The Skip Magazine

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

By Marco Muia - aka Enviroman

Most readers will be acutely aware of the problems with recycled wood and the difficulty in finding end users and stable markets. With the board mills’ fluctuating prices and specifications, and the Environment Agency’s stance on the definition of waste, there appear to be few options for treated timber arising from the construction and demolition waste sector. One of the favoured questions that crops up on almost every site visit I do at the moment is “Why can’t we burn it?”.

The only legal and effective way of burning waste wood and other biomass is to do it in an appliance which meets the requirements of the waste management licensing or PPC permitting regime. This usually means using the heat produced from combustion and/or generating electricity. There are many available options and plant sizes but the permitting regime caused a lot of confusion. The aim of this article is to point readers in the direction of the appropriate regulatory regime and deal briefly with some of the main issues.

What is biomass?

Traditionally biomass has been taken to mean energy crops, forestry residues and other naturally arising products but now tends to include waste wood and any organic waste products. Planning Policy Statement 22 states that “Biomass is the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including plant and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste.”

Equipment types?

There are a wide variety of plants using mass burn, gasification, pyrolysis and plasma technology, with equally diverse price tags. The type of equipment and fuel will also determine the appropriate control regime. There are a number of established technology providers and before investing with one, check the plant specifications thoroughly to ensure that the plant can process your waste and that you can successfully obtain a permit for it.

Do I need planning for a waste wood appliance?

In most cases yes. Most plants occupy a significant floor space for fuel storage, burning or gasification and engines. Smaller space heaters may not require planning. It depends upon the planning authority’s interpretation. Planners are generally more receptive to biomass fuelled applications than straight waste to energy proposals as they invariably have renewable energy targets to meet (as long as other policy objectives are met). The erection of a new building will be the main requirement for installations of 100 Kw/h or more with the main difficulty being the exhaust stack height (it may be visually obtrusive in some areas). Larger plants may also need an environmental impact assessment as part of the planning application process, as they are schedule 2 developments for EIA purposes and a screening opinion is required to determine whether or not an EIA is required. The operation of a 24 hour process will inevitably lead to a requirement for a noise assessment survey.

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. Contact Marco if you have any questions about this article - e-mail him at enviroman@theskip.net

By Marco Muia aka “Enviroman”

Here goes another year in the wacky world of waste. We are in for a busy year again with lots of legislative changes, but one old issue just won’t go away. Despite having a shutdown over the Christmas break whilst the construction industry closes down and skip sales slow down for a week or so, you get back to the yard and that great stockpile of screened soil is still there looking for a home and probably the only thing on site that stubbornly refuses to move, despite your best efforts. I have had a number of reader enquiries recently regarding problems with screened soil and the fact that in some areas the EA deem it unsuitable for exempt or inert sites? I have covered this issue before with regard to fines from trommels processing mixed waste and have summarised below the current situation and answers to the questions asked.

What is inert waste?
Strictly speaking inert waste is defined in Regulation 7(4) of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, as follows:

“(4) Waste is inert waste if -
(a) it does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations;
(b) it does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm to human health; and
(c) its total leachability and pollutant content and the ecotoxicity of its leachate are insignificant and, in particular, do not endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater.”

In other words “very restricted”! Operators of inert waste landfills must ensure that their site only accepts inert waste which meets the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) or inert wastes which do not need testing, which are defined by their EWC codes (below). Any that are not listed must pass the WAC test. For more details on WAC just type “wac” into Google and it will direct you to the correct EA website page.

European Waste Code = 10 11 03
Description = Waste glass based fibrous materials

European Waste Code = 15 01 07
Description = Glass packaging

European Waste Code = 17 01 01
Description = Concrete

European Waste Code = 17 01 02
Description = Bricks

European Waste Code = 17 01 03
Description = Tiles and ceramics

European Waste Code = 17 02 02, 20 01 02
Description = Glass

European Waste Code = 17 05 04, 20 02 02
Description = Soil and stones (excluding topsoil and peat)

The WAC test only needs to be carried out if your inert waste is to be accepted at a landfill which is licensed to take it. The regulations do not apply to “the use of suitable inert waste for redevelopment, restoration and filling-in work or for construction purposes”. In other words the use of inert wastes for exempt operations is acceptable subject to the material being fit for use and fitting in with the exemption criteria, most of which I have covered in previous articles. Furthermore the wastes deposited at exempt sites have to be suitable for the end use and not necessarily inert. This is a matter between you and the exempt operator and of course subject to scrutiny by the Agency.

Recovered soils are probably the biggest problem facing the industry today or at least the one with no immediate solution. The Environment Agency and WRAP have been working on a soil protocol but there has been little news on the outcome. In the mean time if you are dealing with clean excavated soil there should not be a problem with its re-use or deposit in exempt or licensed sites, however, it must meet the relevant conditions for that exemption. The problem occurs where the Agency still deem the screened material to be waste even if builders and other users are queuing up to use the final product. This issue will only finally be sorted when we have a soil protocol or case law on the matter. There is nothing to stop you drafting a soil protocol if you wish to do so. The Agency are unlikely to agree its contents but the document could be useful in the event of enforcement action.

Screened soils from transfer stations are a wholly different scenario. Screening mixed construction and demolition waste often creates a soil like material we best know as fines and which is commonly described as inert when it may in fact be non-hazardous or depending upon the analysis, even hazardous (mainly because the eco-toxicity test is very strict). The only answer is that the matter needs to be considered on a site by site basis i.e. is your waste acceptable at the site you wish to take it to and what requirements do you need to meet. It may be that your waste is not inert but that the destination site can take it as cover, for example. Agreeing the analysis requirements before you send samples to the lab is important. I have seen many jobs held up because the Agency or destination site wanted more analysis carried out.

It is important that loads are not cross contaminated and also to have a clear indication of what you want to do with your soils. Our biggest problem is the Agency’s lack of consistency on the matter with some geographical areas receiving more attention than others. I would be grateful to hear how your screened soils are viewed by your local Agency officer as I am compiling a case file for soil protocols.

Finally, I apologise for not covering the EA’s fees and charges proposals as promised but the last few articles have arisen from requests within the industry which are more pressing. If you have any subjects or legislation for future articles please let us know by getting in touch with The Skip.

The name’s Agency; The Environment Agency. And they have recently unveiled plans to clamp-down on unlicensed waste carriers in the North East of England.

The agency intends to write to 13,000 waste haulage and skip hire firms to confirm that they hold a waste carriers licence. The highly sophisticated plan will involve cross-referencing businesses from sources such as the Yellow Pages with its own database of registered carriers in the hope of catching out those illegally trading as waste carriers.

During the campaign, which will be funded by BREW (Business Resource and Waste Efficiency), the Environment Agency will send out up to 1,000 letters a week. Businesses will then be given four weeks to respond, after which time a second letter of warning will be issued before legal action is taken. Gerald Lee, campaign manager, said,

“Our message is simple – we will track down unregistered waste carriers. Our ‘dump-it and leg-it' campaign is successfully getting the message across that householders and businesses should only use a registered waste carrier or face a £5,000 fine. We are now contacting firms, who advertise that they work in the waste collection business, directly to give them a chance to apply to be registered.

If they ignore us then we will investigate and we will not hesitate to prosecute if we find that they have been operating illegally.”

Let’s hope any currently unregistered businesses get their act together. They should be shaken, not deterred!