Memorandum submitted by Biomass Worldwide
Ltd (Waste 12)
SUMMARY
1. This submission refers to the classification
of waste, [term of reference 3] and its influence on the realisation
of the energy potential of the waste stream and the contribution
this can make to the UK Climate Change targets, [7] and the encouraging
of new reclamation technologies, [9].
2. Generating energy from waste derived fuels
could make an important and immediate contribution to the UK's
Carbon reduction targets and should be encouraged. However uncertainties
over the interpretation of the definition of waste and the classification
of the products of waste reclamation are hindering the development
of markets for reclaimed energy products. While progress is being
made for some products such as compost, the position regarding
fuels remains unclear. The apparent scaling back of Government
ambitions for energy recovery cause concern.
INTRODUCTION
3. BWL is a new entrant to the waste processing
business. The Company has developed an autoclave technology to
process various waste streams to produce a fibrous biomass. This
is a clean and sterile energy rich product from which recyclate
such as glass and metal has been removed. The autoclave technology
is operating at a site in Australia using MSW to produce compost.
The Company is developing its process in the US to use the biomass
to generate energy and is looking to establish this process in
Europe.
4. The Institute of Civil Engineers has estimated
that Secondary Recovered Fuels [SRF] could deliver 17% of UK electricity.
[Report by Oakdene Hollins, 2005.] Being a renewable energy source
these fuels would help the UK deliver its carbon reduction targets
by displacing fossil fuels. By securing the diversion of bio-waste
from land fill they would reduce uncontrolled methane emissions.
The International Energy Association have stated: "The benefits
of energy recovery from waste fuels are such that any state-of-the-art
waste management policy should include energy recovery irrespective
of the individual local strategic preference, [eg: composting
v. anaerobic digestion]". [IEA Position Paper "MSW
and its' role in sustainability".]
THE AMBITION
FOR BIO-WASTE
5. The Waste Strategy 2007 recognises the
importance of SRF and the importance of energy recovery in a balanced
energy strategy. It expects that 25% of MSW will be used for energy
generation by 2020, a figure unfortunately scaled down with out
explanation since 2000. It should also express a similar ambition
for Commercial waste to help meet the Strategies stated objective
of the increased diversion of Commercial waste from landfill.
These two waste streams could make a significant contribution
to the UK energy supply as the ICE have stated and would advance
the Strategies own objectives. The further advantage of encouraging
the recovery of energy from these waste streams is that it can
be recovered as electricity, heat, gas, solid or liquid fuel.
Potentially it is a very versatile energy source. To fully realise
this potential there needs to be a pathway from the waste stream
to full reclamation of a fuel product that is free of the "waste"
tag.
6. The Strategy fails to commit its self to the
elimination of bio-waste from landfill as for example the German
Government has done. Bio-waste is a valuable resource with multiple
end uses, yet is a hazard in landfill. Even with recovery typically
50% of the methane escapes to the atmosphere. The aim should be
for full recovery yet the Strategy refers to "properly managed
landfill with methane extraction" [Chapter 5 para. 2]. The
implication is that the Strategy accepts that bio-waste will continue
to be landfilled.
CLASSIFICATION
7. The use of SRF is handicapped by being
classified and regulated as waste. To maximise recovery of value
from the waste stream it is important that waste is viewed as
a source of raw material as the Strategy recognises and that it
is possible for the resulting output to be classified as a fully
reclaimed product and free of the label "waste". A situation
should exist whereby the output or product can be regarded in
the same way and used under the same regulations as any other
similar output or product, where this use causes no more harm
to the environment or health than the equivalent non-waste derived
product. This is important if waste derived products are to be
able to compete fairly with other equivalent products and with
out an additional regulatory burden with its associated cost implications.
For there to be an adequate market uptake of reclaimed products
and materials they have to be able to compete with other similar
products.
8. The strategy states that protocols will be
developed for different elements of the waste stream so that they
can be marketed as fully reclaimed and free of waste control regulations.
It does not specifically commit its self to such a protocol for
fuels and at present Defra and the EA are reluctant to look at
the issues associated with a fully reclaimed SRF. WRAP for example
are not developing a quality protocol for fuels. The Environment
Agency is reluctant to respond to the consequences of the OSS
case with respect to recovered oils.
9. At present the Government seem to have
a preference for anaerobic digestion and incineration of the biomass
fraction of waste and to keep waste derived fuels with in the
Waste Incineration Directive [WID]. This handicaps the development
of the new mix of technologies that can exploit the potential
of SRF that the Strategy calls for. Any process operating with
in the WID will in the public mind be labelled as incineration
and there is a clear public resistance to incineration leading
to costly planning delays. Residual waste with a useful calorific
value is being consigned to landfill because of additional regulation
and market resistance, exactly what the strategy sets out to avoid.
THE OSS CASE,
OSS GROUP V
DEFRA/ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
10. This case was heard by the Court of
Appeal which delivered its verdict on 28 July 2007. The Court
upheld the OSS Group position that subject to certain criteria
it was able to recover waste lubricating oil and market it as
a non-waste fuel product. Defra and the EA had adopted a restrictive
interpretation of the recovery of fuels from waste stating that
the conversion of waste streams to fuel products was not possible
other than in exceptional, [unspecified] circumstances. This position
was found to be contrary to EU law and practice. [The Legal Meaning
of Waste—the OSS Case, Semple Fraser, Edinburgh.] In responding
to this case Defra has maintained a restrictive view and has not
accepted that there is a general position to clarify with respect
to SRF. Their briefing "Regulation of Waste Oils, Interim
Arrangements" emphasises that the appeal concerns the
"limited question" of lubricating oils. In personal
communication the department has stated that the establishment
of a new standard will take "a few months" and that
even then it is "likely that Recovered Fuel Oils will not
meet this standard". On the issue of waste oil the Strategy
states that the EA will enforce the WID implying that full recovery
is not possible. Chapter 3 para: 30]. The OSS case took 18 months
to come to its judgment, to proceed on a case by case basis like
this will take much time and incur much expense and will seriously
inhibit the development of SRF and its uptake in the market.
EUROPEAN POSITION
ON SRF
11. The EU is developing technical standards
for SRF through CEN TC 343, which defines SRF in terms of energy
value, chlorine and mercury content and other values. This is
to enable to fuel to be traded as a fully recovered product with
reliable performance characteristics. Clearly a product produced
to such technical standards could no longer be regarded as a waste
as defined in the Waste Framework Directive. It should therefore
not be regulated as a waste in the UK. The OSS case changes the
legal position of recovered fuels in England and Wales which has
been contrary to the EU position, which does allow for the full
recovery of fuels from the waste stream.
CONCLUSION
12. This issue may be seen to be more relevant
to the Energy White Paper and indeed the importance of recovered
fuels is recognised there. But there is a danger of this falling
between two stools. The need for clear guidance and explanations
concerning the definitions and consequential regulations concerning
recovered products is recognised in Chapter 3 of the strategy.
However the situation with respect to energy remains to date unclear,
as the OSS case has demonstrated. An explicit reference to the
development of quality protocols for reclaimed fuels is required
in the Waste Strategy so that the UK strategy is in accord with
the EU Waste Framework Directive on this issue. Clear and unprejudiced
guidance aimed at facilitating the use of reclaimed fuels while
maintaining the levels of environmental and health protection
required for fossil fuels, is now required. This would encourage
the reclamation of energy from waste by a mix of technologies
and maximise the diversion of bio-waste from landfill, key objectives
of the Waste Strategy.
Biomass Worldwide Ltd
October 2007
| 
