Memorandum submitted by the Non Ferrous
Alliance (X29)
The Non Ferrous Alliance (NFA) represents
the member federations for the aluminium, cobalt, copper, lead,
magnesium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, tungsten and zinc industries
in the UK. The UK non-ferrous metals industry turnover is about
£4.5 billion and it employs about 36,000 people in some 330
firms. A few of these are large national and international companies,
but the majority are small or very small.
1. The Non Ferrous Alliance has been lobbying
on behalf of the members on this issue for some time and would
make the following comments.
2. The recent landfill legislation was brought
in very late and clarity on the full details of the Landfill Regulations
was not available until one month before the end of co-disposal.
3. NFA held several meetings with Defra
and the Environment Agency and made numerous and sometimes detailed
submissions which appeared to make little difference to the final
outcome in the form of the Regulations. Indeed it was apparent
that those attending meetings had not always read our submissions.
4. Clarity on the requirements for monolithic
Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) are still not available.
5. The Government has decided not to take
up the option for WAC risk assessment and this may well be crippling
for our industry. EC Decision 2003/33/EC allows for a risk assessment
approach which could alleviate difficulties in waste management
whilst alternatives to landfill come on stream. The Government
(Defra) have decided that because it would be a strain on Environment
Agency resources, the risk assessment will not be allowed for
(only for monofill landfills which would not help those with relatively
small waste volumes—which, even though small, will cause
serious difficulties faced with no landfill option in the short
term). We find it infuriating that a lack of resource can be used
as a reason to "Goldplate" the legislation, particularly
where operations could realistically close if alternatives are
not found and the risk assessment not allowed. Waste producers
with potentially homeless wastes must be allowed the flexibility
to produce risk assessments and bear the costs if necessary.
6. The Government must reconsider their
decision and we will continue to lobby for a further consultation
on the risk assessment option—maybe when the monolithic
WAC is finally consulted on.
7. Defra recognises that the metals recycling
industry is part of the solution in terms of waste management,
but has not been willing to make any concessions to allow this
industry to continue to manage the irreducible minimum waste from
the recycling process, whilst alternatives to landfill are found.
For example, the lead-acid battery recycler in our membership
will take up to 8.5 million batteries out of the waste stream
each year. The process, by its very nature, will produce a relatively
small amount of waste which must be managed. Without a risk assessment
approach to landfill then this operation may not have a suitable
management option for its waste post 16 July 2005. Instead of
having a small amount of process waste to manage, the UK would
have very large numbers of batteries to deal with—through
trans-frontier shipment.
8. NFA are concerned that the issues relating
to the end of co-disposal may currently be masked and there is
still a substantial level of uncertainty regarding the continuity
of landfill options for those wastes from our industry where alternatives
to landfill are being sought but have not been secured.
9. In the immediate run up to the 16 July
2004 deadline, several critical issues arose which may be masking
the impact of the end of co-disposal.
(a) No mention had been made, of a potential
for wastes classified as H12 to be banned from landfill, during
any discussion with the Environment Agency (EA) or Defra over
the 18 months prior to the end of co-disposal. However a ban was
sought in a draft PPC Permit for a landfill operator. Although
the original ban issued in the draft permit was modified to an
improvement condition, this still came "out of the blue"
and is not a requirement contained within the WAC. NFA understand
that several landfill operators now have three months to demonstrate
that their Waste Acceptance Procedures will adequately accommodate
H12 classified wastes. NFA cannot therefore be sure that those
wastes from our industry with a H12 classification will have a
route for disposal after once their three months is up.
(b) The decision was taken to allow those
landfill operators, with undetermined applications for PPC permits
to landfill hazardous wastes, to continue to landfill under Waste
Management Licences (WML). This may alleviate concerns in the
short term but NFA have no way of determining which of these landfill
sites will be available once their permits have been issued. The
conditions of their permits may increase the scarcity of options
for wastes from the non-ferrous metals industry.
(c) A major landfill operation was closed
on the weekend of the end of co-disposal. The NFA understand that
this was because the EA required additional information from the
operator. This caused additional confusion and chaos during the
transition. Although this operation is now re-opened the NFA are
concerned that similar closures could severely impact on our businesses,
particularly with the very small number of options now available.
10. For the primary aluminium industry,
the lack of monolithic WAC is prohibitive in determining acceptability
in landfill for spent pot lining (SPL) post July 2005.
11. Difficulties are also apparent when
considering Planning Applications for waste management operations.
Unreasonably long delays can be encountered and without the availability
of treatment options or landfill options then operations could
close.
12. On the wider issue of "Waste Policy",
we are concerned that a joined-up approach is not being taken
on waste. The current definition of waste, for example, makes
utilising by-products as alternative raw materials prohibitively
expensive and bureaucratic. Indeed for the primary aluminium sector,
a possible use of SPL as fuel in cement kilns is made almost impossible
by the secondary fuels protocol—a problem not encountered
in other member states.
13. For Trans-frontier Shipment of waste,
the UK prohibits the transfer of wastes for disposal from the
UK—not a requirement of the EU Directive. This restriction
is again creating additional difficulties for UK industry when
compared with those in other Member States.
14. When considering the numbers and variety
of waste regulations, it is easy to see that individually the
impact on industry may not seem so bad—but the cumulative
effect of all the waste and other regulations is very arduous.
15. The implementation of important controls
on waste management must be done with full consideration of the
true costs and benefits both to the environment and industry.
16. Industry must be given suitable timescales
for compliance.
12 November 2004
| 
