PROPOSED EU DIRECTIVE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF WASTE FROM THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES
DIGEST OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
PUBLISHED 13 FEBRUARY 2004
This document is also available in pdf format (12k)
INTRODUCTION
The consultation paper on the proposed EU Directive on the Management of Waste from the Extractive Industries was issued on 13 November 2003. The consultation period closed on 31 January 2004 with a total of 10 responses received. These responses can be examined in full at the Scottish Executive Library at K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD, telephone 0131 244 4552).
This digest gives a flavour of comments on the paper and groups the material to allow cross-reference between the views of different consultees. In drawing the material together, we have done our best to avoid errors of transcription, meaning, attribution, omission, or otherwise, and we apologise for any that have occurred.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Falkirk Council
Would welcome the introduction of national and international consistency standards. Believes the best course of action is to support the Directive but negotiate appropriate amendments to reduce unnecessary regulation. Any negotiation should place environmental and wider public concerns at the forefront and seek to improve existing standards.
Fife Council
Welcomed the proposals and provided specific details of some of the arrangements and practices currently in place in Fife. Noted that the new provisions go beyond existing practice in the UK. Although this was supported, the Council warned of particular issues that may need to be addressed in relation to waste management plans, major-accident prevention policies and financial guarantees. Offered suggestions on an alternative approach to the size criteria for triggering risk assessment, based on the risk of a failed facility, extending beyond the site boundary. Suggested that the one-year exclusion facility should be dissapplied and that waste management plans would encourage better forward planning. Highlighted the need for more Council staff with appropriate specialist skills and the likely additional expenditure involved for local authorities.
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee
Welcomed the proposals. The proposed measures should ensure that the full range of environmental impacts arising from mineral operations are adequately addressed.
South Lanarkshire Council
Proposals unlikely to have significant effect in Council's area but where such wastes do arise, and remain unregulated, the Council would support the proposals as drafted to ensure consistency of appropriate regulations across the EU extractive industry.
INDUSTRY
Confederation of UK Coal Producers
Concerned about the transition provision in the original Directive, and certain inconsistencies. These are compounded by the Rapporteur's proposed amendments. Rather than any individual provision, or any individual Amendment, it is the combination of these that extend the Directive far beyond its original intention. The financial implications of the extended requirement for financial guarantees allied with the transitional provision may well cause some companies to cease business. In some circumstances, the result will be unrestored sites or waste facilities and the effect will therefore be counter-productive.
Quarry Products Association
Happy to rest with CBI's response to Whitehall, to which the QPA contributed the major part. This supported the proposal for the directive as it would provide a consistent platform for the management of extractive waste across the EU Member States and would overcome the present uncertainty about the status of extractive waste under the Waste Framework Directive. A recent ECJ judgement determined that mine waste is excluded from the scope of the WFD where there is national legislation that results in a level of protection of the environment at least equivalent to that aimed at in the WFD. QPA believe that this level of protection is already provided in the UK and therefore the need for the directive now must be questioned.
QPA believe that the draft Directive generally achieved the correct balance between the objective of setting Community wide standards and being proportional to the safety and environmental risk posed by a waste facility. This draft was the culmination of extensive consultation prior to its publication last June. The vast majority of extractive waste produced in the UK is inert and QPA were encouraged that the draft Directive adopted a "light touch" in respect of these wastes because of the limited risks they pose. However, the proposed amendments contained in the draft report published by the Rapporteur is of great concern to the industry in the UK as many of these are over prescriptive, not proportionate to the risk and in some cases go beyond the scope of the Directive. QPA support position adopted by the UK Government to oppose many of the proposed amendments.
Another general concern to QPA members is the way in which the Directive will eventually be transposed into UK law. QPA are of the opinion that the current legislative framework in the UK covers most if not all of the matters addressed by the Directive. They believe there is a tendency to "gold plate" the implementation of EU legislation in the UK so would be very concerned if the outcome is a new regulatory regime for the implementation of the Directive.
Scottish Coal
Given the wide variation in interpretation of the possible outcomes of the proposed Directive, Scottish Coal do not believe that it is possible to accurately quantify the financial effects. If dual legislation is allowed to apply, these will adversely affect industry competitiveness with no clear and demonstrable benefits for the environment and safety. Scottish Coal believe that the basic objectives of the Directive, to control emissions and safeguard human life, are best achieved by allowing the existing Member State regulation and legislation to prevail where this already meets these objectives.
Scottish Coal believe that regulatory control must not be blindly applied where risk assessment can demonstrate that there is little or no risk to either the environment or human safety. This is particularly so in view of the proposed widening of the scope of the Directive and this must be rigorously resisted by UK Government and European Parliamentary representatives. With the number of amendments currently being considered by the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy now numbering some 180, the Final Draft will require careful consideration if the principles detailed in Scottish Coal's response are to be protected.
Scottish Environmental Services Association
SESA believe that as well as ensuring that the Directive's requirements are practical, the UK must also ensure that requirements of the proposed Directive can be incorporated within existing regulatory regimes. The extractive industry is tightly regulated in the UK through planning and health & safety legislation. Concerned that a number of the Directive's requirements - accident prevention, health and safety, financial guarantees, etc - are already regulated under UK legislation and this may result in dual regulation. SESA offered views to assist in defining "waste facility" and raised concerns over the likely burdens that waste management plans, major accident prevention policies and financial guarantees would impose.
PUBLIC BODIES
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
Warned of the dangers of introducing another definition of "inert" and recommended the introduction of a new term, applicable only to mineral working. Suggested that, because of its experience, SEPA should be consulted on any waste management plans and highlighted the need for some indication to be given in the RIA to costs relating to the development or review of guidance on ground and surface water.
Scottish Natural Heritage
Highlighted the extent of past and current activity in Scotland where the Directive would be relevant. Support the proposal for financial guarantees. Suggested that the size criteria for triggering risk assessment should only be guides and should not preclude the requirement for risk assessment in certain circumstances, including risks to the local natural heritage. Offered a suggested alternative definition of a waste facility based on storage of material with no saleable value and suggested that the period for temporary storage should either be reduced or removed. Believe that waste management plans will encourage better analysis of mineral operations and that plans could possibly be used for more than one site. Considered that the costs of major accident prevention policy would be dwarfed by the costs involved in cleaning up a major accident and raised concerns over the cost implications for local authorities.
EXECUTIVE RESPONSE
The above response will be taken into account in negotiating the UK Government's response on the implementation of the EC Directive and in developing a better understanding of the effect of the proposal and its costs and benefits for the UK as a whole.