Ash Disposal - Ministerial Response - 12 February 2013

Findings

Comments

Findings:  Incinerator  Bottom Ash (IBA)

1

The  review  has  shown  that approximately 18,000 tonnes of IBA generated by the operation of  the  EfW  plant  at  current levels  (approximately  70,000 tonnes  of  waste  per  annum) could  be  recovered  through  a relatively  straightforward process  including  crushing, metal  separation,  weathering and grading into IBA aggregate (IBAA), which would no longer be classified as waste and would be  suitable  for  use  by  the construction  industry,  in  either bound  or  unbound  form.  This would  require  limited investment  by  TTS  in appropriate  infrastructure including  a  concrete  base, drainage,  and  additional  fixed and  mobile  equipment  for crushing,  grading  and  metals extraction.

The principal of processing IBA from the new Energy  from  Waste  Plant  for  recovery  as  an aggregate  replacement  is  supported  by  the Minister for Planning and Environment.

The Minister in supporting the idea of IBAA and reserves his and the Department's position as to the siting of any facilities in planning terms with respect to any potential application.

See comment for Recommendation 1 below.

For IBAA to be no longer classified as a waste it would  need to  be  demonstrated  that  the  waste IBA had been processed to the extent that it was fully recovered and may be regarded as a non waste product that can either be used by business or  industry,  or  supplied  into  other  markets, without  the  need  for  the  regulatory  controls provided in the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005.

The processing of IBA into a recovered product will require a waste management licence issued from the Department of the Environment.

The use of IBAA in any aggregate applications will  be  regulated  by  the  Department  of  the Environment either specifically for a particular use  and  site,  or  through  its  involvement  in consideration  of  any  change  in  the  material's status as a waste.

2

Successful  recovery  of  IBA would require the development of a local market for processed IBAA appropriate to the needs

The  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment agrees  with  the  pre-feasibility  study  of  use  of recycled  bottom  ash  by  local  industry.  The Minister  emphasises  that  the  cost/carbon

Findings

Comments

of the construction industry. For this purpose it is anticipated that a  commercial  partnership between TTS and a local quarry operator (or operators) would be the  best  way  forward.  Initial approaches  have  already  been made  by  TTS  to  the  industry. More substantive  progress  will require  confirmation  of  the chemical make-up of IBA that can be produced consistently by the EfW, and subsequently the operator  would  have  to  satisfy the  regulator  that  IBAA products derived from it are safe for use in the local environment in whatever form is eventually selected.

components of the present importing of materials should  be  considered  and  that  the  arguments should  not  just  be  about  acceptance  by  local industry.

The Minister agrees with the second statement about  the  environmental  safety  of  the  final product. TTS will also be required to detail all end  uses  of  the  recycled  bottom  ash  and  to provide  evidence  that  subsequent  use  will  not pose a potential problem of pollution.

For example; if recycled bottom ash were to be used as a road sub surface aggregate, the Minister would  need  to  be  satisfied  that  no  harmful leachate is generated. This consideration would include the fact that recycled bottom ash would be almost impossible to trace once used. It may eventually  be  dug  up,  used  elsewhere,  or  be deposited  at  the  La  Collette  tip  head  and  the Minister would require satisfaction that no long term legacy would result.

3

Transport  and  Technical Services' decision to appoint a new  operator  for  the  vehicle scrap-yard and relocate it using alternative  methodologies  will result in the removal of vehicle shredder  residues  and  other contaminated  wastes  which have  up  to  now  adversely affected the chemical profile of the ash from EfW plant; these must be removed for recycling to succeed.

The Minister agrees with this statement. Officers from  Environmental  Protection  are  presently considering  the  application  for  a  Waste Management  Licence  in  order  to  licence  and regulate the new scrap yard operation.

According to the working plan, submitted with the licence application, all end of life vehicles will  be  de-polluted (the  hazardous components and fluids are removed) and then exported from the island for recovery of scrap metals and other materials.

The  Minister  is  pleased  to  see  the  new  scrap metals contract incorporating best techniques for recovering end of life vehicles by a combination of  processing  on  Island  and  then  export  for recovery. This removes the contaminated waste material,  which  arose  from  the  shearing  and fragmentising of vehicles, from the waste stream sent to the EfW plant.

4

To  further  ensure  that significant  sources  of  toxic metals  and  other  waste components  do  not  enter  the EfW  plant  waste  stream, contaminating the ash and thus preventing  successful  recycling into  IBAA,  it  is  essential  that improvements  are  made  to  the

The  Minister  agrees  with  this  statement  and supports  the  principles  of  improved  kerb  side recycling and removal of contaminated waste in the Island.

Recycling  and  waste  stream  segregation  is  the responsibility  of  TTS  and  the  Parishes.  The subsequent  disposal  or  recovery  activities  for these  wastes  are  regulated  by  Environmental Protection (Department of the Environment).

Findings

Comments

separation of wastes at source. In particular it is important that batteries,  WEEE  (Waste Electrical  and  Electronic Equipment) and other potential contaminants are separated from the  domestic  waste  stream derived  from  parish  refuse collections. This may point to a need  for  improved  kerb-side separation  on  an   Island-wide basis.

5

It  is  anticipated  that  capital investment  would  be  required by  TTS  to  initiate  these arrangements by 2014-15. Once the  market  for  Jersey's  own IBAA  was  proven  and  IBAA reliably  recycled  within  the Island,  the  processing  of Guernsey's waste could also be considered.  However,  firm assurances would be needed of a market  for  the  additional volumes of IBAA produced as a result. The Panel considers that one way to achieve this might be by means of an agreement for Guernsey  to  import  a proportional  volume  of recovered IBAA product(s) for use  in  their  construction industry.

As a responsible jurisdiction operating according to the protocols of the Basel Convention, Jersey would need to be satisfied that any end use of the IBAA  in  Guernsey  would  not  cause  an unacceptable risk of pollution.

The  Department  of the  Environment  would  be involved  in  consideration  of  the  legal  and environmental implications.

The Minister considers linkage of the importation of Guernsey's waste solely to the reuse of the ash fails to accept the other dimensions of the waste strategy  (e.g. minimising  the  residual  elements for burning, seeking to operate an incinerator as an electricity plant outside of its waste hierarchy design,  CO2  emissions  etc.).  The  full environmental  arguments  inside  a  waste hierarchy  and  best  practice  will  need  to  be considered in relation to any waste importation proposal.

Please refer to the comments in 1 above.

6

It is noted that there may still be a  requirement  for  limited landfill  capacity  for  a  small quantity  of  material  (fines) unsuitable for use as aggregate.

Any  deposit  of  IBA  for  disposal  would  be regulated  and  controlled  according  to  a  Waste Management licence. In the case of disposal at La Collette, existing and new cells for disposal will be licenced under the application made by TTS for this site.

The  licence  for  La  Collette  will  impose conditions to protect the environment.

Findings:  Air  pollution control residues (APCr)

1

The  review  found  differing views  on  options  for  the disposal  of  hazardous  APCr. The Minister  for  Planning  and Environment appears to favour

The  Minister for  Planning  and  Environment  is committed that TTS finds a permanent solution to the treatment of APC residue that satisfies the long-term  island  needs  and  does  not  pose  a pollution threat to either the Island's air or waters

Findings

Comments

investment  in  plant  to  enable on-Island  processing  of  APCr for  recovery  using  vitrification technology,  which  is  a  highly technical  and  energy-intensive option  that  locks  contaminants into  a  stable  glass-like substance.  Both  TTS  and  the Panel's  advisers  consider  that this would be a very expensive option for Jersey which would be  uneconomic  compared  with existing  alternatives  that  are available either for recovery or disposal  off-Island.  It  is  also risky,  involving  relatively unproven  and  complex technology. A further concern is that  it  would  produce  at  very high cost a specialised aggregate material  which  would  have  to compete  in  the  market  with other  forms  of  inexpensive aggregate,  including  IBAA, which  could  be  produced  at much  lower  cost  from  the greater  proportion  of  waste produced by the EfW.

or render potential land banks as contaminated thus preventing any future island development.

The Minister is of the opinion that in future, the technology for treating APC will improve, costs of  treatment  will  reduce  and  that  TTS  should routinely assess all developments in this area.

The  Minister  favours  recovery  through vitrification for remediation of APCr but has not suggested  that  this  should  necessarily  be

in a French plant in addition to the off island disposal  routes  favoured  by  the  Minister  for Transport and Technical Services. The off island disposal  routes  should  also  look  to  European facilities and not just the UK.

Please refer to the comments in 1 above.

2

The Panel therefore favours the preferred option of the Minister for  Transport  and  Technical Services  and  his  department, which would involve exporting the  backlog  of  approximately 4,000 tonnes of APCr currently stored  in  cell  33  for  disposal, followed  by  a  similar  volume annually  thereafter.  TTS  have advised  the  Panel  that  they consider  the costs  of  shipping, landfill  taxes  and  gate  fees could  be  contained  within  the £1 million  budget  currently allocated for construction of the cells  needed  to  safely  contain APCr  at  La  Collette,  making export a viable option.

Officers from the Department of the Environment have submitted a Duly Reasoned Request (DRR) to the UK's Environment Agency incorporating TTS's  request  to  export  both  the  historic (existing)  and  future  APCr.  The  application  is currently being considered by the UK authorities and a decision on whether the island can export to the UK or not is expected shortly.

3

In  the  first  instance  it  is considered  that  the  backlog  of

Where  the  UK  Environment  Agency  establish and agree through the Duly Reasoned Request

Findings

Comments

APCr  could  be  disposed  of  in former  salt  mines  which  are now appropriately permitted to accept the material either in the UK, where this is classified as disposal, or in Germany, where it  is  currently  viewed  as  a recovery process. Alternatively, it could be pre-treated by acid stabilisation  in  the  UK  for disposal  into  non-hazardous landfill.

(DRR) application, that Jersey does not currently have  the  capability  to  deal  with  APCr  in  an environmentally sound manner, then the export of APC will be agreed in principle.

The  proposal  to  export  APCr  to  a  specific disposal site will require a transfrontier shipment notification from TTS and this will need to detail the  final  disposal  location  for  the  APCr.  This application  will  be  processed  by  both  the Department  of  the  Environment  and  the  UK Environment Agency and no shipments can take place until both have issued consent.

4

The  legacy'  APCr  in  cell  33 was  bagged  with  a  view  to facilitating its removal should a suitable treatment or alternative disposal  option  later  become available.  Whilst  this  has enabled TTS to retain the option of  removal  from  La  Collette, some  treatment  processes cannot  handle  bagged  APCr; and some processes cannot treat APCr that has been exposed to the elements for any length of time as it can become hardened in storage.

The Minster agrees with this statement.

5

Once the backlog has been dealt with,  APCr  subsequently generated  by  the  EfW  plant could  be  stored  temporarily, using suitable infrastructure, and then  shipped  at  economic intervals  to  the  same  facility under  conditions  approved  by the regulator.

See comment for Recommendation 6 below.

6

The initial options of disposal in salt  mines  or  use  of  acid stabilisation  should  be periodically  reviewed  against any  available  alternatives  of export  for  recovery,  including accelerated  carbonation, vitrification,  and  acid  washing to  recover  gypsum  substitute. Should  these  alternatives  be proved to offer viable solutions for Jersey's hazardous APCr in

The  Minister  supports  this  statement  and  will always  favour  recovery  over  disposal  options. The option to export to the UK for disposal under the  DRR  currently  being  considered  is  time limited to a 3 year period. TTS have undertaken to review all technologies and the availability of more  sustainable  recovery  options  in  the meantime.

Given  the  UK  policy  away  from  landfill  and toward  EFW  plants,  the  Minister  expects increased  emphasis  by  the  UK  toward technological/private  sector  solutions  to  APCr

Findings

Comments

due  course there  should be  an automatic  presumption  that export  for  recovery  would  be favoured  over  disposal, following  the  principles  of  the waste hierarchy. There would be an  expectation  that  export  for recovery  should  be  adopted  as soon  as  it  proved  feasible  on practical and economic grounds.

treatment.

7

Export  for  disposal  requires Jersey  to  make  application  to the  UK  Department  for Environment,  Food  and  Rural Affairs (Defra) for approval on the grounds that Jersey does not have  existing  facilities  to adequately  process  or  safely landfill  this  hazardous  waste. This has already been done and the  response  is  currently awaited.

The Minister agrees with this statement.

For clarity, the submitted DRR request however has been made to the UK Environment Agency (Defra  are  consultees  as  they  administer  the policy). The DRR includes all hazardous waste materials requiring export from the island over the next 3 years, not only APCr.

The Environment Agency has sought clarification on several of the other items included as part of the current DRR application (the rationale for the export of APC residue has not required clarity). Officers  from  the  Department  have  answered queries  and  are  in  discussions  with  the  UK Environment  Agency.  A  decision  on  the  DRR application is expected shortly.

Implications  for  the importation  of  Guernsey's waste

The  potential  importation  of  a significant  quantity  of Guernsey's  domestic  waste  for incineration  at  Jersey's  EfW plant has been under discussion for  some  time.  The  figure  of 30,000  tonnes  is  seen  as  a practical  proposition,  as  this would bring the plant to its full operating  capacity  of  105,000 tonnes per annum. The benefits to Jersey would be in the form of any payment received and an increased  ability  to  generate electricity  for  local consumption.

The Minister does not agree with this statement. Running the incinerator at maximum capacity to generate a small return from electricity was not the reason that the plant was purchased and goes against the waste hierarchy. The transfer costs are not  yet  agreed  and  it  would  appear  that processing costs in Jersey are substantially higher than that which is on offer from larger plants with spare capacity.

However,  it  is  clear  that processing  Guernsey's  waste would  also  generate  additional

This finding refers purely to the export of raw ash and does not consider the wider waste hierarchy or more holistic requirements such as emissions,

Findings

Comments

quantities  of  ash.  From  its investigation the Panel is aware that  the  general  presumption under  the  Basel  Convention against  the  export  of  such wastes would render the popular solution  of  sending  a proportionate  volume  of  ash back  to  our  sister  Island impractical.  This  would  leave Jersey with the problem of how to deal with some 1,700 tonnes of  extra  APCr  and  8,000 additional  tonnes  of  IBA annually,  which  would  clearly need  to  be  factored  into  any potential agreement.

carbon output and recycling to an ash product. The Minister advocates wider social, economic and environmental consideration to any potential waste management agreement.

If the Minister for Transport and Technical  Services  adopts  the recommendations  for  ash disposal in this report, a similar additional  volume  of  8,000 tonnes  of  IBAA  would  be produced, which would require a  larger  market  for  IBAA construction  materials  in  due course.  Permission  would  also need to be sought in the short to medium term for export of the additional  APCr.  Because  of these factors it is recommended that a new ash disposal strategy is allowed time to settle in and prove itself in operation before a decision  on  importing Guernsey's waste is made.

See  comment  for  Recommendation  11  and  12 below.

For  clarity,  the  current  DRR  request  for  the amount of APCr to be exported has been set with respect to the maximum throughput of waste that the EFW plant has been licenced to handle. For practical  purposes,  this  would  include  any imported Guernsey waste.

There is no requirement under the DRR to export the total amount of APC. The DRR simply sets out the upper limit.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/

completion

Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA)

1

The  current  policy  of permanently  burying IBA  in  sealed  cells  at La  Collette  should cease,  and  all  IBA produced  in  future  at the  EfW  plant  should be processed into IBAA (incinerator bottom ash aggregate)  of  a consistent  quality suitable for use by the local  construction industry.

TTS/ ENV

Accept

The  principal  of processing  IBA  from  the new  Energy  from  Waste Plant  is  supported  by  the Minister for Planning and Environment.

However,  the  Minister would  firstly  need  to  be satisfied  that both  (a) the method  of  treatment  and

(b) the resulting use of the IBAA  product,  pose  no unacceptable  risk  to  the environment.

TTS would be required to submit an application for a waste management licence to authorise (a) the method of treatment of IBA. This would  need  to  enclose  a detailed  working  plan  of the  processing  method. Environmental  Protection would  process  the application  in  accordance with  the  Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005  including  public consultation. If appropriate a  waste  management licence would be issued to regulate the operation.

The major consideration is the generation of leachate during the processing and TTS  will  have  to demonstrate  how  these aspects can be minimised, controlled and disposed of so as not to cause pollution to  controlled  waters (groundwater, surface and coastal  waters).  Other

Environment will  respond as  and  when to  any discussion  or to  consider any application for  a  Waste Management Licence made by TTS.

management  control measures  would  be required  to  minimise  all emissions from the process including dust and noise.

In  relation  to  (b),  the resulting use of the IBAA product, the Department of the  Environment  would have to carefully consider any  proposal  that  the product  were  not  to  be considered a waste. Please refer  to  comments  in (Findings, IBA, 1).

The  Minister  also recognises  and  endorses associated  work undertaken  to  limit harmful  components  of waste  sent  to  the  EfW plant so as to improve the quality of the bottom ash (IBA).

For clarity, at present the waste policy (that includes discussions  on  the processing,  marketing  of IBA)  is  administered  by TTS.  The  Department  of the  Environment  are involved  in  these discussions.

The  current  responsibility of  Department  of  the Environment (Environmental Protection), in the case of IBA, is to ensure that the activity of disposing of the waste in sealed cells or of the  processing  the  IBA into IBAA or similar does not cause pollution. It does this through regulation and licensing  the  processing site according to the Waste Management  (Jersey) Law 2005.

2

TTS  should  prioritise discussions  with

TTS

Accept

As  above,  the  Minister supports the processing of

potential  commercial partners  to  develop  a local  market  for recycled  IBAA product(s), with the aim of ensuring that the full volume  of  aggregate produced at La Collette can in future be utilised in  preference  to continued  importation or  local  extraction  of raw  materials  for aggregate.

all  IBA  into  a  useable product.

The  Minister  reserves judgment on the suitability of any site being proposed as  part  of  a  planning application.

Developing a local market for  the  IBAA  and determining how much of the IBA is processed is the responsibility of TTS.

TTS  will  be  required  to detail  the  end  use  of  the recycled bottom ash and to provide  evidence  that subsequent  use  will  not pose  a  potential  problem of pollution (for example; if  recycled  bottom  ash were to used as a road sub surface  aggregate,  the Minister  will  need  to  be satisfied  that  no  harmful leachate  is  generated- especially  given  that  this may eventually be dug up used  elsewhere  or  be deposited  at  the  La Collette tip head).

3

The department should investigate  possibilities for reducing the legacy of existing ash cells at La  Collette  by  mining any  cells  filled  with IBA  since  the  start  of operation  of  the  new EfW  plant,  if  ongoing tests  prove  that  the quality  of  this  ash makes  it  suitable  for processing into IBAA.

TTS

Accept

It  is  the  role  of  TTS  to assess  the  suitability  of this  approach.  Officers from  the  Department would  assist  in discussions.

If  found  suitable,  TTS would need to include how they  intend  to  mine  any cell  in  their  method statement  for  the  Waste Management  Licence  and demonstrate  how  they intend  to  limit  any pollution.

The question of the quality of the IBA in earlier cells would be another factor to take into consideration.

Air Pollution Control Residues (APCr)

4

An  alternative  to  the current storage of APCr in  cell  33  should  be agreed  between  TTS and  the  regulator  as  a matter  of  urgency,  to avoid  the  need  for construction  of  a second  cell  for  APCr storage.

TTS/ ENV

Accept

It  is  the  responsibility  of TTS  to  review  how  they intend to store APCr The Department  of  the Environment  would  then assess  their  proposed methodology  against  the requirement  for  a  waste management licence.

The  present  method  of interim  storage  in  the engineered  containment cell 33 uses a double lined cell  with  leak  detection and  offers  appropriate protection  against pollution  from  leachate generation.

A  decision  on  the  DRR application  to  export  the APCr  for  disposal  is awaited.

5

Subject  to  acceptance of  the  Duly  Reasoned Request  (DRR) recently applied for by the  Department  of  the Environment on behalf of TTS, the backlog of APC residues currently stored in cell 33 should be  exported  to  an approved  disposal facility  as  soon  as possible.

TTS/ ENV

Accept

The role of the Department of  the  Environment  is  to submit, gain approval for, and  administer, the  DRR. TTS  are  responsible  for deciding how much of the APC residue to export.

The Minister supports the export of all ongoing and historic  APCr  as  soon  as practical  and  will  advise TTS in this respect.

For  information,  the

current  DRR  request

includes  the  current

backlog of 4000 tonne of

APC residue stored in cell 33.

6

Once  the  backlog  is exported,  appropriate infrastructure should be constructed  to  enable temporary  storage  of APCr  subsequently generated by the plant,

TTS/ ENV

Accept

As  for  point  4.  Any temporary storage of waste APC will require a Waste Management  licence  and will  require  appropriately drained  infrastructure  to protect  the  environment

prior  to  export  for disposal  at  the  same facility  at  economic intervals.

against pollution.

7

Export  for  disposal should  only  continue for the duration of the initial  approval provided  under  the DRR (understood to be 3 years).

TTS/ ENV

Accept

If approved, the DRR will be valid from three years following the date of issue. After this date, no export of  APC  or  any  other hazardous  waste  can  take place unless agreed within a subsequent DRR.

If recovery options became available during the 3 year DRR  period  then  these could be assessed by TTS and  actioned.  Export  for recovery  of  APC  in  the UK does not require the in principle agreement in the DRR  but  will  require  a transfrontier  consent application  detailing  the specific recovery site.  

8

Options  for  export  to recovery  rather  than disposal in the UK and elsewhere  should  be reviewed  at  regular intervals,  with particular  attention  to developing technologies  such  as accelerated carbonation,  thermal processes,  including vitrification,  and  acid washing  to  recover gypsum substitute.

TTS/ ENV

Accept

The Minister supports this statement  and  favours recovery  over  disposal options,  according  to  the Waste Hierarchy.

The  DRR,  if  approved, will  be  time  limited  to  a 3 year period. During this period,  TTS  would  be required  to  consider  all technologies  and  the availability  of  more sustainable  recovery options  that  have developed in the meantime and  justify  to  the Department  of  the Environment (and the UK Environmental  Agency and Defra) why it intends to  follow  particular disposal/recovery routes.

Given  the  UK  policy toward  increased  use  of EFW plants (as opposed to the landfill of waste); the

Minister expects that there will  be  a  corresponding increased  improvement  in APC  recovery  treatment options.

9

In the event that export of the bulk of Jersey's APCr  production  to  a proven  recovery process becomes viable (even during the period of the DRR approval), subject  to  any contractual  obligations TTS  should  take  steps to divert exported APCr to  a  recovery  process rather  than  disposal  as soon as practicable.

TTS/ ENV

Accept

The Minister supports this statement.  The  DRR stipulates  the  maximum quantities  of  APCr  for export  only.  All  or  only part of this amount can be actually exported.

TTS  would  not  require  a DRR if the APC were to be  exported  for  recovery, but  will  require  a transfrontier  consent application  detailing  the specific recovery site.  

10

The department should continue  to  investigate possibilities  for  the recovery  of  APCr rather than disposal, to ensure  that  within 3 years  all  APCr produced  can  be recovered (either on- or off-Island)  via  a recognised process that takes  into  account  the principles of the waste hierarchy, best practice and prevailing EU, UK and local legislation.

TTS/ ENV

Accept

The Minister supports this statement. The researching of recovery options is the responsibility of TTS.

Importation  of Guernsey's Waste

11

Prior to any decision on the  importation  of waste  from  Guernsey for  incineration  at Jersey's EfW plant, the new  policy  for  ash disposal  including recovery of all IBA and a  sustainable  solution for APCr waste should be fully proven.

TTS/ ENV

Partially Accept

The  Minister  partially supports this statement. A wider  and  full  social, economic  and environmental  case  for treating  another jurisdiction's waste should be prepared and debated in the States.

12

Any  contractual arrangement  for  the acceptance  of Guernsey's  waste  for treatment  should  be conditional not only on a  proven  ability  to successfully  treat  all additional  waste volumes  arising,  but also on confirmation of a viable market for the resulting products. This might  require agreement  from Guernsey  to  accept  a suitable  proportion  of IBAA,  either  as  bulk aggregate  or  in  the form  of  manufactured product(s).

TTS/ ENV

Accept

The Minister supports this statement  within  the context of points made in 11 above.

TTS  are  responsible  for finding  a  market  for  the treated APC residue.

The  Department  of  the Environment responsibility is to  licence and regulate the treatment  process and to be assured by TTS that the  treated  ash  does  not pose  a  problem  regarding the  pollution  of  the environment.