No. This is not the usual sort of crystal ball gazing article you usually see at the start of the year. This is real!

There is a lot that goes on within EU government administration that will have a big impact on the lives of the average person in years to come, but gets very little publicity in the United Kingdom, and I doubt it gets a much better airing elsewhere either. So, I am indebted to Paul Sheridan and Olivia Quaid, of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, who have highlighted this to me, via their article within the CIWM’s Wastes Management Journal (September 2011). That in turn has enabled me to publicise here, the launch last summer of the EU publication titled “A Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe”.

Will existing EU Landfills even be filled?

It is not just because the numbers for resource usage and waste produced are huge, as given by the Commission the EU:

- Disposes of 2.7bn tonnes of waste annually
- 98m tonnes of which is hazardous.
- Only 40 percent of the EU’s solid waste is re-used or recycled.

It is because there will within the next few years be another new layer of regulations to ensure that:

1. Higher priority is given to re-use and recycling.
2. All product design integrating a life-cycle approach, is implemented
3. Yet bigger incentives for waste prevention and recycling, and
4. More public investment takes place in modern facilities for waste treatment and recycling.

This “plan” came about, on 20 September 2011 when the European Commission launched several publications – all with relevance to resource efficiency and the sustainable use of natural resources throughout the EU. The master document is (as above) “A Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571/3) (The Resource Efficiency Roadmap)”. This builds on existing strategies form environmental sustainability such as the roadmap to a low carbon society.

Now, although it might be assumed that these publications would be litte more than a “talking shop”, we understand that some of the proposals will become law or policy, and if either happen, they will certainly have large direct and indirect impacts. There will be many new regulations for the waste management industry, the public sector and for private businesses.

There is also plenty of optimism here that this will bring many new opportunities and developments for the “waste” (soon to be “resource” industry). So you need to know of this, and how it will be done.

The so called “Resource Efficiency Roadmap” identifies the areas that the EU bureacrats will concentrating on in order to transform the approach that all member nations adopt towards the use of resources and their cost and value, across a range of governmment instruments.

It will move towards achieving a number of what it calls “milestones” (isn’t it more usual to call such things targets?). And, also gives hints on the devices intended to secure achievement of each “milestone”.

The methods include;

- legislation,
- market-based instruments,
- refocusing of funding instruments and,
- the promotion of sustainable production and consumption.

So What Will Interest the Waste management Community Most?

The document seeks; “the establishment of targets and indicators providing predictability and transparency in resource efficiency by 2013.

This is to be done through; “a participative process involving policy makers, NGOs, business and consumers”. In this process; “a greater role is envisaged for eco-design, eco-labelling and greener spending by public bodies”.

Significant emphasis is placed on energy efficiency in the public sector (and also those private companies engaged by governments in working for the public sector).

Waste Will be Managed as a Resource by 2020

So, Waste will cease to exist! That’s official! The Milestone document says:

“By 2020, waste is managed as a resource. Waste generated per capita is in absolute decline. Recycling and re-use of waste are economically attractive options for public and private sectors due to widespread separate collection and the development of functional markets for secondary raw materials. More materials, including materials having a significant impact on the environment and critical raw materials, are recycled. Waste legislation is fully implemented… Energy recovery is limited to non-recyclable materials, landfilling is virtually eliminated and high quality recycling is ensured.”

How Will This be Achieved?

“The Commission aims to stimulate the secondary materials market and demand for recycled materials through economic incentives and developing end-of-waste criteria; review existing targets, with residual waste close to zero (in 2014); assess the introduction of minimum recycled material rates, durability and reusability criteria and extensions of producer responsibility for key products (in 2012); assess where legislation could be aligned to improve coherence (in 2013/2014); facilitate the exchange of best practice on collection and treatment of waste among member states and develop measures to combat more effectively breaches of EU waste rules (in 2013/2014).”

So, welcome to 2012! It is to be a brave new regulatory world, and expect big news and developments in the EU for “wasters” in the coming years.

The Waste Technology Industry is about to grow further! Waste technology is big news – so look out for our coming money off offer on the new edition of our publication “An Introduction to Waste Technologies – 2012″. It will be an exclusive offer for all subscribers to this blog.

This is the result of an ill-judged taxation in many states which is doing much more environmental damage, than it helps The industry research has shown this because it results in increased exhaust emissions, more congestion on the roads and lots more waste going to dump.

In Eire, when deprived of the popular reuse of plastic bags for bin liners and pet droppings, people had to purchase much heavier gauge bin bags and refuse sacks. As a consequence, PIFA claims the tax brought no statistically major change in the total tonnage of plastic bags employed in the country. The Organisation based its conclusions, in a dispatch in 2005, on an analysis of Customs and Excise statistics.

Plastic bags are alleged to be less polluting than paper bags during manufacture also. Actually the industry claims powerful environmental certifications for plastic by emphasising studies by Winnipeg Varsity, which demonstrate that bag production uses only one third of the energy, ends up in 1/2 the pollution, and needs one eighth of the raw material required by equivalent paper bag production.

The bag industry also strongly reiterates the undeniable fact that plastic carrier bags are reused by eighty percent of homes, according to Defra research, and it fights claims that householders hoard plastic bags by pointing out that fairly high stocks of carrier bags are needed precisely due to this high reusage for everything from school lunches to bin liners and the hygienic disposal of pet crap and so on.

Even at the end of its useful life plastic waste is welcomed in several Western european nations using clean technology for waste incineration as the energy released has greater calorific price than coal.

The plastics films industry advocates more clean incineration of waste to help scale back our dependence on landfill. But , in view of the indisputable fact that carrier bags only take up 0.3 % of landfill they question why are they being attacked by legislators and local authorities at all .

The Packing and Commercial Films Organisation makes the point that public authorities and environmental groups around the world need to focus on macro-environmental issues instead of promoting ‘easy win ‘ misconceptions that will bring no real environmental improvements.

The reality is that the taxing of plastic carrier bags offers politicians a preferred fast fix, and quite probably there are votes to be gained from the ones that are easily impressed by “greenwash”, but who will not realize that there’s no real environmental benefit.

Although in 2009 the current concept of “end of waste” protocols did not exist in any real form, this CIWM posting did provide some help to the waste industry to alleviate concerns that gasification gases could be burnt without all the complexities of the WID applying.

SOURCE: CIWM, FEBRUARY 2009

Recent publicity has highlighted the amounts of food waste generated in the UK. The legal drivers enforcing the diversion of biodegradable material (like food) from landfill mean that composting, Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) are coming increasingly to the fore. Indeed, the new waste framework directive provides clear focus on the need to encourage separate collection of food waste and other “bio-wastes” so that it can be treated properly and used to generate safe products.

The extent to which these activities are likely to be bound in “waste” red tape has been highlighted as a result of two recent developments.

The first is the European Court’s December judgement in the Lahti Energia case to the effect that a plant burning gas produced from the gasification of waste was burning “a product having the characteristics of a fuel… generated from waste”. It was therefore a product rather than a waste. (Crucially, the gas had been “purified” by filtration to remove solid particles.)

The second is the EA’s recent clarification of its position on AD of manure and slurry. It asserts that “the biogas produced from the AD of manure and slurry will be a waste”, although recognises that much will depend on the extent to which the gas needs further treatment prior to being used as a fuel.

The law therefore is and remains that product status depends on whether the product compares favourably enough to its virgin equivalent.

Complete the details below to send a link to this page to a friend.

View the original article here

SOURCE: CIWM, OCTOBER 2008

With commodity prices rising at unprecedented rates the viability of landfill mining is now being looked at seriously, with landfills regarded as untapped mines of valuable resources, such as plastics and metals.

Their exploitation will raise interesting legal issues. The concept of waste remaining waste until recovered or disposed of is familiar. That being so, how quickly after deposit at a landfill is waste finally “disposed of”? Is it immediately, or must we wait, perhaps until it has biodegraded? But that would be a meaningless test for inert wastes.

With “landfill” being the deposit of waste onto or into land, and with the new Waste Framework Directive stipulating that “land” is excluded from its remit, it begs an interesting question as to the point at which waste deposited “into” land simply becomes part of the land, and therefore no longer a waste.

Landfills still subject to closure and aftercare requirements under the Landfill Directive would create a regulatory headache, but mining a historic landfill might create fewer difficulties. The activity would not fall naturally into any existing PPC category and if the contents are not waste, presumably no environmental permit would be necessary. However, unless you exploit 100 percent of what you excavate, you are presumably re-creating waste from the material you then re-discard.

Perhaps, as with carbon capture and storage, if progress starts to be made, the legislators may step in and fill the regulatory gap.

View the original article here

The near meltdown of reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan has re-fuelled the renewables vs. nuclear debate, bringing the complex economics of low-carbon energy generation back to the fore.  We take a look at the impact of the disaster on the cost of nuclear energy generation, and question what this could mean for the renewables sector.

Nuclear power has long been considered an attractive, cost-competitive alternative to conventional methods of electricity generation.  At present, it provides roughly 18% of the UK’s electricity requirements.  While it is difficult to ascertain the true cost of a modern nuclear plant – Britain’s newest (Sizewell B) is 16 years old – it is clear that fuel costs make up only a minor proportion of their total generating costs.  The downside is that capital costs are significantly greater.

Thus, while the fuel is cheap, nuclear power plants themselves are highly expensive to build and the reward from that investment is gradual.  Added to that, long or delayed construction periods only serve to increase costs (a prime example being the Areva plant in Finland, which is more than three years behind schedule and £1.6 billion over budget).  Factored in to these initial calculations, must be decommissioning and waste disposal costs, which equate to about 9-15% of the capital cost of a nuclear power plant.

Despite these hidden costs, nuclear power is considered to be a much cheaper option than the various renewable forms of energy generation, such as wind, wave, tidal and solar power.  Indeed, nuclear energy has a base cost of just 4 pence per kWh, while onshore wind power (the least expensive form of renewable energy) costs 7 pence per kWh to generate.  http://windpower-generators.info/

In keeping with EU targets, the UK is under an obligation to increase the share of energy it generates from renewable sources to 15% by 2020.  Most of the increase in renewable energy in Britain is expected to come from electricity generation – with an anticipated rise from 5-6% renewables to 30-40% renewables in 2020.  On this basis, the higher costs associated with renewable generation in comparison with conventional and nuclear generation would increase costs by £6.8bn a year (that is, by 38 per cent). The costs involved in generating marine and solar renewable electricity are higher still.

All that might be about to change, however, as the nuclear industry counts the cost of the impending meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan.  The atomic disaster has dealt a massive blow to future UK nuclear energy plans, with experts warning that the scheduled construction of new plants could be delayed by up to six months.  The position is set to deteriorate if safety issues raised by the incident increase the cost of reactors, a factor which is likely to have a knock-on effect on investment decisions.  Mark Hibbs, an atomic policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Berlin predicts that:

A further setback to nuclear energy generation has come to light in the aftermath of the disaster, as it transpires that it will be Japan’s taxpayers – rather than the nuclear industry – who will fund the cleanup operation.  This has wide-reaching implications for the future of the nuclear energy sector, with some experts predicting that governments will now seek to transfer greater financial responsibility to plant operators.

In this vein, David Robinson, a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies predicts that:

Any such “burden-sharing” could build on the (unratified) 2004 amendment to the Paris Convention, which raised nuclear operators’ liability in most European countries to 700 million euros.  This spells out very bad news for the nuclear power movement, as it greatly increases the economic burden on operators, to the detriment of energy prices as a whole.

Any increase in the cost of nuclear energy generation is however, good news for the renewables industry, which could now find itself on a more level playing field in terms of cost.  For many years, nuclear energy generation has been recognised as being more economically advantageous than renewable energy generation, but recent events look set to redress the balance.  The nuclear crisis in Japan, combined with the impact of the new “carbon price support tax” on fossil fuel generation announced in the 2011 Budget, will only serve to strengthen the case for renewable technologies as a safe, clean and cost-effective means of low-carbon energy generation.

View the original article here

Source: CIWM, December 2010

The legal definition of “waste” has always been a bit of a nightmare for those in the industry who seek innovatively to do intelligent things with waste and other “residues”, but struggle to make a case for “product”’ status.  Where commercially useful residues are deemed by regulators to be “waste”, then they are a regulatory burden and of reduced commercial value.

The purpose of this short article is to reduce the complexities of the legal definition of waste to their essential legal framework, and thereby (hopefully) encourage operators to be more ambitious about developing their processes and products, and thus engaging with and overcoming the continuing complexities of the law.

This is easy to say, harder to do.  The law has never been helpful, and as we get to the end of 2010 there seems to be more law, but not necessarily more clarity.  So what is the law?

Well, it is multi-faceted and, as with anything complex, there are different ways of “cutting” it.  I think it is useful to see it as essentially broken down into three strands:

Directive waste

Ultimately, everything rests on the nebulous concept of “discarding”.  Article 3(1) of the revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (the WFD) states that “waste” means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends to discard or is required to discard.

Discarding has been interpreted widely by the European Court, such that you can very easily be discarding something which you sell for a profit!  Fortunately, though, the more recent case law has moved things on considerably.

Article 2 of the WFD is also very important, because it deals with wastes which are excluded from the Directive, and therefore from its regulatory controls.  There are two categories of excluded material:

The new Waste (England & Wales) Regulations 2010 reflect these WFD definitions.

Secondary products, production residues and by-products

There is a line of ECJ cases, between 2002 and 2007, where the European Court looked much closer than it had before at the concept of discarding, and developed the helpful concepts of secondary products, production residues and by-products.

In the leading case of Palin Granit (2002), the ECJ was dealing with leftover stone from a massive quarrying operation.  This was also the situation in the later case of AvestaPolarit (2003).  In Palin Granit the leftover stone was ruled to be waste.  In AvestaPolarit, the opposite conclusion was reached.  How come?

The Court defined the basic concept of a “production residue” as something that is not the end product that the manufacturing process directly seeks to produce.  In those cases, the leftover stone was not the primary object of production.  The presumption is that a production residue will be a waste, and that was the ruling in Palin Granit.

However, the Court also opened up the possibility that a production residue might not necessarily be a waste, but might instead be a by-product.  A by-product would not be a waste, provided it was produced as an integral part of the production process, and was to be put to lawful use as a matter of certainty without any further processing.  That was what happened in Avesta Polarit.

Things moved on in the case of Saetti (2004), where the ECJ was asked to give an opinion on whether petroleum coke (a carbon based material produced in the refining of crude oil) was a waste or not.  The Court held that the petroleum coke could not be classified as a production residue at all.  Therefore, the question of by-product did not arise.  The coke was ruled to be a secondary product because it was the result of a technical process choice.

In the so-called “Spanish Pig Manure case”, pig manure used as soil fertiliser as part of a lawful practice of spreading on clearly identified parcels of land was held not to be waste.  Actually, the value of this ruling lies, not so much in its classification of the pig manure, but rather in its dismissal that such a by-product could only be re-used on the site on which it was produced.  In my view, this has positive implications for things like excavated uncontaminated soils in the construction sector.

Finally, Article 5(1) of the WFD attempts to synthesise this case law.  I find the drafting of Article 5(1) concerning in some respects, since some of its wording cuts across the sensible logic of the case law, and fails altogether to deal with secondary products.  We will see whether it causes trouble in practice, but it is a reminder of the volatility of this area of law, and the need to tread warily and under advice.

End of waste

For me, “end of waste” (or “complete recovery” as it was referred to by the ECJ in ARCO Chemie) is recycling par excellence, even where the end product is a fuel (though the framers of the WFD don’t see it that way, which is unfortunate).  I find the lack of any reference to complete recovery in the revised waste hierarchy bemusing and unhelpful.

Still, there is no doubt that the law has moved on.  The ruling of the Court of Appeal in the OSS case, with which I was privileged to be intimately connected, was an overdue sanity check.  It has spawned the quality protocols industry in the UK, and this model has now been expressed at EU level in Article 6 of the WFD.

In the very short space available, I simply record here what are the essential elements of this massively complex area of law.  There is really only one ECJ case, but two excellent UK court authorities, and a remarkably refreshing judgment from the Netherlands which was endorsed here by the Court of Appeal.

The law resides in these court rulings, not in the quality protocols.  The protocol idea is to be welcomed, and the EA and WRAP to be congratulated on what are very useful guidance for those specific waste streams affected.  However, the law is in the court judgments, and in a nutshell the end of waste criteria are that the waste is subjected to “recovery operation”, which produces a distinct marketable product with a guaranteed output product specification which can be used in the same way as an “ordinary” product, with no greater environmental precautions needed nor any greater impact on human health or the environment from using it as you would the ordinary product.  And try not to do anything (e.g. long term storage) that would suggest an intention or requirement to discard.

The real commercial value to be derived from the production of by-products, secondary products or “end of waste” materials, from something hitherto classed as a waste, is usually within reach.  The trick is to approach the matter professionally, systematically and with the proper attention to detail.

Complete the details below to send a link to this page to a friend.

View the original article here

Here is our Waste Separation Technology list:

1. Screeners are sifting units that are rotated as powder is fed into their interior.
2. Air classifiers, cones or cyclones use the spiral air flow action or acceleration within a chamber to separate or classify solid particles
3. Concentrating tables or density separators screen bulk materials or minerals based on the density (specific gravity), size and shape of the particles.
4. Electrostatic separators use preferential ionization or charging of particles to separate conductors from dielectrics (non conductors).
5. Floatation systems separate hydrophobic particulates from hydrophilic particulates by passing fine air bubbles up through a solid- liquid mixture. The fine bubbles attach to and lift or float the hydrophobic particles up where they are collected.
6. Magnetic separators use powerful magnetic fields to separate iron, steel, ferrosilicon or other ferromagnetic materials from non-magnetic bulk materials. The magnetic field may be generated by permanent magnets or electromagnets.
7. Rake, spiral and bowl classifiers use mechanical action to dewater, deslime or separate coarse bulk materials from finer materials or liquids.
8. Trommels are large rotary drums shaped with a grate-like surface with large openings to separate very coarse materials from bulk materials, e.g. coarse plastics from fine aluminium.
9. Water classifiers such as elutriators and classifying hydrocyclones use settling or flow in water or a liquid to separate or classify powdered materials based on particle size or shape.

This type of equipment is normally found in Labs and in Industrial use – in wheelie bins.

Monday November 17 2008

Ireland country is heading for a major landfill crisis.

Within the next two years, almost a third of Ireland’s 35 landfills will be overflowing with rubbish.

According to figures from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 11 of the 35 landfill sites around the country are likely to be full by 2011.

Another four will be under severe pressure by 2014, creating a massive headache for the relevant local authorities.

Since 2006, Waterford County Council has been forced to take rubbish from its landfill site to another facility in Co Carlow.

By the end of next year, Mayo County Council will have to consider a similar plan when its Derinumera landfill is expected to run out of capacity.

Two of Dublin’s major dumps are also expected to reach capacity by 2010.

Among the sites facing closure are Arthurstown landfill in south county Dublin, Ballealy landfill in Fingal, Dunmore landfill in Kilkenny and Donohill landfill in south Tipperary.

Pressure

Overall, the EPA estimates that three million tonnes of waste is being thrown into landfills every year. This means that within a decade all the country’s existing dumps are likely to have reached capacity.

Only around 25 million tonnes of total landfill capacity remain nationwide.

When planned super dumps at Drehed in Kildare and Bottlehill in Cork begin operation, they are likely to begin filling fast.

Plus, the EPA expects Irish people to be generating growing amounts of waste.

Despite the new focus on recycling, the EPA projects that the amount of waste generated by each person will rise from 0.84 tonnes in 2006 to 1.15 tonnes person by 2020.

The environmental body has described the increase as “phenomenal”.

Another factor in the waste management crisis is the EU landfill directive, which will come into effect in 2010.

Under its terms, the Government will have to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that is disposed of in landfill.

Upward

Ireland is directed to reduce its disposal rates by 50pc. But it is also expected that biodegradable municipal waste, like waste from households and commercial activities, will rise by 4pc per year for the next decade, doubling by 2025 with the EPA.

In 2005, a total of 3.05 million tonnes of municipal waste was generated in Ireland, an increase of 65pc since 1995, and the EPA says that while the rate of increase is slowing, the direction is still upward.

The European Environment Agency has reported that Ireland ranks as the largest per capita generator of municipal waste in the EU. More …

The organisers of the top Waste and resource management conference are once again seeking papers from experts in their fields. To write a good quality paper and present it at the conference is the very best self publicity for yourself and your company. Now is your chance to start by submitting your abstract for consideration.

Get started now – there is not much time!

SYMPOSIUM THEMES

The Symposium will last five days and will deal with municipal and commercial solid waste, hazardous waste and special waste including the following topics:

A. Waste policy and legislation National and regional guidelines; regulation and planning
requirements; role of scientific and technical bodies as well as associations.
B. Waste management strategies Integrated waste management; national and local strategies; zero waste management; future perspectives.
C. Public participation and education
Public involvement; NGO activities; mediation; education; communication; training in waste management and operation, public and occupational health impacts of waste management.
D. Waste management assessment and decision tools
Life cycle analysis; risk assessment; environmental impact assessment; EMAS; quality control procedures; cost benefit analysis; multi-criteria analysis; auditing.
E. Waste characterisation as a tool for waste management
strategies
Standardisation; analytical procedures.
F. New concepts for waste collection
Cost optimisation; on-demand collection; separate collection;subsurface systems; case studies.
G. Waste minimisation and recycling
Waste avoidance; waste logistics and recycling; new recycling technologies; material quality after recycling; packaging material; electronic waste; construction and demolition waste; batteries; end of life vehicles; market waste.
H. Biological treatment
New developments in composting and anaerobic digestion; emissions from processing facilities; product quality.
I. Thermal treatment and advanced conversion technologies
Technology and experiences; new technologies; production and use of RDF; emission control; reatment of residues; beneficial use of combustion ash.
L. Mechanical biological treatment prior to landfilling
Mechanical pretreatment (separation, shredding, RDF-production, etc.); technology and experience; new technology, testing and landfill acceptance; off gas treatment; emission control.
M. Sanitary landfilling
Sustainable landfill concepts for municipal and special waste; processes and emissions; leachate and gas management; landfill design and construction; barrier design and long-term performance; waste mechanics; landfill operation; administrative and financial aspects;
landfilling under specific conditions (tropical, islands, mountains, etc.); aftercare and reuse; landfill remediation; cost studies; cases.
N. Integrated wastewater and solid waste management
Decentralized systems; closed substance cycles; future perspectives; cases.
O. Waste management and climate change
Minimisation of greenhouse gases from waste management activities and landfills, waste – CDM projects, minimisation of energy consumption, landfills as geological sinks for carbon and other elements.
P. Waste management in developing and low income countries
Appropriate technologies, experiences, international cooperation, financing, education.
Q. Special sessions
BAT – Best Available Technologies; IPPC regulations.

Due to their relevance, all these subjects will be presented in general sessions, specialised sessions, workshops and poster sessions. Offers of papers for workshops are also welcome.

An extended abstract (at least one but no more than two full pages) should reach the Organization no later than January 30th 2009.

Continuously updated information is available on the web page http://www.sardiniasymposium.it

The aim of the review is to provide a more risk based and proportionate approach to the regulation of waste recovery and disposal operations, complementing the new environmental permitting regime.

The consultation detailing these proposed changes was released on 31 July 2008 and the closing date for responses is 23 October 2008.
The consultation package can be found here.