APPENDIX 19
Memorandum from the National Household
Hazardous Waste Forum
Established in 1993, the National Household
Hazardous Waste Forum is a sector-led initiative to seek practical
solutions to the many problems associated with the management
of household hazardous waste (HHW) and its packaging, including
the collection, recycling and safe disposal of HHW. Though focusing
on domestic waste, the Forum also considers municipal hazardous
waste including that arising from small quantity generators in
the commercial sector.
The Forum has developed a definition of HHW:
"any material discarded by a household which is difficult
to dispose of or which puts human health or the environment at
risk because of its chemical or biological nature".
The NHHWF is unique in its multi-sector membership.
There are some 200 members, including raw material suppliers,
manufacturing and packaging companies, trade associations, retailers,
local authorities, waste management and equipment companies, water
utilities, waste regulators, institutions and voluntary organisations.
Between them, these organisations represent all the stakeholders
in the municipal hazardous waste supply chain—from manufacture
of products to final disposal of waste.
The Forum provides the following services to
its members:
— informs members about developments
in the field of HHW
— undertakes specific research into
HHW issues and develops new ways of managing HHW
— engages in constructive dialogue
with government departments, industry associations and non -governmental
bodies.
The Community Re>paint scheme was set up
in response to research carried out by the Forum.
The Forum runs the UK Oil Care Campaign, in
partnership with the Environment Agency.
RESPONSE TO
"WINNING THE
WAR ON
WASTE?" FROM
THE NATIONAL
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE FORUM
(NHHWF)
This response focuses on the hazardous component
of the domestic (household) waste stream. Although this is small
in percentage terms; generally estimated at 1% of the total stream
it is highly significant in its impact on the recyclability of
domestic waste.
The Forum welcomes any policies which reduce
the arisings of household hazardous wastes either through substitution,
minimisation or recycling. This submission centres on legislation
and its impact on recycling in England and Wales.
There are a number of pieces of recent and pending
legislation which will have a profound impact on our members'
activities. In general the legislation has been characterised
by belated consultation and poorly defined standards which have
taken little account of the additional cost burdens imposed.
WASTE STRATEGY
2000 AND THE
LANDFILL DIRECTIVE
Waste Strategy 2000 sets ambitious targets for
recycling of domestic/municipal waste in England. The Scottish
Executive's equivalent has far more detailed targets, however
and includes specific strategies relating to hazardous waste.
Such an approach would be useful in England. Nonetheless, if the
targets in Waste Strategy 2000 are to be met, the hazardous component
will have to be removed from the general domestic waste stream;
indeed, there will have to be source separation even into none
hazardous fractions. This is supported by the NHHWF as long as
such changes are practical, for instance in terms of the number
of waste bins per household, and funded so that householders are
not financially disadvantaged by recycling.
Clarification is needed over which types of
household hazardous waste (if any) will need to be source-separated
for collection or for delivery to a CA site.
There is a need for greater equity in the implementing
of EU legislation in different member states. We consider that
current and planned hazardous waste legislation in the UK is far
more stringent and prescriptive than in many member states.
The Landfill Directive came into force in July
of this year, yet confusion still abounds for the landfill operators
as to what timetable will be followed and what acceptance criteria
will be applied. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty
for our members regarding future costs and availability of landfill
for hazardous wastes arising from their operations.
The cost of adding EWC codes to all waste transfer
notes under the Landfill Directive will represent a major new
burden to certain of our members as this will necessitate major
changes to their IT systems in some cases.
The government shows a lack of preparedness
in recognising and responding to the requirements of impending
EU legislation. Those likely to be affected (eg industry, retailers,
local authorities) need clarity and decisiveness when new legislation
is posed, not the delays and obfuscation that seem to be the norm.
The government tends to be led by Europe rather than recognising
the advantages in responding early to change.
Early, definitive rulings are required (eg the
ODS guidance is still only in draft form; Landfill Directive guidance
is not issued; there no is agreed funding mechanism for ELV Directive;
Waste Strategy 2000 has no definitive targets).
There needs to be recognition of the costs that
will accrue from these regulations, particularly to local authorities—although
they are well placed to respond. We support the concept of Producer
Responsibility and recognise that the funds needed to pay for
increased costs need not originate from the government, in the
long term.
BARRIERS TO
SUSTAINABLE WASTE
MANAGEMENT
It is unfortunate that legislation, if poorly
framed or managed, acts a barrier to the achievement of recycling
targets/sustainable waste management. A number of examples are
given below:
OIL RECYCLING
The Incineration of Hazardous Waste Directive,
the Landfill Directive, Waste Oils Directive and the revised Special
Waste Regulations will change the way in which recovered fuel
oil (RFO) is classified. Currently, there is a very good market
for RFO in the UK and the infrastructure to collect and treat
waste oil. The oil is processed to remove water and solids and
then sold as fuel to the power generation and roadstone industries.
Under the new regulations RFO will be classified
as (special) waste. As a consequence it is unlikely that the current
outlets will continue to accept it due to the additional investments
which would be required in licencing and, potentially in emissions
control/monitoring. The only disposal options would therefore
be for RFO to be burned in cement kilns or in high temperature
incinerators for which a charge will be made instead of the current
credit.
As there is insufficient (cement kiln) capacity
to deal with the quantity of RFO available, and rising costs (if
classified as special waste), the waste oil industry will suffer.
This will have knock-on effects for the local authorities that
operate oil recycling banks as there will be no market (and rising
costs) for the oil that they collect. As one third of all water
pollution incidents are oil related, the effect may be to see
these increase if there is no disposal outlet for waste oil.
Another outlet for waste oil is burning in small
space heaters. Whilst we agree with the requirement to control
pollution from this source, it is important that this practical
and accessible recovery option for waste oil is not prevented
through excessive administrative and financial burdens.
END-OF
LIFE VEHICLES
The End of Life Vehicles Directive will soon
be in force and end of life vehicles will also soon be classified
as "Hazardous". The mechanisms for funding, however,
have still not been agreed. Once more our members are finding
it difficult to adequately budget or otherwise provide for what
could be a profound change in the management of end of life vehicles.
Those in the vehicle dismantling industry that invested in "depollution"
centres have found themselves to be uneconomic in the absence
of strong and decisive regulation.
WEEE
The WEEE Directive, like many Directives from
the EU, enshrines the goals of Producer Responsibility and material
conservation, and as such is supported by the NHHWF. We note that
whether kerbside or bring schemes are adopted, the "first
line of defence" is most likely to be the local authorities.
For this approach to be successful, the funding mechanisms must
be clear and additional funds made available to local authorities
to enable them to meet additional costs of collection, handling
and disposal where WEEE has to be separated from the household
waste stream. Once collected, facilities for processing WEEE are
required and this will require investment from the waste management
industry. Such investment funds are unlikely to be committed until
there is clarity regarding the UK's interpretation of the Directive.
The government needs to ensure that legislation
supports re-use schemes, which benefit local communities and that,
as opposed to the ODS Regulations, established take-back and recycling
schemes are not compromised by the new Directive.
Clarification is needed as to whether collections
or source separation from households will be required.
REVISED SPECIAL
WASTE REGULATIONS
The Revised Special Waste Regulations are welcomed
by the NHHWF subject to proper consultation. Unfortunately, this
has not yet been the case. Following issue of the first draft
of the revised SWR, the second round consultation has been delayed,
so far by some 12 months. As the deadline for implementation to
avoid infraction proceedings from the European Commission approaches,
it is likely that the timescales for consultation will be compressed
and no proper debate will take place. We understand that some
of the overly bureaucratic elements of the first draft revisions
are to be removed but are not sure at this stage which will be
left in place.
We agree with many of the proposals of the Revised
Special Waste Regulations , as they stand, but some will have
serious implications for the management of household hazardous
waste and the community sector. For example, one proposal is a
narrowing of the definition of household waste to domestic waste
only, in the context of exempting such waste from the legislation.
The NHHWF supports the consistent application of legislation across
all sectors, however it is imperative that account is taken of
the additional cost burden which will fall on SMEs, charities
and similar organisations. The rationale is that these types of
organisation do not generate hazardous waste. This is not the
case and without tax reliefs or other measures some organisations
may fold.
The revised SWR could have a deleterious impact
on good, well-run recycling schemes. One example is Community
Re>paint. This award winning national scheme diverts household
and commercial paint to local community enterprises, which donate
it to local charities and good causes. The scheme thus minimises
the production of potentially hazardous waste and supports communities.
Although the donated paint is not defined as waste, paint rejected
by the Community Re>paint enterprise could be and this would
be defined as special waste. Rigid and expensive legislation applying
to this small fraction would threaten the whole Community Re>paint
scheme. It is imperative that this does not happen, both for the
continued success of this particular scheme and also the potential
to use it as a model for minimising other types of potentially
hazardous waste.
Conversely the reclassification of certain wastes
as "Hazardous" (for instance fluorescent tubes) will,
we believe, encourage their recycling in that it will force source
separation. The key issue is that proper account is taken of the
range of different waste types and recycling markets.
WASTE EXEMPTIONS
The continued exemption for agricultural and
household waste from classification as hazardous even in the proposed
revisions to the Special Waste Regulations increases the ability
of these sectors to pollute and reduces the opportunities for
recycling. Indeed the fact that, if separately collected, the
hazardous fraction of the municipal waste stream will be "Hazardous"
but if left co-mingled it is not "Hazardous" is a strong
disincentive to recycling.
PLANNING PROCESS
The UK's planning system hampers the ability
of industry to deliver new hazardous waste treatment facilities
within the required timescales. It is often difficult to obtain
planning permission for facilities for treating and disposing
of even low hazard waste such as WEEE.
HAZARD-BASED
LEGISLATION
It is unfortunate that the trend from the EU
has been to move from risk-based to hazard-based legislation,
indeed often even the perception of a hazard precipitates legislation.
The consequence of this approach is that environmental legislation
is enacted that gives little or no material environmental benefit
but which does incur significant cost.
CONCLUSIONS
The NHHWF strongly supports legislative and
economic drivers to deliver sustainable waste management practices
in England and Wales. In particular Producer Responsibility initiatives
are welcomed where they encourage and reward better design for
recycling.
It is unfortunate, therefore, that whilst legislation
is well-meant it has frequently been poorly (and hurriedly) drafted
and all too often has increased costs but not increased recycling
rates.
October 2002
| 
