Waste Management: The New Legislative Climate (Thorogood Reports)

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS A SPECIALLY COMMISSIONED REPORT WASTE MANAGEMENT: THE NEW LEGISLATIVE CLIMATE Caroline...

Author: Caroline Hand

16 downloads 554 Views 638KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

A SPECIALLY COMMISSIONED REPORT

WASTE MANAGEMENT: THE NEW LEGISLATIVE CLIMATE Caroline Hand

MSc

IFC


A SPECIALLY COMMISSIONED REPORT

WASTE MANAGEMENT: THE NEW LEGISLATIVE CLIMATE Caroline Hand MSc

Thorogood Publishing Ltd

Other Thorogood Professional Insights

10-12 Rivington Street London EC2A 3DU. t: 020 7749 4748 f: 020 7729 6110 e: [email protected]

Applying the Employment Act 2002 – Crucial Developments for Employers and Employees Audrey Williams

w: www.thorogood.ws

© Caroline Hand MSc 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

Commercial Litigation: Damages and Other Remedies

reproduced, stored in a retrieval

Robert Ribeiro

photocopying, recording or

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, 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 Fitness for Work

which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed upon

Gillian Howard

the subsequent purchaser. No responsibility for loss

Software Contract Agreements

occasioned to any person acting

Robert Bond

or refraining from action as a 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 contact Thorogood by telephone on 020 7749 4748, by fax on 020 7729 6110, or email us: [email protected]

A CIP catalogue record for this Report is available from the British Library. 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 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.

Acknowledgements 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 team at ENDS Report, all of whom have provided invaluable insights into the current developments surrounding waste.


iii

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

1

POLICY FRAMEWORK

1

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

2

OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION

7

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

3

HAZARDOUS WASTE

24

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

4

LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT 43 Introduction................................................................................................44 Overview of the landfill directive .............................................................45 The co-disposal ban and the ‘hazardous waste crisis’ ..........................50 Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) ............................................................57 Technical details of the WAC....................................................................60 Characterization, testing and sampling (WAP) ......................................67 Conclusion ..................................................................................................71


iv

CONTENTS

5

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

73

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

6

LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE

90

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

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

101


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, 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 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, explaining how to assess whether waste is hazardous. Around 180 waste streams 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


vi

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

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 how changes to planning policy are being introduced in order to encourage the development 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.


vii


Chapter 1 Policy framework Principles of environmental and waste legislation ...........................2 UK policy ................................................................................................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 – 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 Polluter Pays Principle – which underlies, for example, producer responsibility legislation;

•

the Precautionary Principle which states that where there are threats 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 Proximity Principle (waste to be disposed of at the nearest suitable facility).


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 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 harm the environment. The objectives of the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/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.


3

1 POLICY FRAMEWORK

UK policy “The overall objective of Government policy 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 and significant new investment in waste management facilities.” (Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, July 2005, available on www.odpm.gov.uk.) This quote shows how UK policy directly reflects the EU objectives summarized above. As required by the Waste Framework Directive, the UK Government has produced a national waste plan, Waste Strategy 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 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 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 the objectives 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 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.


4

1 POLICY FRAMEWORK

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

Market mechanisms The UK has traditionally tended 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 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 to produce building blocks as expensive as veined Carrera marble” and is unhappy that “even if the recycled materials cannot find a market, their production must be subsidized by the tax and/or rate payer until (hopefully) markets become established”. (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 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


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 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 Waste 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.


6


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

The definition of waste throughout the EU is taken from the revised Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by 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’. 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

•

waste from mining and quarrying (though waste from buildings at mines and quarries is not excluded)


8

2 O V E RV I E W O F WA S T E R E G U L AT I O N

•

natural, non-dangerous materials used in agriculture such as manure

•

waste waters.

CONTROLLED WASTE

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

household waste

•

commercial waste

•

industrial 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). The term ‘household waste’ is used broadly to include wastes from institutions such as prisons, nursing homes and community halls. EU legislation refers instead to ‘domestic waste’ which refers only to waste from private dwellings. The hazardous 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 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 Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005 No. 22).

Court cases The precise meaning of ‘waste’ has been hammered out in court cases over the years. A fundamental principle of looking at the disputed material from the point of view of the producer is illustrated in a 1987 case, Berridge Incinerators Ltd v Nottinghamshire 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.


9


In my judgement, the correct approach is to regard the material from the point of view of the person who produces it…” However, it is not always this straightforward and the definition of waste continues to be a moot point of lengthy court cases both in the UK and the European Court of Justice. Two recent cases illustrate how as time has passed, the 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 section on Packaging in Chapter 5, Producer Responsibility) provided it could demonstrate that it was reprocessing the scrap that it collected. The Environment Agency took the view that the steelworks (Corus), not the metal recycler, is the reprocessor and therefore the one entitled to sell PRNs. The European Court 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 overturned 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, more than 800 litres of fuel had leaked into the soil from 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 further 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 were charged with the offence of abandoning waste. At the first trial the defendants were acquitted. The prosecution appealed, but the Court of Appeal was uncertain 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 of waste in the Waste Framework Directive covered both the spilled hydrocarbons and the surrounding contaminated soil. It was argued that since, in order to protect 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’.


10


This judgement has immediate implications for the oil industry, but raises a much more 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 Part 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 by the Van de 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 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 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 recycling

•

whether there are markets for the recycled material, and

•

the risk to the environment from processing.

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.


11


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. 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 and have been subject to a large number of amendments. A clear and comprehensive guide to the legislation has been issued by the Environment Agency (IPPC – A Practical Guide, fourth edition, available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/ippcguide/index.htm).

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Industries covered by the regime must obtain a permit from the regulator (which may be the Environment Agency, SEPA or the local authority). The permit will lay down detailed conditions intended to protect the environment and, in particular, to minimize polluting emissions to air, water and land. 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 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.


12


PPC AND THE WASTE INDUSTRY

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

all landfills

•

almost all incinerators and co-incinerators (apart from a few burning vegetation etc – see below)

•

most waste treatment plants.

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 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 relevant (environmental) convictions. This provision 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.

Technical competence. A FAPP must hold a Certificate of Technical Competence (COTC) issued by the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. Specific courses and certificates apply to a variety of waste activities (eg hazardous landfill; composting operations).

3.

Financial provision. The operator must make provision to cover the costs of the facility throughout its operational 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, 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.


13


ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR LANDFILLS AND INCINERATORS

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 Landfill Directive 99/31/EC

•

The Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC (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 Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 2980) and Waste Incineration (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003 No. 170) under which incinerator operators were required to apply for a PPC permit 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 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 in England and Wales would have to close down. However, the Government’s view is that such small processes are not covered by WID. Garages will continue to be able to burn their own


14


waste oil, but will probably no longer be able to bring 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: •

cement kilns (a more costly option)

•

steel works (only limited scope for using waste oil).

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, has not been operating for some years.

Waste 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: •

treatment of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), and

•

collection and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (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 Act 1990, with detailed provisions in the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 1056), as amended. The most recent amendments to the licensing regulations are found in SI 2005 No. 1728. Because of the very many amending SIs, the regulations are difficult to follow and the Government


15


therefore plans to issue a consolidated version in the near future. The waste management licensing regime is administered and enforced 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 to prevent or control pollution from facilities which are no longer 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 environment. (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 avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on activities which do not present much threat to the environment, the 1994 Regulations included a long list of exemptions. These cover a variety of recovery processes such as: •

spreading waste on agricultural land as a fertilizer or soil improver

•

use of garden waste as mulch, etc in parks

•

reuse of construction waste, eg in road building

•

small scale recycling activities

•

use of waste soil in landscaping

•

small scale composting

•

storage of limited quantities of waste.

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


16


merely have to register basic details with the Agency and pay a small fee. Waste 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, 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, which were issued no less than three 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. The main effect of the latest amendments is to tighten up the regulation of certain categories of exempt activity, notably: •

landspreading

•

reuse of construction and demolition waste

•

storage and spreading of sewage sludge.

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 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


17


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 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. 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 exemptions

•

standard permits

•

‘bespoke’ permits for high-risk sites.

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 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.


18


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. In summary, it is an offence to: •

deposit waste other than on a licensed (or permitted) site, ie fly-tipping

•

contravene the conditions of a waste management licence or PPC permit

•

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 Environmental Protection Act. This allows the regulators to prosecute waste producers for engaging cowboy contractors who fly-tip the waste and then disappear. To comply with the Duty, waste producers must: •

draw up a Duty of Care transfer note

•

ensure that the waste does not escape, either from the site of production or in transit

•

pass the waste to a registered carrier (see below), or licensed/permitted contractor, or exempt carrier eg a recycling charity

•

ensure that the disposal or treatment facility is licensed to take the waste 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 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


19


powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 which allow them to stop, search and seize suspect vehicles. Drivers who do not produce their transfer note on request can be issued with a £300 fixed penalty. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act increased the maximum fine in a magistrate’s court for unlicensed disposal to £50,000. The same applies to the offence of treating, keeping or disposing of controlled 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 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 and safety, including chemicals legislation such as COSHH and CHIP

•

carriage of dangerous 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 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


20


are the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 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 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 By-products Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 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 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 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.


21


Contaminated land The contaminated land regime was introduced in 2000 and its provisions are found in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 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 situ treatment is the chosen remedy, then the treatment plant will require a waste management licence. Unfortunately the licensing 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. 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.


22


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.


23


Chapter 3 Hazardous waste Introduction..........................................................................................25 Hazardous waste arisings...................................................................26 What is hazardous 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 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 with new duties and challenges. They must: •

notify the Environment Agency

•

follow the new consignment procedure with its attendant paperwork

•

avoid mixing any hazardous waste stream with non-hazardous waste, or with another hazardous waste type

•

segregate hazardous waste streams under certain circumstances

•

ensure that if the waste is to be landfilled, it is consigned to a hazardous 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 and segregating their wastes to ensure that only the truly hazardous wastes are consigned to hazardous landfill. Issues relating specifically to the landfilling of hazardous waste are considered in more detail in Chapter 4, Landfill regulations and their impact.


25

3 H A Z A R D O U S WA S T E

Hazardous waste arisings The table and pie chart below show the tonnages of special 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 code

Industry/waste type

2002 Special waste arisings (tonnes)

01

Minerals

110,720

02

Agriculture etc, food processing

4,170

03

Wood, pulp, paper, cardboard

2,790

04

Leather, fur and 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 plastics

90,370

13

Oil wastes, wastes from liquid fuels

964,270

14

Organic solvents, refrigerants, propellants

57,750

15

Packaging, cloths, filter materials, protective clothing

44,490

16

Waste not otherwise specified

672,050

17

Construction 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 16

69,850

Total

4,994,700


26


Incineration 5%

Treatment 32%

Landfill 42%

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

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

Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 895)

•

List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 894)

•

Hazardous Waste (Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1806)

•

List of Wastes (Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1820)

•

Special Waste (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004 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’.


27


The Environment Agency has produced comprehensive guidance on the assessment of hazardous waste in its manual WM2 Hazardous Waste: 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.

Figure 2: Environment Agency methodology for classification of hazardous waste


28


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: •

radioactive wastes which do not possess any other hazard – separate legislation applies

•

trade effluent and gaseous emissions – regulated under PPC as pollutants rather than waste

•

domestic wastes from private households, with the exception 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 CATALOGUE?

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.

mineral exploitation

2.

agricultural and food production

3.

wood, pulp, paper and cardboard

4.

leather, fur and textiles

5.

petroleum refining, gas purification and coal pyrolysis

6.

inorganic chemicals

7.

organic chemicals


29


8.

coatings, adhesives and sealing inks

9.

photographic

10. thermal processes (power stations, iron and steel, metallurgy) 11. chemical surface treatment of metals etc; non-ferrous hydro-metallurgy 12. shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics 17. construction and demolition 18. human and animal health care and related research 19. waste management and water treatment facilities 20. municipal wastes. If no suitable entry can be found, look in Chapters 13-15: 13. oil wastes 14. waste organic solvents, refrigerants and propellants 15. waste packaging, cloths, filter material and protective 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. 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, the waste is definitely hazardous (eg 16 09 03* peroxides, for example, hydrogen peroxide). A single entry with an asterisk is known as an absolute entry. The EA guidance also has a letter ‘A’ for ‘absolute’ or ‘M’ for ‘mirror’ alongside the entries in the list. The difficulty comes with mirror entries: paired entries, where one is hazardous 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’.


30


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

what is meant by a ‘dangerous substance’, and

•

how concentrated does the dangerous substance have to be for the waste to qualify as hazardous?

STEP 3: DETERMINE THE COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE

This classification procedure depends on a knowledge 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 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 Approved Supply List (ASL), available in paper or electronic 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 categories of danger: •

explosive

•

oxidising

•

extremely flammable

•

highly flammable

•

very toxic

•

toxic

•

carcinogen (category 1, 2 or 3)


31


•

mutagenic (category 1, 2 or 3)

•

toxic for reproduction (category 1, 2 or 3)

•

corrosive

•

irritant

•

dangerous for the environment

•

[sensitising] (not relevant to waste).

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

(oxidising: contact with combustible material may cause fire)

C: R34

(corrosive: causes burns).

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 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, 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.


32


Even more confusingly, the Hazardous Waste Regulations are based around a list of 14 hazardous properties which look similar to the CHIP categories 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 Carcinogenic

•

H8 Corrosive

•

H9 Infectious

•

H10 Toxic for reproduction

•

H11 Mutagenic

•

H12 Releases toxic gas in contact with water or air

•

H13 After disposal, wastes produce a leachate with any of the other hazardous properties

•

H14 Ecotoxic (toxic for the environment)

Note that: •

there is only one flammability hazard

•

hazards H9 and H13 do not have an equivalent in CHIP.

At this stage of the classification procedure, the 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.


33


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

≥10%

H4

Irritant, R36,R37, R38

≥20%

H5

Harmful

≥25%

H6

Very toxic

≥0.1%

H6

Toxic

≥3%

H7

Carcinogen category 1, 2

≥0.1%

H7

Carcinogen category 3

≥1%

H8

Corrosive, R35

≥1%

H8

Corrosive, R34

≥5%

H9

Infectious

N/a: see WM2

H10

Toxic for reproduction, R60, R61, category 1 or 2

≥0.5%

H10

Toxic for reproduction, R62, R63, category 3

≥5%

H11

Mutagenic, R46, category 1 or 2

≥0.1%

H11

Mutagenic, R68, category 3

≥1%

H12

Releases toxic gas in contact with water or air

Testing required

H13

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

Depends on substances produced – see WM2

H14

Ecotoxic, R50 or R52 or R53

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 R58

Thresholds not yet set, so not hazardous waste

H14

Ecotoxic, R59

0.1%

H14

PCBs and PCTs

0.005%


34


Risk phrases in the table above R34

Causes burns

R35

Causes severe burns

R36

Irritating to the eyes

R37

Irritating to the respiratory system

R38

Irritating to the skin

R41

Risk of serious damage to eyes

R46

May cause heritable genetic damage

R50

Very toxic to aquatic organisms

R51

Toxic to aquatic organisms

R52

Harmful to aquatic organisms

R53

May cause long-term effects in the aquatic environment

R54

Toxic to flora

R55

Toxic to fauna

R56

Toxic to soil organisms

R57

Toxic to bees

R58

May cause long-term adverse effects in the environment

R59

Dangerous for the ozone layer

R60

May impair fertility

R61

May cause harm to the unborn child.

R62

Possible risk of impaired fertility

R63

Possible risk of harm to the unborn child

R68

Possible risk of irreversible effects

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). Should the concentrations be added up if none of the


35


individual acids exceed the threshold? In this case, yes: ‘very toxic’ ‘toxic’, ‘harmful’, ‘corrosive’ and ‘irritant’ are all additive properties. However, other properties – ‘carcinogenic’, ‘mutagenic’ and ‘toxic for reproduction’ – are non-additive. Further guidance is given in WM2. The rules for additive and non-additive 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 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 of the components of the waste, or ascertaining the nature of the waste from informal 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 (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.


36


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 waste previously regarded as non-special is marked as an absolute entry in the EWC (for example, fluorescent tubes)

•

a non-special waste known to contain dangerous substances in 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 households 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 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

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) from televisions and computer monitors. These are subject to challenging recycling targets under the WEEE Directive and also qualify 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 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 waste under the international waste shipments legislation. Perhaps the glass could still be landfilled, but as yet it is uncertain whether it will meet the Waste Acceptance Criteria for hazardous landfill (see Chapter 4).


37


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 waste away from premises which are not notified or exempt. Failure to notify is also an offence punishable by a £300 fine. The registration process is relatively straightforward, the details required being: •

name and address of waste producer

•

address of premises

•

SIC classification of premises

•

any other information the Agency may reasonably require.

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 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 Agency – due in part to teething troubles with the Agency’s electronic system.


38


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 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 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 waste producer no longer has to notify the Agency three days ahead of a consignment

•

there is a new system of multiple collections replacing the carrier’s round

•

the producer must keep detailed records of each consignment, indicating the: –

quantity

–

nature

–

origin

–

destination

–

frequency of collection

–

carrier and mode of transport

–

treatment 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 old system, they were notified of each separate consignment. 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.


39


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 different category of hazardous waste

•

non-hazardous waste

•

any other substance or material.

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 Regulations, as listed below. The Environment Agency has recently issued guidance 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 waste in order to avoid regulation.


40


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 inert 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 treatment (eg still bottoms)

•

Inks, dyes, pigments, paints, lacquers, varnishes

•

Resins, latex, plasticizers, glues/adhesives

•

Chemical substances arising from research and development or teaching activities which are not identified and/or are new and whose effects 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 OF WASTE SEGREGATION

While in the short term the duty to segregate 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 their wastes to ensure that only those which are truly hazardous are consigned as such. (In the past, there was much precautionary consignment of mixed loads.) As a consequence of the co-disposal ban, there is likely to be a shortage 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


41


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


42


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

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 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 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 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 the Member States individually, since many geological and geophysical characteristics are unique to specific countries. Instead,


44

4 L A N D F I L L R E G U L AT I O N S A N D T H E I R I M PA 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 original justification for the landfill diversion targets, ie the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, was a spurious aim due to the low proportion of methane emissions arising from landfills and the availability of collection and control systems (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 classification of landfill sites, and prescription of the precise types of waste they can accept

•

the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfill

•

engineering and environmental standards at landfill sites.

It is the first aspect which forms the 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 Waste and Emissions Trading Act 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 requirement for a leachate collection and sealing system

•

specifications for landfill liners (eg a 5m impermeable barrier for hazardous waste sites)


45


•

collection, treatment and use of landfill gas

•

monitoring procedures, eg to assess the composition and volume of leachate, landfill gas, groundwater and surface water

•

general measures to avoid nuisance eg fencing, keeping access roads clean, dealing with noise, dust and vermin.

These engineering requirements have not had a major effect 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 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 and quantity of waste accepted

•

operational requirements

•

monitoring and control procedures

•

financial provision to cover operational, closure and aftercare costs

•

accident prevention

•

energy efficiency (for the larger landfills)

•

reporting to the Agency on waste accepted and results of monitoring.

The Landfill Regulations make specific reference to the fees 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.


46


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

sites for inert waste

•

sites for non-hazardous waste

•

sites for hazardous 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 had the greatest impact on waste management in the UK and will be considered in detail later in this chapter.

Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and Waste Acceptance Procedures (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. The WAC are discussed in detail later in this chapter. The WAC impact chiefly on hazardous waste producers. 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 waste acceptance procedures (WAP). These relate to sampling, testing, inspection and monitoring of wastes, as well as the characterization 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


47


•

corrosive

•

oxidising

•

flammable or highly flammable

•

chemicals whose effects on humans or the environment are unknown

•

infectious

•

whole tyres

•

shredded 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 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. Large numbers of tyres must now be found an alternative disposal outlet: at this stage, using them as fuel in cement kilns and power stations seems the most promising option, although 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

•

reduce the hazardous nature of the waste, or


48


•

facilitate handling, or

•

enhance recovery.

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

segregation at source, with some fraction not being landfilled

•

sorting at a materials recycling facility

•

incineration with landfill of residues.

For mixed construction and demolition waste: •

segregation of reusable bricks, slate, timber etc

For contaminated soil: •

stabilization

•

soil washing

•

biological treatment of organics

•

incineration (thermal treatment).

With municipal waste, pre-treatment is already carried out as part of the local 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 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 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 wastes this will be the solution to the shortage of hazardous waste landfill capacity.


49


The co-disposal ban and the ‘hazardous waste crisis’ The co-disposal ban of 2004 brought waste into the media 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.


50


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 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.


51


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

The leading environmental 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.


52


RESULTS OF ENDS SURVEY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCERS AND CONSULTANTS

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

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


53


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 segregation 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 Warrington 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-hazardous landfill. The waste from treating acid gases was reduced by 25% through calculating the lime requirements more accurately. The remaining APC residues, which could not meet the WAC, have been sent for recovery and reuse in the construction industry.

Source: ENDS Report July 2005.

However, when it comes to SMEs the picture is probably less rosy. During the 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!)


54


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, the operators of the new hazardous waste landfill on Teesside (Port Clarence) estimate that the costs of hazardous waste landfill have trebled since the ban: 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 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 in southern England and Wales.


55


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


56


Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) The WAC comprise limit values for leachability of different contaminants, criteria for strength and stability of waste plus 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 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 its 2005 Report on Waste Policy and the Landfill Directive, was critical of the Government’s handling of the situation. The MPs concluded that: ‘The “uncertainty” 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


57


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. 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 tell if there is enough treatment capacity and whether there is time to construct it.


58


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 nowhere else to go. The Agency has made a special exception for two wastes: •

spent pot linings from aluminium smelters, and

•

furnace slag from lead acid battery recycling.

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 for 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.

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.


59


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 hazardous 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, reactive, volatile, radioactive or biodegradable). The development was delayed due to planning objections – the application was eventually called in by the Secretary of State – but began accepting 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), as amended by the Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 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 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 for full details.


60


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: •

glass and related materials

•

concrete

•

bricks, tiles and ceramics

•

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 for inert wastes which are tested. L/S = liquid to solid ratio (see section on test methods below). LIMIT VALUES FOR LEACHING Component

L/S=10 l/kg mg/kg dry substance

Arsenic

0.5

Barium

20

Cadmium

0.04

Total chromium

0.5

Copper

2

Mercury

0.01

Molybdenum

0.5

Nickel

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

500

Total dissolved solids

4000


61


LIMIT VALUES FOR ORGANIC CONTENT

Parameter

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 waste. Wastes landfilled with gypsum based materials must meet the criteria for stable, 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 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.)


62


STABLE, NON-REACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE (SNRHW)

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

Component

L/S=10 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


800


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. Cohesive waste must have a mean in situ shear strength of at least 50kPa. Noncohesive waste must have an in situ bearing ratio of at least 5%.


63


ALTERNATIVE LEACHING CRITERIA FOR MONOLITHIC WASTES

Component

Mg/m2

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


Must be evaluated

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

pH of eluate

•

electrical conductivity of eluate

•

acid neutralization capacity of crushed monolith.

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

dimensions of greater than 40cm along each side

•

a depth and fracture spacing when hardened of greater than 40cm.

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

loss on ignition of 10%

•

total organic carbon 6%.


64


HAZARDOUS WASTE

LEACHING CRITERIA FOR GRANULAR HAZARDOUS WASTE

Component

L/S=10 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


1000


100,000

It must also meet the following criteria: •

loss on ignition 10%

•

total organic carbon 6%

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


65


ALTERNATIVE LEACHING CRITERIA FOR MONOLITHIC HAZARDOUS WASTE

Component

Mg/m2

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


Must be evaluated

The following parameters must also be evaluated: •

pH of eluate

•

electrical conductivity of eluate

•

acid neutralization capacity of crushed monolith.

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 for loss on ignition and total organic carbon apply to the untreated waste.


66


Characterization, testing and sampling (WAP) Waste 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 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 official guidance on testing and sampling, available on the Agency’s website (see references below). The following information must be included: •

source/origin of the waste

•

process producing the waste

•

pre-treatment undergone

•

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

•

smell, colour, consistency, physical form and other aspects of appearance

•

EWC code (see Chapter 3 on Hazardous waste for an explanation of this)

•

hazardous properties (if applicable)

•

evidence to demonstrate that the waste is not banned from landfill (see Banned wastes above)

•

landfill class (hazardous, non-hazardous or inert) appropriate for the waste

•

likely behaviour of the waste in landfill

•

precautions which need to be taken by the landfill operator

•

whether the waste can be recovered or recycled.

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.


67


WASTES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE 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 do not require testing.

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

Testing to determine whether the waste is hazardous according to 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 waste is hazardous, it must be tested for compliance with 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 characterization (as described above): the responsibility of the waste producer.

2.

Regular compliance testing, to check whether subsequent loads of waste conform with the basic characterization: carried out in partnership between the producer and contractor.

3.

The contractors’ brief inspection of individual loads as they arrive at the site.

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

primary producers – the industrialists whose processes create the waste, and

•

secondary producers – the operators of treatment plants or transfer 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.)


68


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 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 properties

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 producer to producer, depending on the nature of the process and the heterogeneity of the 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, 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.


69


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 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, the Agency guidance advises the waste producer to look at the variability of the data. If only a few values exceed the WAC and the variability is high, it may still be possible 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 sampling, eg a 20m3 container


70


•

demonstration that the limit values are not expected to be exceeded during the next compliance assessment period (eg over the next year)

•

evidence that some of the samples were collected at times when ‘worst 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 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 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.


71


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.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.)


72


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

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 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 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, 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 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


74

5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

to respond to persistent reminders to register, or who have deliberately flouted 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%

Material-specific recycling targets: 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 to industry.


75


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

manufacturers of the raw materials used in packaging, eg steel manufacturers, producers of plastic granules

•

convertors, who turn the raw material into packaging eg by manufacturing boxes or cans

•

packer/fillers, who put products into the packaging (eg beans into cans)

•

retailers

•

importers of packaging and packaging materials.

Producers are only subject to the Regulations if they have an annual turnover of £2 million or more, and handle at least 50 tonnes 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 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


76


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

6%

Converters

9%

Packer/fillers

37%

Seller

48%

Importers

up to 100%

CALCULATING YOUR OBLIGATION

The two sets of targets are used by producers to calculate their annual recovery and recycling obligations. Recovery obligation = [tonnage of packaging handled in previous year] x [percentage activity obligation] x [national recycling 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 (Wastepack, registered with SEPA) did fail to meet its 2001 obligation and contributed to the UK missing its 2001 target.


77


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. 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 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: •

increased reprocessing capacity

•

collection of packaging waste

•

developing markets and other options.


78


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 on what is and is not packaging, working on a case by case basis. Most of the guidance has been published in a document The Agencies’ Interpretation of Packaging. It covers items as diverse 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 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. The aim of the directive is to reduce the environmental impact of scrapped vehicles by: •

facilitating and increasing the reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs

•

reducing the incidence of hazardous materials in vehicles


79


•

improving regulation through the introduction of Certificates of Destruction for ELVs

•

making sure that ELVs are treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner

•

setting up a system of producer responsibility.

RECOVERY TARGETS

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

85% by weight of ELVs to be recovered or reused by 1 January 2006 (the current UK recovery rate is approximately 75%)

•

95% by weight of ELVs to be recovered or reused by 1 January 2015.

These targets apply to cars and vans but not lorries, coaches or other 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 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-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2635)

•

The End-of-Life Vehicles (Storage and Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 593)

•

The End-of-Life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 263).

The 2003 Regulations introduced new requirements concerned with: •

design requirements for vehicles relating to heavy metal content and recyclability (not considered in this Report)

•

authorized treatment facilities (ATFs)

•

certificates of destruction (CODs)

•

producer responsibility for ‘new’ ELVs.


80


Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs) 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 not covered by the Directive, must have a waste management 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) (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 pollution at the site, eg by specifying impermeable surfaces and ensuring that fluids are segregated and not allowed to spill

•

facilitate recycling by ensuring that recyclable components such as tyres, catalysts and glass are carefully removed and stored, avoiding damage to them wherever possible

•

avoid the hazards to health and the environment created by batteries, 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 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.


81


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, must pay the cost of collection and treatment at an ATF. The producer must then issue a certificate of compliance 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. While in some areas people still receive a small sum when they take their car to be scrapped, in other parts of Britain 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. The collection system will consist of a national network of ATFs and must meet the following criteria: •

accessible to those delivering the ELVs

•

sufficient capacity to deal with all the producer’s vehicles which become ELVs.


82


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 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 that is not part of the producer’s network, the ATF may charge them. The producer carries the costs of treatment. 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 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 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.


83


Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) As with the packaging and ELV schemes, the duty to recycle and recover WEEE has been imposed at EU level. The 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 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, 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 in Translation] and devote sufficient time and resource to getting their introduction right”. (CBI Press Release, August 2005.)

Requirements of the directive EQUIPMENT COVERED

•

Large household appliances (eg white goods)

•

Small household appliances

•

IT and telecommunications equipment

•

Consumer equipment

•

Lighting equipment

•

Electrical and electronic tools, except large stationary equipment

•

Toys, leisure and sports equipment


84


•

Medical devices (except implanted and infected products)

•

Monitoring and control instruments

•

Automatic dispensers.

NATIONAL RECOVERY TARGETS FOR 31 DECEMBER 2006

(Targets refer to average weight per appliance.) Recovery target

Recycling/reuse target

Large household appliances

80%

75%

Small household appliances

70%

50%

IT and telecommunications equipment

75%

65%

Consumer equipment

75%

65%

Lighting equipment

70%

50%

Tools

70%

50%

Toys, leisure and sports equipment

70%

50%

Medical devices

To be set

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 States must encourage manufacturers to design products in a way which facilitates reuse and recycling.

•

Member States must ensure that householders’ WEEE is collected free of charge and adequate collection facilities are available. Producers must finance the collection, treatment, recovery and disposal of WEEE collected at these facilities.

•

Distributors must take back WEEE equivalent to their products, free of charge.

•

Producers must take back non-household WEEE from their customers free of charge.

•

Member States must collect at least 4kg of WEEE per inhabitant per annum (already achieved in the UK).

•

All separately collected WEEE must be taken to authorized treatment facilities, which must have an appropriate permit.


85


•

Producers are responsible for ensuring that adequate treatment facilities are available.

•

Producers will contribute to a collective scheme to finance the collection and recovery of products placed on the market before 13 August 2005.

•

For products placed on the market after 13 August 2005, producers can either meet the costs individually or through a compliance scheme.

•

All new equipment must be marked with the ‘crossed out wheelie bin’ symbol, so consumers are aware of the need to segregate it for recycling. It must also carry a mark identifying the producer.

•

Consumers must be given information about the requirement to collect 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: •

manufacture electrical or electronic equipment,

•

rebrand equipment produced by other manufacturers, or

•

import electrical or electronic equipment.

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 for an individually registered producer

•

£380 for a compliance scheme member

•

£14 per outlet for retailers.


86


Registration is expected 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 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 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 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 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 by the time they are discarded.


87


TREATMENT FACILITIES

As with ELVs, WEEE must be recovered at authorized treatment 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: •

storage of WEEE prior to handing it over to an ATF

•

repair and refurbishment of WEEE for 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 and ROHS Directives. (Directive on WEEE; Directive on ROHS; A guide to the marketing, product development and manufacturing actions you need to take, available free from the Envirowise website.) The Directives have considerable financial implications for British 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 manufacturers to benefit financially 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.


88


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

manufacture durable products with a longer life

•

reuse whole products (ie sell second-hand)

•

upgrading products as part of the contract with the customer.

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. This site has links 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.


89


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

Chapter 6 Local authorities and municipal waste

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

As Waste Collection Authorities, and/or Waste Disposal Authorities, 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 Local Planning Authorities, they must play a part in implementing 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. 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.


91

6 L O C A L A U T H O R I T I E S A N D M U N I C I PA 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 1995 levels by 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. 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 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 of municipal waste 2003/4


92


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, which set more demanding targets. The key targets are shown in the table below. Deadline

Waste Strategy 2000

Waste Not Want Not

2003/4

17% recycling or composting (ACHIEVED)

2005

40% recovery 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 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 greener councils in 2001 when the Government raised some of their targets to 40%. To many observers this seemed unfair, and the outcome was that various local authorities failed to achieve their targets. As there were no formal sanctions, little came of this failure but the targets have now been 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) targets of 18%, which would be raised to 20%. See www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/recyclingcomposting/index.htm.


93


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 Waste and Emissions Trading Act 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

Area

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

Northern 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 Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 3212), as amended by SI 2005 No. 880

•

The Landfill Allowances Scheme (Wales) Regulations 2004 (WSI 2004 No. 1490)

•

The Landfill Allowances Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (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


94


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

Maximum amount (million tonnes)

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 provisions . Local authorities, landfill operators and the regulators all have new duties to keep records and make returns to ensure that the landfilling 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. In Scotland, the penalties start at £10 per tonne in 2005, rising 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 can borrow up to 10% of the next year’s allowance in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. In England, the authority can borrow


95


up to 5% of the next year’s allowance (except in target years and the years immediately 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 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. Very many new recovery and recycling facilities will be needed to carry out the increased recycling. Tucked away in an Annex to Waste Strategy 2000 was an estimate that the following new facilities would be needed to meet the BMW diversion targets: •

100-300 materials recycling facilities (MRFs) (average 40,000 tonnes per annum) AND


96


•

100-200 composting units (average 30,000 tonnes per annum) AND

•

30-160 incinerators (average 250,000 tonnes per annum).

Future of energy-from-waste 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 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 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 (MBT) in its various forms, are being developed by various authorities. MBT, according to a recent article 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 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


97


must be found, or further municipal incinerators built. 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 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. •

Decisions must take account of the entire waste chain (eg collection, transport, storage, treatment, disposal) including the identification of markets for recovered energy and materials.

•

All key players should be involved: waste producers, the waste industry, regulators, planners, householders and community groups.

•

There must be a mixture of waste management options.

•

Partnerships are a key element, particularly between Waste Collection Authorities and Waste Disposal Authorities.

•

Any integrated waste management system must take account 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.


98


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 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 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: •

consider alternative options in a systematic way

•

engage the local community

•

assess environmental impacts in both long and short term

•

seek waste management options that best meet the general policy objectives of moving waste up the hierarchy, and protecting the environment and human health.


99


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 development of the new waste treatment and recovery facilities so urgently 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.


100


Glossary of abbreviations

G L O S S A RY O F A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Glossary of abbreviations ADR

European Agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road

APC

Air Pollution Control

ASL

Approved Supply List (under CHIP)

ATF

Authorized Treatment Facility (for end-of-life vehicles)

BAT

Best Available Techniques (for IPPC)

BMW

Biodegradable Municipal Waste

BPEO

Best Practicable Environmental Option

CA

Civic amenity (site)

CHIP

Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002

COD

Certificate of Destruction

DEFRA

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

ELV

End-of-Life Vehicle

ENDS

ENDS Report (the journal for environmental professionals)

EWC

European Waste Catalogue

FAPP

Fit and Proper Person

IPPC

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

LATS

Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

MBT

Mechanical-Biological Treatment

MRF

Materials Recycling Facility

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste

PERN

Packaging waste Export Recovery Note

PPC

Pollution Prevention and Control (regime)

PRN

Packaging waste Recovery Note


102

G L O S S A RY O F A B B R E V I AT I O N S

ROHS

Restriction on the use of Hazardous Substances Directive (relating to electrical and electronic equipment)

RSS

Regional Spatial Strategy

SEPA

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SNRHW

Stabilized Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste

WAC

Waste Acceptance Criteria

WAP

Waste Acceptance Procedures

WCA

Waste Collection Authority

WDA

Waste Disposal Authority

WID

Waste Incineration Directive

WEEE

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WM2

Environment Agency guidance document on the assessment of hazardous waste


103

Other specially commissioned reports BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL 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’s total UK turnover.

This report will show you: •

how to identify and secure profitable opportunities

•

strategies and techniques for negotiating the best agreement

•

the techniques of successfully managing a license operation.

Insights into successfully managing the in-house legal function BARRY O’MEARA

£65.00

1 85418 174 2 • 2000

Damages and other remedies for breach of commercial contracts ROBERT RIBEIRO

£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. Insights into successfully managing the In-house legal function discusses and suggests ways of dealing with these and other issues.

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 your commercial awareness and planning skills

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

•

Enhance your legal foresight and vision

1 Email: [email protected]

•

Help you appreciate the relevance of rules and guidelines set out by the courts

2 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7749 4748

Ensure you achieve your or your client’s commercial objectives

4 Post: Thorogood, 10-12 Rivington Street, London EC2A 3DU, UK

•

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

e [email protected]

3 Fax: +44 (0)20 7729 6110

w w w w. t h o r o g o o d . w s

The legal protection of databases SIMON CHALTON

Email – legal issues £145.00

SUSAN SINGLETON

£95.00

1 85418 245 5 • 2001

1 85418 215 3 • 2001

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

What are the chances of either you or your employees breaking the law?

This valuable report examines the current EU [and so 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.

The report explains clearly:

Litigation costs MICHAEL BACON

•

How to establish a sensible policy and whether or not you are entitled to insist on it as binding

•

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

•

The implications of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Electronic Communications Act 2000

•

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

•

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

•

TUC guidelines

•

Example of an e-mail and Internet policy document.

£95.00

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 maximum advantage.

International commercial agreements 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 insight into the commercial points to be considered 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. 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 can place an order in 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

S e e f u l l d e t a i l s o f a l l T h o r o g o o d t i t l e s o n w w w. t h o r o g o o d . w s

HR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW

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, 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 corporate energy and enhanced performance.

1 85418 283 8 • May 2003 The new four-part Code of Practice under the Data 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 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 were made last year and the numbers are rising. What will you do when one comes your way?

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

e [email protected]

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


Knowledge management SUE BRELADE, CHRISTOPHER HARMAN

changes to internal disciplinary and grievance procedures

•

significant changes to unfair dismissal legislation

•

new rights for those employed on fixed-term contracts

•

the introduction of new rights for learning representatives from an employer’s trade union

£95.00

1 85418 230 7 • 2001 Managing knowledge in companies is nothing new. However, the development of a separate discipline called ‘knowledge 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.

Reviewing and changing contracts of employment ANNELISE PHILLIPS, TOM PLAYER and PAULA ROME

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.

Email – legal issues £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 breaking the law? The report explains clearly:

This new report will: •

Ensure that you have a total grip on what should be in a contract and what should not

•

Explain step by step how to achieve changes in the contract of employment without causing problems

•

Enable you to protect clients’ sensitive business information

•

Enhance your understanding of potential conflict areas and your ability to manage disputes effectively.

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

•

•

How to establish a sensible policy and whether or not you are entitled to insist on it as binding

•

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

•

The implications of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Electronic Communications Act 2000

•

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

•

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

•

TUC guidelines

•

Example of an e-mail and Internet policy document.

£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 and employee, will be considerable – financial and otherwise. The Act affects nearly every aspect of the work place, including: •

flexible working

•

family rights (adoption, paternity and improved maternity leave)

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


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 how does it relate to business and marketing objectives?

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

Defending your reputation Strategic customer planning ALAN MELKMAN AND PROFESSOR KEN SIMMONDS

SIMON TAYLOR £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, 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.

1 85418 251 • 2001 ‘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’ Simon Taylor ‘News is whatever someone, somewhere, does not want published’ William Randoplh Hearst When a major crisis does suddenly break, how ready will you be to defend your reputation?

Selling skills for professionals KIM TASSO

£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, go and buy it as it is well worth the money’ Professional Marketing International

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

This practical briefing will help you understand the way the financial print and broadcast media works in the UK.

European lobbying guide £129.00

1 85418 144 0 • 2000

Corporate community investment £75.00

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

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, and is a very fast growing area of PR and marketing.

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

£99.00

1 85418 083 5 • 1998

BRYAN CASSIDY

CHRIS GENASI

£95.00

e [email protected]


Lobbying and the media: working with politicians and journalists

Managing corporate reputation – the new currency

MICHAEL BURRELL

SUSAN CROFT and JOHN DALTON

£95.00

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. This expert report explains the knowledge and techniques required.

ENRON, WORLDCOM… who next?

Strategic planning in public relations KIERAN KNIGHTS

£69.00

At a time when trust in corporations has plumbed new depths, knowing how to manage corporate reputation professionally and effectively has never been more crucial.

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 that is fact-based and scientific, clearly presenting the arguments for a campaign proposal backed with evidence.

£125

£125

Seven out of ten organisations that experience a corporate crisis go out of business within 18 months. 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 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 the tax 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. Spending money on projects automatically necessitates an effective appraisal system – a way of deciding whether the correct decisions on investment have been made.

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 careful and thorough attention in order to avoid the many pitfalls.


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 can place an order in 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

t +44 (0)20 7749 4748

e [email protected]


Waste Management: The New Legislative Climate (Thorogood Reports)

Internal Communications (Thorogood Reports)

TUPE Regulations (Thorogood Reports)

European Employment Law (Thorogood Reports)