Supplementary memorandum from the CBI
At the request of the House of Commons Environment
Audit Committee, this memorandum supplements the CBI's original
submission to the inquiry Winning the War on Waste by providing
an overview of the potential consequences that could arise from
power station ash being classified as a waste. The information
contained within this report has been compiled with the assistance
of members of the CBI, including the Electricity Industry.
1. PULVERISED
FUEL ASH
Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) is produced from the
combustion of powdered coal at high temperatures in order to general
electricity. PFA has physical and chemical properties which make
it suitable and desirable for a wide range of applications without
requiring further processing prior to use.
2. INDUSTRIAL
USE OF
PFA
The electricity generating industry has sold
PFA for around 50 years in cement products, concrete, building
blocks and as a fill material to make road foundations and flyovers.
The graph below provides a more detailed breakdown of industrial
use for 2001. Since 1994, the industry has worked under a Department
for the Environment Guidance Note (11/94), which permits PFA destined
for use to be sold as a by-product free of waste regulation. At
present more than 50% of PFA is sold for use. The remainder is
landfilled, but a significant proportion of this is used to restore
worked out gravel pits, a purpose for which it is ideally suited.
3. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Environment Agency (EA) has not reported
any environmental problems with the use of PFA to industry, but
at a meeting around 18 months ago, the EA suggested that PFA should
be classed as waste, based on their interpretation of case law.
The industry has had several meetings with the EA since and has
produced a report indicating the commercial damage that would
be caused by classification of PFA as waste. Key findings of this
report are contained within the additional memorandum.
4. IMPLICATIONS
OF CLASSIFYING
PFA AS WASTE
While it is impossible to quantify precisely
the effects of designating PFA as waste, it is anticipated that
the civil engineering fill and grout market would be the worst
affected initially. The effects on other sectors would depend
on the market situation at the time and the ability to absorb
the additional costs associated with the handling of waste. Generally
the value of the product is likely to decline as consumers pay
less for what they deem an inferior product, due to its new classification.
The effects of complete loss of the current market for PFA have
been estimated and the results summarised in Table 1 below. Overall
in the UK, it is possible that the future loss of market could
be in the order of 3.5 million tonnes per annum.
Table 1—Summary of Additional Impacts
for Replacement of 3.5 million tonnes p.a.
| Issue | Effects of Replacement of Ash
|
| Quarrying & Dredging of Primary Aggregates
| Increase in quarrying (allowing for the higher density of replacements for PFA and the additional material required for cement production) the total additional quarrying could be around 5 million tonnes per annum.
|
| Landfill | An increase in landfill usage equivalent to 3.5 million tonnes of PFA per annum. Reducing available landfill capacity by around 2.2 million cubic metres per year.
|
Carbon Dioxide
Emissions | This is the most difficult to quantify however it is possible to point to substantial increases in emissions due to:
— Greater emissions from the manufacture or processing of raw materials where PFA could have been used directly. These emissions result from grinding materials or production processes such as cement kilns. Approximately 12.5% of PFA is used as a cement replacement, the loss of this market alone will cause an increase of 70,000 tonnes per annum of CO2. There will also be greater emissions from block manufacture because the raw materials will require grinding and more cement will be used due to the loss of the cementitious effects of PFA.
— Additional: road transportation to disposal sites. A recent assessment of the impacts of transporting PFA to a site within 10 miles of the power station indicated a minimum of 1. 64 Tonnes of CO2 is emitted per 1000 tonnes PFA transported.
|
| Cost | This is very difficult to estimate but as a first estimate the total cost will be of the order of £50 million per annum.
— £5 million additional landfill tax assuming around one third of disposal is exempt from tax.
— Establishment of additional landfill capacity p.a., increased transport to more distant sites could add £5 million to costs.
— £16 million in replacement cement in both cement manufacture and concrete.
— Use of more expensive materials to replace PFA in a variety of applications could be a further £5 to £10 million.
— Importation and distribution of 700,000 tonnes of pumice say £10 million.
|
| Other Impacts | — Importation of pumice adds to balance of payments deficit.
— Increased traffic emissions and road vehicle noise and nuisance.
|
| |
Further implications are outlined overleaf.
5.1 Product Stigmatisation
The most significant effect of categorising PFA as waste
is the stigma associated with an accepted construction product
being designated as waste. This implies a connotation of being
"discarded" and second rate. The public perception may
well be that the designation implies that the material is unfit,
substandard and potentially dangerous. It has proved very difficult
to inform public opinion and would be extremely challenging to
convey the technical issues involved. The public would rely on
the simple designation implied by the word waste.
The designation as waste makes it necessary to obtain exemptions
for every engineering fill project. Not only does this have a
cost and cause delay but also it accentuates the stigma issue
highlighted above. If there is to be a blanket exemption, then
the designation as waste achieves no additional control but causes
a reduction in use due to the stigma.
5.2 Administrative Implications
If PFA destined for use is designated as waste then the industry's
customers will be required to comply with the full range of waste
management regulations. All PFA processing plants will have to
apply for waste management licences even though existing legislation
generally requires them to have permits as minerals processing
plants, or for other reasons. This would increase costs and double
regulate the same plants. These processes are frequently low margin
operations. The increased costs of licences and additional staff
with WAMITAB qualifications etc are sufficient to add £0.50
to £1 per tonne processed or more. This additional cost will
make such ventures less attractive and may render some uneconomic.
5.3 Storage Implications
If PFA is designated as waste then storage sites may require
licensing under the Landfill/Pollution Prevention Control Regulations
if the period of storage prior to recovery or treatment is greater
than three years, "as a general rule". It is not clear
at this stage how this would be applied to PFA storage. Since
the storage of PFA as a material for sale is currently regulated
under IPC authorisations there would be no benefit in improved
control resulting from a change in designation.
6. INCONSISTENCY WITH
EU CATEGORISATION OF
PFA
The industry has taken legal advice that confirms that there
is no requirement for the EA to classify PFA as waste provided
it is to be used beneficially and the use of the product is certain.
This has been reinforced by the Palin Granit (April 2002) judgement
from the European Court. This is the latest interpretation of
the by-product argument. The judgement indicates that a by-product
is not waste if its beneficial use is certain without further
treatment of the material. This applies to PFA that has many
beneficial uses. Its use is certain if it has been purchased under
a sales contract.
PFA used as a by-product is not treated as a waste in EU
countries with coal-fired generation eg Holland, Germany, Spain,
and Portugal. The European Commission has not objected to the
PFA sales arrangements in these countries. The UK industry cannot
understand why PFA sales are not encouraged by the EA in accordance
with several Government policies. The current arrangements cause
no environmental problems, reuses materials, prevents the use
of mined aggregates and reduces the need for scarce landfill resource.
7. THE WAY
FORWARD
The potential classification of PFA as waste is just one
example of the difficulties business faces over this issue. Other
examples extend to a wider range of sectors including manufacturing
(eg steel), chemical, automotive, telecommunications and indeed
other examples which the CBI referred to both in our written and
oral evidence. The legal uncertainties, the inappropriate interpretations
and applications of the definition of waste currently inhibit
business ability to further waste reduction, increased re-use,
recycling etc need addressing.
It is becoming increasingly important for government to take
a more holistic approach to waste management. The CBI continues
to ask government to provide business with clarity on the definition
of what is and what is not a waste. When considering the classification
of materials as "waste", a full evaluation of the costs/benefits
should be completed. Government must establish a proper dialogue
with business to resolve this matter.
February 2003
| 
