Witnesses' Views
GENERAL
22. For the reasons given at the beginning of our
Opinion (paragraph 0), this is an intentionally selective,
and therefore relatively brief, summary of key points arising
from a wide-ranging body of evidence, much of which was of a detailed
technical nature. In general, we found that our opening question—"what
are the key issues"—was more helpful in bringing focus
to the enquiry than the responses to the more specific questions
which followed. What emerged was a broad consensus in favour of
the draft Directive—not only because it filled acknowledged
gaps in legislative controls over incineration not covered by
the existing Hazardous Waste and Municipal Waste Incineration
Directives, but also because a uniform approach across Europe
was seen as necessary for the single market, as well as for reassuring
the public that emissions from incineration were consistently
kept within acceptable limits. The question of subsidiarity was
largely thought not to apply.
23. This general support for the proposals was expressed
by the regulatory authorities (the Environment Agency, the Scottish
Environment Protection Agency and the Environment and Heritage
Service of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland),
the waste disposal industry (the Environmental Services Association
and several member companies, including Cleanaway) and the Energy
from Waste Association. There was also support from the Institution
of Chemical Engineers and from English Nature. Friends of the
Earth, whilst accepting the principle of tight emission limits,
contested the case for incineration on more fundamental grounds
(paragraph 0).
24. Dissenting voices were primarily those who had
invested substantially in existing combustion processes which
make use of waste, in particular the cement industry (which we
deal with in paragraphs The BCA, backed by specific evidence from Rugby Cement, felt the proposals could prevent the use of waste-derived fuels in certain cement kilns (p178, Q179). Mr Hoddinott of Blue Circle Cement said that the cement industry could assist materially in absorbing wastes which would otherwise have to be disposed of: it could use as fuel 50 per cent of the UK's scrap tyres, around 10 per cent of UK packaging waste and about 50 per cent of liquid wastes. "We can reduce emissions, we can reduce fossil fuel extraction and we can actually solve some of those very difficult problems for the United Kingdom, and it helps us be more competitive." (Q234). The BCA's written submission listed other potential environmental benefits, which the Association believed would be severely prejudiced if the present draft of the Directive were to be implemented (p53). Mr Meacher, however, felt that, with the possible exception of wet kilns, the industry "should not have unreasonable difficulty in meeting the proposed emission limits"; even with tighter emission standards, he believed the price of waste-derived fuels would remain competitive compared with virgin fuels (Q435).
and 0-0). Chemical Manufacture and Refining Ltd, who felt
that the subsidiarity principle was significant for UK because
of the low use of incineration for municipal waste in this country
(p 139). Mr Pathmarajah (representing the Institute of Energy,
North West Branch) felt that the degree of regulation envisaged
could impede entry and development by potentially appropriate
processes in relation to sustainable waste management (especially
co-incineration) (p 163). The Electricity Association considered
that the proposals could bring about the end of coincineration
in power stations (p 153).
THE WIDER CONTEXT: CONSISTENCY
WITH INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES
25. Several witnesses—e.g. the Scottish
Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)—emphasised the need
to address the wider picture, i.e. that incineration could
not be viewed in isolation from strategic issues relating to emissions
control, emissions standards and pollution control. The Environment
Agency considered that there would be no inconsistency between
the Directive and other objectives (p 29). The Energy from
Waste Association (EWA) and Cleanaway, however, considered that
there were other sectors which should be targeted before incineration
(pp 83, 143). Professor Coggins of the University of Sheffield
saw a need for a comprehensive directive, focusing on producer
responsibility and supporting the various waste stream directives,
e.g. on packaging (p 197). The Institution of Chemical
Engineers (IChemE) considered the proposals to be compatible with
relevant international conventions (p 171).
26. The British Cement Association (BCA) pointed
out that the UK National Air Quality Strategy already had provisional
objectives for nitrogen dioxide and referred to the preparation
of proposals for air emission ceilings by the Commission; it did
not believe that the case for still further tightening of emissions
had been made (p 52). Similar points were made by the National
Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA) (Q 270).
Aspinwall and Company commented "it is not clear that the
proposed emission limits have been set with reference to the provisional
EU air quality limit values" (p 134).
MAKING IT HAPPEN
27. We asked Mr Meacher by what means the UK Government—given
the dominance of the waste management industry by the private
sector and the devolved responsibilities at both central and local
government level for producing waste management strategies—would
be able to ensure full compliance with the proposals on a UKwide
basis, as part of the UK's contribution to the reduction of global
air pollution under its obligations to the EU and the wider international
community. Mr Meacher said that the requirement would be for local
waste management strategies to be prepared and approved "so
that the cumulative impact does meet our international targets….The
fact is we have got to achieve those overall cumulative standards
and we have got to make sure that the laggards do not let down
the whole country." He also referred to the use of fiscal
incentives (QQ 483, 485).
28. We put it to the Minister that ultimately he
did not have at his disposal the powers to ensure delivery. His
response was that the purpose of the current reviews of national
waste strategies (see paragraph 0) was to achieve exactly
that—"to determine the instruments, the drivers, by
which the Government's overall targets can be realised….I
do think we have to assure ourselves that the instruments are
sufficiently wide-ranging and sufficiently potent that we can
reasonably expect to reach those targets. If, when we are halfway
there, we are still well behind schedule, we will have to institute
additional drivers and mechanisms." (Q 486)
COMPARABILITY OF CONTROLS
ACROSS INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
29. Although not a major focus of the written evidence,
a key question which we pursued in oral evidence was whether the
aim should be to have comparable controls for all industrial sources
of the same pollutants, based on assessments of costs, risks and
benefits. Mr Meacher, when asked why incinerators of waste should
be treated as a more serious case than other thermal and combustion
plants such as power stations, agreed that in principle emission
limits ought to be the same: "We are gradually over time
developing a mosaic as opposed to a necessarily totally consistent
pattern in atmospheric controls within the EU." (Q 438)
30. An important aspect of this question was whether
coincineration of non-hazardous waste should be subject
to the same emission controls as simple waste or energy-from-waste
incineration. Among those arguing for comparability of control
were the NSCA, Friends of the Earth, the Environment Agency and
the Environmental Services Association (ESA). Shanks and McEwan
commented: "The principle of regulation of co-incineration
of non-hazardous waste is most welcome and the approach is generally
sound" (p 190). Cleanaway was concerned that the coincineration
rules proposed under the Directive were in fact too lax (p 142).
Commission officials declared themselves to be neutral as between
coincineration and straight waste incineration: the aim
was to establish a level playing field of regulation and to ensure
that where incineration took place it should do so in the safest
possible way (QQ 538-9).
31. The IWM emphasised the need for a level playing-field
for combustion processes incorporating wastes of a similar nature
(p 169); the EWA similarly argued that plants producing the
same range of emissions should be subject to the same controls
(p 83). English Nature commented that coincineration
should not be allowed to "represent a loophole allowing lower
standards of environmental protection" (p 154). IChemE
similarly thought it was wrong that a particular sector should
enjoy a less stringent regime than others "purely to allow
the process plant to consume what they regard as large quantities
of low grade, cheap fuel" (p 171).
32. Contrary views were expressed by the Electricity
Association, who (with their member Scottish Power) felt that
co-incineration should not be subject to the same controls as
pure waste incineration unless it resulted in a substantial change
in emissions than would otherwise be produced by normal fuel combustion
(p 153); similar opposition was expressed by Du Pont, Safety-Kleen
and Chemical Manufacturing and Refining Ltd. The Oil Recycling
Association considered that the implied restrictions on burning
waste oils could "close down an option that may well represent
the BPEO[13]
for this waste stream whilst leaving few viable alternatives"
(p 175).
33. Water UK questioned whether
sewage sludge incineration facilities should be subject to the
same controls as energy-from-waste plant, arguing that mono-sewage
sludge incineration was sufficiently special to warrant a separate
category within the Directive (p 204).
34. The BCA, backed by specific
evidence from Rugby Cement, felt the proposals could prevent the
use of waste-derived fuels in certain cement kilns (p 178,
Q 179). Mr Hoddinott of Blue Circle Cement said that the
cement industry could assist materially in absorbing wastes which
would otherwise have to be disposed of: it could use as fuel 50
per cent of the UK's scrap tyres[14],
around 10 per cent of UK packaging waste and about 50 per cent
of liquid wastes. "We can reduce emissions, we can reduce
fossil fuel extraction and we can actually solve some of those
very difficult problems for the United Kingdom, and it helps us
be more competitive." (Q 234). The BCA's written submission
listed other potential environmental benefits, which the Association
believed would be severely prejudiced if the present draft of
the Directive were to be implemented (p 53). Mr Meacher,
however, felt that, with the possible exception of wet kilns,
the industry "should not have unreasonable difficulty in
meeting the proposed emission limits"; even with tighter
emission standards, he believed the price of waste-derived fuels
would remain competitive compared with virgin fuels (Q 435).
35. Mr Blokland, Rapporteur to the European Parliament's
Environment Committee, drew our attention to the fact the Parliament
had adopted an amendment to the draft Directive which would provide
a derogation of up to 1200mg/Nm3 for wet process kilns
for a period of four years, provided that the thermal treatment
of waste in such plants resulted in significant reduction of NOx
emissions. The decision had been taken essentially on political
grounds (Q 554).
13 Best Practicable Environmental Option. Back
14
Evidence was received from SITA Holding UK Ltd on their dedicated
tyre incineration plant at Wolverhampton. This had the potential
for burning up to 120,000 scrap tyres per year, and had no difficulty
in meeting a NOx limit of 150mg/m3 set by
the Environment Agency (p 206). Back
| 
