UK government policy for refuse disposal: Actions as well as words!

Applied Energy 41 (1992) 301-308

Technical Note

UK Government Policy for Refuse Disposal: Actions as Well as Words!

M. Jones & D. Prober t

Department of Applied Energy, Cranfield Institute of Technology, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK

A BS TRA C T

Recent pertinent leg&lation concerning the handling, recycling and~or disposal of domestic, municipal and industrial refuse in the UK is reviewed. A t present it appears that UK energy politT is being influenced sign(fi'cantly by EC environmental legislation. Nevertheless, an overall strategy.for dealing with garbage is needed urgently.

INTRODUCTION

Anything which is given freely is rarely valued properly--this is especially true of the global environment, which mankind has used as the dustbin for millennia. Since this statement, which closely approximates to that of Margaret Thatcher (the then Prime Minister) in 1988, the UK Government's conversion to a 'green' awareness has resulted in the publication in 1990 of the White Paper This Common Inheritance and the subsequent Environ- mental Protection Act. These cover a wide range of subjects and are intended to make a considerable contribution to environmental protection in the UK. There have, however, been doubts about how the ideals that are expressed in the White Paper can be achieved by the contemplated actions embodied in the Act.

301 Applied Energy 0306-2619/92/$05.00 © 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain

302 M.Jones, D. Probert

Fig. i.

JSECRETARY

NATIONAL ~ ~ i RIVERS AUTHORITY

OF STATE] -.....

WASTE REGULATION AUTHORITY county dr metropolitan council, or regionat group of count Is

~ASTE - COLLECTION / i c e n c e s ~ l

AhUTIp~jIcTY a rec yc [ j ng I ~rnaf~ ~t°s[ I

Disposal Collection credits credi |i ~// /

I RECYCLINfi BODY J

WASTE - DISPOSAL AUTHORITY

Disposal contracts

!

dASTE - DISPOSAL I "ONTRACTOR 1

Administrative structure and hierarchy of the waste-regulation and administration system resulting from the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The aim of this technical note is to discuss the policies concerned with domestic-refuse recycling and disposal. The structure of administration and regulation of domestic refuse, as it will be after the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is outlined in Fig. 1. An assessment needs to be made of how the changes will affect the future of recycling.

A I M S O F WASTE P O L I C Y l

As stated in the White Paper, 'The Government 's priorities are to reduce (the generation of) waste at source or re-use what is left, disposing of the rest in the most environmentally-responsible way:' As far as domestic refuse is concerned, the aim is, by the year 2000, to be recyc|ing 50% of the 'recyclable' material produced annually. As less than half of this refuse is practicably recyclable, 2 this target implies that about 25% of domestic rubbish should be recycled by this time. This compares with a present UK recycling rate of less than 5%, i.e. an increase of more than 500% is desired.

UK Government politT.fi~r refuse disposak actions as well as words, p 303

As will be seen, the approach during the last twelve years has been to encourage waste minimisation and re-use by utilising free-market forces. By tightening the environmental controls on refuse disposal the costs incurred are increased; this should then help favour alternatives to disposal, i.e. recycling.

B A C K G R O U N D 1

UK industry currently produces annually around 10 a tonnes of refuse, and UK households around 2 × 10 7 tonnes. The latter is generated at a rate of between 12 and 14 kg per household per week. The cost of the collection and disposal of domestic refuse varies considerably, for instance with respect to the distance to the nearest landfill site or incinerator, but typically is of the order of£30 per tonne. Surely some financial return should be sought for this expenditure!

U K disposal of refuse occurs almost entirely (i.e. ---90%) in 4000 landfill sites. The majority of these are privately run. In addition, there are 35 major incinerators (four of which are for toxic waste), and these handle most of the rest of the refuse. However, incineration at present costs around three times per tonne as much as landfill. Nevertheless, it is probable that combustion will become more attractive, as tighter pollution controls on both will increase disposal costs. Some burial sites and incinerators will have to close because they will fail to satisfy the regulations. For example, the danger of leachate from old sites leaking out and adversely affecting acquifers (at lower levels) in the region is increasingly recognised.

HOW THE AIMS ARE TO BE ACHIEVED

Although the target set is to increase the amount of refuse that is recycled, most of the legislation in the 1990 Act is mainly concerned with waste disposal. Recycling is promoted in the White Paper, generally by means of ~encouraging" voluntary actions by industry. The five pertinent main strategies are to

(i) separate the functions of waste disposal and regulation, so as to define clearly responsibilities and identify costs;

(ii) arrange for recycling bodies to be credited with the refuse-disposal costs that they save;

(iii) tighten environmental-protection regulations and place a 'duty of care" on all involved in the handling and disposal of refuse;

(iv) carry out further studies to improve recycling and disposal methods; (v) work with the EC to establish European-wide effective strategies.

304 M. Jones, D. Probert

DETAILS OF LEGISLATION

The splitting of responsibilities for disposal from regulation is a significant step, the idea being, as with the creation of the National Rivers Authority, to prevent a single body being simultaneously both 'a poacher and a gamekeeper'. Local government is also obliged under the Act to separate its functions as a regulator from those for disposal, 3 and the Secretary of State has powers to enforce the division. In addition, collection is required to be separated from disposal; this is to help identify costs and make it easier to assess the benefits of recycling schemes run by the collection authority. What has been created is a kind of 'internal market', with the aim of improving accountability and efficiency, by ensuring that more responsibility is taken by those working at each level.

WASTE-REGULATION AUTHORITIES

These are county councils, district councils in Wales, metropolitan councils, or sometimes regional groupings of councils. Greater London has the London Waste Regulation Authority. Under new proposals by the present Prime Minister, John Major, the functions of the waste regulators will be merged with the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the Drinking-water Inspectorate to form what will become an Environmental Protection Agency. However, this change will not greatly alter the principles behind the rest of the refuse-regulation structure.

The functions of the waste regulator, whoever it becomes, are to

(i) regulate and enforce issuing waste-management licences to all who are involved in the waste-disposal chain;

(ii) enforce a duty of care on licensees to use the Best Available Technique Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC): the onus is on licensees to show that they are, and not to do so is a criminal offence;

(iii) consider the total environmental impact when planning waste- disposal policy;

(iv) publish plans for waste disposal in the local area; (v) recover costs of inspection and enforcement from licensees; and

(vi) consult with the other pollution-control bodies and the Nature Conservancy Council when making plans.

WASTE-COLLECTION AUTHORITY

This is usually the district or borough council; its duty is the collection of waste within its area. It must arrange for the collected refuse to be recycled or

UK Government policy for refuse disposal: actions as well as words/ 305

disposed of safely. It is obliged to compile a 'recycling plan' which must be presented to the Secretary of State. The Department of the Environment will issue guidelines to assist in composing these plans.

WASTE-DISPOSAL A U T H O R I T Y

This is generally the district or borough council; it can also be the county council. It bears the responsibility for the contracting out of refuse disposal. It no longer carries out the disposal itself because it is obliged under the Act to separate its waste-disposal facilities into a so-called ~arms length' company, which competes for contracts with the private sector.

I N T E R N A L AND RECYCLING CREDITS

If a recycling body, by its activities, reduces the amount of refuse for the collection authority to collect or for the disposal authority to dispose of, then it must be paid appropriate 'recycling credits' from the relevant authority. These credits are to be the real financial savings entailed by the authority as a result of having less to deal with. The likely unit value of such credits is not yet decided, but is likely to be approximately £25 per tonne of recycled refuse. 4 There are difficulties in calculating what the unit value of the credits should be as the savings are a marginal cost for the authority. There are large overheads, which are not reduced significantly by small reductions in tonnage: for example, the labour and lorry costs for collection will fall only if reductions in refuse quantities are sufficient to reduce the frequency of collections made or the number of lorries needed.

A D D I T I O N A L ACTIONS

The White Paper goes further than the legislation in as much as it discusses areas for further study and possible future actions. Additional research concerning recycling and disposal technologies is recommended, and future regulations will follow the evolving improvements in technology as the 'duty of care' requires.

Pilot recycling schemes, such as those in the "Recycling Cities' programme, will be ~supported'; industry will be encouraged to cooperate with local authorities to provide increased recycling facilities. However, details are not given as to how this support will become apparent.

Problem wastes, such as batteries, will be assessed to see if special charges


or levies are justified in order to ensure their safe removal. The Conservative Government, as it does so frequently, would prefer voluntary action by industry, although regulation is likely to be required.

The Government is working within the European Community to achieve a common approach to pollution control, and also consumer legislation on, for example, labelling. Again it would prefer a voluntary approach, but legislation may follow if a lack of cooperation ensues.

CAN THE 25% RECYCLING TARGET BE REALISED IN THE SCHEDULED TIME-SCALE?

Unfortunately the answer is likely to be 'No'. This is because of several problems which the Government has not as yet addressed.

It is estimated that doorstep collections of segregated refuse components (glass, paper, cans, etc.), organised on a large enough scale to meet the recycling target, would cost the UK around £200 million per year in increased collection costs. 5 This does not include the extra capital investment needed for facilities and processing plant. It is not clear from the Act who is supposed to meet this cost, particularly with the current (i.e. in July 1991) uncertainty over local government funding.

Even if the ~segregated' collections could be implemented it is unlikely that a sufficiently large market for all the recycled products could be assured. This is a particular problem in the paper industry, where adequate pulping plant does not exist as yet in the UK. Nevertheless, with the UK's large imports of pulp, paper and board (~6 × l 0 6 tonnes annually at a cost of and hence their introduction may need government inducements (British Paper and Board Industry Federation, private communication, 1991). It would be of great benefit to Britain if all newspapers were required to be printed on at least 50% recycled paper.

The Government is not really intent upon achieving the optimal disposal of all refuse: recycling is restricted in the discussion to the reuse of valuable refuse only. It is assumed the remaining 75%, even if the target is reached, will predominantly be landfilled. However, other disposal methods could often be used instead; these would both reduce the amount of rubbish for final disposal while providing other benefits.

The most obvious approach is energy recycling, for example by the production of refuse-derived fuels. One advantage of this is that it reduces greenhouse-gas emissions: it also avoids the production of such landfill methane had this refuse been buried; the energy stockpiled in this way would reduce the need for fossil fuels. However, without the provision of incentives by the Government, short-term financial accountability militates against the

UK Government polio, for refuse disposal: actions as well as words. I 307

introduction of energy-recycling systems, even though in the long term they would probably prove to be both economically viable and environmentally beneficial.

Landfill gas is also neglected in the Act: the White Paper refers to research on the subject but it is not obligatory for landfill operators to do anything positive about it. Nevertheless, it is estimated that landfill gas from the UK is equivalent to 7% of British Gas' annual production and has the same greenhouse-gas temperature rise effect as ~10% of fossil-fuel CO 2 emissions. 6 Preferably it could be required of landfill operators that they utilise the gas for energy production, or at the very least flare it off safely.

Another means for reducing the amount of refuse for disposal is to avoid mixing, at the point of production, the biodegradable fraction with the rest of the refuse. This fraction should be composted: if done anaerobically, biogas for fuel is produced. 7 In addition, the process can provide useful organic fertilisers and can be used to combine the digestion of refuse with that of sewage. Such mixing of these components enhances their biodegradability, while dealing with both problems simultaneously.

There are many means which could be built in by design that would encourage recycling. For instance, there should be greater uniformity in the systems we use. Identical glass jars, whether for coffee, honey, pickled cabbage, etc., should be used (obviously with different stick-on labels) and returned (when undamaged) to the nearest retailer (encouraged by a significant returnable deposit) and thence to the n e a r e s t factory requiring that type of jar irrespective of its previous use as a food container. The Government might take the lead by taxation inducements for producers to adopt conformity of jars. The EC Single Market means that such standardisation should be encouraged via a European-wide policy.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to refuse disposal, the White Paper contains good intentions and high ideals. Its aim for 25% recycling by the year 2000 is ambitious, and so far most of the actions implemented by the Government, in the form of the Environmental Protection Act, are disappointing. Nevertheless, the new licensing arrangements, using regulators with teeth, should reduce, over the long term, many of the worst problems associated with the mishandling of refuse. The resulting increased costs of waste disposal, combined with recycling credits, will strengthen the economic arguments for recycling. However, the Government has not yet addressed the problem of ensuring that a market exists for recycled products: other methods for getting something useful back from rubbish are also neglected, yet deserve the


receipt of financial inducements from the Government. While guidance will be issued to local authorities on how to formulate their plans, it is by no means clear that they will have the resources to implement them to the extent that achieving the 25% target requires. The Government must evolve an overall waste and recycling strategy in which all aspects of disposal and recycling are considered. The economic and environmental benefits arising from different disposal methods need to be assessed objectively, and extra support and incentives given to those which justify it. Without this, in the present climate, it is unlikely that the target can be achieved within the desired time-scale.

REFERENCES

1. HMSO, This Common lnheritance.White Paper on the Environment, HMSO, 1990.

2. Ogilvie, S. M., Achieving the Government target of 25 % recycling of household waste. Warren Spring paper no. W91017 (MR), 1991.

3. Environmental Protection Act, Chapter 43. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), 1990.

4. Barton, J., Recycling: can local authorities make it pay? Recycling Advisory Unit, Warren Spring Laboratory, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage. Warren Spring paper no. W91018 (MR), 1991.

5. Association of Municipal Engineers, Recycling household waste. Association of Municipal Engineers, Great George Street, London, 17 July 1991.

6. HMSO, Energy policy implications of the greenhouse effect. Sixth Report from the Energy Select Committee, Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), July 1989.

7. PB Mistry, ETSU. Report on anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Biofuels Division, Energy Technology Support Unit, Harwell, Oxfordshire, June 1990.

Documents

UK government policy for refuse disposal: Actions as well as words!