Waste, the Landfill Tax and the Inert Problem
Waste, the Landfill Tax and the Inert Problem
.0 ABSTRACT
Waste is an important issue that affects us all; it is also very complex. What waste actually is is also very unclear the issue has been before the courts on a number of occasions because regulatory authorities and industry see the definitions differently. The confusion is caused by the existence of numerous definitions of waste.
In England and Wales three main methods are used to deal with waste, they are Recycle and Reuse, Incineration and Landfill. All three methods have problems which can have a harmful effect on the environment or public health, reuse and recycling suffers from economic problems.
In 1996 the government introduced the landfill tax which aimed to encourage recycling and reuse and to free up space at landfill sites. The landfill has reduced waste arisings at landfill sites but there is no evidence of increased re use or recycling, it is believed that the waste is being disposed of in either the unregulated or illegal sectors. This is then causing further environmental problems.
2.0 CONTENTS:
Page No.
.0 ABSTRACT 1
2.0 CONTENTS 2
3.0 APPENDICES 3
4.0 INTRODUCTION 4
5.0 WHAT IS WASTE 6
6.0 CURRENT DISPOSAL METHODS 9
7.0 THE LANDFILL TAX 12
8.0 THE INERT PROBLEM 15
9.0 REGULATION 19
0.0 CONCLUESION 20
1.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 22
2.0 APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 Statutory Definition of Waste
Appendix 2 Statutory Definition of Special Waste
Appendix 3 Section 45 of the EPA 1990
Appendix 4 ECOTEC (2000) Survey Framework
Appendix 5 My survey
Appendix 6 Graphs
Appendix 7 Exemptions in Full
Appendix 8 Photographs
4.0 INTRODUCTION
Mellanby (1992) blames the waste problem entirely on humans, he says, "before Homo sapiens appeared on earth, there was no real waste materials." By this, he means that in nature nothing is wasted, the bodies of dead animals and plants are efficiently recycled when they die. The dead organism is broken down by and/or eaten by other plants, animals, fungi or bacteria that reap a benefit from it, i.e. it is not wasted. In nature even the faeces and excrement from animals is recycled in some form, for example many different insects feed on dung, and plants can gain extra nutrients from dung that becomes incorporated with soil.
The waste problem began with our earliest relatives who would simply discard waste where it was produced. Mellanby goes onto suggest that cave dwellings used by Palaeolithic Hunters are thought to have been reduced to half their original size by waste deposits. He also suggests that communities would simply move on when an area became too unpleasant to live in, a strategy that was followed by numerous successive civilisations.
However in these early strategies can not be followed in a modern densely populated world, we do not have the space to move on every time an area becomes too disgusting to live in. In the coming years waste is going to become an issue of increasing importance s society runs out of holes in the round that need filling.
Waste forms and important part of our everyday lives, everything we put in the bin; flush down the toilet or pour down the sink is waste, every time we use our cars we produce waste gasses. When thought about carefully it is easy to see the amount of waste that we produce individually each year. When this is multiplied by the population of the world, it is an immense amount, which all needs to managed safely in a manner that is sustainable. When considering this issue it is very important to think towards the future, not just the present, we don not want our children to inherit the problem that we face today.
Many authors see waste as the biggest problem facing the environment today; Gourlay (1992) calls our world a "world of waste." She then goes onto say "unless we do something about it, humanity may disappear under its own detritus, and the world we know with it."
Waste and the problems associated with it are major environmental issues and I feel that it is important to explore and evaluate the UK governments response to this by focusing in on their major policy of recent years, the landfill tax. It is necessary, though, to focus in on England and Wales in particular because the rules, regulations and in many cases the policies for Scotland and Northern Ireland are inherently different.
During the study I have focused in on Household, Industrial and commercial solid wastes because the treatment of liquid effluent and gasses is extremely different in both legislation and practice.
During the next few pages, I am going to explore these important issues. Initially I believe that it is important to spend some time examining exactly what waste is as it has been clouded by numerous different definitions and legal actions. Within this, it is necessary to examine what currently happens to waste, who regulates it and what government is aiming for in the future. I will than go onto examine and evaluate what I see as the kingpin to current waste management policy, the Landfill tax. However the landfill tax as created many problems and I will examine these in the subsection entitled "The Inert Problem." I will then conclude by looking to the future and briefly look at the international waste management problem.
5.0 WHAT IS WASTE?
Our perception of waste is a simple one, waste is something that we do not want, we put it in a dustbin and some one comes and takes it away. How ever from a legal perspective waste is a complex issue, there are many contrasting definitions and meanings of waste spread over the different tiers of our legal system. Sunkin (1998) says, "the legal definition of waste is far from clear." As I am concentrating on waste in England and Wales in this report, I feel that it is necessary to bypass the international and European legal definitions and concentrate on what waste means in England and Wales.
Hanks (1990) define waste as "a material that has been used and is no longer wanted, or a material left over from a useful process." This is quite a simple definition, however what if a material not wanted by one person is wanted by another, is it still waste? If a material left over from a useful process is still of use, is it still waste? Gourlay (1992) clears up some of the confusion by defining waste as "unserviceable material remaining over from any process of manufacture; the useless by products of any industrial process; material or manufactured articles so damaged as to be useless or unsaleable." This definition however fails to include any mention of household or agricultural waste forms and limits its self to industrial wastes. This definition is, however, not to be cast a side as recent figures from the DETR show that industrial and commercial waste contributes to over two thirds of the UK's total waste production.
Until recently the term waste was not defined in UK legislation, in the UK 1974 Control of Pollution ACT controlled waste was defined as "those wastes subject to its control." This caused immense confusion as this piece of legislation did not even tell people what waste was, this confusion has been alleviated by the introduction of the Environmental Protection ACT 1990 (EPA 1990).
The EPA 1990 defines waste as "any substance which constitutes a scrap material or an effluent or other unwanted surplus substance arising from any application of any process; and any substance or article which requires to be disposed of as being broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled." It goes on to say that waste is "any substance that the holder discards, or intends or is required to discard." The full statutory definition of waste is included as appendix 1. This definition is one of the most comprehensive available but it does have many weaknesses, for example the definition suggests that if a substance can be used for a useful purpose it is not waste, however the results of a court case 1989 questions this. Sunkin (1998) states the case of Kent County Council v Queenborough Rolling Mill Co Ltd of 1998 where the court found that industrial waste continued to be waste even though it had been sorted and put to useful purpose as in fill on land which suffered from subsidence, and posed no environmental risk.
Section 75 of the EPA 1990 goes on to categorise waste into three distinct categories, Household, Commercial and Industrial waste. Each category is then subject to slightly different rules. Household waste is waste that is produced by a property or caravan used solely for habitation and schools, colleges and domestic waste from nursing and residential homes. Household waste is exempt from the Duty of Care (Waste) regulations because local authorities are responsible for its collection and disposal, under section 45 of the EPA 1990 (see appendix 3). The cost of collection and disposal of this waste is generally taken from local authority budgets.
Commercial waste is waste collected from premises used mainly for the purpose of a trade, business or entertainment excluding industrial and household waste. Producers of commercial waste are expected to pay for the collection and disposal of their waste to an either private company or local government waste disposal authority. Commercial waste is subject to the Duty of Care (Waste) Regulations and compliance with this is monitored by the Environment Agency.
Industrial waste is waste produced by factories, transport services, utility companies, communication service providers and the construction and demolition companies. Producers of industrial waste are expected to pay for its disposal in a similar manner as producers of commercial waste. Industrial waste is subject to the Duty of Care (waste) Regulations like commercial waste but agricultural waste is excluded from this for the time being, although it will be included in the near future.
Waste from any of the three categories can be classed as special or difficult waste. Special waste is any controlled waste that requires ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Industrial waste is waste produced by factories, transport services, utility companies, communication service providers and the construction and demolition companies. Producers of industrial waste are expected to pay for its disposal in a similar manner as producers of commercial waste. Industrial waste is subject to the Duty of Care (waste) Regulations like commercial waste but agricultural waste is excluded from this for the time being, although it will be included in the near future.
Waste from any of the three categories can be classed as special or difficult waste. Special waste is any controlled waste that requires special handling or disposal because it may be of harm to human health or the environment; appendix 2 has the statutory definition in full. Special waste includes car batteries, used oil, halogen lamps, contaminated soils and substances capable of damaging human health or the environment. Radioactive waste and explosives are not classed as special waste. Special waste is subject to special stringent rules that ensure that it is properly and safely disposed of. Permission is required from the Environment Agency to move special wastes and holders are required to notify the Agency of disposal and transportation plans, operators of disposal sites are required to have prior knowledge of the arrival of special waste. Waste disposal sites are required to make sure that the disposal of the waste at their site does not break their Waste Management Licence conditions and that the disposal is carried out in compliance with the law. A strict set of paper work must be carried out so that the agency can trace special waste from the producer to its final disposal, this is known as a special waste consignment note. All previous holders and producers of special waste are responsible for its safe and legal disposal. For example the producer of the waste could be prosecuted if a following holder of the waste disposes of it illegally, because they have not made the necessary checks to ensure that it has been transferred to a responsible and competent person.
Difficult is any waste that is difficult to handle because of its physical characteristics, difficult waste is not subject to any special rules as long as holders and producers follow the Duty of Care and any conditions set out in their waste management licenses. For example, a landfill operator may suspend operations on a windy day to prevent lightweight material from being blown away or dusty loads may need to be damped down before they are tipped from a vehicle. Waste that may be classed as difficult on a windy day for example, may be not be classified as that on a normal day.
6.0 CURRENT WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS
Mellanby (1992) refers to the three main methods of waste of waste disposal currently used in the UK, he says that the three main methods are Incineration, Recycling and Landfill. DETR (2000) states that the main form of waste disposal used in England and Wales is landfill with 65.33% of total waste production ending up there. The report goes on to say that 20% of waste production is incinerated and 14.6667% of waste is recycled. These figures vary massively from area to area as waste disposal is the responsibility of local government and different strategies are developed in different areas. National government have set challenging targets in DETR (2000) for all local authorities to achieve targets for recycling (see table 1 below).
Recycling target - % of waste produced
By year
25%
2005
30%
2010
33%
2015
Table 1 - Recycling targets for local authorities
Currently incineration accounts for approximately 20% of all waste disposals, of which around half is used to create energy for community heating programs and other such energy recovery schemes. DETR (2000) states that the government is committed to putting waste that is produced to efficient use through substantial increases in the amount of energy that is recovered from waste. The government believes that through efficient use of incineration we can produce a significant amount of energy that could be substantial enough to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and extend the life span of current reserves. However, incineration has many disadvantages. One of the major disadvantages is the location of incinerators; they have to be located where they do not adversely affect the environment or human health. This leaves little choice of location as residents and business adopt a Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) philosophy because locations of incinerators have been shown to adversely affect property prices and they will adversely affect the local environment and hence peoples quality of life. There have also been recent concerns in the media and professional journals regarding the role of incinerators in dioxin pollution and the health effects of dioxin contamination. London Environmental Data Services (1) reports that waste incinerators actually produce more dioxins than they destroy and that they are significant sources of Dioxin pollution. They put his argument as a response to claims by the Energy to Waste Association that incinerators act as dioxin sinks. London Environmental Data Services (2) report in February 1995 that the majority of incinerators fail to meet standards set by the HM Inspectorate of Pollution. These findings have sparked concerns because dioxins are known to be a substance capable of causing cancer. Although concerns do exist, incineration does have major problems if the dioxin problem can be reduced through careful input of fuel. Armson (1985) says that the income gained from selling energy produced from incineration can provide a useful income and half the cost of waste disposal, this article was written before the introduction of the Landfill tax so waste disposal costs would be further reduced under the modern regime. Armson (1985) goes onto suggest that the major contributors to dioxin pollution in incinerators are PVC's and that through proper screening of the waste before burning and the removal of PVC's would have the potential decrease dioxin pollution significantly. Incinerators also create highly toxic ash and contaminated water that have to be dealt with and are normally toxic to such an extent that they have t be dealt with as special waste and therefore entails high disposal costs. Williams (1990) says that waste ash and water from waste incinerators could be extremely dangerous towards the environment if miss managed.
Recycling is the government's preferred option for waste reduction in the UK, the government has set out recycling targets for local authorities in England and Wales in DETR (2000) (see table 1 above). Recycling is seen as one of the best alternatives for waste disposal because it has a number of benefits. Recycling reduces the need to use raw materials to produce new products, this is particularly important with paper as trees play an important role in CO2 recycling and hence play an important role in the reduction and control of the Greenhouse effect. DETR (2000) sets newspaper and magazine producers the target of using 70% recycled paper by 2006, however there are no penalties if they do not reach this target. Hopkins (1999) says recycling could have many economic benefits, he suggests that wide scale municipal recycling could create 45,000 jobs over the next tens years. This would then have a knock on effect improving the local economy and ensure that more money is collected through taxes providing funds for further recycling schemes. How ever there are weaknesses with current recycling policy Thurgood (1999) suggests government policy should be more focused on recycling construction and demolition waste because Construction and Demolition waste accounts for three times the amount of waste production than municipal waste does. Thurgood (1990) goes on to suggest that the government should introduce an aggregate's tax to discourage the use of virgin materials and encourage recycling of construction and demolition waste. The major problem with recycling is that it is not always economically viable because the price of recycled commodities is extremely viable and a process that is profitable one day may be unprofitable the next day. Due to budgetary constraints local authorities are unable to subsidies unprofitable recycling operations and private companies are unwilling to get involved due to the limited profit margins. However some large companies are providing money to local authority recycling schemes as the contributions can count towards their producer responsibility for packaging recovery obligations
Landfill is currently the most widely used form of waste disposal because it is the most economically viable because landfills can accept all forms of waste (if licensed to do so). This means that waste does not require prior sorting and is therefore relatively cheap. Landfill has many disadvantages; landfill sites are unsightly, smelly and encourage rodents because of the availability of food. Landfill can also create problems for many years after the site has been capped, DETR (2000) mentions the problems with methane gas production from rotting material, lechate that can be highly toxic and the problems caused by heat production and the risk of fire that is caused by the various reactions that can occur after the site has been capped. Waste Management License conditions normally require that landfill sites should be landscaped and turned into a civic amenity such as a nature reserve or public parks on completion. Mellanby (1992) says that such sites can allow ecologically important communities with proper management. Mellanby (1992) also comments on the diverse ecosystems that active landfill sites can maintain, especially bird and scavenging mammals. It is important not to over look landfill as an important tool in waste management how ever we have to reduce the amount that we send to land fill otherwise we will simply run out of space.
7.0 THE LANDFILL TAX
In 1995 the DETR published a white paper entitled Making Waste Work, in which they outline their three main objectives for waste management. These three objectives are (1) the reduction in the amount of waste produced (2) to make best use of the waste produced and (3) using techniques which do not cause long or intermediate term damage to the environment. From these three essential objectives a hierarchy of preferred waste management techniques was produced, the hierarchy is as follows (1) REDUCTION (2) REUSE (3) RECOVERY (e.g. composting, recycling, energy recovery e.t.c.) (4) LANDFILL. Landfill is at the bottom of the hierarchy because no benefit is gained from the waste if it is just put in the ground.
In response to DETR (1995) the government decided that if they discouraged the use of landfill for waste disposal they would therefore encourage the Reduction, Reuse and Recovery of waste. The government decided to discourage the use of landfill they would introduce an economic instrument that would make the use of landfill less attractive to waste producers. On the 12th June 1996 the Landfill Tax Regulations (DETR 1996) were passed by the House of Commons, the regulations came into force on 1st August 1996 as an amendment to the Environment ACT 1995. The Tax began operating in October 1996.
Under the landfill tax, all waste that goes to landfill is subject to a tax levy of a certain amount per tonne. There were two tax rates introduced in 1996, eleven pounds per tonne of active waste and two pounds per tonne of inert waste. DETR (2000) states that in the 1999 budget the rate of tax charged on active waste is to be increased by one pound per year with a review in 2004. DETR (2000) goes on to state that the purpose of the increase is to encourage greater diversion of waste from landfill.
Research carried out by ECOTEC (2000) on behalf of the DETR has shown that the landfill tax has had a significant effect on the amount of waste that is sent to landfill, the framework for the surveys carried out by ECOTEC is included in appendix 4. I have chosen not to use data from my own survey as the limited number of responses that I received mean that the data gathered can not be coincided reliable, details of my own survey are enclosed in appendix 5. Table 2 below shows changes to the arisings that occur at landfill sites before and after the introduction of the land fill tax.
Pre tax
Average
tonnes
Post tax
Average tonnes
%
Change
Company 1: site 1
86310.5
242244
30
Company 1: site 2
205945.5
230267.5
2
Company 1: site 3
507000
695000
-54
Company 2: 3 sites
930800
2162350
2
Company 3: site 1
247261.5
239957
-3
Company 3: 7 sites
6016500
5071000
-16
Company 3: site 9
796132
658272.5
-17
Company 4: site 1
483000
211200
-56
Company 5: site 1
490000
367500
-25
Company 6: 20 sites
4016000
3346500
-17
Totals
5878950
3224291
-17
Table 2 shows the change in mixed wastes sent to land fill before
And after the introduction of the landfill tax, the data is based on
Surveys carried out by ECOTEC (2000). See also appendix 6 G1
Table 2 above shows that since the introduction of the Land Fill Tax the total amount of waste sent to land fill has decreased for the sites surveyed by ECOTEC (2000), however some individual sites show an increase in the amount of waste that accept. Due to the breadth of ECOTEC (2000) survey, it is safe to assume that the sample data is a valid indication of what is happening across the country. However, it is important to remember that a very limited amount data exists on this subject before the introduction of the landfill tax because statistics were not kept by the government or government agencies. However since the introduction of the landfill tax statistics have been kept and they are extremely accurate as they are based on custom and excise data on landfill tax take. Data from before 1996 is generally based on site operator data and estimates.
ECOTEC (2000) go on to say that the reduction in waste going to landfill is due to lower amounts of inert waste going to landfill, the amount of active waste going to landfill has actually increased slightly. In essence, the inert waste is being lost from the system; this problem will be explored in more depth in the next section.
The landfill tax has also been successful in encouraging recycling; Martin (1999) describes how wood recycling schemes have been boosted in Tyneside and central Scotland since the introduction of the landfill tax. A negative effect of the landfill tax has been its effect on a major government policy. The UK government is keen to encourage developers to use so called "brown field" sites rather than build on virgin ground in rural and sub-urban areas, this policy is aimed at preventing urban sprawl and protecting rural systems. Many of these "brown field" sites have been contaminated by previous users. Broad (1997) argues that since the introduction of the Landfill tax these sites have become no go areas for developers due to the high costs of disposing of contaminated soils and other materials. He goes on to suggest that contaminated soils from land remediation projects should be exempt from the landfill tax, to encourage brown field redevelopment.
A controversial part of the landfill tax is the Landfill Tax Credit scheme, under the scheme, summarised by DETR (2000), landfill operators can claim up to ninety per cent tax credit against donations that they make to environmental organisations. The money can be used by organisations to carry out activities prescribed in the regulations such as research and education activities to promote re-use and recycling and provision of public parks and amenities. Waste Manager (1997) reports that the first money made available under this scheme was supplied by the national waste management company Biffa to carryout an assessment and audit of the environmental Impacts of an industrial estate near Derby. The money made available through the landfill tax credit can only be used by single projects and trials, Bond (1999) argues the case of recycling officers who believe that money from the landfill tax credit scheme would be better spent on long term recycling schemes.
8.0 THE INERT PROBLEM
Before looking at this problem it is important to define what inert waste is, Inert waste is waste which will not biodegrade or react with the air, water or other substances under standard conditions of two hundred and ninety eight degrees Kelvin and one atmosphere of pressure. Bond (1997) gives a number of examples of inert waste which include broken bricks, stone, uncontaminated soil, uncontaminated dredgeings, sand, ash and broken concrete.
So far the landfill tax has been successful in reducing the amount of waste that is deposited at landfill however this has been largely due to a reduction in inert waste that has been sent to landfill. Table three below shows the percentage change in the amount of mixed and inert waste sent to landfill sites after the introduction of the landfill tax compared to before the introduction of the tax.
% Change in mixed waste arisings
% Reduction in inert arisings
Company 1: site 1
30
-188
Company 1: site 2
2
-17
Company 1: site 3
-54
73
Company 2: 3 sites
2
46
Company 3: site 1
-3
-323
Company 3: 7 sites
-16
29
Company 3: site 9
-17
93
Company 4: site 1
-56
66
Company 5: site 1
-25
55
Company 6: 20 sites
-17
30
Totals
-17
42
Table 3: Compares the changes in inert and mixed arisings sent to landfill since the introduction of the landfill tax. This data is based on a survey carried out by ECOTEC (2000)
Table 3, shows that there has been a seventeen per cent reduction in the amount of mixed waste sent to the landfill and a forty two percent reduction in the amount of inert waste sent to landfill since the introduction of the landfill tax. ECOTEC (2000) suggests that the reduction in mixed waste is probably due to increased sorting of waste so less tax has to be paid. The higher rate of landfill tax has to be paid on mixed wastes; the majority of sorting operation separates high and low tax rate materials so the minimum amount of disposal cost is incurred. The low level of tax is only payable on inert wastes, this implies that the amount of inert waste deposited at landfill should increase if the amount of mixed waste deposited decreases. This therefore suggests that there has been an increase in the amount of inert waste disposed of in the unregulated sectors, it is safe to make this assumption because inert waste cannot be incinerated and there is no evidence of increased recycling.
Across the country methods for collecting this data varies because the Environment Agency uses different data collection techniques in different areas and different local authorities use different definitions for inert waste and other activities and substances. I have therefore decided to examine the inert problem in detail in only two separate areas, Central Lincolnshire and the Central Northwest area. G2 and G3 in Appendix 6 show the amount of inert waste sent to landfill in the two areas for a period spanning 1995 until 1999. Both graphs show a substantial decrease in the amount of inert waste that is being sent to landfill in both areas, this follows the national trend shown in table 3. So what is happening to this waste?
Before we examine what is happening with this 'missing waste' it is import to consider the problems that this decrease in inert waste sent to land fill is causing for operators of landfill sites. Mellanby (1992) describes how land fill sites consist of daily layers, each day mixed waste such as that collected from households is deposited as the first layer along with any special or difficult wastes, the final layer then consists of any inert waste that the site receives. This top layer serves two main purposes; they are to contain and compact the waste. Inert waste is generally heavier than mixed waste, when it is placed on landfill as a top layer the pressure it places on the waste below it compacts it thus creating more space for further additions of waste. Mellanby (1992) suggests that the volume of waste can be reduced by up to fifty per cent if proper compacting procedures are used. The top layer of inert waste effectively seals in the waste below it preventing waste from being blown away when the site is not supervised and the containment discourages rodents and other scavenging animals from feeding on potentially dangerous material. If landfill operators are no longer able to use inert waste as top cover they have to rely virgin or synthetic materials that add cost to waste disposal or to risk not using top cover and face up to the possible environmental consequences. Bond (1997) calls for inert material to be exempt from the landfill tax so that material for top cover is plentiful. This problem as also affected the amount of material available for use in site engineering works, when inert waste is available in sufficient amounts it can be used to construct roadways, bunds and for landscaping sites under the terms of most waste management licenses. Due to this site operators are now having to start to use virgin materials for such projects, this increases the cost of operating the site and thus the cost of disposing waste it also puts increasing pressure on our finite natural resources.
ECOTEC (2000) say that there is no evidence of increased recycling of inert waste because there has been no reduction in the amount of virgin material used in the construction industry and there is evidence that the inert waste is being disposed of in the unregulated sector. Recycled inert waste is normally used as ballast in construction projects and has little or no value. ECOTEC (2000) point out that it is not economically viable for small waste disposal firms to recycle inert waste because it either requires a lot of man hours to manually screen waste or it requires very expensive equipment. It is therefore only economically viable to sort waste if the inert material can be sent to an exempt or unregulated site where the disposal costs are massively reduced compared to landfill sites. However companies that handle large amounts of waste can make the recycling of inert wastes into a viable operation (see appendix 8 photo 3).
Since the introduction of the landfill tax fly-tipping in has increased massively. Fly tipping is the action of depositing a quantity of waste of any type with out consent or a waste management licence. Reeds (1997) blame the landfill tax for the increase in these phenomena. Nation wide statistics collected by the Tidy Britain Group, that have been included by ECOTEC (2000), show that fly tipping across the country has increased, the data also shows that the majority of waste involved is sourced from the construction industry. This is confirmed by Waste Manager (1998) who report that over fifty per cent of councils have reported an increase in fly-tipping since the commencement of the landfill tax and ninety per cent of them see it as a serious problem. Cronin (1995) warned that this increase in fly tipping would be likely because the construction industry would use fly tipping as a method to cut costs and boost earnings. He goes on to suggest that the only method of discouraging the construction industry from fly tipping would be to exempt inert waste from the land fill tax. The government is unlikely to exempt inert waste from the landfill tax as in DETR (2000) they state that one of the aims of the land fill tax is to reduce inert waste arisings at landfill sites to free up space for biodegradable and special waste. Pearce (1998) argues that the only way to discourage fly-tipping is to make recycling of inert waste economically viable, he suggests that the government introduce a tax on the use of virgin materials to make using recycled materials a feasible option. How ever this increase in fly tipping does not account for the amount of inert waste that goes missing from the regulated system.
Since the introduction of the landfill tax the amount of sites registered under paragraph seven, nine and nineteen of the EPA (1990) have increased year on year. Graphs G6 and G7 in appendix 6 show that this has also happened in central Lincolnshire and the Central North West areas, central Lincolnshire has seen a large rise in paragraph nineteen exempt sites and central North West area has seen a large rise in paragraph seven exempt sites. Under these exemptions inert wastes can be deposited on sites without the consent of the Environment Agency or local Authority, how ever the sites do have to be registered with the Environment Agency before the deposit of waste can commence. Under a paragraph seven exemption (see appendix 7) site operators are allowed to spread certain types of waste on railway, forest, park, verges, sports grounds or landscaped land as long as it producers ecological or agricultural benefit and does not exceed two hundred and fifty tonnes per hectare per year. Disposal under a paragraph seven exemption is often used to get rid of uncontaminated soils, composts and plant matter that will be of benefit agriculturally. The paragraph nine exemption (see appendix 7) allows the spreading of soil, rocks, ash, sludge, dredgings from inland waters or arisings from construction or demolition work on land in connection with the reclamation or improvement of the land. Paragraph nine exemptions are an exceedingly efficient way for the construction, demolition and waste industries to get rid of waste, however it is a method that is limited by the number of land reclamation projects that are being carried out in a given area. Paragraph nineteen allows the use of inert waste for any relevant work which will improve the site, it allows the indefinite storage of waste to be used in the works if it is produced on site, or for three months if it has been imported onto the site. No more than fifty thousand tonnes of waste can be stored on site at any one time under a paragraph nineteen exemption.
It is important to remember that sites registered under these three exemptions are subject to little or no regulation, Environment Agency (1999) says that these sites are only inspected if they receive a complaint or there has been persistent problems with the operation. This lack of regulation encourages unscrupulous operators to break the rules; I have had two first hand experiences of companies breaking the rules. A Company employed by Mollington Grange Golf Club near Chester to develop the site registered a paragraph nine exemption to use inert wastes for the purpose of landscaping the site. Within months the golf course started to produce methane (CH4) gas and shortly afterward the golf course started to subside. During a standard water test of a nearby water course the Environment Agency discovered that it had been contaminated with leachate, which was traced back to the Golf Club. The Environment Agency ordered that a number of trial pits were dug on the site and it was discovered that under a small layer of inert waste there was a deposit of mixed waste. The contractor that did the landscaping is currently untraceable leaving the Golf Club facing court action for depositing waste with out a licence. The second example I have is a Cheshire Highways Maintenance company who registered a paragraph nineteen exemption to store inert waste and road planning's at its depot at Guilden Sutton near Chester. Following complaints from local residents the Environment Agency investigated the site to find that the company had been storing in excess of the allowed fifty thousand tonnes of waste and they found evidence that a waste sorting operation had been carried out. A waste management licence is required to undertake any waste sorting operation. In this case the Environment Agency chose to take no action on the condition that the company applied for a waste management licence within six months.
9.0 REGULATION
Under the Environment Act 1995 brought together all government organisations with responsibility for environmental protection to form one agency to be called the Environment Agency. It is the job of the Environment Agency to ensure proper pollution control, manage waterways and fisheries, enforce environmental legislation, advise on policy and to regulate the waste management industry.
As regards waste the environment agency has a number of important functions. The Agency is responsible for the issue of waste management licences to sites which to store, sort, process, burn or dispose of waste, the licence can only be issued if the site has already gained planning permission from the local authority, the licence will also contain a number of conditions. The Environment Agency becomes responsible for enforcing the licence conditions and prosecuting operators if necessary for breach of licence conditions or for operating without a licence. The Environment Agency is also required to hold a register of all sites registered under various exemptions, the Agency is responsible for ensuring that exempt sites remain within the law. Thurgood (1999) suggests that the Environment Agency does not have enough resources to enforce sites registered under exemptions, he suggests that proper enforcement would decrease the amount of illegal tipping and encourage recycling. Thurgood (1999) also suggests a strengthening of the duty of care regulations to prevent waste disappearing from the regulated system.
0.0 CONCLUESION
Waste is a complex issue; we have enough trouble deciding what actually is waste let alone what we should do with it. The definitions of waste that exist range from waste is an object or substance that we don't want any more to the precise definition seen in English law (see appendix 1).
We currently dispose of most of our waste in England and Wales to landfill sites however a small percentage is incinerated. Both the methods of waste disposal pose a substantial risk of causing harm to public health or the environment. We will also be running out of space for landfill within the next fifty years if we continue to dispose of the same amount of waste to that method. Incineration is preferred over landfill by the government as energy from the waste can be recovered during the burning process, however it is disliked by the public due to the risk of dioxin pollution. The governments preferred method of waste management is recycling and reuse of waste; we currently recycle or reuse less than two percent of our municipal waste nation wide.
To encourage recycling the government introduced the landfill tax in 1996 this has reduced the amount of waste going to landfill. The majority of waste diverted from landfill by the tax has been inert waste. There has been no evidence of an increase in recycling that would account for all the waste being diverted from landfill, although there has been an increase in recycling. ECOTEC (2000) believe that the majority of waste diverted from landfill is being disposed of in the unregulated sector or being illegally disposed of.
The decrease in inert waste going to landfill has caused problems for site operators who are finding it difficult to find material to use for daily cover and site engineering works.
Since the introduction of the landfill tax there has also been an increase in the amount of incidents of fly tipping that have been reported, Cronin (1995) predicted that this would happen because construction companies would fly tip rather than pay increased waste disposal costs at landfill. Reeds (1997) suggests that fly tipping is purely done to reduce costs and hence increase profits, he calls the construction industry greedy and uncaring for the environment.
It has also been suggested by Broad (1997) that the landfill tax has discouraged the redevelopment of brown field sites because of the cost of disposing of contaminated soils. This goes against current government policy to redevelop brown field sites rather than encroaching on to green belt land.
Issues of waste management are complex, it is going to be very difficult for the country to reduce the waste that we produce if we want the country to continue to grow economically, Mellanby (1992) says that growth in waste production is linked with economic growth. I believe that the only way to improve our waste management strategy is to increase the re use and recycling of waste. I would like to call on the government to introduce a tax levy on the use of virgin materials at a level that would make recycled products affordable and recycling operations economically viable. Other suggestions have been made for the long-term disposal of waste Angel (1996) suggests the use of the deep oceans for waste disposal. Angel (1996) does suggest that much research needs to be done before we start using that option because we need to ensure that we don't damage the fragile ecology of the oceans.
I feel that during this study I have only scratched the surface of many important issues. I believe it to be of great importance that detailed research is carried out on the inert problem to discover the whole truth about what is going on and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future. I believe that an interesting area for further study would be to look at the international trade of waste that was highlighted by the voyage of the Khian Sea ship that was carrying special waste between 1986 and 1988.
1.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCE LIST
Angel, M. 1996, The Ecology of the Deep Oceans and its relevance to Global Waste Management, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 33, no 5, October 1996, pp915-962
Armson, R. 1985, Turning rubbish into Heat and Electricity, New Scientist, vol 8, no 1481, 7th November 1985, p33-36
Bond, R. 1997, Waste Industry calls for landfill tax exemptions, Surveyor, vol 184, no 5451, 4th September 1997, p9
Bond, R. 1999, Recycling Officers demand a review of the Land fill tax rules, Surveyor, vol 186, no 5551, 23rd September 1999, p 5
Broad, M. 1997, Landfill Tax turns brown field sites into no go areas, property week, vol 61, no 6, 7th November 1997, p24-25
Cronin, S. 1995, Landfill Tax may re open road to fly tipping, construction news, no 6417, June 1995, p6
DETR. 1974, Control of Pollution Act 1974, HMSO
DETR. 1990, Environmental Protection Act 1990, HMSO
DETR. 1995, Making Waste Work: A stratergy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales, HMSO
DETR. 1995 a, The Environment Act 1995, HMSO
DETR. 1996, The Landfill Tax Regulations, HMSO
DETR, 2000, Waste Stratergy 200, England and Wales, HMSO
ECOTEC. 2000, Landfill Tax Review, unpublished
Environment Agency. 1999, Our Environment, the environment agency in action, Environment Agency Publications
Gourlay, K. 1992, World of Waste, Dilemas of Industrial Development, Zed Books
Hanks, P. 1990, Collins English Dictionary, William Collins Sons & Co
Hopkins, K. 1999, Recycling targets could create 45,000 jobs, surveyor, vol 186, no 5563, 16th December 1999, p6
London Environmental Data Services. 1997, Incinerators remain NET Dioxin sources, ENDS Report, no 273, October 1997, p15
London Environmental Data Services. 1995, Incinerators limp on as dioxin emmisions stay high, ENDS Report, no 241, February 1995, p13-14
Martin, I. 1999, Regulations and Tax Spur on Wood Recycling, Materials Recycling Week, vol 61, no 6, 7th November 1997, p24-25
Mellanby, K. 1992, Waste and Pollution, the problem for Britain, harper Collin
Pearce, F. 1998, A Wasted Chance, New Scientist, vol 158, no2136, may 1998, p22-23
Reeds, J. 1997, The Land fill taxes fly in the ointment, waste manager, vol 26, no7, July/August 1997
Sunkin, M. etal. 1998, Source Book on Environmental Law, Cavendish Publishing
Thurgood, M. 1999, Demolishing the barriers to recycling Construction and Demolition Waste, Materials Recycling Week, vol 174, no 8, 20th August 1999, p9-10
Waste Manger. 1997, First cautious steps are made in landfill tax credit scheme, Waste manager, February 1997, p9
Waste Manager. 1998, Half of all councils report increase in fly tipping since the start of the landfill tax, Waste Manager, vol 27, no 13, March 1998, p5
Williams, P. 1990A review of pollution from waste incinerators, Journal of the institute of Water and Environmental Management, vol4, no 1, February 1990, p26-34