DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) FINAL REPORT European Commission – DG Environment 2014 In collaboration with: Document information CLIENT European Commission – DG Environment CONTRACT NUMBER No 07.0307/2012/63260/ETU/C2 REPORT TITLE Final Report PROJECT NAME Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) PROJECT TEAM BIO by Deloitte; in collaboration with Arcadis, Ecologic, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Umweltbundesamt (UBA) PROJECT OFFICER Mr. Michel Sponar, DG Environment, Directorate A, Unit A2 Mr. Olivier De Clercq, DG Environment, Directorate A, Unit A2 DATE 2014 AUTHORS Mrs. Véronique Monier, BIO by Deloitte Mr. Shailendra Mudgal, BIO by Deloitte Mr. Mathieu Hestin, BIO by Deloitte Mr. Jérémie Cavé, BIO by Deloitte Mrs. Manuela Gheoldus, BIO by Deloitte Mr Mike Van Acoleyen, Arcadis Mrs. Ilse Laureysens, Arcadis Mrs. Emma Watkins, IEEP Mrs. Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, IEEP Mr. Hubert Reisinger, UBA Mr. Thomas Weissenbach, UBA Mrs. Judith Oliva, UBA Mr. Lucas Porsch, Ecologic KEY CONTACTS Véronique Monier [email protected] Or Mathieu Hestin [email protected] DISCLAIMER The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from the use of this report or its content. This report contains the results of research by the authors and is not to be perceived as the opinion of the European Commission. Photo credit: cover @ Per Ola Wiberg 2 | Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) | 3 Table of contents Table of Contents DOCUMENT INFORMATION 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 GLOSSARY 7 SYMBOLS 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 CHAPTER 1. CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH 29 1.1 Context and objectives 29 1.2 Methodological approach 32 1.2.1 Panorama of EPR schemes in EU-28 33 1.2.2 Selection of waste streams and case studies 34 1.2.3 In-depth analysis of 36 case studies 36 1.2.4 Exploration of four main issues related to EPR design and implementation 38 1.2.5 Guiding principles 39 1.2.6 Stakeholder consultation 39 CHAPTER 2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EPR SCHEMES IN THE EU 41 2.1 Existing EPR schemes in EU-28 41 2.2 Performance of EPR schemes in the EU 46 2.2.1 Batteries 48 2.2.2 ELVs 49 2.2.3 Oils 50 2.2.4 Packaging 51 2.2.5 WEEE 54 2.3 Focus on 36 case studies 56 2.3.1 EPR systems functioning 56 2.3.2 Systems performance 64 2.4 Is there such thing as a ‘best performing’ EPR model? 76 CHAPTER 3. MAIN TOPICS CONSIDERED FOR GUIDANCE 79 3.1 Share of responsibilities and dialogue between stakeholders 80 3.1.1 Issues under consideration 80 3.1.2 Findings from the case studies 82 3.1.3 Taking stakeholders' expertise into account 88 4 | Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Table of contents 3.1.4 Towards guiding principles 90 3.2 Cost coverage and true cost principle 91 3.2.1 Issues under consideration 91 3.2.2 Findings from the case studies 92 3.2.3 Taking stakeholders’ expertise into account 96 3.2.4 Towards possible guiding principles 99 3.3 Fair competition 100 3.3.1 Issues under consideration 100 3.3.2 Findings from the case studies 101 3.3.3 Taking stakeholders’ expertise into account 107 3.3.4 Towards possible guiding principles 108 3.4 Transparency and surveillance 109 3.4.1 Issues under consideration for transparency 109 3.4.2 Issues under consideration for surveillance 109 3.4.3 Findings from the case studies 110 3.4.4 Taking stakeholders’ expertise into account 117 3.4.5 Concluding remarks 118 3.4.6 Towards possible guiding principles 121 CHAPTER 4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 122 4.1 Statement n°1: Clarification of the definition and objectives of EPR 122 4.1.1 Guiding principle 122 4.1.2 Policy options 124 4.2 Statement n°2: The shared responsibilities principle 124 4.2.1 Guiding principle 124 4.2.2 Policy options 125 4.3 Statement n°3: The full net cost coverage principle 126 4.3.1 Guiding principle 126 4.3.2 Policy options 126 4.4 Statement n°4: The true end-of-life costs principle 127 4.4.1 Guiding principle 127 4.4.2 Policy options 128 4.5 Statement n°5: The fair competition principle 129 4.5.1 Guiding principle 129 4.5.2 Policy options 130 4.6 Statement n°6: The transparency principle 131 4.6.1 Guiding principle 131 Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) | 5 Table of contents 4.6.2 Policy options 132 4.7 Statement n°7: The reporting harmonisation principle 132 4.7.1 Guiding principle 132 4.7.2 Policy options 132 4.8 Statement n°8: The monitoring and surveillance principle 133 4.8.1 Guiding principle 133 4.8.2 Policy options 134 CHAPTER 5. ANNEX 135 5.1 Preliminary analysis of EPR in the EU 135 5.2 Organisational aspects and share of responsibilities between actors 154 5.2.1 Type of PRO responsibility 154 5.2.2 What exactly does the PRO do? 158 5.2.3 Role of Local Authorities 160 5.3 True cost principle and cost coverage 161 5.3.1 Organisational costs coverage 161 5.3.2 Which kind of costs are taken into account? 164 5.3.3 Is there a minimal level of service and/or geographical coverage defined by legislation? 167 5.3.4 True cost: to which extent does the fee reflect the real ‘end-of-life’ cost of products? 169 5.3.5 Comparing technical performances 171 5.3.6 Comparing cost-effectiveness 175 5.4 Fair competition 178 5.4.1 Is there competition among PROs? 178 5.4.2 Is there competition among WM operators? 181 5.5 Transparency and surveillance 184 5.5.1 Transparency 184 5.5.2 Monitoring of free riding 188 5.5.3 Surveillance of collection and treatment operations 194 5.5.4 Surveillance of PROs 196 5.6 Recommendations 205 6 | Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Glossary GLOSSARY Term Definition Civic amenity site A civic amenity site (or household waste recycling centre) is a facility where the public can dispose of sorted household waste. Civic amenity sites are generally run by the local authorities in a given municipality. Clearinghouse Third-party central agency or corporation acting as a regulator for a competitive market C&I Commercial and Industrial (waste) Deposit-refund scheme Recovery system that requires the collection of a monetary deposit on a product’s packaging (often beverage containers) at the point of sale. The deposit is refunded to the purchaser when they return the container to an authorised redemption centre. Non-recovered deposits may be used to finance waste collection and disposal facilities. EC European Commission Eco-design Any production process that takes into account environmental considerations (e.g. raw material use, recyclability, end-of-life waste management requirements) at the product design stage EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment ELV End-of-Life Vehicle(s) EPR Extended producer responsibility, i.e. an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle EPR scheme Any system or scheme set up by one or several producers to implement the EPR principle. Synonyms: compliance scheme Fee Price paid by a producer to have its products dealt with through a PRO Free riders Producers who do not contribute financially to any compliance scheme, but still benefit from their existence and action Guiding Principle General rule to be followed in order to move towards more efficient, accountable and harmonised practices for EPR schemes HH Household (waste) Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) | 7 Glossary Local authorities / Local public Elected and non-elected agents who manage a city or local authorities (LPAs) community. Synonym: Municipalities MS Member State(s) MSW Municipal solid waste Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) The polluter-pays principle is a guiding principle at European and international levels, which stipulates that the waste producer and the waste holder should bear the costs of waste management in a way that guarantees a high level of protection of the environment and human health. PRO Producer Responsibility Organisation, i.e. a collective entity set up by producers or through legislation, which becomes responsible for meeting the recovery and recycling obligations of the individual producers. Producers Product makers; they are expected to assume extended responsibility for the products they put on the market. In practice, the extended responsibility is frequently assumed by other actors, i.e.: importers, marketers, retailers, distributors. Recovery Any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function (or waste being prepared to fulfil that function) (definition from Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, Article 3). Recycling Any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material, but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations. (Definition from Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, Article 3.) Regeneration (of waste oils) Any recycling operation whereby base oils can be produced by refining waste oils, in particular by removing the contaminants, the oxidation products and the additives contained in such oils (definition from Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, Article 3).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Extended Producer Responsibility and the Role of Social Economy Re-Use Operators: Implementing a Socially Inclusive Waste Hierarchy
    27 August 2020 Extended Producer Responsibility and the role of social economy re-use operators: Implementing a socially inclusive waste hierarchy Introduction Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a tool placing responsibility on producers, importers and retailers to financially and/or physically manage the post-consumer phase of certain goods. EPR aims to prevent the unnecessary production of waste, manufacture better designed goods and participate in the achievement of waste collection, prevention, preparing for re-use and recycling targets. Various EPR models have developed organically across European countries, including France which covers the largest amount of waste streams (including textiles, furniture, and leisure equipment among others). In this context, distortion of the internal market may occur. This is why EU wide minimum requirements for EPR have been included within the updated Waste Framework Directive (WFD) published in 20181. In addition to waste streams such as WEEE where EPR is mandatory at EU level and high re-use potential exists, the new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) also indicates that EPR for textiles should be considered at EU level2. However, according to the experience of RREUSE members, practical implementation of EPR often conflicts with the waste hierarchy3, prioritising recycling over re-use. Unfortunately, this usually limits the role that re-use operators, notably those from the social economy, play in implementing EPR. To counter this trend, this paper provides a number of practical suggestions as to how EPR, for example, if applied to household goods such as furniture, textiles and electronics, can better support re-use and waste prevention notably through targets, access to re-useable goods and encouraging better product design.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceived Value Influencing the Household Waste Sorting
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Perceived Value Influencing the Household Waste Sorting Behaviors in Rural China Ying Ma 1,2, Mansoor Ahmed Koondhar 1, Shengke Liu 1, Huiling Wang 1 and Rong Kong 1,* 1 School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, No. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China; [email protected] (Y.M.); [email protected] (M.A.K.); [email protected] (S.L.); [email protected] (H.W.) 2 School of Economics and Management, Xi’an Shiyou University, No. 18 Dianzi Road, Xi’an 710065, China * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 July 2020; Accepted: 19 August 2020; Published: 21 August 2020 Abstract: Waste sorting is the cardinal measurement to solve the problem of low efficiency of rural environmental governance and to alleviate environmental pollution by reduction, recycling, and harmlessness in rural areas. However, non-excludable and non-rival features of public goods easily cause a wide free-rider problem, which results in a low frequency of participation in the waste sorting of rural people. Based on the theory of the utility maximization of the rational economic man, this paper investigates survey data of 688 farm households in three cities and three counties of Shaanxi Province to explore the effect of the perceived value on the household waste classification behavior based on cost-benefit analysis. The results show that perceived benefit and perceived cost are important perceived value factors affecting farmers’ participation in waste sorting. Specifically, the spiritual benefit of the perceived benefit has a significantly positive impact on classification behavior, while the time cost, physical cost, and material cost of the perceived cost have a negative impact on waste classification behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Waste Hierachy
    R ethinking the Waste H i erarchy Environmental ASSESSMENT INSTITUTE MARCH 2005 INSTITUT FOR MILJ0VURDERING E nvironmental Assessment Institute Reference no.: 2002-2204-007 ISBN.: 87-7992-032-2 Editors: Clemen Rasmussen and Dorte Vigs0 Written by: Clemen Rasmussen (project manager), Dorte Vigs0, Frank Ackerman, Richard Porter, David Pearce, Elbert Dijkgraaf and Herman Vollebergh. Published: March 2005 Version: 1.1 ©2005, Environmental Assessment Institute For further information please contact: Environmental Assessment Institute Linnesgade 18 DK -1361 Copenhagen Phone: +45 7226 5800 Fax: +45 7226 5839 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.imv.dk E nvironmental Assessment Institute Rethinking the Waste Hierarchy March 2005 Recommendations A number of specific recommendations for achieving cost-effective waste policies can be made based on both the US experience presented by Ackerman and Porter and on the analysis of European waste management presented by Pearce and Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh. The results of this project relate to both the target setting and the regulatory implementation of waste policy in the EU. The main recommendations for future waste policies in the EU and Member States are: ■ The waste hierarchy must be considered a very general and flexible guideline for formulating waste policies. What is environmentally desirable is not always a preferred solution, when considered from a socio economic perspective. The reason is that some environmental benefits may come at a comparably so­ cially high cost. The marginal costs and benefits will vary depending on mate­ rial and locality. It is recommended that social costs and benefits of new recy­ cling schemes should be analysed and that a critical assessment be made on to determine if further steps are in fact socially desirable.
    [Show full text]
  • Redesign. Rethink. Reduce. Reuse. Go Beyond Recycling
    REDESIGN. RETHINK. REDUCE. REUSE. GO BEYOND RECYCLING. WHAT IS ZERO WASTE? the entire lifecycle of products used within a facility. With TRUE, your facility can demonstrate to the world what you’re doing to minimize Zero waste is a philosophy that encourages the redesign of resource your waste output. life cycles so that all products are reused; a process that is very similar to the way that resources are reused in nature. Although recycling is HOW DOES CERTIFICATION WORK? the first step in the journey, achieving zero waste goes far beyond. By focusing on the larger picture, facilities and organizations can reap The TRUE Zero Waste certification program is an Assessor-based financial benefits while becoming more resource efficient. program that rates how well facilities perform in minimizing their non-hazardous, solid wastes and maximizing their efficient in the use According to the EPA, the average American generates 4.4 pounds of of resources. A TRUE project’s goal is to divert 90 percent or greater trash each day, and according to the World Bank, global solid waste overall diversion from the landfill, incineration (waste-to-energy) and generation is on pace to increase 70 percent by 2025. For every can of the environment for solid, non-hazardous wastes for the most recent garbage at the curb, for instance, there are 87 cans worth of materials 12 months. that come from extraction industries that manufacture natural resources into finished products—like timber, agricultural, mining and Certification is available for any physical facility and their operations, petroleum. This means that while recycling is important, it doesn’t including facilities owned by: companies, property managers, address the real problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (The 3Rs) and Resource Efficiency As the Basis for Sustainable Waste Management
    CSD-19 Learning Centre “Synergizing Resource Efficiency with Informal Sector towards Sustainable Waste Management” 9 May 2011, New York Co-organized by: UNCRD and UN HABITAT Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (the 3Rs) and Resource Efficiency as the basis for Sustainable Waste Management C. R. C. Mohanty UNCRD 3Rs offer an environmentally friendly alternatives to deal with growing generation of wastes and its related impact on human health, eco nomy and natural ecosystem Natural Resources First : Reduction Input Reduce waste, by-products, etc. Production (Manufacturing, Distribution, etc.) Second : Reuse Third : Material Recycling Use items repeatedly. Recycle items which cannot be reused as raw materials. Consumption Fourth : Thermal Recycling Recover heat from items which have no alternatives but incineration and which cannot Discarding be recycled materially. Treatment (Recycling, Incineration, etc.) Fifth : Proper Disposal Dispose of items which cannot be used by any means. (Source: Adapted from MoE-Japan) Landfill disposal Stages in Product Life Cycle • Extraction of natural resources • Processing of resources • Design of products and selection of inputs • Production of goods and services • Distribution • Consumption • Reuse of wastes from production or consumption • Recycling of wastes from consumption or production • Disposal of residual wastes Source: ADB, IGES, 2008 Resource efficiency refers to amount of resource (materials, energy, and water) consumed in producing a unit of product or services. It involves using smaller amount of physical
    [Show full text]
  • 5.0 Kerbside Contents
    WEEE Collection Good Practice Guidance 1 5.0 Kerbside Contents 5.1 Bulky waste 01 5.1.1 Interacting with local reuse schemes 01 5.1.2 Identifying reusable items 02 5.1.3 Collection arrangements 02 5.2 Staff training 04 5.3 Handling and storage 05 5.4 Contractual arrangements 06 5.5 Small Mixed WEEE collections 07 WEEE Collection Good Practice Guidance 1 Audience: The primary audience for this section of the guidance is waste collection authorities (and their contractors). However, third sector organisations and producer compliance schemes will also be interested in this guidance. Benefits: The benefit to the collection authorities of implementing this good practice is to maximise the WEEE that is segregated for reuse and recycling through their kerbside/bulky waste collections. Producer compliance schemes will find this section of interest as they can benefit from innovative collection methods and may wish to discuss appropriate approved recycling and reuse routes with the local authorities. Third sector organisations will find the guidance of value by understanding how they can support waste collection authorities to maximise diversion of WEEE for reuse. Summary: This chapter considers the options available to waste collection authorities for maximising reuse and recycling of WEEE, through kerbside/ bulky waste collections, bring banks and ad hoc collections such as WEEE amnesties. Advice is therefore provided on how to identify reusable items, how to raise awareness of reuse avenues with householders and how to interact with local reuse schemes so they provide the level of service required. Useful sources of information of relevance to this section of the guidance are available from the Furniture Reuse Network.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardising Kerbside Collections in Aotearoa
    Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa Prepared for Ministry for the Environment May 2020 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STANDARDISATION OF KERBSIDE COLLECTIONS IN AOTEAROA DOCUMENT QUALITY CONTROL Version Date Written by Distributed to Sarah Pritchett (WasteMINZ) and Draft 0.1 29 May 2020 Sunshine Yates (Sunshine Stephen Goodman Yates Consulting) on behalf of WasteMINZ Sarah Pritchett and Draft 0.2 10 June 2020 Stephen Goodman Sunshine Yates Sarah Pritchett and Final 1.0 26 June 2020 Stephen Goodman Sunshine Yates CONTACT DETAILS Ministry for the Environment WasteMINZ Stephen Goodman Sarah Pritchett Policy Manager Sustainability Advisor 23 Kate Sheppard Place PO Box 305426 Thorndon Triton Plaza Wellington 6143 Auckland 0757 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Project Managers acknowledges the time, expertise and guidance provided by the members of the Steering Group and Oversight Group in preparing this report. Steering Group Oversight Group Duncan Wilson (Chair) - Eunomia Research and Consulting Stephen Goodman (Chair) - MfE Mike Jones - Earthcare Environmental Shaun Lewis - MfE Rick Thorpe - Xtreme Zero Waste/Zero Waste Network Parul Sood - Auckland Council Rob Wilson - Eco Central Jason Krupp - Local Government New Zealand Angela Atkins - Hastings District Council Pamela Ritchie - MfE Janine Brinsdon - WasteMINZ Rodrick Boys - MfE Stephen Goodman - MfE The Project Managers also thank each and every local authority representative and waste and resource recovery industry representative that generously gave of their time and expertise
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Waste Collection – How to Make Sure It Makes Sense for Your Community
    AUTOMATED WASTE COLLECTION – HOW TO MAKE SURE IT MAKES SENSE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY Marc J. Rogoff, Ph.D. Richard E. Lilyquist, P.E. SCS Engineers Public Works Department Tampa, Florida City of Lakeland Lakeland, Florida Donald Ross Jeffrey L. Wood Kessler Consulting, Inc Solid Waste Division Tampa, Florida City of Lakeland Lakeland, Florida ABSTRACT Automated side-load trucks were first implemented in the City of Phoenix in the 1970s with the aim of ending The decision to implement solid waste collection the back-breaking nature of residential solid waste automation is a complex one and involves a number of collection, and to minimize worker injuries. Since then factors that should be considered, including engineering, thousands of public agencies and private haulers have risk management, technology assessment, costs, and moved from the once traditional read-load method of public acceptance. This paper analyzes these key issues waste collection to one that also provides the customer and provides a case study of how waste collection with a variety of choices in standardized, rollout carts. automation was considered by the City of Lakeland, These automated programs have enabled communities Florida. throughout the country to significantly reduce worker compensation claims and minimize insurance expenses, HOW DID AUTOMATED COLLECTION GET while at the same time offer opportunities to workers STARTED? who are not selected for their work assignment based solely on physical skills. The evolution of solid waste collection vehicles has been historically driven by an overwhelming desire by solid MODERN APPLICATION OF AUTOMATION waste professionals to collect more waste for less money, as well as lessening the physical demands on sanitation In an automated collection system, residents are provided workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management
    Environment Committee Waste management The Environment Committee is investigating aspects of London’s waste generation, handling and disposal, to inform the development of work under the Mayor’s Environment Strategy and other policies. The three aspects for particular focus are: • Waste reduction and the circular economy • Recycling • Energy from waste The investigation will seek to build on past work of the committee and identify recommendations to the Mayor and perhaps other London actors. Background London generates a huge amount of waste (about 20 million tonnes in 20101), of many types from earth and cement to plastics, paper and organic material. The main destinations for London’s bulk waste are recycling, incineration as fuel to generate electricity and/or heat buildings, and landfill. Of course the amount of waste to manage can be reduced by using less material in the first place, or by passing goods on to another user, rather than discarding them with the rubbish. The waste hierarchy The ‘waste hierarchy’ places these alternatives in a preferred order based on their environmental and quality of life impacts. 1 Of which, nearly half was construction, demolition and excavation waste (CDE), nearly a third commercial and industrial waste, with municipal (mainly household) waste only 20%. Most CDE waste is re-used or recycled in some form; municipal waste has the lowest recycling rate and the highest landfill. Data from the (previous) Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/environment-publications/mayors-business-waste-management- strategy (see p25) and Municipal Waste Strategy https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/municipal_waste_final.pdf (see p26) Page 1 of 11 Environment Committee Waste management Since 2000, landfill (at the bottom of the hierarchy) has reduced considerably, but in recent years waste reduction and recycling (high to medium in the hierarchy) have stagnated and further waste diverted from landfill has instead shifted to incineration (low in the hierarchy).
    [Show full text]
  • Sector N: Scrap and Waste Recycling
    Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series Sector N: Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities U.S. EPA Office of Water EPA-833-F-06-029 February 2021 What is the NPDES stormwater program for industrial activity? Activities, such as material handling and storage, equipment maintenance and cleaning, industrial processing or other operations that occur at industrial facilities are often exposed to stormwater. The runoff from these areas may discharge pollutants directly into nearby waterbodies or indirectly via storm sewer systems, thereby degrading water quality. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed permitting regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control stormwater discharges associated with eleven categories of industrial activity. As a result, NPDES permitting authorities, which may be either EPA or a state environmental agency, issue stormwater permits to control runoff from these industrial facilities. What types of industrial facilities are required to obtain permit coverage? This fact sheet specifically discusses stormwater discharges various industries including scrap recycling and waste recycling facilities as defined by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group Code 50 (5093). Facilities and products in this group fall under the following categories, all of which require coverage under an industrial stormwater permit: ◆ Scrap and waste recycling facilities (non-source separated, non-liquid recyclable materials) engaged in processing, reclaiming, and wholesale distribution of scrap and waste materials such as ferrous and nonferrous metals, paper, plastic, cardboard, glass, and animal hides. ◆ Waste recycling facilities (liquid recyclable materials) engaged in reclaiming and recycling liquid wastes such as used oil, antifreeze, mineral spirits, and industrial solvents.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Assessment
    Waste Monitoring Program 2006 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Assessment November 2006 PREPARED BY: Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. In cooperation with WIH Resource Group Acknowledgments This study would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of the management and operators of the four Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) who generously agreed to participate. Studies of this kind are an imposition on their time and their cooperation is greatly appreciated. Special thanks are given to the following MRFs which hosted and assisted sampling activities in addition to providing tonnage data and market information. Allied Waste, Rabanco Recycling Center (Third & Lander) in Seattle, Waste Management, Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville, Smurfit-Stone, Renton Reclamation Plant, in Renton, and Waste Connection, Recycling Center in Tacoma. Market information and quantity and composition data resulting from the collection and sorting of material samples at each of the MRFs was obtained under confidentiality agreements and is not presented within this report. Instead, the data from individual facilities was aggregated. Thanks to the numerous material brokers, end-users, and industry experts for their time, insight, and information on recycled commodity markets and specifications. And finally, thank you King County and City of Seattle staff for assistance in identifying a separate sorting location. Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................i
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Guidance for Residents
    Kent County Council Waste Management Guide to household waste disposal Guidance document for residents September 2019 4 kent.gov.uk This document can be made available in other formats or languages. To request this, please email [email protected] or telephone 03000 421553 (text relay service 18001 03000 421553). This number goes to an answer machine, which is monitored during office hours. Or write to: Kent County Council, Diversity & Equality Team Room G37, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XQ 2 Contents Responsibility for Waste Background Information 4 Roles of Authorities in Kent & Current Performance 5 Waste Segregation 6-17 Household Waste Recycling Centres 18-20 Conclusion 21 Waste Collection Authority Contacts 22 Quicklinks 23 Kent County Council Waste Management Mission Our Ambition is to deliver a high quality household waste disposal service, whilst remaining cost- effective for the people of Kent, with an emphasis on waste reduction, reuse, recycling and achieving zero landfill 3 Collection and disposal of waste Background Information Kent County Council (KCC) works in partnership with the Kent District and Borough Councils to find the best solution for the household waste that requires disposal. The aim of this document is to provide clear guidance to residents so they can dispose of their waste in a way that is in line with the Waste Hierarchy enabling waste to be reduced, reused or recycled where possible; and waste being sent for incineration or landfill is as minimal as possible. Prevention Most preferred Preparing for re-use Recycling Other recovery Disposal Least preferred 4 Roles of authorities in Kent District and Borough Councils are Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and they are responsible for collecting household waste from residents’ houses, referred to as kerbside collections.
    [Show full text]