Waste Industry Update November 2009
Final product status for tyre-derived rubber materials?
The Waste Protocols Project is a joint initiative between the Environment Agency (EA) and the Waste & Resources and Action Programme (WRAP) which aims to promote recycling by clarifying the point at which materials cease to be waste and therefore cease to be affected by waste management regulations. The latest Protocol to be published covers the end of waste criteria for production and use of tyre-derived rubber materials.
There are four stated purposes to the Quality Protocol:
-
To define the point at which tyre-derived rubber material is no longer considered waste;
-
To satisfy users that the tyre-derived rubber material conforms to a high standard;
-
To set out the particular applications in which tyre-derived rubber material is considered suitable for use, having regard also to engineering standards; and
-
To protect human health and the environment by setting standards for the use and production of tyre-derived rubber material.
In order to comply with the Protocol, a number of conditions require to be met, one of which is that the tyre-derived rubber material must be produced using only source-segregated waste tyres (the Quality Protocol does not apply to whole tyres, only size-reduced tyre-derived rubber materials). It must also meet a specified standard, in this case PAS 107:2007, as well as any applicable engineering standards, and be intended for use in one of the designated industries.
Processors of tyre-derived rubber materials will be able to assure the quality of their products to customers through their compliance with the Quality Protocol by joining a new certification scheme devised by the Agency and WRAP. The certification scheme will be operated by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an internationally recognised centre of excellence that provides research, consultancy, testing and certification for all aspects of transport. The certification scheme will come into action early in 2010.
Presenting tyre-derived rubber as a distinct marketable product will bring significant marketing value to products from tyre-derived rubber, as processors will be able to manufacture it as a genuine alternative to virgin rubber. Importantly, customers will have the confidence of knowing that the products they purchase have met the desired standards and can therefore pass on this assurance to their clients.
The Quality Protocol for tyre-derived rubber materials should make it easier and cheaper for industry to fully recover used tyres to produce valuable products like flooring, road surfacing material, aggregates and footwear. With virgin rubber significantly more expensive than tyre derived rubber, the rubber industry will have the confidence to recycle more of the 500,000 tonnes of used tyres entering the UK waste stream each year.
Although compliance with Protocols is not compulsory, and these currently only apply in England and Wales, non-compliance will mean that the finished product will still be considered to be waste under the definition in Article 1(1)(a) of the EU Waste Framework Directive (2006/12/EC). This means that the waste management controls for transportation, storage and use of the product will still apply.
The Quality Protocol which sets out the end of waste criteria for tyre-derived rubber materials can be viewed at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/54351.aspx
Protecting the quality of agricultural soils
As a result of an anticipated increase in the amount of compost-like outputs (CLOs) produced by plants that carry out mechanical biological treatment (MBT) on mixed municipal solid wastes, the Environment Agency (EA) has launched a consultation on the standards it is proposing to use to regulate this activity, in order to ensure the protection of the quality of agricultural soils.
The nutrients contained in CLOs mean that some operators of MBT plants and local authorities would like to apply CLOs to agricultural land. However, there are also potential risks posed by contaminants present in CLOs. As there are potential risks to the environment, agricultural soils and human health – the most serious being where CLOs were to enter the food chain – the EA has adopted a precautionary position whereby CLOs should not be used on land that is, or could be used, for agriculture.
In order to obtain greater knowledge about the effects and risks associated with the application of CLO to land, the EA are prepared to permit a number of large-scale trials, the results from which will be used to determine whether or not wider application of CLOs could be allowed in certain circumstances.
The consultation document therefore sets out the technical standards and measures that the EA will apply when issuing permits for MBT CLOs, which will set strict limits on any trials authorised by the EA. Operators may choose either to agree to the technical standards and measures set out in the Additional Guidance, either in whole or in part, or use alternative standards or measures. However, where alternatives are proposed, operators will have to provide the EA with evidence that these are sufficient for the proposed application and also take into consideration the risks associated with that application.
To view the proposals and offer comments on the trials and permits, click on the link:
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/ho/waste/mbt/clo
Bad waste management in Ireland causes a stench
The European Commission has won its legal action against Ireland for its failure to transpose the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) Directive 75/442/EC, in relation to the discharge of domestic waste water from septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems in the Irish countryside.
The Commission initially raised proceedings against Ireland following complaints concerning unpleasant odours from an urban waste water treatment plant, on the basis that Ireland should have transposed the WFD at least for the purpose of managing odours from waste, an aspect of waste management not covered by Council Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste-water treatment. This was later extended to include allegations concerning the regulation of domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through individual waste water treatment systems (IWWTS).
In its defence, Ireland contended that the WFD did not apply to waste waters, relying on Article 2(1)(b), which excludes waste covered by ‘other legislation’. Waste waters covered by the present action were not ‘waste’ within the meaning of the WFD, Ireland claimed, because they are not in the ‘list of wastes belonging to the categories listed in Annex I’ as adopted by the Commission under Article 1(a) of the WFD.
The Commission dismissed this contention, pointing out that the absence of an express reference to include certain waste did not necessarily mean that it was excluded. Annex I of the WFD is very broad, the ‘list of wastes’ includes waste waters from septic tanks and other IWWTS, and while Article 2 refers to waste waters, ECJ case law, in particular Case C-252/05 Thames Water Utilities [2007], confirms that waste waters can be included within the scope of the WFD in certain circumstances.
The Court agreed with the Commissions interpretation, finding that both Annex I to the WFD and the European Waste Catalogue are only indicative and as highlighted in the Thames Water case, waste waters could be classified as ‘waste’ despite Article 2(1)(b) of the WFD providing that waste waters may, in certain circumstances, escape the scope of the WFD where it was covered by ‘other legislation’. The court therefore had to consider in this case whether the disposal of domestic wastes in the countryside through septic tanks and other IWWTS were covered by other legislation (the original part of the complaint having been dropped as it was covered by Directive 91/271/EC on urban waste water treatment).
Having considered a number of national measures, the Court held that there was no national legislation which organised the management of domestic waste waters from IWWTS, meaning that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose Articles 4 and 8 of the WFD. Article 4 includes the obligation to recover and dispose of waste without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, while Article 8 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that any holder of waste passes it on to a waste operator who carries out its safe recovery and disposal in a manner approved by the WFD’s provisions.
The court concluded that the national provisions upon which Ireland relied upon, did not as a whole satisfy this condition in Article 2(1)(b) of the WFD and in particular, they only partially implemented procedures to meet the waste management objectives of the directive. Consequently, Ireland could not validly maintain that the existence of ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) relieved it of the obligation to adopt the provisions necessary to transpose fully Articles 4 and 8 of the WFD.
The full judgement (case C-188/08) can be found via the following link:
www.curia.europa.eu
Low risk waste recovery – regulatory regime gets an overhaul with the latest update of the Environmental Permitting Regulations
The Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2009 have recently been published and will enter into force on 6 April 2010. The Regulations make amendments to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (EPR), which established the environmental permitting regime in England and Wales.
The new Regulations aim to create an improved and simplified regulatory regime for low environmental risk waste recovery and disposal operations in accordance with the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD), with the amendments therefore focusing on the substitution of key provisions governing exempt waste activities which do not require an environmental permit under the EPR.
Firstly, the new Regulations substitute a new Schedule 2 to the EPR dealing with registration of exempt waste activities, in order to streamline the procedure for registering an exemption. Now, more information must be given of the ‘relevant particulars’ of a waste operation when applying for registration, such as the place name of where a waste operation is carried out. Further requirements are also introduced for WEEE operations (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment), in particular the imposition of an ‘applicable fee’ when registering such waste operations and the introduction of the requirement for WEEE operations to re-register every three years. Further restrictions are also imposed on the registration of multiple waste operations being carried on at the same place, prohibiting any more than one registration during any three year period.
Secondly, key revisals have been made to the descriptions of exempt waste operations themselves, and the applicable conditions, through a substituted Schedule 3 to the EPR. The previously uncategorised descriptions have been streamlined under heads for Use of Waste, Treatment of Waste, Disposal of Waste and Storage of Waste, providing the equivalent or a variation of each exempt waste activity in the EPR in some cases. The conditions attached to each description vary between being either more or less restrictive. For example, under the EPR, the exemption for the storage of waste to be burned as a fuel in small appliances allowed for up to 25 tonnes of waste to be stored, whereas the new Regulations set down a limit of 10 tonnes.
Finally, there is the insertion of a new Schedule 3A. Schedule 3A replaces Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the EPR, relating to waste storage operations that are not covered by the permitting requirements of the WFD (because they are not disposal or recovery operations) but which may still require a permit under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to the extent that they involve the deposit of waste. The EPR excludes the requirement for an environmental permit and registration, provided certain conditions are met.
The Regulations can be found at the following link:-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/ukdsi_9780111487112_en_1
Expect changes to the regulation of waste electrical and electronic equipment
While the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2009 propose some small changes to the regulation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), separate amendment Regulations have been published aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of the UK’s collection and treatment of WEEE. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which are due to enter into force on 1 January 2010, will amend the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 which transpose the main provision of the WEEE Directive (Directive 2002/96/EC).
Following the launch of a consultation in December last year, regulations have now been introduced which are intended to streamline the WEEE system, applying to small businesses that produce electrical and electronic equipment, distribute electrical and electronic equipment or are involved in the treatment and environmentally sound disposal of such equipment.
The main changes that the amendments make to the 2006 Regulations are aimed at reducing the administrative burdens upon distributors and producers operating within the WEEE system by simplifying the data reporting requirements and the evidence system when reporting on the collection and treatment of waste electronic equipment.
The outcome will be an overall reduction of the data to be submitted to the environment agencies. The administrative burdens will be alleviated in the following ways:
-
Removal of the obligation on approved authorised treatment facilities and exporters to produce evidence that WEEE has been treated or recycled, with the amendment of the definition of “evidence note”. Now, approved authorised treatment facilities and approved exporters can issue evidence notes on receipt of WEEE instead of once it has been treated or exported. This will impact on the provisions relating to requirements and conditions of application for approval of authorised treatment facilities and exporters of WEEE, who will be granted an application of approval if they can show evidence of having received separately collected WEEE prior to its treatment or export. This will help to speed the flow of evidence through the system and ease cash flow issues for authorised treatment facilities and authorised exporters.
-
Removal of recovery targets for the operators of producer compliance schemes and who are responsible for WEEE sent for treatment. However, recovery targets are imposed on approved authorised treatment facilities and exporters, with the criteria for approval having been revised to include a requirement that the facility is able to meet the reprocessing targets contained in the Regulations and Directive.
-
Record-keeping obligations on distributors returning WEEE from private households to operators of a scheme no longer have to keep records of waste returned to them from private households.
-
Removal of the need for operators of producer compliance schemes to apply for approval every 3 year compliance period. Approval will now continue in force unless it is withdrawn by the appropriate authority. However, operators will be required to submit ‘rolling’ three year operational plans annually and ensure that all treatment facilities are able to meet the minimum standards of recycling and recovery required by the Directive.
The Regulations can be found at the following link:-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092957_en_1
The matters covered in this ebulletin are intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. They are not intended, and should not be used, as a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. Semple Fraser LLP will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VINCENT BROWN