Memorandum submitted by the Local Government
Association
INTRODUCTION
Membership of the LGA represents all the waste
collection authorities (WCAs) and the waste disposal authorities
(WDAs) in England and Wales. As such, it has a direct interest
in the terms of this Inquiry into hazardous waste, and it welcomes
the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
GENERAL COMMENTS
It is noted that the Inquiry is intended to
"address concerns that recent debate about waste management
has focused on municipal and household waste, and that policy-making
should take proper account of the question of hazardous waste
disposal". Taking up this point, it is understandable that
debate about waste management has tended to have this focus, principally
for the following reasons. Firstly, this type of waste is produced
by every individual and every council taxpayer, and also represents
a common responsibility of all communities. Focusing on domestic
refuse ("rubbish" to ordinary people) and the need to
recover and re-use it as a valuable resource is a crucial element
in achieving the sea-change needed if the targets set under the
government's Waste Strategy 2000, and by the need to meet European
standards, are to be met. As the House of Commons Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee has pointed out in its fifth
report of session 2000-01, "Delivering Sustainable Waste
Management", stronger leadership is needed from the government
on waste so that the position whereby "At present the public
are ill-informed and misled about what happens to their waste"
(Recommendation XX, para 213) is addressed.
Equally, municipal waste comprises the majority
of land-filled biodegradable waste which falls under the Landfill
Directive. Since meeting the targets for reducing this type of
waste is likely to prove challenging, it is understandable that
considerable attention has been given to this particular waste
stream.
However, focusing on municipal and household
waste should not be done at the expense of ignoring the importance
of dealing suitably with hazardous waste (or, for that matter,
ignoring the need to address the challenges of industrial and
commercial wastes). What is required is a holistic approach, in
keeping with the underpinning philosophy in the government's White
Paper "A Better Quality of Life" (1998) and the government's
Waste Strategy 2000.
In all this, preparedness is the key, with the
government playing a lead role, alerting all interests to impending
changes, supporting capacity to meet new demands, and ensuring
that the necessary regulations are in place in sufficient time
to allow all concerned to adapt to changed circumstances.
DETAILED COMMENTS
It is recognised that the Landfill Directive
(which EU member states were required to implement from 16 July
2001) sets challenging operational and technical requirements
for disposal of waste by landfill. By 16 July 2002, landfill sites
operators will need to submit site conditioning plans and outline
whether they intend to operate as inert hazardous or non-hazardous
landfills. This may involve the need to reapply for planning permission
if the category of site is changed. If a landfill site is categorised
as a hazardous waste site this year by its operator, it will no
longer be able to accept waste liquids, corrosive, oxidising or
flammable/highly flammable waste, infectious clinical waste, chemical
waste from research activities and (from July 2003) whole tyres.
This could have a significant effect on local authorities, particularly
some of the metropolitan authorities and county councils.
There appears to be growing concern that the
implementation of the Landfill Directive will result in fewer
licensed hazardous waste sites. It is understood from contacts
with the Environment Agency that many sites which presently take
hazardous waste are not reapplying for "hazardous" status.
If it is the case that waste disposal companies only designate
a small number of strategic sites to accept hazardous waste, this
will inevitably mean increased transport costs, and likely double-handling,
due to associated pre-treatment costs, passing on an additional
burden to businesses. It also brings with it the likelihood of
an increase in dumping of hazardous waste materials. It is likely
that, due to market pressures, operators will not apply for a
licence unless they perceive an available and steady market for
hazardous waste. However, if waste policy moves in the direction
which is intended, in the not too distant future, the need for
landfill should reduce considerably, and this could result in
a further reduction in the number of sites. This clearly calls
for a strategic, co-ordinated approach on the part of government,
involving all parties concerned, in order to plan for these eventualities.
Under the Landfill Directive, waste will need
to be pre-treated before it is landfilled. This will require the
construction of an adequate network of facilities to deal with
hazardous waste, requiring planning permission and either a Pollution
Prevention and Control (PPC) authorisation or a waste management
licence from the Environment Agency. There is concern that obtaining
the necessary approval from the Environment Agency may be subject
to some delay, due to shortage of sufficiently skilled staff to
carry out the necessary permitting work at present.
All in all, the requirements of the Landfill
Directive will place significant pressures on alternative capacity
to manage the affected waste streams, and the need for transfer
stations, shredding facilities and material reclamation facilities
will increase.
It is recognised that there has been a delay
on the part of government in producing regulations, and that the
Environment Agency has had to produce guidance to industry based
on EU Regulations, rather than those issued by DEFRA. Such a position
is obviously not satisfactory and the Agency has done well in
the circumstances to produce the guidance it has.
One particular issue which is raised by the
Landfill Directive (which bans co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes) is whether two or more cells in the same general landfill
may be used for hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal, or
whether the sites must actually be separated geographically. From
a local authority perspective, where the disposal of hazardous
waste is concerned, a pragmatic and risk-based approach to this
issue would be beneficial which takes account of the additional
distances which might be required for transport for disposal where
the need to open or operate separate sites for different types
of wastes might be concerned.
It is considered that a risk-based policy should
be adopted towards materials on the EC hazardous waste list. Under
the current regulations, household waste is not classified as
special or hazardous waste, and the rigid implementation of a
measure that brought many items of household waste under the Special
Waste Regulations would entail considerably increased expenditure
for local authorities, with little or even negligible benefit
in terms of reducing pollution or environmental risks. It would
also rely for its effectiveness on the willingness of householders
to separate at source. Some of the items which WCAs currently
collect, and which will become hazardous waste under the amendments
to the EC hazardous waste list are treated timber, fluorescent
tubes which contain mercury, edible oils, and fly ash.
In terms of overall preparedness by the government
for the implementation of European Directives in question, what
is needed is for the timely preparation and introduction of UK
regulations so that they come into force when needed. Time-lags
cause uncertainty, confusion and militate against effective forward
planning.
The LGA submitted written evidence to the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Sub-Committee Inquiry
into fridges at the start of March this year, which identified
in some detail its concerns at a number of aspects of the situation
in the UK arising from lack of preparedness for implementation
of the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation. There are clearly
lessons to be learned from that situation which should serve as
a reminder of what can go wrong when insufficient forward planning
takes place.
It has to be a matter of concern that the End
of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive has come into force this year
with no accompanying UK regulations. This leaves local authorities,
Environment Agency enforcement officers and much of the affected
part of industry not fully geared up to meet its new requirements.
Without proper regulation and guidance at the right time, the
business planning process is adversely affected, and inevitably
delays and problems start to occur. The LGA has urged government
to take a firm lead in providing incentives to the motor salvage
industry to invest in the necessary treatment/handling plants
and related equipment to cope with the treatment of End of Life
Vehicles. It has also argued, in line with the principle of producer
responsibility, for the implementation date for producers to meet
the cost of dealing with ELVs to be brought forward by a period
of two years to 2005.
In regard to the waste from electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) Directive, the LGA would again be concerned if
the government did not introduce regulations in time to meet the
proposed European Directive's requirements. It is imperative that
the "polluter pays" principle is carried through fully,
and that local authorities (and therefore local council taxpayers)
do not end up directly funding collection costs. The increased
costs of dealing with materials which were previously considered
non-hazardous should fall fairly and squarely upon producers,
and be reflected in the price of their products.
DTI and DEFRA need to work closely with industry
to ensure that there is the requisite reprocessing capacity in
place when the Directive comes into force. The LGA is aware of
steps being taken by government to promote stakeholder involvement
and discussions, to plan for the WEEE Directive and, for its own
part, is anxious to engage in dialogue with the relevant government
departments.
Finally, on the question of the "root and
branch" review by DEFRA of the Special Waste Regulations,
the LGA is aware of the considerable interest among local authorities
in the progress being made in this review, and in the eventual
outcomes. The Association would be interested to hear what the
latest position is with regard to the progress being made.
Local Government Association
16 May 2002
| 
