Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Cleanaway Ltd (X3)

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.1  The Government and the Agency should establish the BPEO, the best practicable environmental option, for the management of hazardous waste as produced. It is this lack of clarity that is encouraging the unscrupulous operators to manipulate wastes at the expense of the environment.

  1.2  Clearer guidance on the treatment requirements for municipal waste, particularly to meet the LATS targets, is recommended, as are improvements to the planning system and changes to the landfill tax rates to encourage more investment in the treatment systems.

2.  INTRODUCTION

  2.1  Cleanaway is a global waste management and recycling organisation employing 15,500 people, with operations spanning fourteen countries on three continents. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brambles, a global industrial services company dual listed on the London and Sydney stock exchanges. The services offered to local authorities and industrial and commercial clients cover a broad spectrum including waste recovery, recycling, collection, disposal, high temperature incineration and advice on Best Practice.

  2.2  Cleanaway UK has a commercial and industrial customer base of over 70,000 and the municipal arm of the company holds 49 contracts with 46 local authorities, providing waste/recyclables collection, street cleansing and ancillary services. The recycling collection service diverts nearly 3,000 tonnes of material away from landfill every week.

  2.3  The company has a technical waste business dedicated to the management of hazardous waste, which remains the largest hazardous waste business in the UK today, with access to the widest range of facilities for recovery, recycling and disposal. We operate a number of hazardous waste facilities including a solvent recovery plant, physico-chemical treatment facilities, bio-treatment plant and the UK's largest merchant high-temperature incinerator representing two-thirds—80,000 tonnes—of UK capacity. In total, the company handles over 300,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum. Cleanaway operated one of the country's largest co-disposal landfill sites until reclassification was required under the Landfill Directive in July 2002.

  2.4  Cleanaway welcomes the establishment of this inquiry and is pleased that the Committee has recognised the importance of needing a robust Waste Policy, particularly in relation to meeting the requirements of the Landfill Directive. Cleanaway believes that Waste Strategy 2000 did not address important issues relating to hazardous waste and we have consistently asked policy makers to take proper account of the management of hazardous waste when developing waste strategies.

3.  HAZARDOUS WASTE

  3.1  The implementation of the Landfill Directive and other associated European legislation is introducing significant and complex changes to the management of hazardous waste. The cessation of co-disposal signalled the most significant change in waste management practices since the introduction of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972. Industry is reluctant to invest in new facilities as there remains great uncertainty as to how the legislative changes will influence the production of the waste and methods of its management.

Impact of change

  3.2   It is still too early to measure the real impacts of the changes to landfill practices. In the few weeks since the co-disposal ban and the significant reduction in available hazardous waste landfill capacity, the effects have not been as dramatic as might have been expected. Treatment plant operators have not seen a significant increase in throughput although prices charged for hazardous waste disposal to landfill have increased dramatically.

  3.3  Agency data on waste statistics and tracking are not sophisticated enough to determine where the waste displaced from landfill is going. There are rumours in the industry that waste is being manipulated and continues to go to non-hazardous landfill. We know that some companies are stockpiling wastes to see what happens in the market place. Some are holding their waste to see whether the Agency's enforcement policy will permit them to use "low-tech" treatment options such as absorption; others are holding material in the hope that they can send it to cement kilns if the Agency's proposal to relax the Substitute Fuels Protocol comes into effect.

  3.4  The ending of co-disposal in July 2004 and the necessity to use dedicated hazardous waste landfill sites (for the disposal of wastes not yet required to be treated to meet the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC)) caused most major waste management companies to withdraw from this market. Hence, the capacity for hazardous waste landfill disposal is now limited and probably inadequate, and the uneven distribution of the sites is leading to very significant increases in transportation of hazardous wastes around the country. This is increasing the overall disposal costs significantly and either no environmental improvements or even negative effects on the environment are occurring.

  3.5  Regarding landfill disposal of hazardous wastes in the future, the trade association implored Government to adopt much higher standards so that the associated risks could be quantified and limited in terms of scale and duration. This would have allowed companies and their shareholders to be comfortable with the level of risk and limit the timescales of financial exposure. Regrettably, that approach was not adopted.

  3.6  One immediate impact has been that there are a number of smaller new entrants into the hazardous waste business. It is of concern that some of these companies are saying that they do not intend to be around for a long time and they may leave an expensive legacy.

Adequacy of preparation

  3.7  From Cleanaway's perspective, the UK's preparation for the Landfill Directive has been very poor. The Select Committee's Report following the inquiry into hazardous waste acknowledged that the UK was ill prepared for the significant changes that were about to come into effect. Industry had been explaining to Defra for many years that they would not have the confidence to invest without clarity.

  3.8  There have been continued delays in the implementation of some of the legislative changes, such as the WAC for hazardous waste to landfill and these have further exacerbated the problems associated with uncertainty.

  3.9  Even in this uncertain environment, Government has proceeded with the expectation that industry would necessarily provide facilities for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. This was despite the warnings given by the industry and its trade association that much greater degrees of certainty would be required before investment would be committed.

  3.10  The changes to hazardous waste management will inevitably result in higher disposal/treatment prices. This, in turn, will encourage unscrupulous operators and producers to take the cheapest option. The Agency needs to be in a position to make sure that improper waste handling is not allowed but there are concerns that the Agency may not have sufficient resources to regulate effectively.

  3.11  Cleanaway welcomes the establishment of the Hazardous Waste Forum and believes that this type of stakeholder group should have been established much earlier. The Forum has been able to offer a platform from which to raise concerns but has not yet been able to develop a sustainable hazardous waste strategy for the UK. For example, is it the Government policy to encourage all the hazardous waste to be blended so that it can be burned in cement kilns?

  3.12  The Government needs to have a vision of the structure it wants for the management of hazardous waste in the future; it is not satisfactory to leave the market to decide. If left to its own devices, the market is likely to adopt the cheapest available technology not involving prosecution (CATNIP) and not the best available technology (BAT). CATNIP will always be cheaper, and usually more profitable than BAT. Experience has shown that investing in BAT facilities can prove uneconomic if the waste is allowed to continue to be disposed of at cheaper facilities. Waste will always migrate to the cheapest cost option.

What steps should now be taken?

  3.13  The Government needs to be clear whether it wants industry to deliver CATNIP or BAT processes and then produce legislative support to encourage investment.

  3.14  The Agency has produced some valuable guidance documentation and we would like to see more of these position statements setting out clear concise guidance for producers, particularly SMEs. We need clear statements on what the Agency regard as unacceptable practices and these activities should be stopped immediately.

  3.15  We are concerned about what is happening to the hazardous waste that we expected to be diverted from landfill. The Agency should conduct a thorough investigation to establish if waste is being handled unlawfully.

  3.16  The Government and the Agency should establish the BPEO, the best practicable environmental option, for the management of hazardous waste as produced. It is this lack of clarity that is encouraging the unscrupulous operators to manipulate wastes at the expense of the environment.

  3.17  The Hazardous Waste Forum has initiated an educational drive to get the message across to the SMEs. This work must continue as a priority and be funded as appropriate.

  3.18  Inevitably, waste producers are studying their hazardous waste production outputs very carefully and so the market is continually evolving. It has been difficult for the waste industry to plan given the inadequate or poor quality data on waste arisings but the legislative changes are causing the data to change very rapidly. The types and scale of plant needed to treat the wastes to meet the criteria thus remain uncertain and for the more difficult waste streams, there may not be viable processes available to treat the wastes to meet the WAC by July 2005. This could mean that high temperature incineration, at a cost, is the only technical solution and some industries may opt to transfer their production units abroad.

4.  LANDFILL

  4.1  Government chose to bring forward the implementation of the IPPC Directive and use PPC permitting to enforce the Landfill Directive. Whilst this offered advantages in terms of streamlining the effort needed by both industry and the controlling authorities, it appears to have led to confusion and complexities, which Government has been unable to resolve. Both pieces of legislation are highly convoluted and this needed a very early and strong lead from Government to give the industry and the Agencies clarity in the implementation. Such a lead has not been forthcoming in the way of Government guidance and most of the legislation needed has been late.

  4.2  This forced the Agencies to write their own guidance, often causing consternation in the industry. The re-permitting process has consequently become slow, cumbersome, frustrating, delayed and is probably not leading to any significant environmental improvement or reassurance to the public.

  4.3  As we try to move forward from re-permitting into the more significant changes required by the Directive, the problems and the divergence in views between the Government and the Agencies become more apparent. For example, the Environment Agency's draft guidance on the treatment requirements of the Landfill Directive was issued in 2001 and has still not been finalised. However, recent draft guidance issued by Defra does not concur with the Agency's.

  4.4  Defra has been promising the Agency a direction on the dates required for implementation of the non-date-specific aspects of the directive, such as, when treatment prior to landfill at existing landfill sites will be needed and when the ban on the disposal of liquid wastes at existing sites will be applied. There is still no indication of when these changes will be required and so it is hardly surprising that the industry is not investing heavily in treatment facilities for wastes going to landfill or to divert liquid wastes from landfill. It is also unclear as to why Government has decided these two aspects of the implementation of the Directive should receive a specific direction. There are many other non-date-specific requirements that are being implemented by the Agency on the issue of new permits for existing sites, leading to competitive disadvantages for the operators of those sites compared with the sites that have not been re-permitted.

  4.5  There is an overriding requirement in Article 5 of the Directive to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfills. This is an aspect that has been largely overlooked by Government and, therefore, is not receiving any attention by the industry. Article 5 required member states to produce a national strategy to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill by 2003. The Government's Waste Strategy 2000 was intended to satisfy this requirement, stated at Part 2 paragraph 1.6. It is further acknowledged in Part 1 paragraph 3.48 that the general strategy to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill will be achieved by proposals including the packaging regulations, the landfill tax and the target for reducing the amount of industrial and commercial wastes sent to landfill. It was stated that, by the date of the national strategy required in Article 5, the Government proposed to review the effectiveness of those measures in reducing the volume of non-municipal biodegradable waste sent to landfill. There does not seem to have been any impetus by Government to pursue this required objective.

  4.6  The diversion of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfill to meet the Article 5 targets is required by the Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act and the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). Given that these targets relate to BMW production in 1995 and this has been growing at around 3% since, the targets will prove very difficult to achieve and if the growth rates continue, the eventual target in 2020 will stiffen from 35% to around 18% of the 1995 figure. The only way that this figure can be achieved nationally will be by a much greater use of incineration of municipal waste.

  4.7  The focus of attention and the initial statutory performance targets of Waste Strategy 2000 referred to recycling and composting. Recycling and composting leads to the removal of the more easily accessible components of the municipal waste stream, many of which are not biodegradable. This means that there will have to be an intensification of the treatment of the residues after the removal of recyclables and compostables but, even then, it will have to be recognised that biological treatment methods are unlikely to meet the final target. However, Government has not provided any assistance to accelerate the provision of the large number of treatment facilities needed and is only now beginning to support research into treatment systems.

The Planning System

  4.8  The planning system still injects very protracted delays into the development of facilities, particularly through the development plan process, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find locations that can be used for waste management processes such as treatment. The planning system negates the use of existing facilities for treatment processes that are regarded as "sui generis", so requiring specific planning permission for a change of use. Most industries can move straight into premises that have permission for general industrial use. Existing warehouses, which are allowed to accommodate some light industrial use without requiring a new planning permission, would be ideal for in-vessel composting plants. Consequently, not only would the granting of permitted development rights for change of use from industrial or warehouse uses to waste operations accelerate the provision of such facilities, the costs involved would be reduced by avoiding the expense of specific planning applications, inquiries and the construction of dedicated buildings.

Landfill Tax

  4.9  Government has signalled its intention to discourage the landfill of waste through the landfill tax escalator. It should recognise that the establishment of treatment processes will be very expensive and further encouragements will be necessary. The landfill tax has two rates, the full active rate, currently £15 per tonne and the reduced inactive rate for inert wastes, at £2 per tonne. There will always be residual wastes generated from the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) and the only way to take advantage of the reduced tax rate is through incineration to remove all biodegradable matter. This means that no matter how much treatment effort is put into MSW to divert the BMW by other methods, the residues will always incur the full rate of tax. This is discouraging investment in new processes and seemingly inadvertently pushing local authorities and industry towards incineration, a prospect which is still politically and socially unpopular.

  4.10  The establishment of an intermediate tax level reflecting the large amount of effort and cost incurred in carrying out the treatment of BMW but still producing residues would give a much-needed encouragement to the development of such processes.

LATS

  4.11  Though for England, the LAT Scheme has been delayed for a year, the development and planning of new facilities to treat the BMW is needed now to hit the first target in 2010. The development of methods and the large number of facilities has been delayed because no guidance has been issued on the methods to measure the biodegradability of the residuals. It will take some time before laboratories are established with a capability of carrying out the necessary testing once the methodology is released. Then the capabilities of the various systems will have to be compared before the investment in the facilities can be made and their construction can commence.

1 October 2004





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 17 March 2005