Memorandum submitted by Beyond Waste (X32)
By way of background, Beyond Waste is a dynamic
company working at the cutting edge of rapidly evolving waste
and resource management policy. We specialise in providing market
reconnaissance and regulatory surveillance services to waste operators
and producers and are particularly active within the hazardous
waste field. Having been represented on DEFRA's Landfill Directive
Implementation Group we became aware of the apparent lack of coherent
engagement between the small number of operators of merchant hazardous
waste landfills and Government. As a consequence we facilitated
a meeting between the operators and Government and the Environment
Agency on the ending of co-disposal. This grouping has gone on
to become the Hazardous Waste Landfill Operators Forum.
We offer this submission in an attempt to cast
some light on the question of the destination of hazardous waste,
the answer to which appears to have eluded the Committee in its
examination of witnesses. We would however give a caveat that
the data used is based upon the best information available reinforced
by market intelligence and professional judgement and so should
not be regarded as definitive or absolute. Nevertheless we trust
it will be of assistance in drawing conclusions for the inquiry
report.
If we can provide any further clarification
please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Alan Potter
Managing Director
WHERE HAS THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GONE?
SUMMARY
July 2004 saw the ending of the co-disposal
of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in the same landfill and
the introduction of a wider definition of what constitutes "hazardous"
waste for the purposes of landfilling. Commonly quoted estimates
are derived from data held by the Environment Agency on movements
of "Special Wastes" for disposal at commercial, "merchant"
landfills in 2003 (or prior years) but do not include that waste
disposed of to in-house facilities and the wastes disposed of
to landfill that were not Special but are now hazardous resulting
from a change in definition of hazardous for landfill disposals.
Combining data from the Environment Agency and that provided to
the Hazardous Waste Forum provides an estimate of some 3 million
tonnes/year of hazardous waste requiring landfill. We believe
this is perhaps high and a more a reasonable estimate is circa
2.75 million tonnes in a typical year. Our estimate of
the current quantities of hazardous waste being landfilled in
dedicated hazardous waste landfill sites or dedicated areas of
non-hazardous landfills is, on an annualised basis, 1.16 million
tonnes.
While some of the difference between that quantity
currently being disposed and that expected can be explained, perhaps
694,000 tonnes of hazardous waste is unaccounted for. We believe
it is continuing to be disposed at non-hazardous landfills. This
practice arises from a general lack of understanding of the true
nature of wastes by waste producers but also may reflect a significant
degree of illegal activities encouraged by the high financial
rewards achievable.
The continued co-disposal of hazardous wastes
with non-hazardous wastes if conducted in accordance with proper
practice is not considered to pose an immediate risk to the environment
in most situations; co-disposal was an acceptable practice up
until a few months ago. However, the deliberate use of illegal
practices may, if not stamped out, result in the undermining of
the hazardous waste control system with the resultant increasing
risk of harm to environmental and, potentially, public health.
The failure to achieve the ending of co-disposal
for a large quantity of hazardous wastes has detrimental consequences
for UK industry as a whole and does not provide a business climate
encouraging the change in waste management practices required
by the law. In particular, there has been an understandable reluctance
to invest in the required treatment capacity to meet new requirements
for hazardous waste disposal that become effective in July—the
much-publicised hazardous waste "crisis" of 2004 has
therefore only been delayed for a year. If the illegal practices
are to be clamped down, urgent action will be required to improve
the current situation; this will require much more effective targeting
of resources than has been witnessed to date.
1. HOW MUCH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DESTINED FOR
LANDFILL IS
THERE?
Hazardous waste requiring disposal to landfill
is made up of three elements:
(i) Hazardous waste defined as "Special"
under the 1996 "Special Waste Regulations" and consigned
to commercially operated disposal sites remote from the production
site ("merchant sites"). These are the quantities most
understood and quoted by the Environment Agency (EA). For the
year commencing April 2003 the quantity was 1,801 million tonnes
of which 1.143 million tonnes arose from construction and demolition
wastes (predominately soils and asbestos) and 91,000 tonnes were
wastes that may be classed as hazardous liquids (oil/water mixtures,
solvents).
(ii) Hazardous waste defined as "Special"
under the 1996 "Special Waste Regulations" and disposed
at landfills within the curtilage of the waste producer for example,
an "in-house" landfill operated by a chemical works.
This quantity is less well understood but an EA report (reference
1) estimates the quantity at 0.5 million tonnes/year in 2001-02.
(iii) Newly hazardous waste resulting
from the widening definition of hazardous waste adopted by the
EU in 2002, while not currently defined by Regulation in England
and Wales it is banned from co-disposal with non-hazardous wastes
under the Landfill Regulations of 2002 and 2003. The EA have produced
detailed guidance (reference 3) on assessing wastes against this
new definition. The consultancy Enviros working on behalf of the
Hazardous Waste Forum estimated a quantity of 0.78 million tonnes/year
(including 0.44 million tonnes/year of contaminated soils) of
these newly hazardous wastes of which 0.75 may require
landfill.
Combining the actual data from consigned Special
Wastes (i) with the estimates of (ii) and (iii) gives a figure
c 3 million tonnes/year of which 1.583 million tonnes is
derived from construction and demolition wastes. Our view is that
this figure seems high particularly with regard to "in-house"
wastes and this view is supported by other evidence. A more
likely quantity of hazardous waste (Special plus newly hazardous
wastes) requiring landfill is perhaps 2.75 million tonnes in a
typical year.[76]
| Our estimate is derived as follows:
| 1.8 | mT: | consigned Special Waste data 2003
|
| 0.2 | mT:
| in-house non-consigned[77]
|
| 0.75 | mT:
| newly hazardous waste |
| |
|
| 2.75 | mT
| |
| |
| |
2. HOW MUCH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
IS CURRENTLY
GOING TO
LANDFILL LEGITIMATELY?
Our estimate of the current quantities of hazardous waste
(Special and newly hazardous) being legitimately disposed to landfill
is 1.16 million tonnes (on an annualised basis). This estimate
includes disposal at:
— Operational Hazardous Waste Landfills (HWL) both
in-house and merchant (either fully permitted, awaiting permitting,
or appealing permit refusal).
— Operational Non-hazardous Waste Landfills with
cells accepting only "stabilised non reactive hazardous wastes"
either permitted or waiting permitting—merchant only.
And is made up of: 0.56 mT Permitted merchant HWL
sites (final quarter 2004 data from the operators)[78]
0.2 mT Estimate of pending or refused permit HWL
sites
0.2 mT Estimate of in-house deposits
0.2 mT Estimate of stabilised non- reactive wastes
1.16 mT[79]
This would suggest that there is on an annualised basis in
excess of one and a half million tonnes of hazardous waste "missing"
and which require accounting for.
3. ACCOUNTING FOR
THE "MISSING"
WASTE
3.1 2004 was not a "typical" year
Prior to the ending of co-disposal there was a surge in the
disposal of Special Wastes arising from the construction industry
as developers and demolition companies attempted to clear sites
to beat the mid-July deadline and in effect brought forward work.
It has not so far been possible to ascertain the quantity of extra
Special Waste from these sources deposited above the norm in the
first half of 2004 but finite capacity exists both for the removal
of such wastes from the site of production and for their disposal
at landfills due to constraints imposed by available plant/equipment/staff/haulage
vehicles and licence/planning restrictions on receiving landfills.
Under these circumstances and using the 2003 "consigned"
data as a start point, assuming half the work intended for the
latter half of 2004 was brought forward suggests an additional
244,000 tonnes[80]were
deposited prior to the ending of co-disposal leaving a further
244,000 tonnes for disposal in the latter part half of 2004.[81]
Disposal of such waste has continued, albeit at a reduced level
since the ending of co-disposal, reflecting the ongoing brownfield
redevelopment.
On an annualised basis therefore, changes in the timing of
waste generation associated with construction and demolition activities
may account for an annualised shortfall in hazardous waste going
to landfill of 488,000 tonnes post July 2004.[82]
3.2 Waste is being held back pending market stabilisation
While generally waste producers do not have the capacity
to store large amounts of wastes some industries, in particular
those associated with metallurgical processes (eg steel manufacture)
do have the ability to store large quantities of wastes to await
either recovery or simply as a means of delaying costs. Market
intelligence shows that much of the stored waste is newly hazardous.
However the quantities involved are likely to be less than (an
annualised) 100,000 tonnes. An inquiry of the Environment Agency
might reveal whether producers are seeking licences to store significant
quantities of waste. On an annualised basis we believe that no
more than 100,000 tonnes of predominately newly hazardous
waste is in storage awaiting recovery or future disposal.
3.3 Reduction in hazardous waste generation: minimisation
It is difficult to identify significant genuine waste minimisation
effort that has occurred in 2004 as opposed to say 2002 or 2003.
Some wastes formerly landfilled are now being recycled/recovered
for instance, as replacement raw materials for cement manufacture,
but conversely the growth of incineration capacity for municipal
wastes, improvements in pollution control practices required for
existing incinerators (clinical, municipal, chemical and sewage)
are actually increasing the quantities of Special Wastes being
produced. All told it is unlikely that arisings of non-construction/demolition
Special Wastes have fallen more than 10%[83]and
quite possibly not at all.
Assuming a 10% fall from the 2003 quantities of consigned
non-construction/demolition wastes suggests the quantity of such
wastes for landfill may have fallen by 60,800 tonnes on an annualised
basis.
3.4 Reduction in hazardous waste generation: reclassification
Given that the movement of Special Waste between a production
site and its disposal point (where separated by a road)[84]
without a consignment note is illegal it has long been the practice
by some waste producers with complex or variable waste streams
to consign what are technically non-Special wastes as Special
on a precautionary basis. The scale of this is unknown but our
belief is that it is probably not significant and as such the
scope for the legal reclassification of previously "precautionary"
Special Wastes into non-Special/hazardous wastes is very limited.
The oft stated remark, particularly associated with contaminated
soils, that the producer consigned as Special "just in case"
is perhaps fanciful as in doing so the producer could incur significant
additional costs.[85]
In practice producers took a precautionary approach because the
sampling and testing of wastes is difficult and that the rules
determining whether a waste was Special or not are technically
complex. If there were a real prospect of being caught for misdescribing
waste it could be argued that a prudent waste producer would actually
now be more likely to take a precautionary approach. All
told it is hard to account for a significant reduction in hazardous
wastes quantities through the legal reclassification of
wastes.
3.5 Treatment of hazardous wastes to produce non-hazardous
wastes
Hazardous wastes deposited at landfill prior to July 2004
were solids and capacity for the treatment of such wastes in the
UK is limited. Waste treatment facilities that do exist are mostly
dealing with hazardous liquid wastes that were not being
landfilled.[86] Such
facilities are themselves potentially significant producers of
newly hazardous wastes for landfill. On this basis it is not reasonable
to account for a genuine significant reduction in hazardous
waste quantities for landfill due to treatment.
3.6 Newly hazardous wastes
The more stringent definition of hazardous was forecast (reference
4) to generate an additional 780,000 tonnes of hazardous waste
per year. Of this it has been estimated that 746,000 tonnes may
require disposal to landfill.[87]
For that portion of these newly hazardous wastes associated
with construction and demolition activities it could be assumed
that, as with the Special Wastes from these sources, the period
prior to July 2004 saw a bringing forward of work. Employing the
same assumptions as previously and bringing forward 50% of this
work would result in a post July reduction of some 134,000 tonnes
(on an annualised basis).
For newly hazardous wastes derived from non-construction/demolition
sources it is likely that the 2003 quantity estimate of these
wastes is still reasonable albeit with some allowance needed due
to the shrinking of UK manufacturing industry output and perhaps
some waste minimisation efforts. We would suggest a 10% fall from
initial estimates ie 24,000 tonnes on an annualised basis; however
in reality the unknown quantities of newly hazardous waste
being dealt with by in-house landfills may more than offset this
reduction.
Thus we estimate, at best, that newly hazardous waste
requiring disposal may be some 158,000 tonnes below initial forecasts.
4. THE BALANCE
SHEET
The table below illustrates a balance sheet based on our
estimates of the current position with regard to hazardous waste
being landfilled, that originally expected and that portion of
the difference between these two values we can account for. We
are unable to account for 694,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes.
If the higher EA/consultancy estimates of the expected quantity
of hazardous wastes are used then unaccounted for hazardous wastes
is in excess of 1 million tonnes. This quantity of waste has
not simply "gone away".
BALANCE SHEET
| Million tonnes/year
|
| Expected quantity of hazardous wastes for landfill:
| 2.75[88]
|
| Ending of hazardous liquid disposal to landfill
| (0.09) |
| Current inputs of hazardous wastes to landfill
| (1.16) |
| Early disposal of construction and demolition wastes
| (0.488) |
| Storage of wastes | (0.1) |
| Waste minimisation: Special Wastes | (0.060)
|
| Revised estimate arisings—newly hazardous wastes
| (0.158) |
| To be accounted for waste | 0.694
|
| |
5. THE UNACCOUNTED
FOR WASTE
The predominant source of unaccounted for hazardous waste
is likely to be the continued co-disposal of newly hazardous
wastes through misdescription (through ignorance of their true
nature). This results from a historically poor degree of waste
characterisation (sampling and analyses) and a genuine lack of
understanding by waste producers of what is required. There is
unfortunately little incentive on waste producers to undertake
the required degree of waste characterisation as this is expensive
and if a waste is found to be newly hazardous this will
result in higher disposal costs.[89]
While the "Duty of Care" requires that producers
accurately describe their wastes this is a duty not well understood
by many, indeed full compliance with the requirements has been
recently estimated at below 5% (reference 5). Waste management
companies, both treatment and landfill operators, may also suffer
from the same difficulties in understanding the new requirements
and also may be disinclined to look too closely at wastes as discovering
a waste is newly hazardous may prevent them accepting the
wastes (and gaining the associated revenues). While legal sanctions
exist for the misdescription of waste and the disposal of hazardous
waste at non-hazardous landfills, to date there is little evidence
to suggest that the EA has undertaken a rigorous programme of
inspection and sampling. Their current efforts appear to be more
directed towards the regulation of the permitted hazardous waste
landfills and in identifying those producers whose declared consigned
waste outputs have fallen. It is also unfortunately the case that
some EA officers themselves seem to be unclear on what is required
under the new regulatory regime and there are examples of inconsistency
between applying the requirements and the advice offered by EA
staff for example over the treatment of "absolute" hazardous
wastes.
While "ignorance" of the new requirements is significant
there may have also been an increase in the practice of describing
hazardous wastes as non-hazardous. We believe there has always
been a degree of this but the significantly higher costs resulting
from the ending co-disposal and low risk of detection imply that
the risk/reward balance has shifted to encourage operators engaging
in such practices. Describing a skip containing a mixture of hazardous
waste and non-hazardous waste as non-hazardous could save £500,
similarly misdescribing a lorry load of drummed wastes may save
£1,600 and many, many such skips/loads are disposed of each
day.
Misdescribing wastes may involve:
— Withholding information on waste components and
their hazards.
— Mixing of hazardous waste with non-hazardous (a
practice expressly prohibited by the Directive) and describing
the resultant waste as "non-hazardous".
— Failure to undertake adequate assessment of a
waste—assuming a waste is "non-hazardous" without
justification.
All of which allow the disposal of hazardous wastes at non-hazardous
landfills without attracting the public or regulatory attention
associated with "fly-tipping".
6. WHAT DOES
ALL THIS
MEAN?
6.1 To the Environment
The UK has for many years co-disposed wastes without significant
instances of damage to the environment and while the continuation
of co-disposal "in ignorance" is wrong it is unlikely
to result in risks to the environment above those acceptable a
few months ago. There is however a risk that once the deliberate
misdescription of wastes becomes established, driven by the significantly
higher rewards available, greater quantities of more and more
hazardous wastes will be diverted from legitimate routes.
6.2 To UK industry
Those waste producers and waste management companies correctly
disposing of wastes are at a commercial disadvantage to less scrupulous
competitors and in practice the non-polluter pays and the
waste management market becomes distorted. With reliance on the
provision of waste management facilities being dictated by the
market this is a matter of great concern.
6.3 To the Advancement of Waste Management:
July 2005 sees further restrictions on hazardous waste being
landfilled; these will result in significantly higher costs and
hence greater incentives to find ways to avoid the full compliance
costs. This prospect discourages the provision of new treatment
facilities to ensure wastes are treated to meet the new standards—a
provision of facilities already beset by difficulties in establishing
what quantities of which wastes actually require treatment.
7. CLOSING REMARKS
AND SOME
RECOMMENDATIONS
To move the current position forward it needs to be recognised
that:
— There is significant uncertainty of the total
quantity of hazardous wastes that requires to be dealt with and
their current fate, this is particularly so with regard to the
newly hazardous wastes. Lack of knowledge of the true quantity
of hazardous wastes and their characteristics works against the
timely planning and construction of new treatment facilities by
waste producers or waste management companies.
— On a conservative estimate perhaps 694,000 tonnes
(on an annualised basis) of hazardous wastes are still being co-disposed
despite the banning of this practice in July 2004. This waste
has not just simply gone away.
— There is widespread ignorance of and confusion
about, the new requirements and of the true characteristics of
wastes and that reliance on the "Duty of Care" to resolve
these issues is not sufficient.
— Higher costs are a driver for a significantly
higher level of environmental crime whether it is a failure to
describe wastes correctly or the misdescription of wastes.
— The imminent tightening of requirements concerning
the landfilling of wastes at hazardous waste landfills will create
significant difficulties for the country for which there is no
legally compliant quick solution.
It is therefore recommended that:
— The EA simplifies current technical guidance on
characterising wastes and in particular, defining hazardous waste
and this information be widely and quickly disseminated to waste
producers, waste management companies and within its own organisation.
— The EA significantly increases its efforts with
regard to detecting failures of companies to meet the existing
"Duty of Care" requirements and in detecting those who
deliberately set out to break the law for financial gain. Wrongdoers
should face a genuine fear of being caught.
— The EA clarifies whether wastes identified as
absolute entries as hazardous on the EWC can in fact be transformed
into non-hazardous waste and if so how far such treatment needs
to go.
— DEFRA recognises that the EA is under-resourced
both in staff number and skills to meet the challenges of the
new hazardous waste legislative regime.
— DEFRA recognises that the capacity "crisis"
averted in 2004 through a limited number of companies investing
in specialist landfills has only been postponed. A robust contingency
plan is required. This may involve a limited time delay in implementation
to allow data to be gathered and suitable treatment facilities
constructed.
— The Hazardous Waste Forum be activated again with
representation from the key players in the hazardous waste landfill
and treatment market fully engaged.
— DEFRA considers modifying proposals for the tracking
arrangements for hazardous waste so that waste is properly accounted
for from cradle to grave.
References
1. "Hazardous Waste Management Market Pressures and Opportunities:
Background Paper" R and D Technical Report P1-484/TR Environment
Agency/Entec (2003).
2. The Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment and Capacity Task Force
Final Draft Status Report (December 2004).
3. "WM 2: Hazardous Waste" Environment Agency (2003).
4. "Hazardous Wastes: New Producers and Quantities"
prepared for the Hazardous Waste Forum by Enviros (2003).
5 "An Investigation of compliance with the Environmental
Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991" Bland M et
al. CIWM Scientific and Technical Review December 2004.
February 2005
76
The qualifier "typical" is important as the high proportion
of wastes associated with construction and demolition operations
may be significantly influenced by the occurrence (or not) in
any one year of large land remediation projects. It is possible
to get some feel for this from the applications to Customs and
Excise for exemption for disposals to landfill from contaminated
site clearance. This would capture disposals to hazardous and
non-hazardous waste landfills of contaminated soil arisings. Back
77
The Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment and Capacity Task Force Final
Draft Status Report (reference 2) suggests in-house landfill capacity
is 0.4 million tonnes but likely to be underutilised (p 10) and
a 2000 EA capacity database estimate gives a figure of 0.388 million
tonnes of Special Waste disposed of to restricted user landfill
sites. Back
78
Based on survey of operators. Back
79
This is in line with the Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment and Capacity
Task Force report (reference 2) which suggests (p 3) input at
June 2004 was around 1.1 million tonnes (Fig 7). Back
80
Based on 1.143 million tonnes of construction and demolition wastes
for disposal (as 2003) The season for the major part of such work
is April to October averaging 163,000 tonnes/month, in the three
months August to September 2004 we therefore would expect in a
typical year 489,000 tonnes for disposal (3 X 163,00 tonnes). Back
81
Hazardous Waste Forum report (reference 2) states "we have
seen a significant increase (-45%) in contaminated soils disposed
to landfill, for the first half of this year compared to the same
period in 2003." (p 22). Back
82
With respect to non-construction/demolition waste from manufacturing
and service industries there was little evidence of significant
clearance of stocks prior to July 2004. These industries are regular,
ongoing producers of wastes and stocks of waste are generally
kept low due to space and legal constraints. It is unlikely that
2004 was materially different from 2003 with respect to the timing
of waste disposal. Back
83
This figure is borne out by analysis of sector returns under the
Pollution Inventory, which shows an annualised percentage reduction
of Special Waste going to landfill of 10% across 2001 and 2002. Back
84
It is not necessary to complete consignment notes for movements
between a production site (say treatment plant) and landfill if
they are adjacent. Table 4 of the Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment
and Capacity Task Force report (reference 2) identifies four landfill
sites as having treatment capacity adjacent, movements from which
may not be recorded as Special Waste consignments. This could
represent a significant gap in the Special Waste to landfill disposal
data. Back
85
The contradictory nature of these claims is recognised in the
Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment and Capacity Task Force report
(reference 2) p 21. Back
86
Table 4 of the Hazardous Waste Forum Treatment and Capacity Task
Force Final Draft Status Report confirms this. Back
87
Note that this forecast was derived from extrapolation of quantities
consigned for disposal in 2001-02 and overlooked wastes disposed
in-house. Back
88
1.8 million tonnes Special Waste movements data, 0.2 million tonnes
intended in house, 0.75 million tonnes newly hazardous waste (Enviros,
reference 4). Back
89
This is borne out by the statement in the Hazardous Waste Forum
Treatment and Capacity Task Force Final Draft Status Report (reference
2) "The definition with regard to landfilling of waste changed
in July 2002 as a result of the Landfill Regulations 2002 (ie
landfills should have been accepting hazardous waste after that
date), however it is considered that this change was not reflected
in the wastes consigned to landfill" (p 16). This lack of
rigour is attributed to the continuation of co-disposal sites
(p 21). Back
| 
