actual waste stream which has been characterized. These checks can be used to obtain samples for compliance testing.

Conclusion Many waste producers have only belatedly become aware of their duty to sample and test their wastes, and to prepare a detailed characterization. They will need to start testing immediately, or risk losing the option of landfill disposal. The tests must be done by an accredited laboratory and according to Biffa will cost an average of £200 per sample – another factor contributing to rising waste costs. Sampling plans are already required by law. Both contractors and the Agency are able to provide help and guidance with the new duties, but the responsibility lies with the waste producer.

70

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

4 L A N D F IL L R E G U L A T ION S A N D T HE IR IM P A C T

How strictly will the WAC and associated duties be enforced? Alan Potter, the consultant who impressed the Select Committee, comments that “a crisis will only be averted through pragmatism prevailing and a light touch on enforcement”. At present the Agency is focusing its efforts on the hazardous landfills, perhaps overlooking what is going into the non-hazardous ones. The recent relaxation of the leaching criteria, not just for monofill sites but also for ‘compatible wastes’, suggests in the words of Cleanaway’s Gill Weeks that “things are being relaxed to avoid a hazardous waste mountain”. This should not be a cause for complacency, however, as enforcement may well tighten up once the regime has bedded down.

References Environment Agency guidance on sampling and testing is available at: www.environment-agency.gov www .environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste/232021/799638/799691/  .uk/subjects/waste/232021/799638/799691/  821409/?version=1&lang=e ESART’s Practitioner’s Guide to Sampling and Testing Waste is available at: www.esart.org/projects/complete/ESART%20prac%20guide.pdf. (ESART is the Environmental Services Association Research Trust, set up by  the waste management industry.)

71

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Chapter 5 Producer responsibility  General principles ...............................................................................74 Packaging ............................................................................................. .............................................................................................74 74 End-of-life vehicles..............................................................................79 Waste Wa ste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)........................84 (WEEE)..... ...................84

72

 

Chapter 5 Producer responsibility 

General principles Producer responsibility is one of the general principles which inform EU (and hence UK) environmental policy. The aim is that producers, rather rathe r than society, should bear the costs of recovering and disposing of their products once they  become waste. This should encourage manufacturers to design products that are more durable, easier to recover and contain fewer hazardous materials. The existing producer responsibility Directives – on packaging, vehicles and electrical equipment – all lay down challenging recycling targets which will divert waste from landfill and ‘up the hierarchy’. The concept of producer responsibility has been widened into Integrated Product Policy, whereby producers are encouraged to improve the environmental performance of their products throughout their life lif e cycle. This takes into account issues such as the consumption of materials and energy in manufacture, energy  consumption during use, and the environmental impact of the product once it is discarded. So far there is no legislation on Integrated Product Policy. This chapter looks at the three main producer responsibility schemes which apply  to UK manufacturers and suppliers. Further legislation can be expected in the future, for example on batteries and used tyres.

Packaging The packaging and packaging waste regime was the first producer responsibility scheme to be established under the Environment Act 1995, 1995, implementing Directive 94/62/EC. It has succeeded in increasing the amount of packaging recovered, and the UK met its first set of EU targets in 2002. However, despite the scheme having been in force since 1997, many producers are still confused about their duties and each year several are prosecuted by the Agency. The highest fine in 2002 was £96,000 for a large company that had h ad benefited financially from the offence. The Agency is eager to offer help to producers (contact their Producer Responsibility unit on 020 7091 4036) and only prosecutes those who have failed

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

reminder s to register, or who have deliberately flouted to respond to persistent reminders the Regulations. The scheme is complex and relies on manufacturers and retailers gathering detailed data sets about their annual packaging flows. This has proved a challenge to many smaller producers. The requirements have been modified and supplemented over the years as the Agency seeks to make the regime fairer, more transparent and more effective.

Legislation The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 684) have been amended six times since their introduction eight years ago. The most recent amendments were brought into force through SI 2005 No. 717, and further amendments are expected in the near future.

Features The European Commission sets national targets for packaging waste recycling and recovery. A revised Packaging Directive set new targets for the years 20042008. Directive targets for 2008 Total recovery

60%

Total recycling

55%

Mate r rial-spe  i  al-spe c  c ifi  ifi c  c  r e  ec  c    y  yc  c    ling ling tar gets:  gets: 

Glass

60%

Metals

50%

Paper /fibreboard

60%

Plastic

22.5%

Wood

15%

Each Member State devises its own scheme to achieve the targets. In most other Member States, the responsibility is divided amongst industry, consumers, retailers and local authorities, and these schemes are in general more straightforward than the UK one. Consumers segregate packaging for recycling, local authorities collect it and industry reprocesses it. However, fearful of the waste mountains created by the German ‘green dot’ scheme in the early 1990s, the UK went along a different route and assigned all the responsibility responsibilit y to industry.

74

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

The UK Regulations apply to ‘producers’ which are subdivided into: •

manufa man ufactu cturer rers s of the raw mat materia erials ls used used in pack packagi aging, ng, eg steel steel man manufa ufaccturers, producers of plastic granules



conver con vertor tors, s, who who turn turn the raw mat materi erial al into into pac packag kaging ing eg by by manu manufac fac-turing boxes or cans



packer pac ker/fil /fillers lers,, who who put put produ products cts int into o the the packa packagin ging g (eg (eg beans beans into into can cans) s)



retailers



impo im porte rters rs of pac packa kagi ging ng an and d pac packa kagi ging ng ma mate teria rials ls..

Producers are only subject to the Regulations if they have an annual turnover of £2 million or more, and handle at least 50 tonnes ton nes of packaging or packaging material each year. They must also supply packaging which they own to someone further down the chain (for example, a retailer supplying packaging to the consumer). Because smaller producers are exempt, the UK Government has to set recovery targets for obligated businesses which are slightly higher hig her than the Directive targets (see table below). National recovery targets for 2006-2010

Total recovery (%)

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

66

67

68

69

70

Packaging recovery and recycling business targets (%) 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Paper

66.5

67

67.5

68

68.5

Glass

65

69.5

73.5

74

74.5

Aluminium

29

31

32.5

33

35.5

Steel

56

57.5

58.5

59

59.5

Plastic

23

24

24.5

25

25.5

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

Overall recovery

66

67

68

69

70

Minimum percentage of recovery to be achieved through recycling

92

92

92

92

92

Wood

75

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

These business targets are divided up between the different categories of  producers as shown below. Producers’ responsibilities for business targets Raw material producers

6%

Conver ters

9%

Packer /fillers

37%

Seller

48%

Impor ters

up to 100%

CALCULATING YOUR OBLIGATION

The two sets of targets are used by producers to calculate their annual ann ual recovery  and recycling obligations. Recovery obligation = [tonnage of packaging packa ging handled in previous year]  x [percentage [percentage activit activity y obligation] obligation] x [nation [national al recycling recycling target] target] So, for example, the 2006 recovery obligation for a store handling 50 tonnes per year of cardboard boxes would be: 50 tonnes x 48% (retailer obligation) x 66.5% (fibreboard recovery target) = 16 tonnes.

Duties of producers Many producers have been alarmed at the prospect of having to recycle and recover a significant proportion of their packaging waste. They have the option of recycling their own waste if they wish, but most meet their obligations through membership of a compliance scheme. There are a number of schemes in operation, some national and some regional, with by far the largest being Valpak. The schemes arrange for the collection of recyclable materials (not necessarily  from the members) and pay for these to be reprocessed. The reprocessors – glass manufacturers, paper mills, incinerators, etc – then issue Packaging Waste Recovery Notes (PRNs) confirming that a certain tonnage of packaging has been reprocessed. These are issued to the compliance scheme, which presents them to the Agency as evidence that the members’ obligations have been met. This has worked quite well, although one scheme (W (Wastepack, astepack, registered with SEPA) did fail to meet its 2001 obligation and contributed to the UK missing its 2001 target.

76

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

Producers who do not wish to register with a compliance scheme may register directly with the Agency. They will then have to arrange themselves for the recovery of the obligated tonnage of packaging waste, whether their own waste or waste they have collected. The reprocessor will issue the PRNs direct to the producer,, who will then present them to the Agency as evidence of compliance. producer Alternatively the producers can purchase PRNS.

Reprocessors and exporters Reprocessors who wish to issue PRNs must first be accredited by the Agency. They may only sell PRNs to obligated producers or their representatives. As the PRNs are purchased, they have served as an economic instrument reflecting the market demand for reprocessed materials. As most of the packaging now has to be recycled rather than recovered for energy, PRNs issued by incinerators now have very little value. Exporters of packaging waste for reprocessing overseas must also be accredited, and can then issue Packaging Waste Export Recovery Notes (PERNs) which can also be used as evidence of compliance. Over 10% of packaging waste is exported, mainly steel, glass and plastics. The PRN and PERN schemes started out as voluntary but since 2003 have had statutory status.

Increasing recycling Over the period of the regime’s operation, the Agency Age ncy has introduced different measures to ensure that the regime really does result in increased recycling and recovery, in line with the national waste strategy (see Chapter 1). Sellers (or their compliance schemes) are obliged to provide consumers with information about opportunities for recycling and recovery. The Agency has a legal duty to monitor the way in which PRN revenues are used by reprocessors. This means that reprocessors have to explain how much funding they have provided for: •

incr in crea ease sed d repr reproc oces essi sing ng ca capa paci city  ty 



coll co llec ecti tion on of pa pack ckag agin ing g wa wast ste e



deve de velo lopi ping ng ma mark rket ets s and and ot othe herr opt optio ions ns..

77

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

Thorny issues This regime has been characterized by legal disputes over what is ‘packaging’ and who is the ‘producer’ or ‘reprocessor’.

DEFINITION OF PACKAGING

The Agency has issued specific guidance gui dance on what is and is not packaging, working on a case by case basis. Most of the guidance has been published in a Packaging  ng . It covers items as diverse document The Agencies’ Interpretation of Packagi as lolly sticks (not packaging), cutlery on an airline meal tray (not packaging) and lipstick containers (packaging). Retailers must include secondary packaging, ie packaging which is used to group consumer goods – such as a carton or plastic wrapper holding several cans of drink – in their calculations. A few contentious items have been disputed in court. For example, it fell fel l to the Lord Chief Justice to pronounce on whether plant pots are packaging (they are, on occasions). The most significant case was the Mayer Parry II Judicial Review. Metal recyclers Mayer Parry wished to issue PRNs for recycled steel, but the Agency argued that it is the steel works, not the recycler, which is the reprocessor. The Agency won its case: Corus, not Mayer Parry, is entitled to issue the steel PRNs.

Meeting future targets Further changes to the regime have been proposed in order to meet the targets for the next few years. DEFRA has announced that additional types of  packaging will become subject to the recovery obligation, in particular leased packaging such as crates and pallets. There is also a proposal to give franchisers an obligation for franchised pubs, restaurants etc (many of which individually  fall below the 50 tonne or £2 million thresholds).

End-of-life vehicles THE DIRECTIVE

End of life vehicles (ELVs) are the second priority waste stream for which a statutory producer responsibility scheme has been established. As with most waste legislation, the scheme implements an EU directive, 2000/53/EC 2000/53/EC.. The aim of the directive is to reduce the environmental impact of scrapped vehicles by: • •

facilitati facilit ating ng and and incr increas easing ing the reu reuse, se, rec recycl ycling ing and rec recove overy ry of of ELVs ELVs redu re duci cing ng the the inc incid idenc ence e of haz hazar ardo dous us mat materi erial als s in veh vehic icles les

78

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 



improvi impr oving ng reg regula ulatio tion n thro through ugh the intr introdu oducti ction on of Cert Certific ificate ates s of  of  Destruction for ELVs



making mak ing sur sure e that that EL ELVs are are trea treated ted and disp dispose osed d of in an an envir environm onmenta entally  lly  sound manner



setti set ting ng up a sys system tem of pr prod oduc ucer er re resp spon onsi sibil bilit ity y.

RECOVERY TARGETS

The Directive sets the following recovery targets for all Member States: •

85% by weigh weightt of EL ELVs Vs to be reco recover vered ed or or reuse reused d by 1 Janu January ary 200 2006 6 (the current UK recovery rate is approximately 75%)



95% by weigh weightt of EL ELVs Vs to to be rec recove overed red or reuse reused d by 1 Janu January ary 201 2015. 5.

These targets apply to cars and vans but not lorries, coaches or other othe r commercial vehicles. The recovery targets should ideally be met through materials recycling. Only 5% of the 2006 recovery target and 10% of the 2015 target can be achieved through energy energ y recovery. In any case, there is little scope for energy  recovery of ELVs in the UK.

UK legislation The UK was late to implement the Directive. It should have been implemented by 21 April 2002, but the final set of UK regulations did not come into force until 3 March 2005. The UK regulations are: •

The End End-of -of-Li -Life fe Vehi Vehicle cles s Regul Regulati ations ons 200 2003 3 (SI (SI 2003 2003 No. No. 2635 2635))



The End End-of-of-Life Life Vehi ehicles cles (St (Storag orage e and and Trea reatme tment) nt) (Sco (Scotlan tland) d) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 593)



The EndEnd-ofof-Lif Life e Vehi Vehicle cles s (Produ (Producer cer Resp Respons onsibi ibilit lity) y) Regul Regulati ations ons 2005 2005 (SI 2005 No. 263).

The 2003 Regulations introduced new requirements concerned with: •

design desi gn requ require iremen ments ts for for vehi vehicles cles rel relati ating ng to heav heavy y meta metall conte content nt and and recyclability (not considered in this Report)



auth au thor oriz ized ed tre treat atme ment nt fac facil ilit itie ies s (ATF (ATFs) s)



cert ce rtifi ifica cate tes s of of dest destru ruct ctio ion n (CO (CODs Ds))



prod pr oduc ucer er res respo pons nsib ibil ilit ity y for for ‘ne ‘new’ w’ EL ELVs Vs..

79

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

 Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs) (ATFs) Treatment Facilities ELVs and their components may only be treated, recovered or disposed of at an ATF. ‘Treatment’ includes various operations such as shredding, shearing, dismantling, and preparing shredder residues for disposal. The 2003 Regulations required many hitherto exempt scrap metal and vehicle dismantling businesses to have a waste management licence (see Chapter 2, Overview of waste regulation). Any site wishing to treat ELVs, including the larger  vehicles  vehicl es not cover covered ed by the Directi Directive, ve, must must have have a waste manag management ement licence. The only exemption is for sites which only treat ‘depolluted’ vehicles. Along with other waste management facilities such as landfill sites, ATFs must be managed by a ‘fit and proper person’ (FAPP) ( FAPP) (see Chapter 2). However, this requirement has been relaxed slightly for ATFs: the FAPP will be regarded as technically  competent if the site has been well run under the previous regulatory regime. Some larger scrap metal sites already had waste management licences when the 2003 Regulations came into force. These licences are being amended to include the technical requirements of the Directive. The requirements are set down in Schedule 5 to the Regulations and their aims are to: •

prevent pre vent pol polluti lution on at the sit site, e, eg eg by spec specify ifying ing imp imperme ermeable able sur surfac faces es and ensuring that fluids are segregated and not allowed to spill



facilit fac ilitate ate rec recycl ycling ing by ensu ensuring ring tha thatt recy recycla clable ble com compone ponents nts suc such h as as tyres, catalysts and glass are carefully removed and stored, avoiding damage to them wherever possible



avoid avo id the haz hazard ards s to hea health lth and the env enviro ironme nment nt crea created ted by batt batterie eries, s, oils, mercury and other hazardous substances, eg by removing them from vehicles prior to shredding.

CONSEQUENCES FOR INDUSTRY 

When the 2003 Regulations came into force, 750 scrap metal and dismantling sites which already had waste management licences automatically became be came ATFs. Many have found it a challenge to comply with the technical requirements for depollution, and could therefore face enforcement action from the Agency. A further 1600 sites had been registered exempt under the previous regime. Only  600 of these applied to become ATFs, so the rest can handle only depolluted  vehicles.  vehicl es.

80

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

Certificates of Destruction (CODs) The ATF must issue a COD to the last holder of the vehicle, free of charge, and then notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency electronically. No further change of keeper will then be recorded.

Producer responsibility for ‘new’ ELVs ‘New’ ELVs are those which were put on the market after 1 July 2002. The producer, ie the manufacturer, manufacturer, must pay the cost of collection and treatment at an ATF. ATF. The producer must then the n issue a certificate of compliance compl iance to the Agency  to show that this requirement has been met. For older ELVs, the collection and treatment costs are borne by the last holder holder.. While in some areas people still receive a small sum when they take their car to be scrapped, in other parts of Britain Br itain they have to pay the scrap metal site operator. When the Regulations were first mooted, local authorities were concerned that this new provision would lead to a large rise in the number of abandoned vehicles. The Government allocated extra funding to local authorities between 2003 and 2006 to meet the additional costs of disposing of these vehicles.

Producer responsibility regulations The 2005 Regulations fully establish the system of producer responsibility for ELVs, and implement the recovery targets of the Directive.

DUTIES OF VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS AND IMPORTERS

Producers, ie manufacturers and professional importers of vehicles, must register with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). This should already have been done (the deadline was 30 April 2005) for vehicles which are already on the market. The producer must declare responsibility for new vehicles within six  months of placing them on the market. The Secretary of State has the right to assign ‘orphan’ vehicles – for which no producer can be found – to individual producers. It is the responsibility of the producers to arrange for the collection of their vehicles once they become ELVs. ELVs. The collection system will consist of a national network of ATFs and must meet the following criteria: •

acce ac cess ssib ible le to th thos ose e del deliv iver erin ing g the the EL ELVs Vs



suffici suf ficient ent capa capacit city y to deal deal wit with h all all the pro produc ducer’ er’s s vehic vehicles les whic which h becom become e ELVs.

81

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

By the time this Report is published, the producers should have submitted the plans for their collection systems to the DTI for approval (the deadline was 31 August 2005). If the DTI is not satisfied satisfie d that the network of ATFs will have sufficient capacity, the producer must submit a revised plan. Producers can take advantage of compliance schemes. In November 2005 two schemes had been set up.

DUTIES OF ATFS

As from 1 January 2007, once ATFs have entered into an agreement with a producer, they must accept that producer’s ELVs free of charge from the last holder. If the last owner of a vehicle delivers the ELV to an ATF ATF that is not part p art of the producer’s network, the ATF may charge them. The producer carries the costs of treatment. treatmen t. The ATF can reject vehicles if essential components, such as the engine, catalytic convertor, wheels, transmission or coachwork, are missing. By 1 April each year (beginning in 2007) the ATF operator or producer must submit a certificate of compliance to the DTI to confirm that the year’s recycling and recovery targets have been met.

Potential difficulties Vehicle manufacturers manufacturer s are using an increasing amount of plastic in components, partly in an effort to reduce fuel consumption. This will make it more difficult to recycle the vehicles economically. An Environment Agency representative estimates that the proportion of vehicles which can be economically reclaimed will fall from the current 75% to 73% over the next few years – compared with a 2006 recovery target of 85%. There is little scope to increase incineration with energy recovery, due to the presence of heavy metals and other contaminants in the waste and the general lack of incineration capacity in the UK. ELVs EL Vs became hazardous waste on 16 July 2005 and are therefore subject to the new notification and consignment procedures (see Chapter 3, Hazardous waste for details). As with other hazardous wastes, the opportunities for landfilling of residues have been curtailed (see discussion on landfilling of hazardous waste in Chapter 4, Landfill regulations and their impact).

Further guidance DTI guidance on the 2005 regulations is available on www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/ELV_Guidance_Notes2.pdf.

82

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

 Waste electr  Waste electrical ical and and electroni electronic c equipment (WEEE) As with the packaging packagin g and ELV schemes, the th e duty to recycle and recover WEEE has been imposed at EU level. The Th e aim of Directive 2002/96/EC is ‘the prevention of WEEE and in addition, the reuse, recycling and other forms of  recovery of such wastes so as to reduce the disposal of waste’. The Government also intends that the legislation should encourage sustainable sustainable design of  new products. The WEEE Directive goes hand in hand with another directive on the reduction of hazardous substances (ROHS) in electrical and electronic equipment. The ROHS Directive applies to the design stage of products and is not considered in detail here. The producer responsibility scheme for WEEE has not yet been finalized in the UK, even though the Directive should have been implemented by 13 August 2004. In August 2005 a further delay was announced, with the producer responsibility  regulations now not due to come into force until June 2006. Industry has welcomed the delay, which should allow more time to establish an adequate network of collection facilities for householders. However, the Government’s repeated postponement of this legislation, coupled with a failure to issue detailed proposals and guidance, has attracted criticism. John Cridland, Deputy Director General of the CBI commented that: “This sorry saga is, regrettably regrettably,, yet another example of hurried, last minute implementation of major European environmental Directives. Government departments must heed the lessons of the recent National Audit Office Report [ Lost  Lost in Translat ranslation ion]] and devote sufficient time and resource to getting their introduction right”. (CBI Press Release, August 2005.)

Requirements of the directive EQUIPMENT COVERED



Larg La rge e hous househ ehol old d appl applia ianc nces es (eg (eg whi white te goo goods ds))



Small ho househ eho old app ppllianc nces es



IT an and d te tele leco comm mmun unic icat atio ions ns eq equi uipm pmen entt



Consumer equipment



Lighting equipment



Electric Elec trical al and elec electro tronic nic too tools, ls, exc except ept lar large ge sta statio tionary nary equi equipme pment nt



Toy oys, s, le leis isur ure e an and d sp spor orts ts eq equi uipm pmen entt

83

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 



Medic Me dical al dev devic ices es (ex (exce cept pt imp impla lante nted d and and infec infecte ted d prod produc ucts ts))



Moni Mo nito tori ring ng an and d co cont ntro roll in inst stru rume ment nts s



Automatic di dispensers.

NATIONAL RECOVERY TARGETS FOR 31 DECEMBER 2006

(Targets refer to average weight per appliance.) R ec o v e r y t a r g et

R e cy cl i n g / r e us e t a r g e t

Large household appliances

80%

75%

Small household appliances

70%

50%

IT and telecommunications equipment

75%

65%

Consumer e  eq quipment

75%

65%

Lighting equipment

70%

50%

Tools

70%

50%

Toys, leisure and spor ts equipment Medical devices

70% To be set

50% To be set

Monitoring and control instruments

70%

50%

Automatic dispensers

80%

75%

Gas discharge lamps

No target

80%

Producers will be responsible for achieving these targets.

DUTIES OF GOVERNMENTS AND PRODUCERS



Member Mem ber Sta States tes mus mustt enco encoura urage ge man manufa ufactu cturers rers to desi design gn pro produc ducts ts in



a way which facilitates reuse and recycling. Membe Mem berr State States s must must ensur ensure e that that house househol holde ders’ rs’ WEE WEEE E is colle collect cted ed free free of charge and adequate collection facilities are available. Producers must finance the collection, treatment, recovery and disposal of  WEEE collected at these facilities.



Distrib Dis tributo utors rs must must tak take e back back WEE WEEE E equi equival valent ent to their their pro produc ducts, ts, fre free e of charge.



Prod Pr oduc ucers ers mus mustt take take back back non-h non-hou ouse sehol hold d WEEE WEEE from from their their cus custo tome mers rs free of charge.



Membe Me mberr Stat States es mus mustt colle collect ct at at least least 4kg 4kg of of WEEE WEEE per per inha inhabit bitan antt per annum (already achieved in the UK).



All sepa separat rately ely col collect lected ed WEE WEEE E must must be tak taken en to aut authori horized zed tre treatm atment ent facilities, which must have an appropriate permit.

84

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 



Prod Pr oduc ucers ers are are res respon ponsi sible ble for for ensu ensurin ring g that that adequ adequat ate e treat treatme ment nt facilities are available.



Produc Pro ducers ers wil willl cont contrib ribute ute to a coll collect ective ive sch scheme eme to fina finance nce the collection and recovery of products placed on the market before 13 August 2005.



Forr prod Fo produc ucts ts plac placed ed on on the mar marke kett after after 13 13 Augu August st 200 2005, 5, pro produ ducer cers s can either meet the costs individually or through a compliance scheme.



All new equ equipm ipment ent mus mustt be be marke marked d with with the ‘cr ‘cross ossed ed out out whe wheeli elie e bin’ bin’ symbol, so consumers are aware of the need to segregate it for recycling. It must also carry a mark identifying the producer.



Consum Con sumers ers mus mustt be be given given inf inform ormati ation on abo about ut the req requir uireme ement nt to to coll collect ect WEEE separately and the collection system available.

Implementation in the UK The proposals for UK implementation have many parallels with the existing packaging and ELV schemes.

REGISTRATION OF PRODUCERS

Producers are companies which: •

manu ma nufa fact ctur ure e ele electr ctric ical al or ele electr ctron onic ic eq equi uipm pment ent,,



rebra re brand nd equ equipm ipmen entt prod produc uced ed by by othe otherr manu manufa fact ctur urers ers,, or



impo im port rt ele elect ctri rica call or ele elect ctro roni nic c equi equipm pmen ent. t.

Unlike the packaging regime, there is no exemption for small companies. Smaller companies are advised to meet their obligations through membership of a compliance scheme. Several schemes are already in existence including Valpak (the packaging scheme). The compliance scheme will ensure that its members’ recycling obligations are met and provide them with evidence of compliance. Producers will have to register with the Environment Agency or SEPA. The annual fee is likely to be: •

£730 £7 30 fo forr an in indiv dividu iduall ally y re regis giste tere red d pr produ oducer cer



£380 £3 80 fo forr a co comp mpli lian ance ce sc sche heme me me memb mber er



£14 per per outle lett fo for ret reta ailer ers s.

85

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

Registration is expected expecte d to begin in January 2006. Obligated producers will have to provide information about the company and about the categories of WEEE they produce (there are 11 categories).

MARKING OF PRODUCTS

Manufacturers should already be marking their products with the t he crossed-out wheelie bin as required by the Directive. They are also expected to keep records of the weight and number of units of equipment they have placed on the market during 2005.

COLLECTION OF WEEE

For business-to-business sales, manufacturers will enter into contracts contr acts with their customers for the return and recovery of end-of-life products. Manufacturers may take this opportunity to change the way they supply goods and services: for example, by offering to upgrade equipment regularly as part of the contract, or ‘selling’ a service rather than a piece of equipment. (See Guidance to manufacturers below.) It is arranging the collection of WEEE from householders that is proving a problem for the Government. They initially proposed a national clearing house, but this proposal was rejected at a fairly late stage. The current expectation is that householders will take their WEEE to the local civic amenity (CA) site, where there will be additional containers to receive it. A scheme organized by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) will provide extra funding to local authorities to upgrade their CA sites. (In June 2005, it was reported that the BRC had offered £5000-£6000 per site, but the Local Authorities Recycling Advisory  Committee was unhappy with this amount, claiming that costs could be as high as £250,000 per site if the equipment has to be segregated and shrink wrapped.) The DTI will allocate each CA site to a compliance scheme or large or  large producer. Once the CA site has collected the agreed amount for the scheme, it can sell any surplus WEEE. Companies which choose to register individually rather than joining a scheme will be able to obtain certificates similar to the Packaging Waste Recovery Notes to demonstrate that they have met their recycling obligation. Individual registration is favoured by companies producing high-value goods with a short life, which contain valuable or reusable components. It will often be in the th e manufacturers’ best interests to collect and recover these products themselves. The compliance scheme route is favoured by manufacturers of longer-lived items such as white goods, which are likely to be obsolete obsol ete by the time they are discarded.

86

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

TREATMENT FACILITIES

As with ELVs, WEEE must be recovered at authorized treatment t reatment facilities (ATFs). DEFRA has issued draft regulations on the licensing of these facilities. Most ATFs will require a new or modified waste management licence, containing conditions to ensure that the technical requirements of the Directive will be met. For example, all liquids must be removed during treatment. Exemptions from licensing should be available for: •

storag sto rage e of of WEE WEEE E pri prior or to ha handi nding ng it ov over er to an ATF



repa re pair ir an and d ref refur urbi bish shme ment nt of WE WEEE EE fo forr reuse reuse..

As with other licensing exemptions, there will be limits on the amount that can be stored and treated without a licence. Existing exemptions for the storage of waste on the producers’ premises will continue; current registrations will be automatically modified. DEFRA would like these exemptions to apply to both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, but need permission from the European Commission which has not yet been confirmed (as of July 2005). Site operators must apply for a new or modified licence, or register for an exemption, by 31 March 2006.

Guidance to manufacturers Envirowise has issued some helpful guidance to manufacturers on the WEEE  Directive on WEEE; WEEE; Directive on ROHS; ROHS; A guide to the and ROHS Directives. ( Directive  marketing, product development and manufacturing actions you need to take, take , available free from the Envirowise website.) The Directives have considerable financial implications for British Br itish industry. The DTI’s 2003 Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment estimated a total cost of £217£455 million for compliance with the WEEE Directive alone: the biggest component of this is the £98-£207 million for dismantling and treatment of WEEE. Companies may well have to raise their prices in order to cover their costs. However,, there are opportunities for However f or manufacturers to benefit financially financiall y from the new legislation, for example by selling ‘greener’ products with lower running costs, or providing innovative leasing services. An Envirowise study estimated that UK electronics companies could save £205 million per year by adopting sustainable product design best practice.

87

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY 

Envirowise also recommends the following end-of-life options: •

manu ma nufa fact ctur ure e dur durab able le pr produ oducts cts wi with th a lon longer ger lif life e



reus re use e who whole le pro produ duct cts s (ie (ie sell sell sec secon ondd-ha hand nd))



upgra upg radin ding g prod produc ucts ts as as part part of of the cont contra ract ct with with the the cus custo tome merr.

Manufacturers are strongly encouraged to discuss with their customers and suppliers how products can be modified in order to meet the requirements of  the directives. They should also liaise with the recycling companies to work out the best ways of collecting and recovering end-of-life products. For example, products can be designed for ease of dismantling. Take-back legislation is already in force in many other countries, such as Japan, and the larger manufacturers are already having to comply. Smaller companies are urged to take rapid action if they are to avoid losing their customers or even having their products banned from sale.

Useful information Information on the WEEE and ROHS Directives is available on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability. www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability. This site has links lin ks to the various consultation papers and the latest timetable for implementation. Envirowise can be contacted at www.envirowise.gov.uk or by telephoning: 0800 585794 for their free helpline.

88

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Chapter 6 Local authorities and municipal waste Local authority responsibilities....................... responsibilities..........................................................91 ...................................91 Local authorities and the landfill directive........................................91 Landfill allowances and trading scheme scheme (LATS)..............................94 (LATS) ..............................94 Implication of of landfill diversion diversion targets ............................................96 Changes to planning principles principles .........................................................99

89

 

Chapter 6 Local authorities and municipal waste

Local authority responsibilities Local authorities have two distinct areas of responsibility. •

As Wast Waste e Colle Collecti ction on Auth Authori orities ties,, and/o and/orr Wast Waste e Dispo Disposal sal Aut Authori horities ties,, they are responsible for collecting municipal waste, deciding how it is managed, drawing up contracts with the waste industry to manage



the waste and achieving targets for recycling and landfill diversion. As Loca Locall Planni Planning ng Auth Authori oriti ties es,, they they must must play play a part part in in implem implemen entin ting g national waste policy as well as ensuring that a suitable network of  waste facilities is available. These responsibilities extend to all types of waste, not just municipal waste.

Single tier local authorities bear all these responsibilities. responsibil ities. In two-tier areas, the District or Borough council is the Waste Collection Authority, while the County  Council is the Waste Disposal Authority and Local Planning Authority. Local authorities in two-tier areas must work in partnership if they are to meet local and national recycling and waste diversion targets: in recognition of this, the Government requires most of them to draw up joint municipal waste strategies.

Local authorities and the landfill directive The Government’s policy on waste is set down in Waste Strategy 2000 (see Chapter 1), and subsequent amending documents such as Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10. While the strategy contains targets and policies for all waste streams, the main thrust is to reduce the landfilling of municipal waste.

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

The driver for this is the Landfill Directive, which sets all Member States challenging targets to reduce the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW). The targets as they apply to the UK are set out below. •

75% of of 19 1995 le levels by by 20 2010



50% by 2013



35% by 2020

The percentages refer to tonnages of BMW sent to landfill. Since the UK has always been heavily dependent on landfill, a complete transformation of municipal waste management must be achieved. When the Directive first came into effect, over 80% of the UK’s municipal waste was landfilled. The success of Government policy so far can be measured by the fall to 72% in 2003/4. While the 2010 target may be within reach, the 2013 target presents a major challenge to the Government and local authorities. authori ties. It was originally estimated that the UK would have to divert 33 million tonnes of BMW from landfill each year in order to meet the Directive’s targets (this has since been revised downwards as household waste generation gene ration has not increased at the rate expected). The chart below shows the waste management options used for England’s 29.1 million tonnes of municipal waste during 2003/4.

Energy recovery 9%

Recycling/ composting 19%

Landfill 72%

 Figure 6: Management Management of municipal municipal waste 2003/4

91

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

Targets Back in 2000 the Government set national targets for recovery and recycling. In 2002 the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit produced its own strategy, Waste  Not Want Not  Not , which set more demanding targets. The key targets are shown in the table below. D ea d l i ne

Waste Strategy 2000

2003/4

17% recycling or composting (ACHIEVED)

2005

40% recovery

Waste Not Want Not

25% recycling or composting (23% achieved as at April 2005) 2010

45% recovery 30% recycling or composting

2015

67% recovery 33% recycling or composting

45% recycling

The targets refer to household waste. The 2003/4 official recycling target has been achieved; the 2005 recycling and composting target was only just missed (according to informal in formal figures released in September 2005), and the Government has recently moved the goalpost by  reinterpreting the deadline as April 2006. However, the 2010 and 2015 targets still seem out of reach: as the chart above indicates, only 29% of municipal solid waste was recovered in 2003/4. Local authorities have been pressed to increase their recycling levels through a further set of official targets set at local authority level. The 2003 targets varied according to the authority’s previous success in recycling: those who had been the worst recyclers (recycling under 5% of municipal waste) only had to increase the level to 10%, whereas the keen recyclers achieving over 15% had to increase their recycling rate to 33%. Things got tougher for the t he greener councils in 2001 when the Government raised some of their the ir targets to 40%. To many many observers this seemed unfair, and the outcome was that various local authorities auth orities failed to achieve their targets. As there were no formal sanctions, sanction s, little came of this failure but the targets have now been bee n scaled down and capped at 30% for 2005/6. DEFRA is currently consulting on the recycling targets for 2007/8. The Minister would prefer to freeze targets apart from those councils with the (lowest) ( lowest) targets of 18%, which would be raised to 20%. See www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/rec www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/recyclingyclingcomposting/index.htm.

92

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

Landfill allowances and trading scheme (LATS) Aspirational targets were clearly not going to achieve the dramatic reductions in landfilling needed to comply with the Directive, so the Government moved ahead with a statutory scheme. This was established through the Wa the  Waste ste and Emissions Trading Act 2003, 2003, which applies throughout the UK. The basic principle of the legislation is to assign to each local authority a maximum tonnage of BMW which can be landfilled in a given year. This is the landfill allowance. In England and Scotland the allowances are tradable, but in Wales they are not. The Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 1936) determine the start dates for each scheme and lay down the UK and national targets for the years 2010, 2013 and 2020 (the ‘target years’), as shown in the table below.

MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF BMW, IN MILLIONS OF TONNES, THAT MAY BE LANDFILLED IN EACH TARGET YEAR

A r ea

2010

2013

2020

UK

13.7

9.13

6.39

England

11.2

7.46

5.22

Scotland

1.32

0.88

0.62

Wales

0.71

0.47

0.33

Nor thern Ireland

0.47

0.32

0.22

National regulations Each of the devolved administrations has its own set of regulations with national targets for the years 2005-2009 and administrative provisions. These are: •

The Landfill Allowances and a nd Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 3212), 3212) , as amended by SI 2005 No. 880



The Land Landfil filll Allowa Allowance nces s Sche Scheme me (W (Wale ales) s) Reg Regul ulati ations ons 200 2004 4 (WSI (WSI 2004 No. 1490)



The Lan Landfil dfilll Allow Allowanc ances es Sche Scheme me (Sc (Scotl otland and)) Regul Regulati ations ons 200 2005 5 (SSI (SSI 205 No. 157).

The schemes are now all underway, the Welsh scheme having begun in October 2004 and the others on 1 April 2005. Each WDA has been allocated its own

93

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

individual allowances, which can be found on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/lats/index.htm. Note that the targets are separate from the existing local authority recycling targets (see above) and do not replace them. The targets for England for the next five years are set out below. Year

M a x i m u m a m o u nt ( m i l l i o n t o n ne s )

2006

15.2

2007

14.53

2008

13.64

2009

12.53

Scheme years end on 31 March. The English, Welsh and Scottish schemes contain similar administrative administr ative provisions . Local authorities, landfill operators and the regulators all have new duties to keep records and make returns to ensure that the landfilling landfil ling of BMW is properly  documented. However, there are some important differences.

PENALTIES

English local authorities which fail to achieve their targets will face a penalty  of £150 per tonne of BMW sent to landfill in excess of the allowance. The penalty  is £200 in Wales. Wales. In Scotland, the penalties p enalties start at £10 per tonne in 2005, rising r ising to £150 in 2008.

BIODEGRADABLE CONTENT

The estimated biodegradable content of municipal waste varies between the devolved administrations: •

England: 68%



Scotland: 63%



Wales: 61%

TRADING, BANKING AND BORROWING

In Wales the allowances are fixed but in England and Scotland they can be traded, banked or borrowed. In Scotland, a Waste Disposal Authority Aut hority can borrow up to 10% of the th e next year’s allowance in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. In England, the authority can borrow bor row

94

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

year s and the years immediup to 5% of the next year’s allowance (except in target years ately preceding target years). Local authorities can bank unused allowances for use in the following year (again, unless it is a target year or the year preceding one). The trading of allowances is intended to allocate resources more efficiently. Authorities which have invested in recovery facilities can sell their surplus landfill allowances to authorities which are heavily dependent on landfill. This allows the landfill-dependent authorities extra time in which to develop the new recovery  and recycling capacity.

Co-operation between authorities In order to achieve these targets, the two tiers of local government (WDAs and WCAs) will have to work together. The 2003 Act requires them to draw d raw up joint municipal waste strategies, although authorities with a good record of meeting their performance standards are exempt from this duty (see SI 2004 No. 3242 for details). WDAs will be able to direct WCAs to deliver their waste in a separated form.

Implication of landfill diversion targets The targets are forcing a rapid shift away from landfill to other waste management options. Most waste collection authorities are now carrying out kerbside collection of recyclables such as steel and aluminium cans, glass, paper, card and plastics. A common strategy involves collecting recyclables and residual domestic refuse on alternate weeks: the halving of refuse collections forces householders to segregate out their recyclables. For example, Amber Valley District Council in Derbyshire has a fortnightly collection of refuse, and on alternate weeks collects paper, card, glass and cans. Residents can also buy a composting bin at a reasonable price. Families who cannot fit all their refuse into the wheelie bin have to make the long journey to the nearest civic amenity site. While kerbside collections put up local authority waste costs, collecting the recyclables is not the real challenge. chall enge. Very many new recovery and recycling facilities will be needed to carry out the increased recycling. Tucked Tucked away in an Annex  to Waste Strategy 2000 was an estimate that the following foll owing new facilities would be needed to meet the BMW diversion targets: •

100-30 100 -300 0 mate material rials s recy recycli cling ng faci faciliti lities es (MRF (MRFs) s) (ave (average rage 40, 40,000 000 tonn tonnes es per annum) AND

95

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E



10010 0-20 200 0 comp compos osti ting ng unit units s (aver (averag age e 30,00 30,000 0 tonne tonnes s per annu annum) m) AND AND



30-1 30 -160 60 inc incin inera erato tors rs (av (avera erage ge 250 250,0 ,000 00 ton tonne nes s per per annu annum) m)..

Future of energy-from-was energy-from-waste te While the waste industry is certainly active in diversifying from landfill, and large contractors are offering integrated services including MRFs and composting plant alongside established landfill sites, it seems unlikely that this huge jump in recovery capacity can be achieved in time. Energy-from-waste plants (incinerators), which can deal with the greatest volume of waste, are unpopular unpopul ar with the public and also not favoured by many local authorities who take the position that they tie up waste streams which could perhaps be recycled. The official position is that energy from waste should not be considered until the potential for recycling and composting has been fully explored. Those local authorities attempting to build large energy from waste plants are faced with long delays as the planning process is prolonged by local objectors – always with the risk that planning permission may not be obtained at all. The T he proposed Belvedere incinerator in south east London is one such example: having been granted planning permission in 2003, the project has just been put on hold again following an announcement by the DTI that the public enquiry would be reopened. This is attributed to ‘emerging changes’ to waste strategy and planning policy, and the fact that the London Waste Plan presumes against mass burn incineration.

Mechanical/biological treatment (MBT) New treatment technologies, such as anaerobic digestion, autoclaving and mechanical/biological treatment treatme nt (MBT) in its various forms, are being developed by various authorities. MBT, according to a recent article in ENDS in  ENDS Report, is ‘the most talked about form of municipal waste management in Britain’. There are different systems involving combinations of mechanical sorting, drying and biological processes. All remove recyclables and produce either eith er a ‘compost’ with a much lower biodegradable content than the original waste (but which still requires landfilling if no use can be found), or a refuse derived fuel (RDF). MBT is viewed as being more acceptable to the public than incineration, and at least eight local authorities have either built or planned for new MBT plants. The problem with processes producing RDF, such as the Ecodeco process employed by Shanks, is that the RDF has to be either incinerated or landfilled. Cement kilns do not have sufficient capacity to burn it all, so either new markets

96

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

must be found, or further municipal incinerators built. Discussions Discussions are currently  taking place at EU level as to whether the residue could be reclassified as ‘non waste’, in which case it could be burned in installations install ations such as power stations which do not comply with the Waste Incineration Directive.

Integrated waste management  Some forward looking authorities have long-established integrated waste strategies involving a mixture of landfill, energy recovery and recycling. The Government’s recently issued PPS 10 defines integrated waste management as follows. •

Decisio Dec isions ns must must tak take e acco account unt of the the enti entire re wast waste e chain chain (eg col collect lection ion,, transport, storage, treatment, disposal) including the identification of  markets for recovered energy and materials.



All key key pla playe yers rs sho should uld be invo involve lved: d: was waste te pro produc ducers ers,, the the waste waste industry, regulators, planners, householders and community groups.



There The re mu must st be a mix mixtu ture re of wa waste ste ma mana nagem gement ent op opti tion ons. s.



Partne Par tnersh rships ips are are a key key eleme element, nt, part particu icular larly ly betw between een Wast Waste e Colle Collecti ction on Authorities and Waste Disposal Authorities.



Any int integr egrat ated ed was waste te man manag agem emen entt syst system em mus mustt take take acc accou ount nt of of the Precautionary Principle (see Chapter 1).

Hampshire, with its Project Integra, is the best known example, but not the only  one. For example, Lincolnshire has developed a new integrated waste facility  near Grimsby which includes a composting plant, a MRF and Britain’s newest incinerator, opened in July 2005. Other authorities, often those in the poorest areas where recycling is not a priority for the electorate, are belatedly having to catch up and find alternatives to landfill under pressure of financial penalties. Most municipal waste contracts will come up for tender over the next four to five years and, according to a leading waste company, the majority of these will be for integrated waste management projects.

Export  One short-term solution is the export of recyclable materials to countries such as China. During 2005 there have been press reports of municipal waste and WEEE being illegally exported in contravention of the transfrontier shipment regulation. It would be disappointing if the outcome of an environmental directive were to shift waste management operations to countries where both the environment and the safety of workers are often disregarded.

97

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

Changes to planning principles One of the obstacles to achieving the landfill diversion targets has been the difficulty in obtaining planning permission for new waste facilities, particularly  incinerators. The Government indirectly addresses this issue in PPS 10, which lays down the general principles to be followed by planning authorities. The principle of self sufficiency, by which communities and organizations take responsibility for their own waste, still underpins the guidance. However, rather than allowing local authorities complete autonomy in deciding how they will meet future waste management needs, the Government requires them to take account of Regional Spatial Statements (RSSs) produced by Regional Reg ional Planning Bodies. In turn, the RSSs must reflect national policy and include plans for facilities of national and regional significance. The RSS will allocate tonnages of waste to each local authority. Local authorities are exhorted to handle applications for waste management facilities in an ‘expeditious and sympathetic way’, provided they reflect the development plan. While incinerators are not mentioned by name, local authorities are reminded that modern, well managed waste facilities should pose little risk to human health and that health concerns should primarily be dealt with under the pollution control regime. The new planning guidance drops the requirement for plans and proposals to reflect the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). (BPEO ( BPEO is defined as the waste management option which provides the most benefit or least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long and short term.) The concept of BPEO has proved confusing and difficult to apply in practice and has resulted in delays to the determination of planning applications. All waste planning documents are now subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment, which renders a separate BPEO test superfluous. PPS 10 replaces the requirement for BPEO with broader principles of sustainable waste management. When making decisions, planning authorities should: •

cons co nside iderr alte alterna rnati tive ve op opti tion ons s in in a sy syst stem emat atic ic wa way  y 



eng en gage the the local co communi nitty 



asse as sess ss env envir iron onme ment ntal al impa impact cts s in bo both th lon long g and and shor shortt term term



seek see k waste waste mana managem gement ent opti options ons tha thatt best best meet meet the gene general ral poli policy cy obje objecctives of moving waste up the hierarchy hierarchy,, and protecting the environment and human health.

98

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

6 L OC A L A U T HOR IT IE S A N D M U N IC IP A L WA S T E

Planning authorities are expressly directed to move away from landfill, in a way  consistent with the availability of tradable allowances and with local recycling targets. The guidance instructs authorities to take an integrated approach to waste management, as explained above. It is recognized that for hazardous waste, the hierarchy cannot always be applied in the same way as for municipal waste. Incineration without energy recovery  may be the only suitable option for wastes such as PCBs, CFCs and toxic solvents; landfill is likely to be the best option for asbestos. It remains to be seen whether the new planning guidance will speed up the develdevel opment of the new waste treatment and recovery facilities so urgently needed, needed , or whether the slow pace of the planning process will continue to delay development to such an extent that our EU targets are not met.

99

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

Glossary of abbreviations

100

 

G L OS S A R Y OF A B B R E V IA T ION S

Glossary of abbreviations

ADR AD R

Europ Eur opea ean n Agr Agree eem men entt co conc ncer erni ning ng th the e int inter erna nati tio ona nall ca carr rria iage ge of  dangerous goods by road

APC

Air Pollution Control

ASL

Approved Supply List (under CHIP)

ATF

Auth Au thor oriz ized ed Tre reat atme ment nt Fa Faci cili lity ty (f (for or en endd-of of-l -lif ife e ve vehi hic cle les) s)

BAT

Best Av Available Te Techniques (for IP IPPC)

BMW

Biodegradable Municipal Waste

BPEO

Bes Be st Pra Prac cti tic cabl ble e En Environm nmen enttal Op Option

CA

Civic amenity (site)

CHIP CH IP

Chem Ch emic ical als s (Haz (Hazar ard d Info Inform rmat atio ion n and and Pack Packa agi ging ng for for Sup Suppl ply) y) Regulations 2002

COD

Certificate of Destruction

DEFR DE FRA A

Depar De partm tment ent fo forr Env Envir iron onme ment, nt, Fo Food od an and d Rur Rural al Aff Affai airs rs

ELV

End-of-Life Ve Vehicle

ENDS EN DS

ENDS EN DS Re Repo port rt (t (the he jo jour urna nall for for en envi viro ronm nmen enta tall pro profe fess ssio iona nals ls))

EWC

European Wa Waste Ca Catalogue

FAPP

Fit and Proper Person

IPPC

Inttegr In gra ated Pollu luttion Prevention and Contr tro ol

LATS

Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

MBT

Mechanical-Biological Tr Treatment

MRF

Materials Recycling Facility  

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste

PERN

Pac Pa ckaging waste Expo port rt Rec eco overy No Note te

PPC

Pollution Prevention and Control (regime)

PRN

Packaging wa waste Re Recovery Note

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

 

G L OS S A R Y OF A B B R E V IA T ION S

ROHS HS RO

Rest Re stri rict ctio ion n on on the the use use of Ha Haza zard rdou ous s Sub Subst stan ance ces s Dir Direc ecti tive ve (relating to electrical and electronic equipment)

RSS

Regional Spatial Strategy  

SEPA

Scottish En Environm nmen entt Pr Prote tec ction Ag Agen enc cy 

SNRH SN RHW W

Stab St abili ilize zed d Non-R Non-Rea eact ctiv ive e Haza Hazard rdou ous s Was Waste te

WAC

Waste Acceptance Criteria

WAP

Waste Ac Acceptance Pr Procedures

WCA

Waste Co Collection Au Authority  

WDA

Waste Disposal Authority  

WID

Waste Incineration Directive

WEE EEE E

Was aste te Ele Elect ctri rica call and and Elec Electr tron onic ic Equ Equip ipme ment nt

WM2 WM 2

Envi En viro ronm nmen entt Ag Agen ency cy gu guid idan ance ce do docu cume ment nt on th the e as asse sess ssme ment nt of  hazardous waste

102

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

103

 

Other specially commissioned reports BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL COM MERCIAL LAW LAW

The commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights by licensing

The Competition Act 1998: practical advice and guidance

CHARLES DESFORGES

SUSAN SINGLETON

£125.00

£149.00

1 85418 285 4 • 2001

1 85418 205 6 • 2001

Expert advice and techniques for the identification and successful exploitation of key opportunities.

Failure to operate within UK and EU competition rules can lead to heavy fines of up to 10 per cent of a business’ business’s s total UK turnover turnover..

This report will show you: •

how to identif identify y and secur secure e profitab profitable le opport opportuniti unities es



strategies strat egies and tech techniqu niques es for for negotia negotiating ting the best



agreement

Insights into successfully managing the in-house legal function

the tech techniqu niques es of of success successfully fully mana managing ging a license license

BARRY O’MEARA

operation.

1 85418 174 2 • 2000

Damages and other remedies for breach of commercial contracts ROBERT RIBEIRO

£65.00

£125.00

Negotiating the fault line between private practice and in-house employment can be tricky, as the scope for conflicts of interest is greatly increased.  Insight  Insights s into successfully managing the In-house legal function discusses and suggests ways of dealing with these and other issues. i ssues.

1 85418 226 X • 2002 This valuable new report sets out a systematic approach for assessing the remedies available for various types of  breach of contract, what the remedies mean in terms of  compensation and how the compensation is calculated.

Commercial contracts – drafting techniques and precedents ROBERT RIBEIRO

£125.00

1 85418 210 2 • 2002 The Report will: •

Improve Impr ove your comm commerc ercial ial aware awareness ness and plan planning ning skills

For full details of any title, and to view sample extracts please visit: www.thorogood.ws  You  Y ou can place an order in four four ways:



Enhanc Enh ance e your your legal legal for foresig esight ht and and visi vision on

1 Email: [email protected]



Help Hel p you app apprec reciate iate the the rele relevan vance ce of rule rules s and

2 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7749 4748

guidelines set out by the courts

3 Fax: +44 (0)20 7729 6110

Ensure Ens ure you you achieve achieve your your or your your client’ client’s s commerc commercial ial

4 Post: Thorogood, 10-12 Rivington Street,



objectives

London EC2A 3DU, UK 

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

e [email protected]

w www.thorogood.ws

 

The legal protection of databases SIMON CHALTON

Email – legal issues £145.00

1 85418 245 5 • 2001

SUSAN SINGLETON

£95.00

1 85418 215 3 • 2001

Inventions can be patented, knowledge can be protected, but what of information itself?

 What are the cha  What chance nces s of eit either her you or you your r emp employ loyees ees breaking the law?

This valuable report examines the current EU [and so

The report explains clearly:

EEA] law on the legal protection of databases, including the sui generis right established when the European Union adopted its Directive 96/9/EC in 1996.



How to establ establish ish a sens sensible ible poli policy cy and and whethe whetherr or not you are entitled to insist on it as binding



The deg degree ree to which which you you may may lawfull lawfully y monitor monitor your employees’ e-mail and Internet use

Litigation costs MICHAEL BACON



The impl implicat ications ions of of the Regul Regulatio ation n of Invest Investigat igatory  ory  Powers Act 2000 and the Electronic Communications

£95.00

Act 2000 1 85418 241 2 • 2001



The rules and regulations are complex – but can be turned to advantage. The astute practitioner will understand the importance and relevance of costs to the litigation process and will wish to learn how to turn the large number of rules to

How the the Data Data Protec Protection tion Act Act 1998 1998 affects affects the the degree degree to which you can monitor your staff 



What you need need to watch watch for for in the Huma Human n Rights Rights Act Act 1998



TUC gu guid ide eli lin nes



Example Exam ple of of an e-mail e-mail and and Intern Internet et policy policy docu documen ment. t.

maximum advantage.

Internationall commercial agreements Internationa REBECCA ATTREE

£175

1 85418 286 2 • 2002 A major new report on recent changes to the law and their commercial implications and possibilities. The report explains the principles and techniques of  successful international negotiation and provides a  valuable  valuab le insig insight ht into the comm commerc ercial ial poin points ts to be consi considdered as a result of the laws relating to: pre-contract, private international law, resolving disputes (including alternative methods, such as mediation), competition law, drafting common clauses and contracting electronically. electronically. It also examines in more detail certain specific international commercial agreements, namely agency and distribution and licensing.

For full details of any title, and to view sample extracts please visit: www.thorogood.ws  You  Y ou can place an order in four four ways: 1 Email: [email protected] 2 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7749 4748 3 Fax: +44 (0)20 7729 6110 4 Post: Thorogood, 10-12 Rivington Street, London EC2A 3DU, UK 

See full details of all Thorogood titles on www.thorogood.ws  

EMPLOY MENT LAW HR AND EMPLOYMENT

Employee sickness and fitness for work – successfully dealing with the legal system GILLIAN HOWARD

£95.00

1 85418 281 1 • 2002 Many executives see Employment Law as an obstacle course or, even worse, an opponent – but it can contribute positively to keeping employees fit and productive. This specially commissioned report will show you how to get the best out of your employees, employ ees, from recruitment to retirement, while protecting yourself and your firm to the full.

How to turn your HR strategy into reality  TONY GRUNDY 

£129.00

1 85418 183 1 • 1999 A practical guide to developing and implementing an effective HR strategy.

Internal communications JAMES FARRANT

£125

1 85418 149 1 • July 2003 How to improve your organisation’s internal communications – and performance as a result .

Data protection law for employers SUSAN SINGLETON

£125

There is growing evidence that the organisations that ‘get it right’ reap dividends in i n corporate energy and enhanced performance.

1 85418 283 8 • May 2003 The new four-part Code of Practice under the Data Da ta Protection Act 1998 on employment and data protection makes places a further burden of responsibility on employers and their advisers. The Data protection Act also applies a pplies to manual data, not just computer data, and a new tough enforcement policy was announced in October 2002.

MARK THOMAS

£69.00

1 85418 270 6 • 2001 Practical advice on how to attract and keep the best.

Successfully defending employment  tribunal cases

1 85418 008 8 • 1997

This report will help you to understand the key practical and legal issues, achieve consensus and involvement at all levels, understand and implement TUPE regulations and identify the documentation that needs to be drafted or reviewed.

New ways of working STEPHEN JUPP

DENNIS HUNT

£95.00

 Why do so many mergers and acquisitions end in tears and reduced shareholder value?

Successful graduate recruitment  JEAN BRADING

Mergers and acquisitions – confronting the organisation and people issues

£99.00

£95 1 85418 169 6 • 2000

1 85418 267 6 • 2003 Fully up to date with all the Employment Act 2002 changes. 165,000 claims claim s were made last year and the numbers are rising. What will you do when one comes your way?

New ways of working examines the nature of the work done in an organisation and seeks to optimise the working   practices  pract ices and and the whole conte context  xt in in which the work takes place.

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

e [email protected]

w www.thorogood.ws

 

Knowledge management  SUE BRELADE, CHRISTOPHER HARMAN



procedures

£95.00

1 85418 230 7 • 2001 Managing knowledge in companies is nothing new. However,, the development of a separate discipline called However ‘knowledge management’ is management’  is new – the introduction of  recognised techniques and approaches for effectively  managing the knowledge resources of an organisation. This report will provide you with these techniques.

change cha nges s to intern internal al discip disciplin linary ary and and grievan grievance ce



significan sign ificantt change changes s to unfai unfairr dismiss dismissal al legisl legislation ation



new right rights s for those empl employed oyed on fixed-t fixed-term erm contr contracts acts



the intr introdu oducti ction on of new new righ rights ts for lear learnin ning g representatives from an employer’s trade union

This specially commissioned new report examines each of the key developments where the Act changes existing provisions or introduces new rights. Each chapter deals with a discreet area.

Reviewing and changing contracts of employment 

Email – legal issues

ANNELISE PHILLIPS, TOM PLAYER and PAULA ROME ROME

£125

SUSAN SINGLETON

£95.00

1 85418 215 3 • 2001

1 85418 296 X • 2003 The Employment Act 2002 has raised the stakes. Imperfect understanding of the law and poor drafting will now be very costly.

360,000 email messages are sent in the UK every  second (The Guardian). What are the chances of either  you or your employees employees breaking breaking the law? law? The report explains clearly:

This new report will: • Ensu Ensure re that that you you have have a total total grip grip on what shou should ld be



not you are entitled to insist on it as binding

in a contract and what should not •

Explain Exp lain step by step step how how to achi achieve eve chan changes ges in in the the



Enable Enab le you to prote protect ct client clients’ s’ sensiti sensitive ve busin business ess



Act 2000

Enhanc Enh ance e your unde understa rstandi nding ng of poten potential tial confli conflict ct areas and your ability to manage disputes effectively.



How the the Data Data Protec Protection tion Act Act 1998 1998 affects affects the the degree degree to which you can monitor your staff 



 Applying the Employmen  Applying Employmentt Act 2002 – crucial developments for employers and employees AUDREY WILLIAMS

The impl implicatio ications ns of of the the Regulat Regulation ion of Investi Investigator gatory  y  Powers Act 2000 and the Electronic Communications

information •

The deg degree ree to which which you you may may lawfull lawfully y monitor monitor your employees’ e-mail and Internet use

contract of employment without causing problems •

How to establ establish ish a sens sensible ible poli policy cy and and whethe whetherr or

What you need need to watch watch for for in the Huma Human n Rights Rights Act Act 1998



TUC gu guid ide eli lin nes



Example Exam ple of of an e-mail e-mail and and Intern Internet et policy policy docu documen ment. t.

£125

1 85418 253 6 • May 2003 The Act represents a major shift in the commercial environment, with far-reaching changes for employers and employees. The majority of the new rights under the family friendly section take effect from April 2003 with most of the other provisions later in the year. The consequences of getting it wrong, for both employer

For full details of any title, and to view sample extracts please visit: www.thorogood.ws  You  Y ou can place an order in four four ways:

and employee, will be considerable – financial and

1 Email: [email protected]

otherwise. The Act affects nearly every aspect of the work

2 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7749 4748

place, including: •

flexi fle xib ble wor orki kin ng



family right rights s (adop (adoption, tion, pater paternity nity and impr improved oved maternity leave)

3 Fax: +44 (0)20 7729 6110 4 Post: Thorogood, 10-12 Rivington Street, London EC2A 3DU, UK 

See full details of all Thorogood titles on www.thorogood.ws  

SALES, MARKETING AND PR

Implementing an integrated marketing communications strategy 

Tendering and negotiating for MoD contracts

NORMAN HART

TIM BOYCE

£99.00

£125.00

1 85418 120 3 • 1999

1 85418 276 5 • 2002

Just what is meant by marketing communications, or ‘marcom’? How does it fit in with other corporate functions, and in particular particula r how does it relate to business and marketing objectives?

This specially commissioned report report aims to draw out the main principles, processes and procedures involved in tendering and negotiating MoD contracts.

Defending your reputation Strategic customer planning

SIMON TAYLOR

£95.00

ALAN MELKMAN AND PROFESSOR KEN SIMMONDS

£95.00

1 85418 255 2 • 2001 This is very much a ‘how to’ Report. After reading those parts that are relevant to your business, business , you will be able to compile a plan that will work within your particular organisation for you, a powerful customer plan that you can implement immediately. Charts, checklists and diagrams throughout.

‘Buildings can be rebuilt, IT systems replaced. People can be recruited, but a reputation lost can never be regained…’ ‘The media will publish a story – you may as well ensure it is your story’

‘News is whatever someone, somewhere, does not  William Randoplh Hearst  want published’

£65.00

1 85418 179 3 • 2000 Many professionals still feel awkward about really  selling their professional services. They are not usually  trained in selling. This is a much-needed report which addresses the unique concerns of professionals who wish to sell their services successfully and to feel comfortable doing so. ‘Comprehensive, well written and very readable… this is a super book, book , go and buy it as it is well worth the money’  Professional Marketing International International

Insights into understanding the financial media – an insider’ insider’s s view SIMON SCOTT

£99.00

1 85418 083 5 • 1998 This practical briefing will help you understand the way  the financial print and broadcast media works in the UK.

European lobbying guide BRYAN CASSIDY 

£129.00

1 85418 144 0 • 2000

Corporate community investment  CHRIS GENASI

Simon Taylor 

When a major crisis does suddenly break, how ready will  you be to to defend defend your reputation reputation? ?

Selling skills for professionals KIM TASSO

1 85418 251 • 2001

£75.00

1 85418 192 0 • 1999 Supporting good causes is big business – and good business. Corporate community investment (CCI) is the general term for companies’ support of good causes, cau ses, and is a very fast growing area of PR and marketing.

Understand how the EU works and how to get your message across effectively to the right people.

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

e [email protected]

w www.thorogood.ws

 

Lobbying and the media: working with politicians and journalists

Managing corporate reputation – the new currency 

MICHAEL BURRELL

SUSAN CROFT and and JOHN DALTON DALTON

£95.00

£125

1 85418 240 4 • 2001

1 85418 272 2 • June 2003

Lobbying is an art form rather than a science, so there is inevitably an element of judgement in what line to take. take .

ENRON, WORLDCOM… who next?

This expert report explains the knowledge and techniques required.

depths, knowing how to manage corporate reputation professionally and effectively has never been more crucial. cruci al.

Strategic planning in public relations KIERAN KNIGHTS

£69.00

At a time when trust in corporations has plumbed new

Surviving a corporate crisis – 100 things you need to know

1 85418 225 0 • 2001

PAUL BATCHELOR

Tips and techniques to aid you in a new approach to campaign planning.

1 85418 208 0 • April 2003

Strategic planning is a fresh approach to PR. An approach  fact-based sed and scientific, clearly presenting the that is  fact-ba arguments for a campaign proposal backed with evidence evidence..

£125

Seven out of ten organisations that experience a corporate crisis go out of business within 18 months. mont hs. This very timely report not only covers remedial action after the event but offers expert advice on preparing every  department and every key player of the organisation organisati on so that, should a crisis occur, damage of every kind is limited as far as possible.

FINANCE

Tax aspects of buying and selling companies MARTYN INGLES

Practical techniques for effective project  investment appraisal £99.00

RALPH TIFFIN

£99.00

1 85418 189 0 • 2001

1 85418 099 1 • 1999

This report takes you through the buying and selling process from process  from the tax angle. angle. It uses straightforward case studies to highlight the issues and more important strategies that are likely to have a significant impact on the taxation position.

How to ensure you have a reliable system in place.

Tax planning opportunities for family  businesses in the new regime CHRISTOPHER JONES

£49.00

1 85418 154 8 • 2000 Following recent legislative and case law changes, the whole area of tax planning for family businesses requires  very care careful ful and thor thorough ough atten attention tion in ord order er to avoid the many pitfalls.

Spending money on projects automatically necessitates an effective appraisal system syst em – a way of deciding whether the correct decisions on investment have been made.

See full details of all Thorogood titles on www.thorogood.ws  

MANAGEMENT AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

Strategy implementation through project  management  TONY GRUNDY 

£95.00

1 85418 250 1 • 2001 The gap Far too few managers know how to apply project management techniques to their strategic planning. The result is often strategy that is poorly thought out and executed. The answer Strategic project management is a new and powerful process designed to manage complex projects by  combining traditional business analysis with project management techniques.

For full details of any title, and to view sample extracts please visit: www.thorogood.ws  You  Y ou can place an order in four four ways: 1 Email: [email protected] 2 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7749 4748 3 Fax: +44 (0)20 7729 6110 4 Post: Thorogood, 10-12 Rivington Street, London EC2A 3DU, UK 

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close