I’m part way through reading The Men Who Stare at Goats, in which US Special Forces research paranormal forces to see if they can use them in operations and firmly believe that it is possible to kill a goat just by staring at it.  Apparently based on a true story!  I know how they feel, I hope that if I stare at the new regulations long enough they will burst into flames and disappear.  Sadly though they have not so I read them instead.

It’s not long now until the The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 replace the 131 page 2007 Regulations with a 209 page document.  The regulations were laid before the House of Commons and Lords and the National Assembly for Wales on 25 January 2010 and are expected to be debated in the coming weeks, coming into force on 6 April 2010.  The draft regulations and the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum are available at:

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/permits

The changes will bring in the exemption review, which has been ongoing for some time (see my article in The Skip 38) and a number of other regimes into one document, which should hopefully be good thing.  The official reasons for the change are summarised below:

1.     Widen the existing streamlined environmental permitting and compliance system in England and Wales by integrating existing regimes covering water discharge consenting,  groundwater authorisations  and radioactive substances regulation authorisations and the outcomes of the Waste Exemptions Order Review into the Environmental Permitting system!

2.     Bring in the majority of the Mining Waste Directive and the permitting parts of the Batteries Directive into the single permitting system.  In all 18 EC Directives are brought together in one set of Regulations.

3.     The draft EP Regulations 2010 are designed to “reduce the administrative burden of regulation on industry and regulators without compromising the environmental and human health standards previously delivered by the separate regimes and create an extended permitting and compliance system that brings increased clarity and certainty for everyone on how the regulations protect the environment”.

Nice sentiments but will it work?  I am all for reducing the number of documents we all have to deal with but what are the main issues of interest to the skip and waste industry?

There are provisions to replace multiple permits by consolidating them into one new permit.  This should enable sites with permits and discharge consents to have one new document, for example.  Also the creation of further standard rules permits will simplify regulation of waste sites in particular and hopefully make it cost effective to apply for the new permits. Existing and new permits are covered by the new regulations the day they come into force unless subject to an appeal. Current applications will be dealt with under the 2007 Regulations.  It may be worth waiting for 6 April to see what the Environment Agency’s interpretation is and how they will widen the standard rules permits to cover more sites.

There are 35 pages of exemptions so the best option for now is to see which ones make it through the debate and review them in a future article.  The good news is that there are transitional provision for exempt activities, with the exception of any activities which involve disposal or recovery of agricultural waste on agricultural land (which are OK until 1 October 2013).  Otherwise your exemptions are safe in their current form under the 2007 regulations until the dates below:

i.      Paragraphs 9, 10, 12 or 19 – OK until 1 October 2011

ii.     Paragraphs 13 or 21 – OK until 6 April 2012

iii.    Paragraph 7 – OK until 1 October 2012

iv.    Paragraphs 4, 5,  6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 42, 46 – OK until 1 October 2012

v.     Paragraphs 2, 3, 8, 24, 43, 44, 45 – OK until 1 October 2013

Despite the delay in the new exemptions replacing your current ones I would advise all readers to check the corresponding activity in the new regulations to check what you have to do after the dates stated above.  As far as I can see if there is a benefit from the new exemptions there is nothing to stop you from re-registering the new exemption.  If you have any queries please e-mail me or phone The Skip.

Also of interest this month are:

The Environment Agency: A review of implementation of better regulation – an independent review of the extent to which the Environment Agency puts the principles of better regulation into practice. Assesses the progress made by the Environment Agency since its full Hampton report.  See http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file54411.pdf

Gypsum Quality Protocol – published: The joint WRAP and Environment Agency Protocols Programme has published the Quality Protocol outlining when gypsum from waste plasterboard is no longer classed as waste.  Details at

http://www.wrap.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases/new_gypsum_quality.html

Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at marco@oaktreeenvironmental.co.uk

Every week I hear one politician or another bleating about the government making too much red tape and have come to the inevitable conclusion that it is part of the script.  Are they really bothered?  No red tape = no politicians and civil servants,  meaning that they would all have to find another job and expenses.  Every year we have over 3,000 statutory instruments (regulations and orders) produced, regardless of the persuasion  of the government, by the bureaucratic machine. I know it keeps me busy but sometimes we all want life to be simple.  Working in the complex world of waste legislation can be infuriating and I never cease to be amazed at how simple matters can be over complicated.

One such example is my old friend “Low Risk Regulation” which causes some waste activities to fall outside the legislative trap and catches others that should never even be considered – so  I love it and hate it in equal measure.  I covered the list of low risk exemptions some time ago and since then several of my colleagues at Oaktree have been instrumental in getting new activities added to the list so I though it would be worth having another look to see what you can do for free!

To recap, the Environment Agency has produced a list of low risk exempt activities because they believe that it would be disproportionate to require them to be permitted or enforce against them, which is fair enough and licensing everything would clog up the permitting teams, resulting in even bigger delays.  The list is by no means a sensible one as there are many activities on the list which should simply not be on the EA’s radar, such as LRW043 “The secure storage of waste coathangers or their constituent parts destined for recovery.  The sorting and segregation of waste coathangers into their constituent parts.”

The problem stems from the fact that even though we produce so many sets of regulations it can take an age to make amendments.  When they were originally written  no one thought of all the different uses waste could be put to.  My personal view is that if the definition of waste was interpreted more sensibly there would be little need for many of the low risk exemptions or even some proper exemptions or permits.  Instead of dreaming, here are some of my favorites:

LRW 154:   Secure storage, for up to 6 months, in a freezer of 5m3 of dead pets collected from highways

LRW 008:   The secure storage and manual sorting of waste footwear destined for recovery.

LRW 172:   The use of clean river gravel for maintenance of existing tracks and footpaths (why is that waste?)

LRW188:    The secure storage of up to 30 cubic metres of uncontaminated clay pending reuse (again – why?)

LRW 89:     The secure storage of up to 30 cubic metres of uncontaminated sand pending reuse (madness).

LRW 095    The secure storage, sorting and repair of non-mechanical garden tools. (hoe, hoe)

LRW181     Secure storage of waste wine bottle corks in a 40 yd bin pending recovery.

Here are some useful ones though:

LRW0111:  The storage of a maximum of 50m3 waste bricks to be subjected to manual cleaning destined for reuse.  The manual cleaning of waste bricks destined for reuse.

LRW 042:  The sorting and deconstruction of a maximum of 50m3 of waste windows and doors for the purpose of recovery.

LRW046:    The secure storage and manual treatment of waste stone and timber destined for reuse.

LRW 339:   Secure storage of up to 20 tonnes of waste plasterboard and gypsum wallboard for up to one month in a sealed weatherproof container pending recovery.

LRW170:    The bulking up of paint residues, at a site other than where produced, prior to recovery. Maximum of two 205 litre drums at any one time to be kept securely in a building.

And some of ours:

LRW 034    The baling of waste tyres pending recovery

LRW 369:   The secure storage and dismantling of end of life touring and static caravans, providing the operations are carried out within a building on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage.  A maximum of 5 caravans to be stored at anyone time.  A maximum of 30 caravans a year to be dismantled.

So if you think you have an activity that is low risk or weird enough to be low risk give me a call and I’ll maybe write another article that ranges from sorting coathangers to using lions’ poo as cat deterrent (they are real ones).  To see the updated list follow the link below or Google ‘low risk regulation’ (unless you are in China):

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32080.aspx

Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at marco@oaktreeenvironmental.co.uk

Something you will never find in the Skip Mag is our Marco Muia “Enviroman” giving rubbish advice. He has flown to the rescue of our readers giving spot on advice when needed to save the day or the cheque book, sometimes both!!
Anyway here’s a rare out take of him talking rubbish at the RWM09 trade show, enjoy and read his latest article in the Skip Mag each month.

You can also talk to him live on 01606 558833 or visit his Waste Management Licensing site.

Chances are the Credit Crunch – now officially re-titled The Recession – has had an effect on the profitability of your business, and you are coming up with more and more ways of generating income from different sources. Maybe you’ve diversified into setting up recycling programmes in offices and are helping to change the face of waste processing for the future. Maybe not – but one thing’s for sure; to survive the economic downturn you can’t sit back on your laurels eating grapes.
What about those grapes? What about food waste? And I don’t mean the odd half-eaten burger thrown into a skip. What about the food waste generated in every office and public building in the country? There are machines that can deal with this stuff in a sustainable way and are much, much cheaper to implement than large anaerobic digestion sites. If you’ve got the money and want to invest in an AD site that can generate energy from the food waste collected, go ahead. But let’s face it – who’s got a few million knocking around right now?
There are relatively cheap alternatives out there that can effectively treat food waste, reduce its volume by around 65-70% and turn it into a useable product – compost. The boffins in Brussels have just put out a Green Paper about organic waste which recommends that composted organic wastes, especially food wastes, going back to agricultural land is the best use of this waste stream. And who am I to argue?
‘CURRANT’ OPTIONS FOR FOOD WASTE
Landfill – expensive and getting more so. Food and other organic wastes disposed of in landfill sites generate methane – a climate change gas that is 20 times more damaging than CO2. Not the healthy eating option then.
Anaerobic digestion – expensive but can contribute to the energy mix if you want to get into planning applications and the like for the next few years – at least it gives you the time to save up the money!
Incineration – MSW going for incineration can either be considered as energy recovery or disposal; either way the moist food waste can lower the efficiency of incinerators and it’s probably best to remove the food waste from the MSW before incineration. Again costly and difficult to manage efficiency.
Composting – large in-vessel composters are available. They can take up a lot of space and again costs can prohibit the implementation of such a scheme. But on a smaller scale in-vessel composting could be just the thing to open up another sales pipeline that will keep the MD happy.
SMALL-MEDIUM SCALE PROCESSING
One company that is processing food waste from residential and commercial contracts is based in the centre of London. Admittedly, they aren’t a skip company but there are lessons to be learnt here.
Aardvark Recycling was set up as a social enterprise and showing they could cut the costs for the local authority meant they had access to a variety of pots of funding. This helped them to set up a food waste collection service from a densely populated area but also opened up commercial contracts from all over the city.
“Recycling collections in high-density areas are labour intensive and therefore costs are higher for kerbside collections,” explains Joe Tanner, Managing Director of Aardvark Recycling.
When they set up the funding kept them going in the initial stages but it is commercial contracts with offices, retail outlets and such that keep them going.
Joe continues: “We were in the right place at the right time to access pots of funding for the initial capital outlay and education programme. But now that funding has come to an end we are finding that commercial contracts are the way forward.”
At the moment with 30% participation rates by local residents costs per tonne are steep, around £22, but still lower than the £30-£40/tonne that an out of town AD site could cost. As more commercial contracts are won and more residents come on board the only way the costs can go is south. But how do they do it?
Aardvark has thought about every aspect of their service. Lockable caddies, supplied by Peter Ridley Waste Systems, are small enough to be unobtrusive yet large enough to safely contain the 2.5/3kg average of food waste that each family throws away each week. Smaller vans are used to collect the food waste and local tree surgeons supply the woodchip necessary for the composting process to work efficiently in a small scale in-vessel composter. Change that to offices, public buildings and commercial operations and the system could work financially for the skip industry. Woodchip shouldn’t be too much of a problem to get hold of – you probably have masses already. But how would you process the food waste to generate the compost?
There are a couple of systems out there small enough to be economically feasible and big enough to cope with up to 2.5 tonnes per week – that’s a lot of burgers.
The two main players in the UK for these smaller systems are Accelerated Compost and Big Hanna. Aardvark runs eight Rocket® machines supplied by Accelerated Compost, including five of the largest A1200 models that can achieve the 2.5 tonnes per week capacity. That’s around 650 tonnes of food waste processed each year through the A1200’s – small enough to be manageable, large enough to be profitable.
Joe Tanner: “Expanding the commercial contracts to generate finances will give us the money to increase the education programme. This is the key to increasing resident participation rates. We are a fairly new and different type of service and residents find change hard, so right now the commercial contracts are providing the funding for our future – we can’t have one without the other.”
Now I don’t expect that your commercial skip operation would have the high ideals of social enterprise about educating the general public into recycling food waste – but adapting the approach could work for your commercial food waste collection contracts.
HOW IT WORKS AT AARDVARK
Biodegradable caddie liners are supplied to residents and replacement liners can be ordered by telephone or direct from the collection staff as and when they are needed. Full liners are transferred to wheeled bins for easier off-loading at the Aardvark processing site and the empty caddies are left for the resident. All food waste is shredded before entering the Rocket® composting system to increase particle surface area and the composted product is screened before maturation. Any oversize material is put back through the Rocket®.
Huw Crampton, General Manager at ACL, explains how the Rocket® works: “It’s a continual process system, designed to be fed with wastes as frequently as possible – ideally daily. Food and organic waste is simply placed into the hopper on the top of the machine with an equal quantity of “woody” material. The process from then on is automated.
“As the blades of the internal shaft turn they aerate the material, moving it along the body of the machine providing extra loading space at the input end of the machine and pushing finished material from the exit of the machine. The Rocket® is simply a controlled environment in which harmless composting microbes thrive.”
Temperatures inside the Rocket® can reach 70°C+ (158°F), enough to kill off pathogens such as Salmonella and E.Coli. After around 14 days the composted product exits the Rocket®. With a volume reduction of around 65% on the food waste initially put into the Rocket® even if it went to landfill it would cost significantly less than being dumped without too much processing.
But the best use for the compost, and many farmers would be happy to oblige, is spreading
it back to agricultural land to grow more food. Properly composted food waste can cut farmers costs in terms of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Soils will be more workable due to the increased moisture retaining properties, which also helps to counteract flooding and leaching of nutrients. Soil structure is also improved and the replacement of the organic matter is invaluable – landfeeding rather than landfilling!
COULD IT WORK FOR YOU?
Spending time in a skip yard you get used to the wide variety of smells – composting is no different – but with a closed vessel system the “pong” associated with composting doesn’t exist. It’s more like barley and hops – so odours shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Setting up a food waste processing area that is compliant with the UK’s Animal By-Products Regulations is not too difficult either, as a number of users of these types of systems have found out, including Salford University who became the first UK University to achieve ABPR compliance status. And if you wanted to go one step further, samples could be sent for analysis with the aim of achieving PAS 100 – then the compost can be sold.
The modular nature of the machinery means that it is adaptable and scalable to keep up with an increase in commercial contracts, and collecting from local offices and commercial operations keep carbon emissions and transport costs low enough to be feasible.
Removing food waste from your own commercial collections would increase the cleanliness of the recyclable waste material brought into your site. Processing food waste through smaller, more manageable in-vessel machines could cut your landfill costs too. And Farmer Giles down the road would find his fields easier to plough and achieve higher yields.
The economies of scale currently prevent local authority collection and recycling of segregated food waste from most high-density population areas or from offices, commercial and retail organisations. But with a little bit of thought you could be helping to solve a problem that is foxing some of the bigger operators. And earn a bit more money too. Bonus!

TIP 1. Advertise and Capitalise
Advertising is now ‘cheap as chips’! You can haggle like you’re in a Morroccan Bazaar!!! Get full page ads in the Yellow Pages at half the usual rates and ‘beef up’ your web site, making sure your skip company is marketed to its full potential. This way, you’ll be ready for the boom in demand next spring when the property market will take off again… In other words, b****cks to the sceptics and their doom mongering!
TIP 2. Develop Your Existing Employees
That was the message at the launch of a new Diploma programme at the University of Huddersfield.
The new course is practical, flexible and concentrates on the waste and recycling sector, with modules being delivered by industry experts. It provides individuals with a cost-effective package of technical skills and knowledge to enhance business performance, productivity and also motivate staff.
The Diploma is aimed at supervisors and managers already working in the sector along with new entrants who have a background in transport, construction or sales. With a strong focus on practical work-based learning, learners can apply their knowledge to the real world.
For more information on the Diploma, or to discuss your specific requirements, call Mike Hibbert, University of Huddersfield, on: (01484) 472973, email M.Hibbert@hud.ac.uk or theguru@theskip.net

Just when you thought it was safe to pick up that skip, along comes yet another change in the legislation which is badged as an additional effort to tackle waste crime. Yes, more red tape, which at first reading will not have much effect on illegal activities, which continue in spite of all current systems of licensing and registration. Fly tippers and operators involved in serious offences do not normally follow the paperwork trail that reputable operators are burdened with.
There is mounting evidence that the landfill tax is a contributing factor as our legislative drive to reduce waste going to landfill conflicts with its aims and objectives. Prohibiting waste from landfill is a sensible aim but we need somewhere for the segregated wastes that cannot be recycled, especially inert wastes and fines, to be deposited. This problem is significant for all waste operations and is regularly reported in the numerous journals, including The Skip. The ENDS Report May 2008 edition again noted several landfill avoidance prosecutions, such as depositing non-inert fines from a transfer operation to inert only exempt sites, fly tipping construction and demolition wastes and operating ‘exempt’ sites illegally.
One operation reported on the Environment Agency’s web site on 11 June 2008 was successfully prosecuted with the two defendants receiving custodial sentences of 14 and 22 months. The case is worth noting (http:www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/2062931) as the defendants went to great lengths to appear legitimate, which has implications for carriers using such sites. How do you know the site you are using has a valid exemption? Traditionally, obtaining a copy of someone’s licence or exemption is sufficient proof that they have an approved operation. Not so anymore! Even if a site does have a licence or exemption the Agency are now chasing carriers that have legitimately used sites that have later been found to be non-compliant. How far should duty of care checks go? Should we be doing the Agency’s job for them? The simple answer is a resounding NO! Most waste operators are not qualified to audit waste sites and it is the job of the regulator that charges for the issue of permits and exemptions to do that job. Come on Defra, if you want to reduce so called environmental crime put some more resources into tackling it where it is most needed – i.e. on the ground.
The current system of using landfill or increasingly rare Paragraph 9 and 19 exemptions has to be addressed before any serious review of carrier registration or the duty of care takes place. The exemption review is well underway and I hope that Defra take on board the industry’s comments and also take a proportionate approach on inert landfill which would reduce the over reliance on exemptions that often stretch the boundaries of the legislation.
Now that rant is out of the way I shall concentrate on the title subject at hand. On 13 June 2008 Defra announced its second consultation on the controls on the handling, transfer and transport of waste, in the form of The Waste Controls (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 which if all goes according to plan will come into force in April 2009. The previous consultation closed on 6 march 2007 and the current one concentrates and consolidates the responses from the first one. The proposed regulations are the first major review of the Duty of Care and Carrier Registration since it came in to force over 16 years ago. Precisely what effect it will have on the legitimate waste industry is debatable as the main focus is on illegal operators, thereby increasing costs for the legitimate ones.
I shall concentrate on the effect on carriers this month and look at the duty of care in detail next month. The new regulations themselves are not very detailed and much will be left to guidance, which can be revised more easily than the legislation. The main proposals discussed are as follows:
1. Revoke existing regulations for carrier registration and the duty of care.
2. Impose a new duty for the Agency to make periodic inspections of all registered carriers of, and dealers and brokers in controlled waste.
3. Registration will be for one year rather than three, with various options proposed for renewal, such as a ‘tax disc’ based system which could be renewed easily and displayed on each vehicle. This will be an additional burden for larger waste operators with many vehicles or service companies with hundreds of vans but would enable carrier registrations to be checked instantly. The discs will be non-transferable i.e. new vehicle = new disc (at a cost of <£5 each).
4 Splitting carriers into lower and upper tiers, with the cost of registration for lower tier carriers (charities, farmers, waste producers etc.) at a one off £30 charge. Most waste carriers will face a £60 application fee and annual renewal of £45, which is not significantly greater but the process must be robust enough to ensure registrations do not accidentally lapse, which is addressed in the consultation document.
5. Waste producers may also have to register if they carry their own waste normally and regularly, although no detailed definitions of ‘normally and regularly’ have been proposed.
6. Change to revocation powers to enable more prosecutions to be taken into account when revoking a carrier’s registration. The increase in the list of prescribed offences could be done via guidance rather than legislation.
7. Proof of non-corporate carrier identity may be required i.e. copy of passport, driving licence, utility bill, bank statement etc. before a registration certificate or disc can be issued.
8. Possibility of new offence of failing to display proof of registration and issue of fixed penalty notices for more offences.
9. Raising the maximum level of fines for carrier offences to reflect the maximum for other offences (£50,000 in the magistrates court and unlimited in the Crown Court).
10. New proposals for seizure and disposal of vehicles.
In summary, the carrier registration changes will probably make the system more manageable for the industry as long as the Agency’s IT system can cope and enforcers take a proportionate approach to offences. Responses to the consultation should be sent by 8 September 2008 and I will be making a response on behalf of many colleagues in the industry, so if you have any comments to add please feel free to e-mail me or respond directly. The consultation can be viewed at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste controls/index.htm.
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

Local council red tape in Workington, Cumbria, is preventing a greengrocer from recycling his waste, and instead forcing him to use council services to send it all to landfill. They are also adding a £300 fine into the bargain.
Colin Glaister, who is the owner of the Fruit and Veg shop on Oxford Street, was fined by Allerdale Borough Council after he failed to produce a waste transfer note. He was told it was illegal for him to put his vegetables on a compost heap and cardboard on a household recycling site without the notice.
He said: “A £300 fine for recycling waste out of the shop is unfair. Everyone says you should recycle and do your bit. I take all my cardboard to Smurfits. All my fruit and vegetables go on the garden compost heap. We don’t waste them. My uncle takes the cabbages and feeds them to his chickens. I put the potatoes on the compost heap and it goes back into the land. But the council says I am not allowed to do that.
When I asked them what would happen to all my rubbish I was told it would all go to the landfill.”
Mr Glaister, 26, of Salterbeck, is understandably angry about the fine because he was not guilty of fly-tipping.
“If I loaded my van up and disposed of it I would deserve it,” he added. “I am mad that I have been done for recycling.”
Mr Glaister said that, although he has now applied for a bin, he has also written a letter of appeal to the council.
He added: “I think I have been treated unfairly. I said I am sorry I broke the law. I didn’t realise at the time I could do that by recycling. I have been told it is illegal to take the waste off my premises by moving it in my van.
They told me I was breaking the law and that I was supposed to hire a bin off the council. They will empty the bins once a fortnight. That will cost me about £5 a time. The rubbish will be left in my bin for two weeks during the summer. Who wants to smell rotting vegetables every day in the hot weather?”
An Allerdale Council spokeswoman stated that, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, business owners must show how they dispose of their waste. If they fail to do this they will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. She said that workers at the shop were warned three times before the fine was dished out and that Mr Glaister was visited on April 3 and failed to produce the necessary legal documentation. Officers wrote on April 10 advising of a visit on April 21 at which the documentation would be required.
“The proprietor still failed to provide the necessary legal notice and was therefore issued with a fixed penalty notice,” she added.
“The proprietor has since arranged a contract for waste disposal with the necessary documentation.”
She said it was not the council’s intention to fine people. “The idea is to encourage them to think about who they give their waste to and not to simply choose the cheapest option or dump their rubbish.”
By law, a waste transfer notice has to be produced by a business whenever trade waste is transferred from a business premises to a registered waste carrier or waste disposal operator. The idea behind the notice is obviously a decent one and should combat illegal dumping. However, fining a business which is responsibly disposing of their waste seems ludicrous. Companies taking responsibility for their waste without unnecessary use of council resources surely should be encouraged (as the council spokeswoman suggested). Can the local borough council really need the £300 that badly?
An initiative whereby greengrocers distribute their waste produce as compost to local allotments and council gardens seems to be a brilliant idea. Sadly, maybe it would only work if someone could make money out of it rather than save money.

Last month I considered that a review of the Environmental Permitting system was needed to establish what immediate impact, if any, was occurring. The news so far is that no-one seems to be bothered, let alone the Environment Agency so I shall write that one if and when things hot up. Looking at some of the news in the world of waste over the last month it is amazing to see the impact of recycling on news stories in the national press, sadly much of it is negative and does little to promote recycling, but there are some rays of light. A bit a of a spring clean of an article, but food for thought nonetheless.
Board mills grumble
I recently wrote about the growth of the biomass sector and the domination of the waste wood market by the board mills. On 15/4/08 Letsrecycle.com reported that board mills were concerned over competition for wood from biomass plants. Given that the gate fees charged for waste wood at the mills range from £2 to £42 per tonne it is not surprising that biomass is a growing sector, with or without the Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC). The board mills have had it good and had they treated the recycling sector differently by engaging in long term contracts the recycling sector wouldn’t be stampeding towards biomass plants to secure their own futures.
Kerbside enforcers
Some businesses in Devon have been told by South Hams District Council that it does not offer a business recycling scheme and went on to say that anyone taking waste home to recycle could face prosecution. Once again enforcement officers are looking for easy targets. All their advice does is push small businesses into not recycling. If a member of staff drinks a can of pop in the street it can legally be binned but if they drink it in the office it cannot be taken home for recycling. Get a life! I have seen similar comments from enforcement officers on the Waste Matters website (www.wastematters.org.uk/) and cannot understand why vast amounts of public money are used to target well meaning people when the flytippers are the biggest problem to deal with. When you have finished with the flytippers take a look at the minor offences if that gets you going but for goodness sake target the worst offenders first. Prosecutions should be in the public interest and regulators must take a proportionate approach to enforcement if they are to be truly effective.
Mobile phone madness
On 21 April the Guardian reported that a California telecoms company, Hop-on, is marketing a £10 disposable mobile phone in Europe, which has been available in the US since 2002. Early distribution is said to be 150,000 units. The phone can be recycled, has no screen and is pretty basic, being marketed as a back up phone but it can be topped up and not thrown away, if it lasts long enough. In the current consumer climate a product so low down the waste hierarchy seems insane.
Kerbside landfills
Our national press is at it again. The only good waste story is a negative one. Last month the Telegraph reported that thousands of tons of kerbside recyclate ends up in landfill sites or incinerators, based on a survey carried out by the Local Government Association. The resultant statistics led to statements from Friends of the Earth, amongst others, that “… it shows that the way many councils are approaching recycling is just not working”.
Other quotes were used to demonstrate that this practice undermines their confidence, like national newspapers focussing on failures doesn’t? What we do need to do is focus on recycling methods rather than scaring the public, who are more than happy to have their consciences eased by recycling less. Getting them started again is then more difficult.
The article mentions co-mingling of recyclables, which naturally allows more waste to be collected and will also result in some residual material being disposed of. If your local authority doesn’t use that method then the losses should be minimal but Joe public upon reading the article would not know that. The Local Government Association Environment Board have stated that the 240,000 tons disposed of was only 1.6% of the total recycling material collected, in other words we have recycled 15 million tonnes. Whichever side of the argument you take a residual loss of 1.6% is pretty low when compared with many mixed waste streams.
Agency pushes pretreatment compliance
Last year the Environment Agency publicly stated that they would take a light touch on enforcing the pretreatment requirements for waste destined for landfill. So last month it announced that it expects the waste industry to take a tougher stance on the evidence required to prove compliance with the requirement to pretreat wastes going to landfill. Operators will be expected to obtain written confirmation from their customers that waste has been pretreated before landfill. Skip companies actively engaged in recycling are already helping waste producers comply with the pretreatment rules simply by processing their waste. As long as such declarations are provided on transfer notes there is little else to do.
And finally…
The Chartered Institute of Waste Management (CIWM) has held its Annual Conference and Exhibition in Torbay for the last 22 years but announced that this year will be its last on the English Riviera. From 2009 the new venue will be London Excel at London Docklands and the CIWM will be teaming up with the Environmental Services Association (ESA) to bring a new recycling based focus to the exhibition. Hopefully this will bring the exhibition closer to the skip industry and provide an alternative event to the MRW’s Recycling and Waste Management Exhibition, held every September at the NEC. It would of course be better placed in the Midlands to make it equally accessible to those of us up North and in Scotland.
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

Last month I wrote about the new Environmental Permitting (EP) regime which comes into force on 6 April 2008, the same day as Site Waste Management Plans and the new electronic submission system for planning applications via the Planning Portal. Let’s not forget good old landfill tax which will be £32.00 per tonne for active waste. So it’s all change, as we normally expect at this time of year, but what of the 2008/9 charging scheme? Yes, once again we are at the end of March and the Agency still hasn’t finalised the scheme, leaving applicants in limbo. Their motto ‘creating a better place’ obviously doesn’t extend to my least favourite website as there is no news of the charging scheme. So all we can do is take a look at the charges in the now closed consultation and compare them with the 2007/8 scheme:

Given that fixed permits will soon be the norm rather than the exception it is no surprise that the Agency has not proposed to reduce the fees according to the level of work involved. Over the last year or so we have heard about Agency budget cuts and staff reductions. Yet on 21 February this year an Agency press release welcomed a beneficial funding announcement and Dame Barbara Young stated “While the remainder of our budget allocation has also marginally increased, we face a number of large new duties, challenges and inflationary pressures which will need us to prioritise rigorously what we can best do to protect and enhance the environment.”
Compare the statement with the other news on their web site, which states: “Implementing a new integrated permitting regime in April – this streamlines more than 40 pieces of legislation into one regime which makes us quicker, more effective and simpler to do business with. This will include more online interactive services.”
Forgive me for prattling on again but doesn’t all that mean that there will be less work involved in issuing licences and exemptions rather than an increase in costs for that part of the waste sector. Once again the waste sector appears to be subsidising other activities. We can only guess what will happen when or if EP OPRA comes in for waste licensing in 2008/9 which will remain for 2009/10 for bespoke permits, with lower charges for fixed permits. Whether this will truly be the case is debatable as the Agency still has to source cash for its activities. Why not scrap licensing charges altogether and fund the function from the landfill tax rather than have the money disappear into the treasury.
Fans of Al Murray (aka The Pub Landlord) will be familiar with the sayings “Where would we be without rules… France” and “where would we be if there were too many rules… Germany”.
We could apply this train of thought to the UK; “Where would we be if we were the only ones enforcing European legislation… UK”.
So let’s hope that the permitting centre in Sheffield gets stuck in and issues licences and exemptions as quickly as we can prepare them. It can take less than an hour to prepare and submit an exemption renewal (if there are no changes) so why will it cost £426 from 6/4/06 for the Agency to do their bit and send a letter saying ‘it’s renewed’? Is the permitting centre staffed by expensive lawyers? Surely the actual costs of renewing and occasionally visiting exempt sites is not that high. Many exemptions we deal with don’t get a visit from the Agency, which I know can be a good thing depending on which region you are in.
So my wish from April 2007 is for effective permitting, consistency and transparency… who’s the April fool now? Envirofool doesn’t sound too good though. See you all next month with an analysis of how the new environmental permitting regime has taken off.
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste regulation consultancy and is a WAMITAB accredited assessor for the COTCs in waste transfer, treatment and inert landfill.
He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

By Marco Muia – aka “Enviroman”
The new Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI No. 3538) have landed and judging by the lack of fanfare and publicity surrounding their final release we could all be forgiven for thinking that someone in Defra was hiding something. I would have expected the final release of such an important consolidation of dozens of Regulations to be accompanied by a serious amount of publicity in the waste industry press. How wrong I was and found out in early February (by accident) that they were actually made on 13 December 2007 (in force on 6 April 2008). They will provide a framework for the control of all existing sites which have exemptions, licenses and PPC permits in England and Wales.
The Regulations consolidate and replace numerous previous instruments and implement the following EC Directives:
i. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Schedule 7)
ii. The Waste Framework Directive (Schedule 9)
iii. The Landfill Directive (Schedule 10)
iv. End of Life Vehicles Directive (Schedule 11)
v. Waste Electronic Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (Schedule 12)
vi. Waste Incineration Directive (Schedule 13)
vii. The Solvents Emission Directive (Schedule 14)
viii. The Large Combustion Plants Directive (Schedule 15)
ix. The Asbestos Directive (Schedule 16)
x. The Titanium Dioxide Directive (Schedule 17)
xi. The Petrol Vapour Recovery Directive (Schedule 18)
The change appears to be business as usual with, as expected, a number of tweaks, including:
Single Permits
If a site has one operator for multiple activities a single permit can cover all activities and will be enforced by a single regulator. Such sites are likely to have a single permit, even where the activities are not immediately adjacent to one another. This will not apply to crushers which will remain a Part B local authority activity.
Exclusions
Some other regimes are still excluded from the new system, including permissions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, discharge consents, agricultural waste disposal authorisations and the disposal or recovery of some sludges.
Existing Licenses
Existing licenses will transfer to the new regime in which the operator is the permit holder. So sites which have a different operator and licence holder will have to transfer the permit to the existing operator. The only delay to this provision would be where an existing application for a new licence, transfer, modification or surrender has not been dealt with by 6 April 2008. In such cases the licence will become a permit after any appeal deadline has elapsed, for example, a modification issued on 1 June 2008 would become a permit under the new regime on 1 December 2008. The regulator for your sites will still be the Environment Agency. If you have more than one licence on your site the Agency can consolidate the permits into a single one as long as the licence holders are the same legal person. Determination periods for applications remain pretty much the same, not that they have ever mattered to the Agency.
Variations
It will be possible to vary i.e. extend or reduce a licence area which removes the need to apply for extra licenses when you expand your site. To reduce a permit site area will require a partial surrender application.
Standard Rules
From April 2008 operators will be able to apply to operate under a set of standard rules which apply to their industry sector, which is essentially the same as the system of standard permits that has recently been introduced. Site specific permits will become a rarity.
Operator Competence
When assessing an application the regulator must consider operator competence, which includes management systems, technical competence, compliance record and financial competence. The COTC is still a valid qualification. Other schemes are encouraged and we shall have to wait and see which, if any, become the dominant method of demonstrating competence. My biggest worry is the removal of the two years’ grace period before you need to have the COTC. The Agency may still follow the system of Agency assessment but the charge is rumoured to be around £1,000.
Compliance Assessment, Enforcement and Review
Risk based regulation is the theme here, which is the way things have been going for a while. Risk based regulation also means ‘we can’t afford to be on site all the time and need a cheaper system’. This is still good news for operators who don’t want to see their regulator very often but it does lead to more intensive inspection (audits) when they do arrive.
Permit reviews are required under the new regime, although there is no set period for such a review.
Charging
It looks like the dreaded EP OPRA will not be coming in for waste transfer station charges for another year.
Landfills
Inert landfills are no longer a Part A PPC activity but precisely how much difference this will make is anyone’s guess. I will be covering the matter in a month or so once the EP system has bedded in.
That’s it for now! There is a lot of guidance available on the following link should you have trouble sleeping, happy reading. Questions to The Skip if you have any.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp/guidance.htm
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste regulation consultancy and is a WAMITAB accredited assessor for the COTCs in waste transfer, treatment and inert landfill.
He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net