NOT FOR QUOTATION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
ENF(IRcE3ENT
OF
HAZARDOUS WASL'E LEGISLATIONIN THE UNITED
KINGDOMEryl V. Ley Brian Wynne
May 1984
WP-84-36
( Revised
January
1935)W o ~ k i n g A t p e t s are interim reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and have received only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of t h e Institute or of its National Member Organizations.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 2361 Laxenburg. Austria
PREFACE
This paper h a s been produced as p a r t of IIASA's hazardous waste m a n a g e m e n t work, which is t h e main c o m p o n e n t of t h e Institutional Set- tings a n d Environmental Policies project. The overall a i m of this work, reflected in t h i s paper, i s t o systemize o u r understanding of i n t e r a c t i o n s between institutional and t e c h n i c a l factors in policy making a n d imple- mentation. The influence of institutional processes upon technical knowledge built into policy h a s been increasingly recognized. However, i t has y e t t o b e adequately systemized in comparative r e s e a r c h on dif- f e r e n t regulatory systems. Institutional s t r u c t u r e s c a n n o t be easily t r a n s p l a n t e d from one culture t o another. Nevertheless. t h r o u g h t h e normal flux of policy, institutional development slowly o c c u r s anyway, in more o r less a d hoc fashion. Comparative insight m a y h e l p t o direct reflection and adaptation i n more deliberate and c o n s t r u c t i v e ways.
This paper forms one c h a p t e r of a n i n t e n d e d book o n hazardous waste m a n g e m e n t . The reader will therefore riotice r e f e r e n c e s t o o t h e r draft c h a p t e r s in t h i s study which a r e also being published separately.
and which a r e available from IIASA.
1 would like t o t h a n k those policy m a k e r s a n d o t h e r s who generously gave of t h e i r t i m e a n d experiences in m a n y interviews which form a sub- stantial i n p u t t o t h i s work. A full list of acknowledgements will eventu- ally be published.
Brian Wynne Research Leader
Institutional Settings and Environmental Policies
1. INTRODUCTION
2. HAZARDOUS WASTE LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 2.1 Historical Background
2.2 Control of Pollution Act 1974 2.3 Administrative Control 3. ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION
3.1 Site Licensing
3.2 Prenotification a n d Consignment Note System
3.3 Definitions and Waste Lists 3.4 Responsible Authorities
4. SOME RELEVANT FEATURES OF UK HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
4.1 House of Lords Select Committee on Science a n d Technology - Hazardous Waste Disposal 4.2 Major Disposal Methods
5. SOME PROBLEMS OF ENFORCEMENT 5.1 Variations in Standards
5.2 Where do t h e Wdas go for help?
6. CONCLUSIONS Appendix 1 References
ENF'ORCEXENT OF HAZARDOUS W A S I X LEGISLATION IN THE
UNITED
KINGDOMEryl V. Ley and Brian Wynne
1. INTRODUCTJON
The paper by Linnerooth and Davis [I] in this volume examined cases in which t h e responsibility for waste management policy is vested i n c e n t r a l s t a t e authorities which also manage t r e a t m e n t and disposal.
Implications for risk management and effective implementation were analysed. In this paper a sharply contrasting case is examined, t h e United Kingdom (UK), in which policy is highly decentralized, and t r e a t - m e n t and disposal is virtually totally (98%) in the hands of private indus- try. Apart from landfill however, t h e industry is in economic difficulty a n d underdeveloped, so t h a t t h e question arises whether t h e institu- tional s t r u c t u r e would b e able t o effect a more stringent policy were i t less fortunate in its endowment of relatively good landfill conditions.
The relatively relaxed posture of t h e U K government towards i n t e r - vention in hazardous waste m a n a g e m e n t was indicated in an e a r l i e r paper in t h i s volume by Wynne [2]. This is also in&cated by official UK national policy on hazardous waste disposal, which is:
" t h e summation of t h e advice given by t h e Department of t h e Environment plus t h e waste disposal plans made by t h e disposal authorities." [3]
The UK s y s t e m of control for hazardous waste is one of t h e m o s t decen- tralized, especially when c o m p a r e d t o t h e US or FRG. Under existing legislation responsibility for e n f o r c e m e n t and control is virtually all in t h e hands of local a u t h o r i t i e s - t h e waste disposal authorities (wdas).
The system of control h a s been built up over t h e l a s t 120 y e a r s t h r o u g h piecemeal m e a s u r e s introduced t o deal with hazards a s t h e y a r o s e and/or with t h e increase of scientific awareness about various environ- m e n t a l problems [4]. To quote a Department of t h e Environment (DOE) official:
"Because t h e effects of pollution a r e usually e x p e r i e n c e d first within t h e confines of p a r t i c u l a r localities, one of t h e principles followed by successive Governments h a s been t h a t t h e p r i m a r y responsibility f o r dealing with pollution problems should r e s t , a s far a s is practicable, with authorities operating at a local o r regional level, principally local authorities a n d t h e w a t e r authorities. Thus, c e n t r a l Government lays down t h e s t a t u t o r y framework for pollution control, but implementation is delegated to a large e x t e n t t o local level. Authorities m a y in m a n y a r e a s exercise a considerable d.egree of discretion a s t o t h e limitation t h e y impose on t h e release of local polluta.nts, so t h a t account m a y be t a k e n of local resources a n d social priori- ties, t h e uses t o which surrounding a r e a s a r e put, a n d t h e capa- city of t h e environment t o absorb pollutants, although in prac- tice t h e y often work t o fairly uniform standards o r widely a c c e p t e d limits." [5]
Such institutional a r r a n g e m e n t s would be u n h e a r d of i n t h e USA for example. In fact t h e s e "loose" a r r a n g e m e n t s are s o "strong" in t h e UK
t h a t they a r e t h e m a i n s t a y of i t s apparently successful* control system.
However. Lord Gregson in h i s opening speech in t h e House of Lords Debate on t h e Report of t h e Select Committee on Science a n d Technol- ogy: Hazardous Waste Disposal (hereafter called t h e Gregson Committee a n d t h e Gregson Report) [6] m a d e t h e following observation:
"There is a belief t h a t because in t h i s country t h e r e have been comparatively few m a j o r incidents, we can, without too m u c h effort, m a i n t a i n t h i s position in t h e future.
...
This complacency is, a t t i m e s , tinged with t h e arrogance t h a t "We know best", and h a s probably given rise t o a very serious loss of public confi- dence in t h e whole activity of waste disposal."[7]The Gregson Committee was s e t up in response t o t h e c o n c e r n expressed by a local a u t h o r i t y , Basildon district council, about t h e land- fill s i t e in i t s a r e a [B]. The inquiry began its investigations in 1980 a n d produced a n extensive t h r e e volume Report i n July 1981, making 34 r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e government [ 9 ] . The Report is generally regarded a s the r e f e r e n c e work for hazardous waste disposal in t h e UK.
Many of t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s have been implemented, a n d t h e Earl of Avon, i n h i s response on behalf of t h e government in t h e debate about t h e inquiry in t h e House of Lords said that:
"Of t h e 34 recommendations t h e Government a r e able t o agree unreservedly with 19 of t h e m , in p a r t with 8, 4 will be t h e sub- j e c t of f u r t h e r consideration a n d consultation, which leaves 3 which t h e y disagree with today. b u t t h a t t h a t d i s a g r e e m e n t is qualified."[lO]
As m e n t i o n e d above, t h e original reason for t h e inquiry was concern about a landfill site. This t o u c h e s on t h e other major f e a t u r e t h a t distin- g u i s h e s t h e UK from o t h e r nations - i t s a d h e r e n c e t o l a n d disposal
* A discussion as t o what precisely constitutes successful control will not, however, be ern- barked upon here.
(referred to as landfill in this paper) and more particularly codisposal (disposal of hazardous waste together with domestic r e f u s e in a landfill site) a method of disposal exlremely controversial elsewhere. Recom- mendation 6 of t h e Gregson Report s t a t e d that:
"The safety of landfill, i n c l u d n g codisposal depends vitally on good management. The scope for abuse is considerable a n d t h e waste disposal industry has sometimes been skating on t h i n ice.
...
Accordingly landfill m u s t not be used in marginal cases just because i t is c h e a p - the 'cheapest tolerable means' approach - and all hazardous waste disposal m u s t be subject to rigorous control."[ll]Despite public c o n c e r n about t h e use of landfill. a s t h e major dispo- sal method, t h e UK government's standpoint is t h a t "sensible landfill is realistic and an. u l t r a cautious approach t o landfill of hazardous a n d o t h e r types of waste is unjustified." [12]
However this view is not shared by o t h e r countries:
The German Federal Environmental Agency s t a t e s that:
"The FRG tends towards separate t r e a t m e n t even though this m e t h o d is clearly m o r e expensive than t h e former (codisposal).
The motive
...
is undoubtedly t h e principle of prevention." [13]John Lehman t h e n Director of the Solid Waste Program, of t h e USEPA says t h a t :
"Our philosophy, a s t h e l a n d protection group within EPA, i s t o minimise hazardous waste disposal to land. Consequently we strongly support hazardous waste recycling or detoxification t r e a t m e n t prior t o land disposal wherever possible." [14]
In Canada i t was reported that:
"...
for several y e a r s we allowed t h e disposal of industrial liquid waste up to 5% by weight, a s well a s 8% sludge, and found t h a t we h a d problems of odour a n d leachate seepage through t h e sides of the landfill which finally resulted in our abandoning t h e practice". [15]Thus, t h e a d h e r e n c e t o landfill, the decentralization of regulatory authority and t h e privatisation uf t r e a t n l e n t and disposal a r e t h e t h r e e features which combined, distinguish t h e m a n a g e m e n t of hazardous waste in t h e UK from m a n y o t h e r countries. The problems of local e n f o r c e m e n t of legislation in light of t h e s e f e a t u r e s will be t h e m a i n focus of t h i s paper. Section 2 briefly describes p a s t e v e n l s a n d hazar- dous waste legislation u p t o t h e p r e s e n t t i m e a n d t h i s is t h e n reviewed in section 3. The u s e of landfill a s t h e "best practicable means" of disposal is t h e focus of section 4 and finally. section 5 discusses some of t h e m a n y e n f o r c e m e n t problems facing t h e wdus within t h e existing system.
2. HAZARDOUS W A S l T LEGISLATION
IN THE UK
2.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The f i r s t s t a t u t o r y control over t h e disposal of wastes in t h e UK was t h e S a n i t a r y Act of 1388 t h a t prohibited t h e throwing of:
"Dung, filth, garbage, etc. i n t o ditches, rivers or o t h e r waters or places within, a b o u t o r nigh t o any cities, boroughs or towns."
As a r e s u l t of a Royal Commission s e t up in 1842 t o explore t h e h e a l t h of towns, t h e first Public Health Act was passed in 1848 which s e t up t h e General Board of Health. Various o t h e r Acts were p a s s e d culminating in t h e Public Health Act of 1875. Several Amendments were made t o this Act until a new Public Health Act was passed i n 1936 which, in p a r t , is still i n force today. Under both t h e s e Acts, local a u t h o r i t i e s had various responsibilities in connection with waste collection a n d disposal. A local a u t h o r i t y collected household waste free of c h a r g e , a n d if i t collected
t r a d e waste, was obliged t o c h a r g e a reasonable fee - industrial waste col- lection was not included in t h e d u t i e s of local a u t h o r i t i e s .
The o t h e r i m p o r t a n t s t e p in t h e legislation is r e l a t e d t o land-use planning, which has grown i n t o comprehensive a n d detailed control of industrial a n d o t h e r activities. The Town a n d Country Planning Act of 1947 provided local a u t h o r i t i e s with powers t o control local land-use b u t t h e powers were insufficient t o have an effect on disposal s i t e m a n a g e - m e n t . Local planning a u t h o r i t i e s did not have sufficient t e c h n i c a l exper- tise t o devise or enforce adequate s i t e controls [16].
These were t h e only c o n t r o l s existing in t h e UK u p u n t i l t h e 1970s.
However, a t t e n t i o n was devoted t o t h e general problem of waste disposal a s early a s 1963, with t h e s e t t i n g u p of a Technical Committee on t h e Disposal of Solid Toxic Wastes [17]. The efforts of t h e C o m m i t t e e received a p a t h e t i c t r e a t m e n t f r o m government a n d public for several years, until events overtook t h e a u t h o r i t i e s a n d enforced h u r r i e d official action t o acknowledge t h e problem by legislation. The following a c c o u n t of e v e n t s leading u p t o t h e first specific legislation on h a z a r d o u s waste disposal i s given by Lord Ashby*:
The Key Committee was s e t u p in 1964 [18] a s a r e s u l t of a n i n c i d e n t i n 1963 when s o m e animals died because of a fluoroacetamide leak from r u s t y d r u m s which had been d u m p e d by a local pesticide factory. The c o m m i t t e e worked in a lei- s u r e l y not t o say glacial m a n n e r and i t did n o t r e p o r t for six y e a r s , not until 1970, a n d only h a d 20 m e e t i n g s in t h e whole of t h e six y e a r s suggesting t h a t l i t t l e governmnetal p r e s s u r e was being exerted. However, t h e findings of t h e c o m m i t t e e were disquieting a n d i t listed 17 serious incidents where toxic wastes had been d u m p e d a n d caused damage. The C o m m i t t e e 'Lord Ashby is a leading environmentel policy actor in the UK, he was Chairinan of the 1871 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and an active member of The House of Lords Select Committee on Hazerdous Waste Disposal, 1980/1.
made 38 r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s b u t received l i t t l e atLention from t h e P r e s s a n d none a t all from t h e G o v e r n m e n t ; despite t h e fact t h a t t h i s was t h e beginning of t h e period when public opinior~
was being a r o u s e d about t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .
At t h e s a m e time t h e Standing Royal Commission on Environ- m e n t a l Pollutiori was s e t up [ c h a i r e d by Lord Ashby] a n d pro- duced i t s r e p o r t one y e a r l a t e r in 1971 [19] expressing c o n c e r n t h a t nothing h a d b e e n done t o i m p l e m e n t t h e r e c o m m e n d a - tions of t h e Key Report. The Government's r e s p o n s e was t h a t they were preparing t o reorganise local g o v e r n m e n t .
The Royal Commission repeatedly approached t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e on t h e n e e d for legislation t o c u r b t h e i n d i s c r i m i n a t e dumping of t.oxic wastes a n d t o h a v e s o m e t y p e of control simi- l a r l o t h a t f o r a i r a n d water. The r e s p o n s e was t h a t m o r e infor- m a t i o n was needed by t h e D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t (DOE).
The Royal Commission provided t h e information giving sever]
cases of d a n g e r o u s handling of toxic w a s t e - a n d this by a nationally known firm of waste c o n t r a c t o r s . T h e r e was still n o r e s p o n s e from t h e government.
In 1971 t h e Royal Commission drafted a n o t h e r r e p o r t strongly criticising t h e Government for lack of action - t h e Government's reply t h i s tirne was t h a t t h e r e was n o parliamen- t a r y t i m e for m o r e legislation. But in J a n u a r y 1972, t h e Birm- ingham Sunday Mercury r e v e a l e d t h a t employees of t h e s a m e nationally known f i r m of waste c o n t r a c t o r s were dumping wet waste a n d d r u m s containing cyanide, phenols, c a u s t i c soda a n d o t h e r m a t e r i a l s - s o m e of t h e d r u m s were a c c o m p a n i e d by a delivery t i c k e t describing t h e m a s innocuous. This was dis- closed by t h e Conservation Society. On F e b r u a r y 22, 1972 a m e m b e r OF t h e Conservation Society visited p a r l i a m e n t t o t r y a n d g e t s o m e action on t h e p a r t of t h e Government. However, two days l a t e r on 24 February, t h e r e were headlines a b o u t d r u m s of cyanide with labels being s c r a t c h e d off being found o n waste l a n d i n Nuneaton where c h i l d r e n played. One week a f t e r t h i s was disclosed, a Bill was h u r r i e d l y p u s h e d t h r o u g h Parlia- m e n t
-
i.e.. t h e 1972 Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act". [20]In a n explanation of t h e relevance of t h e above s t o r y , Lord Ashby goes on t o r e l a t e a c o m m e n t t h a t a p p e a r e d in a n editorial in The T i m e s u n d e r t h e headline "How t o move a h v e r n m e n t " :
"It is i n s t r u c t i v e t o n o t e what did a n d did n o t p r o m p t t h e Government to s q u e e z e a Bill
...
i n t o a n a l r e a d y crowded legisla- tive p r o g r a m m e . The u r g e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of a n official com- mission...
rrioved by t h e "dist.urbing c a s e s which have c o m e t o o u r knowledge", did not.""Headlines about d r u m s of cyanide waste on derelict land in t h e Midlands did." [21]
This was- t h e first definitive legislation, i.e., t h e Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act (DOPWA) [ 2 2 ] , for t h e control of hazardous wast.e disposal in t h e UK. The m a i n provisions of t h e Act were:
a) a prohibition on t h e tipping of poisonous, noxious or polluting
waste where it was liable t o give rise t o a n environmental hazard. An environmental h a z a r d was defined a s subjecting persons o r a n i m a l s t o m a t e r i a l risk of death, injury or i m p a i r m e n t of health or t h r e a t e n i n g t h e pollution or contamination of any water supply.
b) a notification provision was i n t r o d u c e d whereby local and river a u t h o r i t i e s h a d t o be notified before t h e removal or deposition of wastes.
All wastes h a d t o be prenotified a t l e a s t t h r e e c l e a r working days before removal or deposit. All wastes h a d t,o be notified unless t h e y were specif- ically e x e m p t e d from t h e Regulations, i.e., t h e r e was an exclusive list s y s t e m , which failed safe in t h e c a s e of ignorance. The Regulations pro- vided a Schedule of descriptions of wastes, a n d if a p a r t i c u l a r waste was included on t h e Schedule a n d did n o t contain a n y hazardous quantity o r hazardous c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a poisonous, noxious or polluting substance.
t h e n i t was exempted from t h e notification procedure (see Appendix 1 for Schedule).
This Act was n o t m e a n t t o be m o r e t h a n an emergency m e a s u r e ; in 1974 t h e Control of Pollution Act (COPA) [ 2 3 ] was passed which r e m a i n s t h e c e n t r a l piece of hazardous waste r n a n a g e m e n t legislation i n t h e UK.
2.2. CONTROL O F POLLUTlON ACT ( 1 9 7 4 )
Not all sections of t h e Act have been i m p l e m e n t e d , b u t t h o s e sec- t i o n s specifically relating t o t h i s paper and t h e i r d a t e of implernentatiori a r e briefly s u m m a r i s e d below:
S e c t i o n 1 ( n o t y e t fully implemented) - r e q u i r e s w a s t e disposal a u t h o r i t i e s (wdas) t o e n s u r e t h a t a d e q u a t e a r r a n g e m e n t s e x i s t in t h e i r a r e a s for t h e disposal of controlled wastes.
S e c t i o n 2 ( ; ~ p l e m e n t e d 1 9 7 8 ) - r e q u i r e s w d a s t o investigate what
I
a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e needed for t h e purpose of disposing of c o n t r o l l e d waste which is s i t u a t e d i n t h e i r a r e a s a n d of controlled waste t h a t is likely t o be s o situated. In addition, t h e y have t o p r e p a r e a n d periodically r e v i s e a waste disposal plan.
S e c t i o n s 3-1 1 ( i m p l e m e n t e d 1976) - define t h e s i t e licensing s y s t e m . S i t e licensing is t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l regulatory i n s t r u m e n t of con- trolled waste disposal in t h e UK. All s i t e s which receive c o n t r o l l e d wastes m u s t be licensed by t h e w d a s . Site licences which specify o p e r a t i n g con- ditions for t h e disposal s i t e s , a r e issued by t h e w k a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n with t h e Health a n d Safety Executive (HSE) (to e n s u r e safe working con- ditions for employees a n d r e s i d e n t s nearby), t h e Regional Water Author- ity (which h a s t h e power of v e t o over t h e licence if i t is t h o u g h t t h a t t h e r e is a n y risk of polluting t h e water supply), a n d in England, w h e r e t h e w d a is a County Council, t h e local district council also for planning permission.
S e c t i o n 17 ( i m p l e m e n t e d 1 9 7 6 ) - provided for t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of Regulations applying t i g h t e r controls t o t h e m o r e difficult wastes a n d
t h e i r disposal, i.e., "special wastes". The Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1960, were. drawn up in 1990 b u t did n o t c o m e i n t o force until March 16th, 1981. At t h e same t h e 1972 Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act was repealed.
The Control of Pollution (@ecial Waste) Regulations 1980
The purpose of t h e s e Regulations was to fulfill t h e UK obligations under t h e 1978 European Economic Community (EEC) Directive o n Toxic a n d Dangerous Wastes [24] a n d t o provide for t i g h t e r c o n t r o l s o v e r t h e transportation of d a n g e r o u s v a s t e s . The purpose of t h e Regulations is to:
1. P r e s e r v e t h e prenotification s y s t e m for t h e disposal of wastes prescribed in a n i n c l u s i v e l i s t (i.e., t h e r e was a switch f r o m t h e exclusive list u n d e r DOPWA) a s laid down in P a r t I of Regulation 2 (see Figure 1).
Acids a n d alkalis
Antimony and antimony compounds Arsenic compounds
Asbeslos (all chemical forms) Barium compounds
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
B i o c i d s and phytopharrnaccutical substances Boron compounds
Cadmium and cadmium compounds Copper compounds
Heterwyclic organic compounds containing oxygen, nitrogen o r sulphur Hexavalent chromium compounds
Hydrocarbons and their oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur compounds Inorganic cyanides
Inorganic halogencontaining compounds lnorganic sulphurcontaining compounds Laboratory chemicals
Lead compounds Mercury compounds
Nickel and nickel compounds
Organic halogen compounds, excluding inert polymeric materials Peroxides, c h l o r a t a , perchlorates and azides
Pharmaautical and veterinary compounds Phosphorus a n d its compounds
Selenium and selenium compounds Silver compounds
Tarry materials from refining and tar residua from distilling Tellurium a n d tellurium compounds
Thallium and thallium compounds Vanadium compounds
Zinc compounds
2. I n s t i t u t e a c o n s i g n m e n t note s y s t e m for t h e disposal of t h e s e wastes, giving a cradle-to-grave for e a c h disposal; special provisions were also m a d e for season t i c k e t a r r a n g e m e n t s (see section 3)
3. Require t h e keeping of r e c o r d s a t landfill disposal s i t e s showing
t h e location of special wastes deposited t h e r e .
4. Give power t o t h e S e c r e t a r y of Stat.e enabling h i m to d i r e c t a con- s i g n m e n t of special waste t o a specific s i t e ( t h i s power is only used in a n e m e r g e n c y ) .
The t e r m "special" is r e l a t e d t o p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d s which a r e likely during t r a n s p o r t a n d is defined in Regulation 2, P a r t 11 ( s e e Figure 2).
I. Waste is to be regarded as dangerous to life for the purposes or these regulations if-
l a ) a single dose or not more than five cubic centimetres would be likely to cause death or serious damage to tissue i f ingested by a child or 20 kilograms' body might or
( h ) exposure to i t Tor firteen minutes or less would be likely to cause serious damage to human tissue by inhalation, skin contact or eye contact.
Assr.t.sing cflcrt o/ irr~rsliotr
2.---(I) The likely eAect of ingestion i s to be assessed by the use of reliable toxicity data in the following order of preference:-
Class I : information about the e k t of oral ingestion by children;
Class 2: data derived by extrapolation from information about the e k t s of oral ingestion by adults;
C l u 3 : other information about human toxicity;
Class 4: information about animal toxicity;
Class 5: information about the toxicity of analogous chemicals.
(2) Where conclusive information falling within one of the classes set out in sut-paragraph ( I ) i s available no regard shall be paid to information falling within u class bearing a higher number. and the rererence to using data in an order of preference is to be understood accordingly.
3. Where the waste is in such a form that-
( a ) the ingestion of less than five cubic centimetres i s not possible, or
(b) there is no risk that a toxic constituent could be assimilated i f the waste were to be ingested,
then it is not to be regarded as dangerous to life by reason of sub-paragraph ](a) o f this schedule.
M i x e d nSaste: samples
4. Waste i s to be regarded as dangerous to life i f a sample of five cubic cen~imetres taken from any part of a consignment falls within either of the description< in paragraph 1 of this schedule.
MGURE 2. Defirlition o f ' s p e c i e l ' w a s t e u n d e r Sectir-.:y 17 I?cgul~t:-.trz
The remaining s e c t i o n s of t h e Act a r e not directly relevarit t o t h e p r e s e n t discussion (e.g., t h e y r e l a t e t o noise pollution, a t m o s p h e r i c pol- lution, etc.) a n d a r e not discussed in t h i s paper.
In s u m m a r y , t h e two main provisions of COPA a r e t h e licensing a s p e c t a n d t i g h t e r controls on t h e transportation phase. An analysis of t h e pros and cons of t h i s s y s t e m a n d all t h e e n f o r c e m e n t p r o b l e m s t h a t arise for wdas a r e discussed in t h e following sections.
The o t h e r two surrounding pieces of legislation r e l a t e d t o h a z a r d o u s waste a r e the Rumping at S a Act (2974) [ 2 5 ] a n d t h e Health an.d Safety al Work e t c . Act (2974) [26].
Table 1 s u m m a r i s e s t h e main developments i n
UK
h a z a r d o u s waste legislation u p t o t h e p r e s e n t t i m e .2.3. ADMINlSTRATIVE CONTROL Waste L k p o s a l A u t h o r i t i e s
Responsibility for waste disposal r e s t s with 165 w a s t e d i s p o s a l a u t h o r i t i e s (wdas) which i n England a r e t h e County Councils a n d t h e G r e a t e r London Council (GLC), in Wales and Scotland t h e d i s t r i c t coun- cils, a n d elsewhere t h e island councils. Municipal waste disposal has always been in t h e h a n d s of local authorities and t h e f a c t t h a t almost total responsibility for h a z a r d o u s waste i s in t h e i r h a n d s is a n extension of t h i s role. Under COPA w d m have virtually complete responsibility for s i t e licensing
-
t h e "backbone" of hazardous waste r e g u l a t i o n-
a n d for monitoring yet t h e expertise t o complement t h e s e new responsibilities is lacking. According t o o n e w d a official, "most w d a s were st.affed inTABLE
1 Summary of Legislative Development in the Field of Hazardous Waste Disposal in the UK.Technical Committee on Disposal of Solid Toxic Wastes ( ~ e y Committee)
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 1st and 2nd Report
Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act
DOE Consultation Document. Waste Disposal: Proposals for a New Framework
Protection of Environment Bill. Control of Pollution Act Health and Safety a t Work, etc. etc.
EEC Directive on Waste
Licensing of Waste Disposal Regulation Special Waste Regulations
House of Lords Select Committee on Science a n d Technolo- gy: Hazardous Waste Inquiry
Special Wastes Joint Review Committee.
House of Lords' Report
Joint-Review of Special Waste Regulations
Hazardous Waste lnspectorate Set u p within Department of Environment.
1974/5 with a theoretical s t r u c t u r e which i t was hoped would m e e t t h e needs of t h e expected introduction of disposal site licensing and t h e new hazardous waste regulations" (my italics) [ 2 7 ] . In each of the authorities t h e r e is a waste disposal executive which may be an autonomous depart- m e n t under i t s own chief officer, or a section of another large depart- m e n t , or sometimes just one individual who has several other responsi- bilities. Many of t h e executives a r e short of scientific staff a n d field workers to monitor sites a r e in shortest supply.
Cent-ral G o v e r n m e n t
Responsibility for hazardous waste lies with t h e Land Wastes Division of the Department of Environment in England, the Scottish Department in Scotland and t h e Welsh Office in Wales. In a l e t t e r to Basildon District Council in 1979, Mr. R. Osmond, Director 'B' of t h e Land Wastes Division of t h e DOE had t h e following to say about official central policy on hazar- dous waste:
"It may therefore reasonably be said t h a t t h e national policy for t h e disposal of all controlled waste - including hazardous waste - is a summation of t h e policies of t h e individual waste disposal authorities developed within t h e legal framework and on the basis of technical and administrative advice provided by t h e Department."[2B]
What t h i s actually m e a n s is t h a t the main burden of information a n d control is on t h e wdus a n d the limited t a s k of c e n t r a l government is threefold: legislative, appellate a n d advisory. Its functions a r e (a) t o pro- vide a general oversight of waste disposal legislation. (b) t o adjudicate on appeals against refusal of site license applications and on planning appeals involving waste disposal sites, (c) t o provide administrative and technical advice t o disposal authorities - t h i s is largely c a r r i e d out via a s e r i e s of 2 3 Waste Management Papers
(WMP)
[ 2 9 ] by informal consulta- tion a n d by cornmissioning research. According t o one DOE official t h e WMP s e r i e s a r e held in high regard not only in t h e UK b u t also abroad.One of t h e reasons p u t forward for t h i s success is t h e excellent rapport industry and public authorities have with t h e DOE. T h e rapport with industry is based on a long standing relationship evolved over m a n y years. It is in f a c t argued t h a t it began with t h e bringing in of t h e Alkali Acts of 1863. [30] In addition Harwell operate a Waste Management lnfor-
mation B u r e a u which is mostly funded by t h e D e p a r t m e n l of Environ- m e n t . It should be emphasized t h a t t h e role of t h e government.al depart- men t s is p u r e l y adv.isory and not mandatory.
One of t h e recommendations of t h e Gregson Committee was t h e s e t - ting u p of a Hazardous Waste I n s p e c t o r a t e which i s now i n existence within t h e Department of t h e Environment. (see section 5)
Water Authorities
According to t h e Gregson Report [31] t h e regional water a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e Scottish River Purification Boards have t h e duty of controlling water pollution. Water pollution is t h e m o s t serious potential risk f r o m landfill a n d accordingly wdas have a s t a t u t o r y dut,y t o consult t h e water a u t h o r i t i e s before granting a site licence which t h e water a u t h o r i t y h a s t h e right, t o veto, subject t o appeal by t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e .
Relations between water a u t h o r i t e s a n d wdm a r e said t o be good a n d getting b e t t e r , a p a r t from a feeling t h a t water a u t h o r i t i e s a r e too protec- tive. Historically, t h e protection of water supply h a s been very s t r o n g , m u c h m o r e so t h a n in o t h e r a r e a s of environmental protection, a n d t h e water a u t h o r i t i e s a r e r e l u c t a n t t o c o u n t e n a n c e a n y risk at all unless t h e y a r e f o r c e d t o do so 1321. Over t h e y e a r s t h e water a u t h o r i t i e s have built u p a high level of technical expertise which w d a s could n o t hope t o meet. Views differ on t h e role of water a u t h o r i t e s , e.g., Harwell e x p e r t s forsaw trouble ahead over balancing water p r o t e c t i o n and waste disposal i n t e r e s t s a n d felt t h a t formal a r b i t r a t i o n would be needed [33], b u t t h e National Water Council a r e c o n t e n t with t h e p r e s e n t administrative sys- t e m which c a n be made t o work without major c h a n g e s in t h e i r opinion
Waste D i s p o s a l C o n t r a c t o r s
The private sector a c c o u n t for 9BZ of all waste disposal, half of this being c o n d u c t e d "in-house" (i.e., within t h e confines of t h e industry itself - e.g.. B.P. Refinery Llandarcy in South Wales have their own landfill s i t e a n d dispose of almost all t h e i r own waste - s u c h sites still require a l i c e n c e from t h e local w d a ) . The r e s t of t h e waste is in t h e h a n d s of several l a r g e and many small companies whose t r a d e as so cia ti or;^ ;; t h e National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors (NAWDC). NAH-DC a c c o u n t s for about 75% of t h e overall activity of t h e industrial s e c t o r . Members subscribe t o a Code of P r a c t i c e aimed a t raising t h e s t a n d a r d s of t h e industry. The NAWDC also have t h e i r own classification of waste into: w h i t e w a s t e s ( l e a s t h a z a r d o u s with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e of d o m e s t i c refuse l e a c h a t e ) ; b l a c k w a s t e s ( e z t r e m e l y h a z a r d o u s a n d g e n e r a l l y n o t a c c e p t a b l e f o r landfill); a n d g r e y w a s t e s (by definition those wastes which do n o t fall i n t o t h e o t h e r two categories) [35].
The Code of P r a c t i c e also lays down recommended p r a c t i c e s for e n s u r i n g a c c u r a t e identification of waste a n d i t s properties, reliable d o c u m e n t a t i o n , safe loading, e t c . According t o t h e Gregson Report t h e r e - fore [36]: "The framework f o r h a z a r d o u s waste disposal is t h u s a joint v e n t u r e between t h e private a n d public sectors, with considerable cooperation between t h e two, in which t h e private sector provides t h e service a n d t h e public s e c t o r provides t h e control." Needless t o say, t h i s m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s a n idealized model.
3. ANALYSlS OF LEGISATION
The m a j o r differences between t h e 1972 Deposit of Poisonous Waste A c t a n d t h e 1974 Control of Pollution A c t a r e shown i n Table 2:
TABLE
2 Major Differences between DOPWA 1972 a n d COPA 1974DOP WA 1972 COPA 1 974
No s i t e licensing Site Licensing
( i m p l e m e n t e d 1976) Prenotification of disposal Consignment n o t e s y s t e m
( i m p l e m e n t e d 1981)
Exclusive l i s t Inclusive list
Qualitative definitions Quantitative definitions
( i m p l e m e n t e d 1981)
Local Authority a n d Local Authority
Regional Water Authority sole I-esponsibility
joint responsibility
3.1. SITE LICENSING
The s e c t i o n s dealing with s i t e licensing under COPA were brought i n t o force on 14 June, 1976. Since s i t e licensing i s r e g a r d e d a s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a r t of hazardous waste regulation, i t m e r i t s d e t a i l e d discus- sion. Waste Management Paper No.4 - The Licensing of Waste Disposal S i t e s 1371 lays down t h e Government's general policy towards licensing.
The aims of s i t e licensing according t o WMP4 a r e a s follows:
(1) t o e n s u r e t h a t waste t r e a t m e n t a n d disposal a r e c a r r i e d o u t with no unacceptable risk t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d t o public h e a l t h , safety and a m e n i t y .
(2) t o put a t a suit.able local level t h e responsibility for d e c i d n g what conditions should be imposed a t a given s i t e , so t h a t local cir- c u m s t a n c e s can be t a k e n fully a c c o u n t of.
(3) t o e n s u r e t h a t changing p a t t e r n s of waste disposal do not preju-
dice objective (1) above, and equally t h a t t h o s e responsible for waste t r e a t m e n t a n d disposal take proper advantage of t e c h n i c a l progress.
(4) t o give waste disposers a clear idea of what operating s t a n d a r d s
a r e r e q u i r e d of t h e m .
(5) as a r e s u l t of (4) above, to s e c u r e t h e provision of sufficient facil- ities for t h e t r e a t m e n t a n d disposal of waste.
(6) t o e n s u r e t h a t sufficient information is available t o t h e responsi- ble a u t h o r i t i e s t o enable t h e m t o fulfil t h e i r s t a t u t o r y duties.
Central government's role is purely advisory a s laid down in W M P 4 , t h e r e is n o o t h e r c e n t r a l s c r u t i n y o t h e r t h a n when appeals a r e m a d e t o t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e .
The operation of t h e licensing s y s t e m by t h e w d a ' s is c o n s t r a i n e d by various provisions made u n d e r COPA Under COPA t h e wdas m u s t consult with t h e following before g r a n t i n g a disposal site licence:
-
t h e relevant collection authority;-
t h e relevant water authority;-
t h e Health and Safety Executive;-
t h e I n s t i t u t e of Geological Sciences for d e e p m i n e or well disposal.Planning permission h a s t o be obtained first.. Planning is concerned with suitability of t h e a r e a for the proposed developmenl, t h e main con-
siderations being local i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , visual aspects, e t c . Once a s i t e h a s planning permission a w d a can only refuse a licerlce on t h e g r o u n d s of ( a ) water pollution, or (b) d a n g e r to public health. The drafting of condi- t i o n s for licences is to s o m e e x t e n t governed by t h e licence application, i.e., type of waste, a m o u n t , choice of disposal method, u n d e r t h e initia- tive of t h e proposer n o t t h e w d a . An example of licence leeway for loose p r a c t i c e s and control over volumes is given by Willetts:
"Application forms for a s i t e licerlce include s u c h questions a s
"estimated m a x i m u m daily quantity" t o be delivered for e a c h waste
-
if t h e answer is 800 t o n n e s , does t h i s m e a n 800 t o n n e s per day, every day, 800 t o n n e s once a m o n t h , once a y e a r or is t h a t figure indicated t o allow for plenty of leeway? Data o n quantities a n d t h e i r m i x t e n d t o be vague which m e a n s t h a t if t h e w d a is n o t 100X s u r e what waste a site is taking, how c a n i t t a k e t h e n e c e s s a r y p r e c a u t i o n s , e.g., for protective clothing.fencing etc."[38]
Therfore t h e g r a n t i n g of licences, a n d all t h e associated provisions a n d restrictions m u s t be based on s o u n d scientific/practical reasons.
There a r e several problems h e r e , o n e of t h e most i m p o r t a n t being t h a t t h e r e is still insufficient knowledge on t h e long-term behaviour of h a z a r - dous wastes in landfill s i t e s u n d e r different conditions. A major con- sideration is degree of r i s k where m a n y factors have t o be considered a n d often t h e w d a s do n o t have t h e necessary staff o r expertise a n d will h a v e t o look t o t h e water a u t h o r i t y o r Health a n d Safety Executive for advice. The w d a has a s t a t u t o r y duty t o consult t h e water a u t h o r i t y regarding pollut.ion of s u r f a c e water, aquifiers, a n d by law t h e w d a h a s t o h e e d t h e advice of t h e water authority. However, despite all, t h e final decision lies solely with t h e w d a a n d it m a y be necessary for i t t o employ independent experts, e.g., hydrologists t o help m a k e a decision [39]. The problems of lack of r e s o u r c e s / e x p e r t i s e is discussed f u r t h e r in section 5.
With t h e introduction of site licensing, i n d u s t r i e s with t h e i r own waste disposal facilities have had t o decide w h e t h e r to invest mouey t o m e e t licensing s t a n d a r d s o r t o close t h e m down. In marly cases t h e con- ditions of s i t e licence severly r e s t r i c t t h e uses t o which t h e s i t e c a n be p u t i n t e r m s of waste disposal. The site licensing p r o c e d u r e for disposal of h a z a r d o u s wastes h a s proved t o be a controversial s u b j e c t a n d appeals a g a i n s t what a p p e a r to b e overly severe l i c e n c e conditions, a r e often made. The way t h e system is s e t u p leads t o a basic contradiction b e c a u s e t h e g e n e r a t o r is virtually free of blame a s t h e a c t u a l licensing p r o c e d u r e t a k e s t h e responsibility off t h e p r o d u c e r s . Y e t t h i s flatly con- t r a d i c t s a key principle of regulation, n a m e l y p r o d u c e r responsibility wherever t h e waste eventually goes. This d i l e m m a h a s n o t b e e n solved.
3.2. PRENOTIFICATION
AND
CONSIGNMENT NOTE SYSTEMSFigure 3 gives a s c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e two s y s t e m s t a k e n f r o m a paper by Willetts [40]. In his paper h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e "notifica- tion p r o c e d u r e established u n d e r DOPWA was n o t i n t e n d e d a s a consign- m e n t n o t e s y s t e m b u t r a t h e r a pre-notification s y s t e m of i n t e n t t h e pur- pose of which was t o a l e r t t h e regulatory a u t h o r i t y a b o u t t h e m o v e m e n t a n d disposal of toxic wastes a n d t o build a d a t a b a n k for f u t u r e use."
Some of t h e m o r e basic administrative problems of s u c h a s y s t e m were discussed by o n e senior e n v i r o n m e n t a l h e a l t h officer [41]:
o illegible s i g n a t u r e s , o n o t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r ,
DOPN'A
197.2Waste producer raises ' P a r t 1' notification giving comprehensive
details of waste composition and destination
(SIGNATURE)
/ I \ \
Water Water
Authority WD A Authority WDA
in a r e a of in a r e a of in a r e a of in a r e a of
waste waste waste waste
production production disposal disposal 3 WORKING DAYS' WAIT
If n o adverse reaction from authorities:
Arrange transport
I
Waste collection
I
(SIGNATURE) Disposal undertaken
I
(SIGNATURE) Site operator completes
N7aste producer raises consignment
note with relevant information (SIGNATURE)
Arrange transport
Waste collection (SIGNATURE) Disposal undertaken
I
(SIGNATURE) Site operator r e t u r n s
I
completed consignment note to his WDA 'Part 11' receipt of waste
Water I Water
Authority WDA Authority WD A
in a r e a of in a r e a of in a r e a of in a r e a of
waste waste waste waste
production production disposal disposal
RGURE 3. Schematic representation of notification procedure u n d e r DOPWP, 19'72 a n d COPA, 1974
o 3 c l e a r working days is often n o t long enough ( . e , g . t h e notification may have beer] i o r g o l l e n , second c l a s s i n s t e a d o i firs1 class poslage m a y have been use, loads would arrive prior t o notification),
o vague t e r m s r e g a r h n g q u a n t i t i e s (one s h p load - is i t full, half e m p t y , e m p t y ?
-
3 d r u m s-
what size d r u m s ? e t c . ) ,o "season ticket" a r r a n g e m e n t s , removing ability t o t r a c k individual waste c o n s i g n m e n t s ,
o etc. e t c .
Although t h e s e problems. a r e c e r t a i n l y n o t i n s u r m o u n t a b l e , t h e y a d d t o t h e daily problems of t h e w d a officer, t o t h e point where i t is impossi- ble t o supervise t h e s y s t e m properly.
The new Regulations were i n t r o d u c e d t o comply with t h e EEC Coun- cil Directive which would in t h e o r y r e d u c e t h e am.ount of paperwork fac- ing i n d u s t r y , a n d w d m , by placing t h e b u r d e n upon local inspection a n d monitoring r a t h e r t h a n a virtually u n m a n a g e a b l e s y s t e m of paperwork.
Although s i m i l a r s y s t e m s a r e in operation i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , e.g.. t h e FRG a n d seem. t o work with a p p a r e n t s u c c e s s a n d satisfaction on t h e p a r t of t h e a u t h o r i t i e s - o t h e r c o u n t r i e s began with only a n inclusive list. a n d have not had t h e experience equivalent t o t h e 1972 prenotification sys- t e m , so comparisons c a n n o t be m a d e . According t o Willetts [42], " t h e DOE'S standpoint is t h a t with t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of s i t e licensing t h e n e e d for prenotification h a s b e e n removed. The purpose of DOPWA was t o i n f o r m regulatory a u t h o r i t i e s of what was happening t o toxic wastes.
Therefore t h e r e is n o f u r t h e r purpose for prenotification a s t h e condi- t i o n s of operations specified in e a c h s i t e l i c e n c e afford t h e p r o p e r con-
trol m e c h a n i s m . "
The consignment n o t e system a s developed under COPA is t h e b e t t e r knowr~ cradle-to-grave s y s t e m whereby each t r a n s a c t i o n from waste producer t o waste disposer (final) is accompanied by a personal s i g n a t u r e on t h e c o n s i g n m e n t n o t e t o e n s u r e safe disposal. P e n a l t i e s for non-compliance with t h e consigrlment a n d record-keeping s y s t e m s a r e , on s u m m a r y conviction a fine of u p to 1000 pounds sterling a n d on con- viction on i n d i c t m e n t t o ilnprisoriment a n d a n umlimited fine.
Some disadvantages a n d advantages of t h e consignrr~ent n o t e s y s t e m as c o m p a r e d t o t h e 1972 prenotification s y s t e m a r e for example: u n d e r
COPA
a s t a n d a r d i z e d individually r e f e r e n c e d form is used for e a c h spe- cial waste, t h i s was n o t t h e c a s e u n d e r DOPWA; t h e disadvantage of t h i s is t h a t t h e wdas will n e e d m o r e administrative staff a n d p r o d u c e r s will have t o pay for t h e f o r m s a n d n e c e s s a r y adrnistrative work; a n o t h e r advantage of t h e new s y s t e m is t h a t a cradle-to-grave r o u t e is c o m p l e t e d a n d signed for a t e a c h s t a g e ; t h e disadvantage is t h a t t h e s i t e c l e r k in c h a r g e of daily operations m a y n o t be c o m p e t e n t enough t o signify t h a t t h e s i t e licence a u t h o r i z e s a p a r t i c u l a r deposit. No s i t e clerk should be e x p e c t e d t o m a k e decisions on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of legal d o c u m e n t s - t h e s t a n d a r d s of t h e wdas impose i n t h e i r licences a r e disparate s o t h a t c l e r k s i n one a r e a m a y m e r e l y be r e q u i r e d t o read, whereas i n a n o t h e r a r e a h e m a y n e e d a law degree [43].3.3. DEFINITIONS AND WAS'PE LISTS
U K national legislation is strongly inf!uenced by European Commun- ity Policy in hazardous waste a n d other fields. In 1976 t h e Commission s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Council a draft proposal for t h e Council Directive on Toxic a n d Dangerous Wastes which was adopted a t t h e e n d of 1977 [44].
The EEC Directive defined "toxic and dangerous waste" t o m e a n any waste containing or c o n t a m i n a t e d by one or m o r e of t h e 27 categories listed in t h e Annex t o t h e Directive, in such or c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as t o present a risk t o h u m a n h e a l t h a n d t h e environment. However, t h e Directive did not specify a n y concentration limits. The UK l i s t adopted t o comply with t h e EEC Directive, t h u s changed f r o m t h e exclusive list (see Appendix 1) t o t h e inclusive list system (see Figure 1). P r e s e n t l y t h e r e a r e 31 categories on t h e UK list. Only those wastes which qualify t o be on t h e list ar-e t e r m e d "special" according t o Section 17 Regulations a n d a s m e n t i o n e d previously, r e f e r t o t h e transportation s t a g e only, relying on s i t e licensing for t h e r e s t of control
-
t h u s , t h e catch-all provisions of DOPWA a r e no longer necessary. The percentage of wastes which were notifiable u n d e r t h e earlier legislation a n d will n o t be s u b j e c t t o t h e Spe- cial Waste Regulations is about 70%.One of t h e a r g u m e n t s for t h e change was t h a t u n d e r DOPWA, t h e exclusive list m e a n t t h a t m a n y borderline c a s e s were notified which & d n o t i n c r e a s e control b u t did i n c r e a s e paperwork. In addition, i t was claimed that, industry r e s e n t e d having t o notify so m u c h . The inclusive list was m e a n t t o relieve t h e wdus of t h e unnecessary paperwork a n d t o increase t h e t i m e s p e n t in t h e field. Whether or not it h a s been s u c c e s s - ful in t h i s respect is still a m a t t e r of (heated) a r g u m e n t .
The m a j o r problem with r e g a r d to the inclusive list s y s t e m is "what c o n s t i t u t e s a special waste?" Under t h e Section 1 7 Regulations, a special waste i s delined in RegulaLion 2 P a r t 11, P a r t I being t h e list itself (see Figures 1 and 2). In m a n y cases, of course, t h i s definition is c l e a r , e.g., c o n c e n t r a t e d s u l p h u r i c acid, however, it is almost impossible t o give a complete listing of all classes of substances l e l alone individual sub- s t a n c e s t h a t could be h a z a r d o u s , e.g., m a g n e s i u m u n d e r c e r t a i n condi- tions c a n be very dangerous (in fires). Waste Management P a p e r 23 [45]
provides guidelines from t h e governrnent t o h e l p t h e various a c t o r s decide w h e t h e r t h e i r waste is included on the list o r n o t . Figure 6 is given in Annex 2 of WMP23 [46] which is t h e a s s e s s m e n t procedure for deciding w h e t h e r a waste is "special."
P o i n t s 1-4 in Figure 4 were m a d e by one wda official regarding t h e problems h e faces i n assessing whether a waste i s special:
( 1 ) Does the w a s t e h a v e a flashpoint of 21°C or Less? The use of a flash- point c r i t e r i o n m e a n s t h a t all wastes which a r e p e t r o l e u m spirits or low flashpoint solvents a r e special wastes. Difficulties a r i s e when t h e s e m a t e r i a l s a r e mixed with varying a m o u n t s of o t h e r compounds which could r a i s e t h e flashpoint above 21°C. For example, m i x t u r e s of a c e t o n e a n d water m a y o r m a y n o t have a flashpoint of l e s s t h a n 21°C depending upon t h e relative c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t h e mixture. I t would be q u i t e possi- ble for a producer t o decide t h a t normally the flashpoint is above 21°C and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e waste i s n o t special. It ist h e n u p to the Wa.=.ste Dmpo- sal Authority t o prove t h a t the m a t e r i a l is a s p e c i d w a s t e i f i t w i s h e s t o take e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n .
FIGURE 4. Assessment P r o e e d u r e f o r 'special' waste
( 2 ) h e s t h e w a s t e c o n t a i n k n o w n o r probable h u m a n c a r c i n o g e n ( s ) at a c o n c e n t r a t i , o n of 1% or m o r e ? Whilst it is Fairly clear which m a t e r i a l s a r e c u r r e n t l y classed a s carcinogens i t is m u c h more difficult t o decide if t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n a t which t h e m a t e r i a l is p r e s e n t is in excess of 1%.
A g a i n t h e p r o b l e m of p r o v i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n in b o r d e r l i n e c a s e s r e s t s with t h e Waste Disposal A u t h o r i t y .
( 3 ) Is t h e w a s t e l i k e l y t o c a u s e s e r i o u s t i s s u e d a m a g e o n e z p o s u r e f o r a p e r i o d of u p t o 15 m i n u t e s ? The only guidance t h a t is availabe r e f e r s t o injury of sufficient severity to t h r e a t e n life or cause p e r m a n e n t physical i m p a i r m e n t or disfigurement. This vague requirement is difficult t o quantify in t e r m s of a t t a c k on t h e eyes which a r e by far t h e m o s t sensi- tive organs quoted. In s o m e cases, e.g., water can cause m o r e damage t h a n a special waste. The imposition of t h e 15 m i n u t e exposure r u l e a n d individuals' differing reactions t o c h e m i c a l s a r e also very difficult t o quantify, i.e. t h e r e i s plenty of scope for discretion a n d d i s a g r e e m e n t .
( 4 ) Is i n g e s t i o n of 5 c m 3 of w a s t e Likely t o c a m e d e a t h or s e r i o u s t i s s u e d a m a g e t o a ZUkg child? The u s e of t h e t e r m child in this c r i t e r i o n leads t o a m o r e hysterical response t h a n i s required. The regulations were drafted with t h e idea t h a t children were m o r e likely t o ingest a portion of waste t h a n adults. The use of 5 c m c a n be argued, b u t i t i s f a r m o r e 3 quantifiable t h a n m a n y o t h e r a s p e c t s . The main problem for p r o d u c e r a n d w d a is obtaining toxicity d a t a which is reliable enough t o be credi- ble. [47]
Indeed, m u c h of t h e d a t a n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e a c u t e Loxicity of chemicals l o small childre11 is j u s t n o t available. I t is often n e c e s s a r y t o fall back on a n i m a l toxicity d a t a a n d even h e r e i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e scanty. In t h e opinion of t h e -Association of County Councils:
"...
t h e t h e o r e t i c a l foundation of t h e calculations r e m a i n s highly unsatisfactory ... The reliability of h u m a n toxicity d a t a is e x t r e m e l y poor...
Extrapolation from figures for a r a t o r r a b b i t t o a 20kg child is impossible." [48]Ttie o t h e r point t o consider is w h e t h e r t h e toxicity definition s e r v e s t h e purpose for which i t is m e a n t or will i t give lawyers a field-day. The Greg- son Report suggests t h a t t h e Regulations do n o t call for "a 'pass' o r 'fail' toxicity t e s t , b u t a toxic h a z a r d a s s e s s m e n t a n d any prosecution relating t o a disputed waste will have t o be judged on t h e basis of professional opinions about t h e likely effects of ingestion or exposure."[49] The Asso- ciation of County Councils a n d t h e Metropolitan Authorities m a i n t a i n
"that waste disposal a u t h o r i t i e s will have t h e g r e a t e s t difficulty in prov- ing in c o u r t t h a t c e r t a i n wastes a r e special. P r o d u c e r s wrongly defining waste a s n o t special should r e i m b u r s e t h e waste disposal a u t h o r i t y t h e cost of testing."[50]
Apart from t h e c h a n g e i n t h e list itself, t h e basis for inclusion on t h e list changed too. Under DOPWA, a waste could be notifiable according t o t h e p r e s e n c e of a s u b s t a n c e (i.e., qualitative a s p e c t ) r a t h e r t h a n i t s c o n c e n t r a t i o n (i.e., q u a n t i t a t i v e a s p e c t ) , u n d e r t h e Special Waste Regula- t i o n s i t could d r o p o u t of t h e corltrols if diluted sufficiently. This obvi- ously e n c o u r a g e s t h e mixing of h a z a r d o u s wastes with i n e r t wastes a t production s i t e s s o t h a t t h e waste i s n o longer r e g a r d e d a s special. Thus, if s i t e l i c e n c e conditions a r e vague a n d a r e n o t strongly enforced, t h e r e
is a danger of hazardous waste being deposited on unsuitable sites.
3.4. RESPONSIBLE AUTI<ORITIES
The wdas now have complete control a n d responsibility for any par- t i c u l a r site. The water authorities will not be involved a t all o t h e r t h a n in t h e licensing phase. Xilletts a r g u e s t h a t "the logic in having a single body responsible for special wastes is teniptirlg - dual responsibility is obviated, paperwork reduced, simplicity promoted. However t h e wdas do n o t have common att.itudes and standardsW[51]. This t r a i t c a n n o t usually be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e water authorities where t h e level of expertise is gen- e r a l l y of a high s t a n d a r d a n d t h e y could easily o u t m a n o u v e r wdas. Thus p e r h a p s t h e c o n t i n u a n c e of dual responsibility would be b e t t e r t h a n a u t o n o m y .
The tuda's themselves object mainly t.o t h e Regulations because of c a s h l i m i t s a n d manpower r e s t r a i n t s . Here a r e s o m e quotes from t h e Gregson Report:
"The change from administrative control over environmentally significant wastes t o field c o n t r o l
...
will place a considerable e x t r a workload on waste disposal authorities."[52]"Those a u t h o r i t i e s with a small e n f o r c e m e n t e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d a c u r b on r e c r u i t m e n t m a y well find t h e regulations an a c u t e e m b a r r a s s m e n t . " [53]
"There is call now for a complete c h a n g e of approach t o legisla- tive control. I t h i n k t e pre-notification s y s t e m u n d e r t h e Depo- s i t of Poisonous Waste Act was sufficient in m a n y of t h e i r minds f o r t h e m t o a c t a s a clerking administration, studying pieces of p a p e r falling on t h e desk, filing, a n d t h a t s o r t of thing. I h o n e s t l y believe t h a t , if t h e Control of Pollution Act and t h e s e c t i o n 17 s y s t e m s a r e t o be worked c o r r e c t l y a n d efficiently a n d effectively, te officers a r e going t o have t o g e t out in t h e field a n d police t h e i r operations m o r e . I t h i n k t h e r e is a subtle c h a n g e in requirement."[54]
Concern about the implications of the Regulations has been widespread and was the subject of a conference held in t h e UK in November, 1981 [ 5 5 ] . In addition, a Joint Review Committee was s e t up to review t h e regulations [ 5 6 ] and it i s probable t h a t a t t h e t i m e of writing the report may already be available.
4.
SOME
RELEVANTFEATURES OF UK HAZARDOUS
WASI'E M A N A G E m4.1 HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE OK SCIENCE
AND
TECIiNOLOGY-
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL"...
The Inquiry came about because of the concern expressedby t h e people of Basildon, regarding one of t h e largest waste disposal sites in the country a t Pitsea; and of course, it is a site where codisposal of hazardous waste and domestic waste takes place." [ 5 7 ]
The Inquiry, under the Chairmanship of Lord Gregson, was set up in 1980 t o make a n extensive investigation into t h e s t a t e of hazardous waste disposal in the UK.
As t h e quote indicates, the inquiry was s e t up in response to repeated requests by Basildon district council to t h e government to s e t up a public inquiry into the national policy for toxic waste disposal and local landfill disposal for toxic waste s u c h a s t h a t a t Pitsea which is situated on t h e Thames Estuary. The local residents felt t h a t P'itsea was the landfill site in the UK and t h a t they were t a h n g more t h a n their fair share of waste in the absence of national policy. Although Pitsea is within Basildon district council, it comes under the control of Essex County Council. The existence of Pitsea h a s long been of g r e a t concern to Basil- don district council and according to one district councillor, Pitsea will
never be accepted by local r e s i d e n t s , t h e y have n e v e r been consulted a t any t i m e a n d t h e fact t h a t Basildon is a growth a r e a n-as never t a k e n i n t o consideration when it was decided t o site P i t s e a landfill in t h e a r e a [58].
Complaints from Basildon a b o u t Pitsea go as far back a s 1974, a n d in 1978 t h e Council appealed t o t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e u n d e r t h e Planning Act b u t lost [59]. Under t h e p r e s e n t regulations t h e only m e a s u r e of control a district a u t h o r i t y h a s in England is u n d e r t h e Planning Act a n d t h e r e is strong r e s e n t m e n t by Basildon d i s t r i c t council t h a t t h e y do not have any o t h e r m e a s u r e s of control. There i s a feeling t h a t Essex County Council is too "removed" from t h e a c t u a l situation while t h e district council r e p r e s e n t s t h e local i n t e r e s t s far b e t t e r because of t h e invested political i n t e r e s t .
The Committee interviewed a t l e n g t h all t h e major a c t o r s i n t h e waste disposal i n d u s t r y emphasising mainly on
