waste management
TRANSCRIPT
A SPECIALLY COMMISSIONED REPORT
WASTE MANAGEMENT:THE NEW LEGISLATIVECLIMATE
Caroline Hand MSc
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
IFC
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
A SPECIALLY COMMISSIONED REPORT
WASTE MANAGEMENT:THE NEW LEGISLATIVECLIMATE
Caroline Hand MSc
Thorogood Publishing Ltd
10-12 Rivington Street
London EC2A 3DU.
t: 020 7749 4748
f: 020 7729 6110
w: www.thorogood.ws
© Caroline Hand MSc 2006
All rights reserved. No part
of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic,
photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
This Report is sold subject to the
condition that it shall not, by way
of trade or otherwise, be lent,
re-sold, hired out or otherwise
circulated without the publisher’s
prior consent in any form of
binding or cover other than in
which it is published and without
a similar condition including this
condition being imposed upon
the subsequent purchaser.
No responsibility for loss
occasioned to any person acting
or refraining from action as a
result of any material in this
publication can be accepted by
the author or publisher.
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
Other ThorogoodProfessional Insights
Applying the Employment Act 2002– Crucial Developments forEmployers and Employees
Audrey Williams
Commercial Litigation: Damagesand Other Remedies
Robert Ribeiro
IT Governance
David Norfolk
Email – Legal Issues
Susan Singleton
Employee Sickness and Fitness for Work
Gillian Howard
Software Contract Agreements
Robert Bond
Special discounts for bulk quantities of Thorogood books are available tocorporations, institutions, associations andother organisations. For more informationcontact Thorogood by telephone on 020 7749 4748, by fax on 020 7729 6110, or email us: [email protected]
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 partic-
ularly 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.
iiiTHOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
ivTHOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
CONTENTS
vTHOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 objec-
tive of shifting waste away from landfill to recovery and recycling. Chapter 2 moves
on to examining the regulatory regimes which govern waste management. Well-
established legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is not
considered in detail; instead the focus is on newer developments such as the regula-
tion 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
viTHOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 author-
ities. 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
viiTHOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Chapter 1Policy framework
Principles of environmental and waste legislation ...........................2
UK policy ................................................................................................4
Achieving the objectives.......................................................................4
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
Chapter 1Policy 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 Regula-
tions, 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 princi-
ples 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).
2THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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:
The waste hierarchy
The waste diversion targets in the Landfill Directive (see Chapter 6, Local author-
ities 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 responsi-
bility 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 manage-
ment 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 environ-
ment 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.
Waste reduction
Reuse
Materials recycling and composting
Energy recovery
Disposal (landfill and incineration without energy recovery)
1 POLICY FRAMEWORK
3THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 environ-
mental 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, avail-
able 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 infor-
mation 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 require-
ments 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.
1 POLICY FRAMEWORK
4THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 Direc-
tive.) 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
1 POLICY FRAMEWORK
5THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
‘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 Govern-
ment’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 imple-
menting 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.
1 POLICY FRAMEWORK
6THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Chapter 2Overview 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
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
Chapter 2Overview of waste regulation
Definition of waste
It is very important to understand the legal definition of waste, which is estab-
lished 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 Frame-
work 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 contam-
ination 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)
8THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 ‘house-
hold 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 pesti-
cides 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.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
9THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 PackagingWaste Recovery Notes (PRNs) (see the section on Packaging in Chapter 5, Producer Respon-sibility) 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 metalrecycler, 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 packagingwaste 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 impli-cation for the definition of waste is that the metals remain waste even after treatment byMayer Parry.
CASE STUDY: VAN DE WALLE
This case concerns a Texaco filling station in Brussels where, unbeknown to the stationoperator, 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 buildingwork had to stop.
Texaco carried out some remediation work but the local authority considered that this wasnot sufficient and carried out further remediation. In order to recover the costs, the Belgiangovernment commenced criminal and civil proceedings against Texaco and three of itssenior staff (including M Van de Walle). Texaco and the three managers were chargedwith the offence of abandoning waste.
At the first trial the defendants were acquitted. The prosecution appealed, but the Courtof Appeal was uncertain as to how the law should be interpreted. It therefore referred thematter 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 coveredboth the spilled hydrocarbons and the surrounding contaminated soil. It was argued thatsince, in order to protect the environment, there was a need to deal with the contaminatedsoil (either by removal or remediation) it fell into the category of substances which theholder ‘is required to discard’.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
10THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 Frame-
work 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.
This judgement has immediate implications for the oil industry, but raises a much moreserious concern for owners of contaminated sites. In the UK, it could mean that all contam-ination could be classed as controlled waste and thus fall within the scope of wasteregulation. Anyone with a contaminated site could technically be regarded as operatingan illegal landfill. Likewise, the regulators could find themselves obliged to ensure the remedi-ation of all contaminated sites, regardless of costs and benefits.
At present, the remediation of contaminated land is regulated and enforced under thecontaminated land provisions in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 but thiscarefully drawn up legislation could be rendered irrelevant if all contamination is classedas controlled waste.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
11THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 imple-
mented: 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 Pollu-
tion 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 Preven-
tion 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 partic-
ular, 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.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
12THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
13THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR LANDFILLS AND INCINERATORS
The PPC regime in itself would not have had a major impact on the waste manage-
ment industry, as the EU directive applies only to larger installations (for example,
landfills accepting over 10 tonnes of waste per day). However, the UK Govern-
ment 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 opera-
tors 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
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
14THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 super-
seded 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 frame-
work for the system of licensing is laid down in the Environmental Protection
Act 1990, with detailed provisions in the Waste Management Licensing Regula-
tions 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
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
15THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 diffi-
cult 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/exemp-
tions_doc_2a_1132475.doc. Operators wishing to take advantage of an exemption
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
16THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 condi-
tions 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 condi-
tions 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 attenua-
tion 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 introduc-
tion 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 exemp-
tions. 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
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
17THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 consul-
tation 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.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
18THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
19THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 compli-
ance 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
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
20THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
are the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Transportable Pressure Equip-
ment 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 require-
ments 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 legisla-
tion 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.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
21THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 authori-
ties, 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 condi-
tions 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 remedi-
ation 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 autho-
rising 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 regula-
tions 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 treat-
ment at their landfill sites. A recent report indicates that a centralized hub offering
soil washing and bioremediation could be more cost-effective than landfill.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
22THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
2 OVERVIEW OF WASTE REGULATION
23THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Chapter 3Hazardous waste
Introduction..........................................................................................25
Hazardous waste arisings...................................................................26
What is hazardous waste? ..................................................................27
Duties under the hazardous waste regulations................................38
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
Chapter 3Hazardous 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 non-
special 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 segre-
gating 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.
25THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
26THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
EWC Industry/waste type 2002 Special wastecode 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
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 Direc-
tive 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’.
Incineration 5%
Treatment 32%
Landfill 42%
Recycling/reuse 21%
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
27THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
The Environment Agency has produced comprehensive guidance on the assess-
ment 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
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
28THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 pollu-
tants 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
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
29THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 industry-
specific 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’.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
30THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 differ-
entiates 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 compo-
sition 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). Approx-
imately 2000 of the most commonly used hazardous chemicals are classified and
assigned an entry in a register known as the Approved Supply List (ASL), avail-
able 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)
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
31THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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: institu-
tions 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 neces-
sarily 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 regula-
tory 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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
32THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
33THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
CODE HAZARDOUS PROPERTY THRESHOLD (% by weight)
H1 Explosive Testing required
H2 Oxidising Depends on the substance – seeEA guidance
H3 Highly flammable Liquids: Flashpoint ≥55˚CSolids: Testing required, orcalculation 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, Depends on substances eg a leachate, possessing any of the other hazardous produced – see WM2properties
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 nothazardous waste
H14 Ecotoxic, R59 0.1%
H14 PCBs and PCTs 0.005%
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
34THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
35THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 proper-
ties 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 compo-
nents 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, pesti-
cides and end-of-life vehicles. Almost every business produces some of these
wastes and will therefore have to comply with the Hazardous Waste Regula-
tions. 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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
36THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
37THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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. (Indus-
trial waste is already expected to comply with the regulations.) Producers of these
wastes are already required to notify the Agency and follow the new consign-
ment 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 fluores-
cent 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 recov-
ered CRT glass due to its hazardous nature, especially since June 2005 when
the UK’s only CRT manufacture, Nippon Electric Glass, stopped taking the recov-
ered 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).
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.environ-
ment-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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
38THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Consignment procedure
The Hazardous Waste Regulations introduced a new procedure for the consign-
ment 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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
39THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 segre-
gation 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 accept-
able 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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
40THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 charac-
terization of each waste stream, and may help in identifying opportunities for
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 polymer-ized 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 stillbottoms)
• Inks, dyes, pigments, paints, lacquers, varnishes
• Resins, latex, plasticizers, glues/adhesives
• Chemical substances arising from research and development or teaching activities whichare not identified and/or are new and whose effects on man and/or the environmentare 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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
41THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
3 HAZARDOUS WASTE
42THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Chapter 4Landfill 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
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
Chapter 4Landfill 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, particu-
larly 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,
44THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 author-
ities, 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 munic-
ipal 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 equiv-
alent 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)
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
45THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 manage-
ment 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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
46THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 accept-
ance 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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
47THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 Regula-
tions 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 alter-
native 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 oppor-
tunities 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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
48THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
49THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
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.
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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
50THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 remedia-
tion 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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
51THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Figure 3: Hazardous Waste GenerationChart 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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
52THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
53THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 costlyunder the new regime. Novelis was able to separate out the 300 tonnes of residues fromshredding scrap and send them to non-hazardous landfill. The waste from treating acidgases 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 recoveryand reuse in the construction industry.
Source: ENDS Report July 2005.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
54THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 compa-
nies 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!)
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 explana-
tion 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.)
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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
55THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
56THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 stabi-
lized 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 facil-
ities 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 regula-
tions 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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
57THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
58THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 repre-
sentative 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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
59THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
Technical details of the WAC
Legislation
The detailed WAC can be found in the Landfill (England and Wales) (Amend-
ment) 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 Govern-
ment 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 assess-
ment 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.
CASE STUDY: MINOSUS
Minosus runs a vast underground storage facility in an old Cheshire salt mine which canstore up to 100,000 tonnes of hazardous waste a year. It is permitted to take 42 wastes anddoes 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 orbiodegradable). The development was delayed due to planning objections – the applica-tion was eventually called in by the Secretary of State – but began accepting waste inAugust 2005.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
60THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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/kgmg/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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
61THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 contami-
nated soils where asbestos is mixed with other waste – see Orphan wastes above.)
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
62THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
Dissolved organic carbon 800
Total dissolved solids 60,000
Granular wastes must have total organic carbon of 5% or less, and the pH must
be 6 or more. Acid neutralization capacity must be evaluated.
Cohesive waste must have a mean in situ shear strength of at least 50kPa. Non-
cohesive waste must have an in situ bearing ratio of at least 5%.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
63THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
Dissolved organic carbon 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%.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
64THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
Dissolved organic carbon 1000
Total dissolved solids 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. Non-
cohesive waste must have an in situ bearing ratio of at least 5%.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
65THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
Dissolved organic carbon 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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
66THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
67THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.)
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
68THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
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 subse-
quent 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.
INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY PRIMARYPRODUCER
Source and origin of waste
Process producing the waste
Appearance of waste
EWC code
Demonstration that it is not banned waste
Whether it can be recycled or recovered
INFORMATION SUPPLIED BYSECONDARY PRODUCER
Treatment applied
Composition and assessment against WAC
Hazardous properties
Landfill class
Likely behaviour in landfill
Key variables for compliance testing
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
69THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 addition-
ally 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
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
70THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 contin-
uous 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 respon-
sibility lies with the waste producer.
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
71THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 enforce-
ment”. At present the Agency is focusing its efforts on the hazardous landfills,
perhaps overlooking what is going into the non-hazardous ones. The recent relax-
ation 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.)
4 LANDFILL REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
72THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Chapter 5Producer responsibility
General principles ...............................................................................74
Packaging .............................................................................................74
End-of-life vehicles ..............................................................................79
Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)........................84
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
Chapter 5Producer 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 responsi-
bility scheme to be established under the Environment Act 1995, implementing
Directive 94/62/EC. It has succeeded in increasing the amount of packaging recov-
ered, 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
74THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 supple-
mented 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 2004-
2008.
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 straight-
forward 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
75THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
The UK Regulations apply to ‘producers’ which are subdivided into:
• manufacturers of the raw materials used in packaging, eg steel manufac-
turers, producers of plastic granules
• convertors, who turn the raw material into packaging eg by manufac-
turing 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
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total recovery (%) 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
Wood 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
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
76THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 opera-
tion, 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
77THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 accred-
ited, 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
78THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 statu-
tory 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
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
79THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 commer-
cial 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
80THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
81THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
82THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 suffi-
cient 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 essen-
tial 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/sustain-
ability/ELV_Guidance_Notes2.pdf.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
83THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 preven-
tion 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 Govern-
ment 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
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
84THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
85THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 compli-
ance 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
86THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 manufac-
turers 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 expec-
tation 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 organ-
ized 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 regis-
tration is favoured by companies producing high-value goods with a short life,
which contain valuable or reusable components. It will often be in the manufac-
turers’ 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
87THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 exemp-
tion, 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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
88THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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.
5 PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
89THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Chapter 6Local 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
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T S
Chapter 6Local 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.
91THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 trans-
formation 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 origi-
nally 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.
Figure 6: Management of municipal waste 2003/4
Landfill 72%Recycling/composting 19%
Energyrecovery 9%
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
92THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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% recovery25% recycling or composting (23% achieved as at April 2005)
2010 45% recovery30% recycling or composting
2015 67% recovery33% 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/recycling-
composting/index.htm.
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
93THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
94THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 provi-
sions . 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
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
95THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
up to 5% of the next year’s allowance (except in target years and the years immedi-
ately preceding target years). Local authorities can bank unused allowances for
use in the following year (again, unless it is a target year or the year preceding
one).
The trading of allowances is intended to allocate resources more efficiently.
Authorities which have invested in recovery facilities can sell their surplus landfill
allowances to authorities which are heavily dependent on landfill. This allows
the landfill-dependent authorities extra time in which to develop the new recovery
and recycling capacity.
Co-operation between authorities
In order to achieve these targets, the two tiers of local government (WDAs and
WCAs) will have to work together. The 2003 Act requires them to draw 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 manage-
ment 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 house-
holders 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 facil-
ities 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
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
96THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
• 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 (incin-
erators), 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
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
97THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 strate-
gies 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 penal-
ties. 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 direc-
tive were to shift waste management operations to countries where both the
environment and the safety of workers are often disregarded.
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
98THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Changes to planning principles
One of the obstacles to achieving the landfill diversion targets has been the diffi-
culty 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 facil-
ities 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 devel-
opment 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 sustain-
able 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 objec-
tives of moving waste up the hierarchy, and protecting the environment
and human health.
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
99THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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 devel-
opment of the new waste treatment and recovery facilities so urgently needed,
or whether the slow pace of the planning process will continue to delay devel-
opment to such an extent that our EU targets are not met.
6 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MUNICIPAL WASTE
100THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
Glossary of abbreviations
T H O R O G O O D
P R O F E S S I O N A L
I N S I G H T 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
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
102THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
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
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
103THOROGOOD PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS
The commercial exploitation of intellectualproperty rights by licensing
CHARLES DESFORGES £125.00
1 85418 285 4 • 2001
Expert advice and techniques for the identificationand successful exploitation of key opportunities.
This report will show you:
• how to identify and secure profitable opportunities
• strategies and techniques for negotiating the bestagreement
• the techniques of successfully managing a licenseoperation.
Damages and other remedies for breachof commercial contracts
ROBERT RIBEIRO £125.00
1 85418 226 X • 2002
This valuable new report sets out a systematic approachfor assessing the remedies available for various types ofbreach of contract, what the remedies mean in terms ofcompensation and how the compensation is calculated.
Commercial contracts – draftingtechniques and precedents
ROBERT RIBEIRO £125.00
1 85418 210 2 • 2002
The Report will:
• Improve your commercial awareness and planningskills
• Enhance your legal foresight and vision
• Help you appreciate the relevance of rules andguidelines set out by the courts
• Ensure you achieve your or your client’s commercialobjectives
The Competition Act 1998: practicaladvice and guidance
SUSAN SINGLETON £149.00
1 85418 205 6 • 2001
Failure to operate within UK and EU competition rulescan lead to heavy fines of up to 10 per cent of a business’stotal UK turnover.
Insights into successfully managing thein-house legal function
BARRY O’MEARA £65.00
1 85418 174 2 • 2000
Negotiating the fault line between private practice andin-house employment can be tricky, as the scope forconflicts of interest is greatly increased. Insights intosuccessfully managing the In-house legal function discussesand suggests ways of dealing with these and other issues.
t +44 (0)20 7749 4748 e [email protected] w www.thorogood.ws
BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
Other specially commissioned reports
For full details of any title, and to view sampleextracts 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
See ful l detai ls of a l l Thorogood t i t les on www.thorogood.ws
The legal protection of databases
SIMON CHALTON £145.00
1 85418 245 5 • 2001
Inventions can be patented, knowledge can beprotected, but what of information itself?
This valuable report examines the current EU [and soEEA] law on the legal protection of databases, includingthe sui generis right established when the EuropeanUnion adopted its Directive 96/9/EC in 1996.
Litigation costs
MICHAEL BACON £95.00
1 85418 241 2 • 2001
The rules and regulations are complex – but can beturned to advantage.
The astute practitioner will understand the importanceand relevance of costs to the litigation process and willwish to learn how to turn the large number of rules tomaximum advantage.
International commercial agreements
REBECCA ATTREE £175
1 85418 286 2 • 2002
A major new report on recent changes to the law andtheir commercial implications and possibilities.
The report explains the principles and techniques ofsuccessful international negotiation and provides avaluable insight into the commercial points to be consid-ered as a result of the laws relating to: pre-contract,private international law, resolving disputes (includingalternative methods, such as mediation), competition law,drafting common clauses and contracting electronically.
It also examines in more detail certain specific interna-tional commercial agreements, namely agency anddistribution and licensing.
Email – legal issues
SUSAN SINGLETON £95.00
1 85418 215 3 • 2001
What are the chances of either you or your employeesbreaking the law?
The report explains clearly:
• How to establish a sensible policy and whether ornot you are entitled to insist on it as binding
• The degree to which you may lawfully monitor youremployees’ e-mail and Internet use
• The implications of the Regulation of InvestigatoryPowers Act 2000 and the Electronic CommunicationsAct 2000
• How the Data Protection Act 1998 affects the degreeto which you can monitor your staff
• What you need to watch for in the Human Rights Act1998
• TUC guidelines
• Example of an e-mail and Internet policy document.
For full details of any title, and to view sampleextracts 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] w www.thorogood.ws
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 obstaclecourse or, even worse, an opponent – but it can contributepositively to keeping employees fit and productive.
This specially commissioned report will show you howto get the best out of your employees, from recruitmentto retirement, while protecting yourself and your firmto the full.
Data protection law for employers
SUSAN SINGLETON £125
1 85418 283 8 • May 2003
The new four-part Code of Practice under the Data Protec-tion Act 1998 on employment and data protection makesplaces a further burden of responsibility on employersand their advisers. The Data protection Act also appliesto manual data, not just computer data, and a new toughenforcement policy was announced in October 2002.
Successful graduate recruitment
JEAN BRADING £69.00
1 85418 270 6 • 2001
Practical advice on how to attract and keep the best.
Successfully defending employmenttribunal cases
DENNIS HUNT £95
1 85418 267 6 • 2003
Fully up to date with all the Employment Act 2002changes.
165,000 claims were made last year and the numbersare rising. What will you do when one comes yourway?
How to turn your HR strategy into reality
TONY GRUNDY £129.00
1 85418 183 1 • 1999
A practical guide to developing and implementing aneffective HR strategy.
Internal communications
JAMES FARRANT £125
1 85418 149 1 • July 2003
How to improve your organisation’s internal commu-nications – and performance as a result.
There is growing evidence that the organisations that ‘getit right’ reap dividends in corporate energy and enhancedperformance.
Mergers and acquisitions – confrontingthe organisation and people issues
MARK THOMAS £95.00
1 85418 008 8 • 1997
Why do so many mergers and acquisitions end intears and reduced shareholder value?
This report will help you to understand the key practicaland legal issues, achieve consensus and involvement atall levels, understand and implement TUPE regulationsand identify the documentation that needs to be draftedor reviewed.
New ways of working
STEPHEN JUPP £99.00
1 85418 169 6 • 2000
New ways of working examines the nature of the workdone in an organisation and seeks to optimise the workingpractices and the whole context in which the work takesplace.
Knowledge management
SUE BRELADE, CHRISTOPHER HARMAN £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 ofrecognised techniques and approaches for effectivelymanaging 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 £125
1 85418 296 X • 2003
The Employment Act 2002 has raised the stakes. Imper-fect understanding of the law and poor drafting will nowbe very costly.
This new report will:
• Ensure that you have a total grip on what should bein a contract and what should not
• Explain step by step how to achieve changes in thecontract of employment without causing problems
• Enable you to protect clients’ sensitive businessinformation
• Enhance your understanding of potential conflictareas and your ability to manage disputes effectively.
Applying the Employment Act 2002 –crucial developments for employers and employees
AUDREY WILLIAMS £125
1 85418 253 6 • May 2003
The Act represents a major shift in the commercialenvironment, with far-reaching changes for employersand employees. The majority of the new rights under thefamily friendly section take effect from April 2003 withmost of the other provisions later in the year.
The consequences of getting it wrong, for both employerand employee, will be considerable – financial andotherwise. The Act affects nearly every aspect of the workplace, including:
• flexible working
• family rights (adoption, paternity and improvedmaternity leave)
• changes to internal disciplinary and grievanceprocedures
• significant changes to unfair dismissal legislation
• new rights for those employed on fixed-term contracts
• the introduction of new rights for learningrepresentatives from an employer’s trade union
This specially commissioned new report examines eachof the key developments where the Act changes existingprovisions or introduces new rights. Each chapter dealswith a discreet area.
Email – legal issues
SUSAN SINGLETON £95.00
1 85418 215 3 • 2001
360,000 email messages are sent in the UK everysecond (The Guardian). What are the chances of eitheryou or your employees breaking the law?
The report explains clearly:
• How to establish a sensible policy and whether ornot you are entitled to insist on it as binding
• The degree to which you may lawfully monitor youremployees’ e-mail and Internet use
• The implications of the Regulation of InvestigatoryPowers Act 2000 and the Electronic CommunicationsAct 2000
• How the Data Protection Act 1998 affects the degreeto which you can monitor your staff
• What you need to watch for in the Human Rights Act1998
• TUC guidelines
• Example of an e-mail and Internet policy document.
For full details of any title, and to view sampleextracts 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
See ful l detai ls of a l l Thorogood t i t les on www.thorogood.ws
t +44 (0)20 7749 4748 e [email protected] w www.thorogood.ws
Implementing an integrated marketingcommunications strategy
NORMAN HART £99.00
1 85418 120 3 • 1999
Just what is meant by marketing communications, or‘marcom’? How does it fit in with other corporatefunctions, and in particular how does it relate to businessand marketing objectives?
Strategic customer planning
ALAN MELKMAN AND PROFESSOR KEN SIMMONDS £95.00
1 85418 255 2 • 2001
This is very much a ‘how to’ Report. After reading thoseparts that are relevant to your business, you will be ableto compile a plan that will work within your particularorganisation for you, a powerful customer plan that youcan implement immediately. Charts, checklists and diag-rams throughout.
Selling skills for professionals
KIM TASSO £65.00
1 85418 179 3 • 2000
Many professionals still feel awkward about reallyselling their professional services. They are not usuallytrained in selling. This is a much-needed report whichaddresses the unique concerns of professionals who wishto sell their services successfully and to feel comfortabledoing so.
‘Comprehensive, well written and very readable…this is a super book, go and buy it as it is well worththe money’ Professional Marketing International
Corporate community investment
CHRIS GENASI £75.00
1 85418 192 0 • 1999
Supporting good causes is big business – and goodbusiness. Corporate community investment (CCI) is thegeneral term for companies’ support of good causes, andis a very fast growing area of PR and marketing.
Tendering and negotiating for MoD contracts
TIM BOYCE £125.00
1 85418 276 5 • 2002
This specially commissioned report aims to draw out themain principles, processes and procedures involved intendering and negotiating MoD contracts.
Defending your reputation
SIMON TAYLOR £95.00
1 85418 251 • 2001
‘Buildings can be rebuilt, IT systems replaced. Peoplecan be recruited, but a reputation lost can never beregained…’
‘The media will publish a story – you may as wellensure it is your story’ Simon Taylor
‘News is whatever someone, somewhere, does notwant published’ William Randoplh Hearst
When a major crisis does suddenly break, how ready willyou be to defend your reputation?
Insights into understanding the financialmedia – an insider’s view
SIMON SCOTT £99.00
1 85418 083 5 • 1998
This practical briefing will help you understand the waythe financial print and broadcast media works in the UK.
European lobbying guide
BRYAN CASSIDY £129.00
1 85418 144 0 • 2000
Understand how the EU works and how to get yourmessage across effectively to the right people.
SALES, MARKETING AND PR
FINANCE
Lobbying and the media: working withpoliticians and journalists
MICHAEL BURRELL £95.00
1 85418 240 4 • 2001
Lobbying is an art form rather than a science, so thereis inevitably an element of judgement in what line to take.This expert report explains the knowledge and techniquesrequired.
Strategic planning in public relations
KIERAN KNIGHTS £69.00
1 85418 225 0 • 2001
Tips and techniques to aid you in a new approachto campaign planning.
Strategic planning is a fresh approach to PR. An approachthat is fact-based and scientific, clearly presenting thearguments for a campaign proposal backed with evidence.
Managing corporate reputation – the new currency
SUSAN CROFT and JOHN DALTON £125
1 85418 272 2 • June 2003
ENRON, WORLDCOM… who next?
At a time when trust in corporations has plumbed newdepths, knowing how to manage corporate reputationprofessionally and effectively has never been more crucial.
Surviving a corporate crisis – 100 things you need to know
PAUL BATCHELOR £125
1 85418 208 0 • April 2003
Seven out of ten organisations that experience acorporate crisis go out of business within 18 months.
This very timely report not only covers remedial actionafter the event but offers expert advice on preparing everydepartment and every key player of the organisation sothat, should a crisis occur, damage of every kind is limitedas far as possible.
Tax aspects of buying and sellingcompanies
MARTYN INGLES £99.00
1 85418 189 0 • 2001
This report takes you through the buying and sellingprocess from the tax angle. It uses straightforward casestudies to highlight the issues and more importantstrategies that are likely to have a significant impact onthe taxation position.
Tax planning opportunities for familybusinesses in the new regime
CHRISTOPHER JONES £49.00
1 85418 154 8 • 2000
Following recent legislative and case law changes, thewhole area of tax planning for family businesses requiresvery careful and thorough attention in order to avoid themany pitfalls.
Practical techniques for effective projectinvestment appraisal
RALPH TIFFIN £99.00
1 85418 099 1 • 1999
How to ensure you have a reliable system in place.
Spending money on projects automatically necessitatesan effective appraisal system – a way of deciding whetherthe correct decisions on investment have been made.
See ful l detai ls of a l l Thorogood t i t les on www.thorogood.ws
Strategy implementation through projectmanagement
TONY GRUNDY £95.00
1 85418 250 1 • 2001
The gap
Far too few managers know how to apply projectmanagement techniques to their strategic planning. Theresult is often strategy that is poorly thought out andexecuted.
The answer
Strategic project management is a new and powerfulprocess designed to manage complex projects bycombining traditional business analysis with projectmanagement techniques.
MANAGEMENT AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
For full details of any title, and to view sampleextracts 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] w www.thorogood.ws