3.7. Waste generation and management · 2016. 4. 20. · Waste generation and management 203 3.7....

Waste generation and management 203

3.7. Waste generation and management

• Reported total waste generation within the EU and the European Free Trade Areaincreased by nearly 10% between 1990 and 1995, while economic growth was about6.5% in constant prices. Half the waste comes from the manufacturing industry andconstruction and demolition activities, while municipal waste, mining waste and wastefrom other sources each contribute about one sixth of the total. In the AccessionCountries, amounts of industrial waste per capita are higher, while volumes ofmunicipal waste are currently lower than the EU average.

• Limited current systematic and consistent data hinder the development of projectionsfor future waste trends. Nevertheless, most waste streams will probably increase overthe next decade. In 2010 the generation of paper and cardboard, glass and plasticwaste will increase by around 40% to 60% compared with 1990 levels. The number ofscrapped cars should increase less, by around 35% compared with 1995 levels.

• Today waste is also produced as a result of society’s attempt to solve otherenvironmental problems such as water and air pollution. Some of these increasingamounts of waste give rise to new problems, such as sewage sludge and residuesfrom cleaning of flue gases.

• In most EU countries landfilling is still the most common treatment route for wasteand a major change is needed in order to implement the EU strategy on waste.Furthermore, as illustrated by municipal waste, there has been no generalimprovement in this trend in the 1990s.

• Paper and glass are some of the waste fractions where Member States have followedthe Community waste strategy of increasing recycling instead of energy recovery andlandfilling. However, the development has been only a partial success, because thetotal amount of waste paper and waste glass (container glass) generation has alsoincreased in the same period.

• Sewage sludge and end-of-life vehicles are other waste streams where substantialincreases in quantities can be expected, calling for more efficient waste managementpractices.

• The quantities of waste are now so big that transport of waste represents a significantpart of total transport: in France, for instance, waste accounts for 15% of total weightof freight. The environmental impact of this remains to be assessed.

Main findings

1. The main problems related to waste generation and management

1.1. The sheer quantity of waste is a problemWaste represents an enormous loss of re-sources both in the form of materials andenergy. Indeed, quantities of waste can beseen as an indicator of the material effi-ciency of society.

Excessive quantities of waste result from:

• inefficient production processes;• low durability of goods;• unsustainable consumption patterns.

Waste generation is increasing in the EU,and amounted to about 3.5 tonnes of solidwaste per person in 1995 (excluding agricul-tural waste), mainly from manufacturing,construction & demolition and mining(Figure 3.7.1).

Solid waste is also increasingly produced asan attempt to solve other environmentalproblems such as water and air pollution.Some of these wastes give rise to new prob-lems – examples include sewage sludge andresidues from cleaning of flue gases. Moreo-ver, managing waste causes a number ofpressures on the environment:

Environmental Issues204

Others12%

Mining18%

Municipal15% Manufacturing

26%

Construction& demolition

25%

Energy4%

Figure 3.7.1 Waste generation by sector

The figure shows thedistribution of total waste bysector. Since data from mostcountries is incomplete andlacks harmonisation, these

and other data in thechapter should be regarded

as best availableapproximations.

Sources: OECD, 1997;NRCs, 1998a

• leaching of nutrients, heavy metals andother toxic compounds from landfills;

• use of land for landfills;• emission of greenhouse gases from

landfills and treatment of organic waste;• air pollution and toxic by-products from

incinerators;• air and water pollution and secondary

waste streams from recycling plants;• increased transport with heavy lorries.

While total waste quantities are a measure ofresource loss, the environmental impact ofwaste can not be analysed by looking atquantity alone. Hazardous substances inwaste, even in small quantities, can have avery negative impact on the environment(Figure 3.7.2). However, the followingdiscussion is mainly based on amountsbecause the content of hazardous substancesin waste is poorly described at EU level (seealso Chapter 3.3).

An increasing part of resources contained inwaste is recovered as materials or as energyin incinerator or biogas plants, but morethan half is still permanently lost in landfills.Recycling of materials may reduce theenvironmental impact of waste but is notnecessarily without environmental impact.For example, plants processing scrappedcars produce large amounts of shredderwaste contaminated with oil and heavymetals and smelting of the metals give rise toemissions of heavy metals, dioxins etc. fromsecondary steel works and aluminiumsmelters.

Few resources can be retrieved completelyfrom waste. In most cases recycled materialwill be of a somewhat lower quality than thevirgin material due to contamination or thenature of the recycling material. Even high-quality recycled materials represent a netloss of resources because the energy used forinitial production is lost and some material isalways lost during collection and treatment.

The quantities of waste are now so big thattransport of waste is a significant part of totaltransport. A French study indicates thatabout 15% of the total weight of freighttransported in France in 1993 was waste andthat waste transport accounts for 5% of thetotal transport sector energy consumption(Ripert, 1997). Rough estimates fromDenmark indicate a lower but still significantenergy consumption for transport of waste.The French study also shows that transportdistances are much higher for waste forrecycling than for disposal. This implies that

The relative environmentalimpact of waste is related to

both the quantity and thedegree of hazard associated

with it. There are thereforetwo aspects to waste

generation: quantitative, i.e.how much is generated, and

qualitative, i.e. the degreeof hazard. This is shown here

for a selection of materials.Waste with a high specificenvironmental impact pertonne is normally found in

minor volumes and istherefore more difficult toseparate and collect. Until

now waste management hasmainly concentrated on

waste streams in the middleof the area marked.

Source: Steurer, 1996

watertotal materialthroughput

sand andgravel

carbon

timber steel

fossil fuelspaper

aluminium

nutrientsfertiliser

solventsPVC

heavymetals

hazardouschemicals

pesticides

Specific environmental impact(per tonne of material)

Volu

me

of f

low

in t

onn

es

Figure 3.7.2 Material flow and specific environmental impact – qualitative and quantitative aspects of waste


efficient planning tools are needed tocontrol transport resulting from separationof the waste into more and more fractionsfor advanced treatment – although highertransport distances for recycled materialsmay in some cases be compensated byreduced need for long-range transport ofraw materials.

1.2. Can waste generation be de-linked from economic growth?Reported total waste generation in OECDEurope increased by nearly 10% between1990 and 1995 (EEA, 1998a) while GDPgrowth was about 6.5% in constant prices.This relation is also noted in the waste strat-egy for England and Wales which states that‘for every ton of useful products made in UK,we consume about 10 tons of other resources– raw materials and energy. ... They go tolandfill, or are emitted to the atmosphere orinto water. And ...a high proportion of theuseful goods we produce join the wastestream quite quickly too.’ (DETR, 1998).

The main challenge is to de-link waste genera-tion from economic growth (Figure 3.7.3). Acloser analysis of the relationship betweeneconomic growth and waste generationreveals several different trends. For instance,

country comparisons show no general corre-lation between GDP and waste from energyproduction, which probably reflects nationaldifferences in energy supply systems. Coal-fired power plants generate large amounts offly ash, while hardly any waste is producedfrom hydroelectric power stations, andnuclear power plants generate a small butextremely hazardous amount of waste.

For hazardous waste a correlation betweenGDP and waste quantities can be demon-strated for data from 1995, but not from1990. In this period large changes took placein both awareness of hazardous waste and indefinitions and classification procedures.Thus the apparent correlation in 1995 maybe spurious.

For municipal waste and construction anddemolition waste a very close link betweeneconomic activity and waste generation canbe demonstrated. For manufacturing waste,however, there are significant variationsbetween Member States; in some countries(notably Germany and Denmark) the ratioof waste generation to manufacturing GDP ismuch lower than in others. This may be anindicator of the use of the cleaner technol-ogy (including internal recycling) in produc-

For each Member State, waste quantity/capita has been plotted against economic activity related to selected waste streams. Thefigure shows that the generation of municipal, construction and hazardous waste seems to relate to the economic activity behindwaste generation whereas such a relation does not seem to exist for manufacturing waste. A good correlation is assumed if R2

values are above 0.7. In relation to municipal waste the economy is stated as final consumption from house-holds in PurchasingPower Standard (PPS). Hazardous waste is related to GDP stated in PPS. Construction and manufacturing waste are related tothe part of the GDP originating from construction and manufacturing activties.

Source: OECD, 1997a; OECD, 1997b; NRCs, 1998a+b; Eurostat, 1999

0

0

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

ECU per capita

Was

te g

ener

atio

n (k

g p

er c

apita

)

Manufacturing wasteR2 = 0.3857

Construction wasteR2 = 0.7652

Municipal wasteR2 = 0.6872 Hazardous waste

R2 = 0.8960

-500

Figure 3.7.3Total waste/GDP


tion, but it can also be a result of differencesin industrial structure. As an example muchof the heavy industry in western Europe hasbeen closed in the last decades due tocompetition from Eastern Europe and Asia.

It is however significant that where the rateof waste generation from production hasdeclined – supposedly due to better use ofcleaner technology – this has not beensufficient to neutralise the increase in totalwaste amounts due to the growth in thequantity of goods produced and consumed.

1.3. The need for an integrated approachThe challenge of increasing waste quantitiescannot be solved in a sustainable way byefficient waste management and recyclingalone. There is an urgent need for integra-tion of waste management into a strategy forsustainable development, where wasteprevention, reduction of resource depletionand energy consumption and minimisationof emissions at the source is given highpriority. Waste must be analysed and han-dled as an integrated part of total materialflow through the society.

For instance, problems like heavy metals inincinerator ash and residues from flue-gascleaning should be met with a concentratedeffort to phase out the use of heavy metalswherever feasible together with separatecollection and treatment of products stillcontaining heavy metals. Further input ofresources for treatment and stabilisationshould be avoided. In the same way, prob-lems such as contamination of sewage sludgeshould not lead to an increased use ofenergy in incineration plants or advancedtreatment, but to a decrease in the use ofchemicals and heavy metals in industry andproducts creating the problems. Otherwise,these substances end up in the sewer.

To stabilise or even reduce the wasteamounts there is a need for many variedinitiatives besides cleaner technology, such asproduct development based on life cycleanalysis, design for disassembly, environmen-tal management systems in manufacturingindustries, re-use of products and packages,improvement of product quality with regardto for instance lifetime, better possibility forrepair, increased re-use of components fromdiscarded products and, not least, increasedconsumer awareness of the need for chang-ing lifestyles.

If a product or the components of a productare re-used directly it will contribute to waste

minimisation. Recycling of waste is a processwhich takes material from the waste streamand produces a useful material or product,but it cannot be regarded as waste minimisa-tion as such. In fact it is already technicallypossible to systematically re-use componentsfrom discarded products when producingnew products. For example, a photocopiercan be produced with a content of re-usedcomponents valued at 10% to 50% of thetotal cost, with an average of 35%(Erhvervsbladet, 1997).

As stated in the book ‘Beyond the Limits’:‘If the average lifetime of each productfloating through the human economy couldbe doubled, if twice as many materials couldbe recycled, if half as much material neededto be mobilised to make each product in thefirst place, that would reduce the through-put of materials by a factor eight’ (Meadowset al., 1991)

1.4. Main EU policiesThe policies adopted at Community level areguided by the Community Waste Manage-ment Strategy which aims to establish anintegrated waste management policy (seesection 6). Thus, the Strategy sets up ahierarchy of principles, giving top priority tothe prevention of waste generation, followedby re-use and recycling of waste materials,energy recovery, and final disposal of waste.

The legal response to the Strategy is inparticular the Waste Framework Directive,the Directive on Hazardous Waste and theRegulation in the Supervision and Controlof Transfrontier Waste Shipments.

2. Analysis of selected waste streams

Detailed analysis of developments in wastegeneration, waste management and wasteminimisation is hampered by the lack ofcomparable definitions and statistical infor-mation across Europe. The gaps in informa-tion are analysed in Chapter 4.2.

2.1 Hazardous wasteThe EEA member countries generate about36 million tonnes of hazardous waste peryear (OECD, 1997). Statistical data onhazardous waste is particularly difficult tointerpret. Analysis of the data shows largechanges in reported amounts over time, asillustrated in Table 3.7.1. Countries andregions with figures for both 1990 and 1995show an apparent increase (on average 65%)in hazardous waste quantities, but this is


mainly due to changed definitions and newlegislation. The introduction in late 1994 ofthe hazardous waste list in the EuropeanWaste Catalogue is the first attempt toestablish a common classification for hazard-ous waste in EU. In general the new listincludes more waste types than previousnational lists.

Germany and UK with figures for 1990 and1993/1994 show a decline by an average of21% before the introduction of the hazard-ous waste list. This decline can possibly beexplained by the introduction of cleanertechnology or closing of heavy industryfactories/moving production outside EU forexample to Asia.

2.2. Paper and cardboardIn the case of paper and cardboard (Figures3.7.4 and 3.7.5), consumption is a reason-able proxy measure for waste generation.Consumption in the EU rose from approxi-mately 41 million tonnes in 1983 to 64million tonnes in 1996, an increase of 46%or 3.5% per annum (CEPI, 1997), althoughin the period 1992-1996 the rate of increaseslowed to 1.5% per annum. There is appreci-able variation between Member States:annual rates of increase between 1983 and1996 range from 0.4% (Sweden and theNetherlands) to 11.1% (Greece).

There is a remarkably wide range in percapita consumption of paper and cardboardover the period (1982-1996) ranging from aslow as 49 kg/person/year in Portugal, 1983,to as high as 260 kg/person/year in Bel-gium, 1996.

Growth in consumption averages 1.8%, 3.5%and 5.5% per annum for the high, mediumand low range groups respectively, over a 13-year period. While this grouping systemobscures differences between countrieswithin groups, it is a useful indicator forplanning at European level as countries inthe lower to middle ranges might be ex-pected to have capacity for increased con-sumption which has been reached in coun-tries in the middle to higher range. On theother hand, it could also be used to setrealistic targets for reducing consumptionlevels.

The historical trend suggests that the movetowards the information age is not resultingin reduced generation of paper.

Paper waste is a high-volume waste with amiddle range environmental impact (see

Table 3.7.1.Reported quantities of hazardous waste in selectedcountries and regions, 1990-95

Country Year Tonnes Country/region Year Tonnes

Austria 1990 317 000 Luxembourg 1994 36 312

1995 577 000 1995 180 596

Denmark 1990 116 000 Netherlands 1994 895 000

1995 252 000 1995 955 000

Germany 1990 13 079 000 UK 1990 2 310 000

1993 9 093 000 1994 2 080 000

Ireland 1992 143 600 Catalonia 1990 674 400

1995 273 637 1995 831 439

Existing data for hazardous waste shows for many countries and regions an increase ingeneration of hazardous waste in the first half of the 1990s. However, the increase is primarilydue to changed definitions and new EU legislation for hazardous waste.

Source: OECD, 1997a; NRCs, 1998a; Junta de Residus

Total paper consumption in 1996, 64 million tonnes

Others5%

Packaging41%

Sanitary &household

6%

Newsprint13%

Graphic papers35%

The composition of paperand cardboard consumedhas changed very littleduring the 1990s. Packagingand graphic papers accountfor the major part ofconsumption.

Source: CEPI, 1997

Figure 3.7.4Paper composition

Countries grouped according to general paper and cardboard consumption in the period1983-96:low consumption, 40-140 kg/person/year (Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain);medium consumption, 110-200 kg/person/year (Austria, France, Germany, UK, Norway);high consumption, 150-260 kg/person/year (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden).All three groups show an increase per capita from 1983-96, with the highest increase amongcountries with low consumption.

Source: CEPI, 1997

501983

kg/c

apita

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

GreeceIrelandItalyPolandSpainPortugal

AustriaFranceGermanyUnited KingdomNorway

BelgiumDenmarkFinlandNetherlandsSweden

Figure 3.7.5Paper consumption/capita


Figure 3.7.2). Paper is one of the wastefractions where Member States have fol-lowed the Community strategy of increasingrecycling instead of energy recovery andlandfilling. The recycling rate has increasedfor EU+Norway from 36% in 1985 to 40%in 1990 and 49% in 1996. However, thetotal amount of waste incinerated orlandfilled has increased due to the growthin consumption of paper and cardboard(Figure 3.7.6).

As shown in Table 3.7.2 energy consumptionand emissions for paper production basedon virgin materials and recycling paper arecomparable. Although recycling of wastepaper in general is more environmentallyfriendly than production based on virginmaterial, it has to be underlined that recy-cling also gives a pressure on the environ-ment.

2.3. Container glassConsumption of container glass has, likepaper, augmented during the 1990s. For theEU and Norway the average increase in theconsumption of glass over the period 1990 to1996 has been 13.6% or 2% per annum. Inabsolute figures the increase is from 11.7million tonnes to 13.3 million tonnes.Average glass consumption per capita differsby 400-500% from the country with thelowest consumption to the country with thehighest consumption (Figure 3.7.7).

About 75% of container glass production isused for the packaging of beverages. Therest is used for food, pharmaceuticals,cosmetics and chemical products. Theconsumption of container glass depends onnational consumption patterns and on thematerials used for containers (e.g. glass, one-way systems, plastic bottles). It is reasonableto assume that the consumption of containerglass gives a relatively good measure of wasteproduction.

As with waste paper, glass is one of the wastefractions where Member States have suc-ceeded in the Community strategy to in-crease recycling (Figure 3.7.8), from 43% in1990 to 55% in 1996 for the EU+Norway.This does not include refillable bottles ondeposit, which are not regarded as wasteuntil the bottle is discarded.

2.4. The challenge of plastic wasteThe EU is facing an increasing quantity ofpost-use plastic waste which has been increas-ing by about 4% per year (SOFRES, 1996)(Figure 3.7.9). In 1990, 13.6 million tonnesof post-use plastics waste was generated in

The table shows thatrecycling of paper in general

is better than using newpulp, but even recycling

gives rise to considerableenergy consumption andemission of phosphorous

and nitrogen.

Consumption of energy Emissions

Raw material Consumption Consumption Total energy Raw CO2 Phosphorus Nitrogenof heat of electricity consumption material kg/tonne g/tonne g/tonneGJ/tonne GJ/tonne GJ/tonne

Newspaper 5.7 3.2 8.9 Unbleached 14-21 10-17 80-220with 100% paper pulprecycled with recycledpaper paper

Newspaper 5.5 10.6 16.1 Unbleached 12-37 18-40 230-420without paper pulprecycled withoutpaper recycled

paper

Source: Naturvårdsverket, 1996

Table 3.7.2. Energy consumption from production of newspaper and emissions from unbleached paper pulp with andwithout use of recycled paper for different materials in Sweden 1994-95

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

0

10

70

mill

ion

tonn

es

20

30

40

50

60

Paper and card generated

Paper or card incinerated or disposed

Recycled

Figure 3.7.6 Paper treatment

Despite the success ofrecycling the problem

remains that waste papergeneration has also

increased in the sameperiod. In 1996, 32.5

millions of tonnes of wastepaper and cardboard were

incinerated or landfilledcompared with 32.5 million

in 1990 and 28.3 milliontonnes in 1985.

Source: CEPI, 1997 andNRCs, 1998a


Germ

any

Fran

ce

Belgium

Austia

The N

ethe

rland

s

United

Kingdom

Denm

arkSp

ain Italy

Irelan

d

Portugal

Swed

en

Greec

e

Finlan

d

50

40

30

20

10

0Ave

rag

e co

nsum

ptio

nin

kg

/yea

r (1

990-

96)

The yearly consumption ofcontainer glass per capita(and hereby the glass wastegeneration) is 4 times ashigh in countries with a highconsumption compared tocountries with a lowconsumption.

Source: FEVE, 1997 andNRCs, 1998a

the EU, Norway and Switzerland and in 1994the quantity peaked at 17.5 million tonnes(APME, 1995; APME, 1996).

Municipal WasteMunicipal waste is by far the largest ‘source’of plastic waste with 61% of the total in 1996(Figure 3.7.10).

Several problems are related to municipalwaste, for example:

• it is difficult to handle as it consiststypically of a number of fractions ofwaste and several plastic types; thebottleneck to more recycling is sortingthe different plastics both in relation toavailable techniques and to health andsafety problems related to sorting;

• it contains plastic types with a highdegree of contamination from foodstuffsresulting in very labour- and energy-intensive recycling.

As shown in Figure 3.7.9 it is obvious thatplastics waste has to be dealt with in a moreinnovative way in order to implement theCommunity Waste Management Strategy.Only 20% of plastic waste is subjected tomaterial recovery or energy recovery whilean average of 80% is disposed of. Disposalcan be either incineration without energyrecovery or landfilling. The figure also showsthat despite increasing quantities of post-user plastic waste the fractions dealt with bymaterial recovery and energy recovery aremore or less constant at levels of about 7%and 15% respectively (APME, 1995; APME,1996).

PVC wastePolyvinylchloride waste (PVC waste) ac-counts for a total of 12% of all plastics wastein the EU, Norway and Switzerland, or 2.1million tonnes PVC waste in 1994 (SOFRES,1996). In comparison, PVC production in1994 was 4.8 million tonnes (Allsopp, 1992)and is still increasing, confronting futuregenerations with rising amounts of PVCwaste. Recovery of PVC waste is lower thanrecovery of other kinds of plastic waste. Astudy in eight western European countrieshas shown recycling rates from 1% to 3%(DEPA, 1996). Material recovery of PVCrequires sorting waste into generic materials;this is not done today.

PVC requires special attention due to itshigh content of dangerous substances whichare used as plasticisers (phthalates), stabilis-ers (lead, cadmium and organotin com-

Figure 3.7.7Average glass consumption in different countries,1990-95 (in kilo per capita/year)

While recycling hasincreased by almost 50%from 5 million to 7.4 milliontonnes per year, the amountof waste glass for disposalhas decreased by only 12%(6.7 million to 5.9 milliontonnes) due to thesimultaneous increase inwaste glass.

Source: FEVE, 1997; NRCs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

0

2

12

mill

ion

tonn

es

4

6

14

8

10

Disposal of glass wasteRecycling of glass waste

Generation of glass waste

Figure 3.7.8Glass generation and management

01990

5

10

15

20

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

mill

ion

tonn

es

Material recovery

Energy recovery

Total plastics wastefor disposal

Total plastics waste

Figure 3.7.9Total plastic

The fraction of total plastic waste dealt with by disposal is more or less constant at about 75%.

Source: APME, 1995; APME, 1996.


pounds) and pigments (cadmium com-pounds). In addition, the chlorine contentin PVC is very high (about 57% by weight).The dangerous substances create problemswhen PVC waste is landfilled, recovered orincinerated (with or without energy recov-ery). When PVC is landfilled, there aredifferent problems related to the disposal ofhard and soft types of PVC. In the leachatefrom landfill accepting soft PVC, phthalateshave been identified in different concentra-tions. On the other hand, degradation ofhard PVC in a landfill procees much slowerthan for other types of plastic.

With incineration of PVC large amounts ofhydrochloric acid are generated making itnecessary to neutralise the acidic fumes. Inthe dry and semi-dry gas cleaning processes1-2 kg residues are formed per kg PVCincinerated. The high chlorine content ofPVC further constitutes a risk of dioxinproduction during incineration. Uncon-trolled burning will release dioxin and othertoxic substances. A Danish study has shownthat 67% of the chlorine in waste for incin-eration comes from PVC (DEPA, 1996). It isalso worth noting that the calorific value ofPVC is 22 MJ per kg – the lowest valueamong plastic polymers. In comparison, LowDensity Polyethylene has for example acalorific value of 45 MJ per kg (SOFRES,1996).

Under the Basel Convention on the controlof transboundary movements of hazardouswastes and their disposal, it has been dis-cussed whether PVC should be classified ashazardous or non-hazardous waste. For the

time being no common position has beenreached. The normal content of lead in PVCis typically 0.6% (DEPA, 1996). Waste con-taminated with lead compounds higher than0.5% or cadmium higher than 0.1% byweight is, according to the classification rulesin the hazardous waste directive (91/689/EEC), classified as hazardous. Hard PVC willnormally have a cadmium level of 0.25%.

2.5. Scrapped carsAs the number of cars in EU is increasing sois the number of scrapped cars (End of LifeVehicles) that need to be treated: at present,the quantity of waste from scrapped cars inthe EU is estimated at 8 to 10 million tonnes.

Scrapped cars are usually, after dismantlingof directly reusable parts, shredded intosmall pieces and then separated into threefractions – iron and steel, other metals andnon-metallics (Figure 3.7.11). The metals areto a very high degree recycled and smelteddown to new raw materials. Re-smelting ofmetals is less energy consuming than pro-duction of metals from ore, but creates newproblems of air pollution and/or hazardousdust from the cleaning of the smoke. Sec-ondary steelworks are estimated to beresponsible for 28% of the chromium, 16%of the zinc and 3% of the dioxins emitted inEurope (UNECE, 1998). Secondary steelsmelting typically results in 10-15 kg dust pertonne steel recycled. In 1996 about 700 000tonnes of dust were generated in WesternEurope. The dust is polluted with heavymetals and has to be treated at specialtreatment plants (Hoffmann, 1997). Theamount and hazardous properties of thedust reflect the quality of the scrap received.The Danish Steel Works was able to reducethe load of heavy metals in scrap by 10%from 1992 to 1995 through stricter rules forpre-treatment of the scrap. After 1995 heavymetal content has increased due to theincreasing use of zinc in cars (Danish SteelWorks, 1997).

In relation to waste treatment the non-metalpart, shredder waste, is the most problem-atic. The present amount of shredder wastefrom cars is in the range of 2 to 2.5 milliontonnes in the EU. This waste is a mixture offoam, textiles, plastic, rubber, glass, oil andhazardous waste. It is generally highlycontaminated with heavy metals, oil, brakefluids etc. and at present this waste islandfilled in most Member States. It cannotbe recycled and incineration is problematicdue to the often high content of heavymetals and PVC. Danish studies indicate that

Source: APME, 1996

Electrical &electronic industry

2%

Construction& demolition

5%

Automotive5%

Municipal waste63%

Agriculture5%

Distribution& largeindustry

20%

Figure 3.7.10 Plastic sources

Waste generation and management 211Waste generation and management

better sorting of shredder waste can reducethe heavy-metal content considerably andmake incineration with energy recovery lessproblematic (Miljøstyrelsen, 1997).

3. Waste amounts and treatment in the Accession Countries

The 10 central and eastern EuropeanAccession Countries applying for member-ship of the Union will need to harmoniselegislation and practices in the area of wastemanagement to ensure compliance with EUlegislative requirements. Total reportedquantities of waste reported are three timesthe EU average. Although there are differ-ences of definition and data coverage, themain explanation seems to be higher re-ported amounts of mining waste and wastefrom agriculture. Where a breakdown isavailable by source the average figures formanufacturing waste and waste from energyare about 50% above the EU average (Figure3.7.12 & 3.7.13).

The generation of industrial waste dependson both the type of industry and the extentto which production processes make use ofcleaner technology and waste minimisationprocedures.

4. Environmental impacts of landfilling and incineration of waste

4.1. LandfillingThe main environmental pressures fromlandfilling of waste are:

• pollution of surface water andgroundwater with toxic substances andnutrients leaching from the waste;

• contribution to the greenhouse effect byemission of methane;

• land use (including loss of naturalareas).

Furthermore the landfills represent a perma-nent loss of resources and the need forcontrolling the pollution leads to increasingpublic expenditure for monitoring andclean-up operations.

The extent of these problems varies accord-ing to the type of waste landfilled, theconstruction of the landfill and thehydrogeological conditions. In relation tothe risk of groundwater pollution studieshave shown that the leachate may be a riskeven after several centuries. Pollution of

non-metallics25%

other metals5%

iron and steel70%

Major environmentalproblems are related to thetreatment of the 25% non-metallic parts of scrapped

cars.

Source: EuropeanCommission, 1997a;

IPPE, 1996

Figure 3.7.11Car composition

tonn

es/c

apita

5

4

3

2

1

0

Bul

gar

ia6

Cze

chR

epub

lic

Est

oni

a

Hun

gar

y

Pola

nd

Ro

man

ia

Slo

veni

a

Sele

cted

CE

EC

EU

15

The figure shows that thequantity of waste frommanufacturing and energyproduction is in averageabout 50% higher inselected AccessionCountries than in EU. Thevery high total for Estonia ismainly due to waste fromoil-shale-based energyproduction.

Source: EEA, 1998b; OECD,1997a

Figure 3.7.12Manufacturing waste + Waste from energy/capitain selected Accession Countries

The figure shows that theaverage generation ofmunicipal waste is about40% higher within EU (505kilo/capita/year) than in theAccession Countries (AC)(311 kilo/capita/year). GDPexpressed as averagePurchasing Power Parity(PPP) in the AC is about 30%of the EU average. There isno trend in the connectionbetween waste generationand PPP as there seems tobe within the EU. Latvia isnot included in the tablebecause the data for Latviais not clearly defined.

Source: EEA, 1998b; OECD,1997a

Pola

nd

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Ro

man

ia

Bul

gar

ia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Est

oni

a

Lith

uani

a

Hun

gar

y

Slo

veni

a

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AC

C a

vera

ge

EU

ave

rag

e

Mun

icip

al w

aste

kg

/cap

ita

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Purc

hasi

ng p

ow

er p

arity

per

cap

ita in

US$

(100

0s)

Figure 3.7.13Manufacturing waste + Waste from energy/capita

in selected Accession Countries


groundwater will often give problems fordecades even after the source of the pollu-tion has been stopped because groundwaterresources are generated only very slowly.Sorting and pre-treatment (e.g. incinera-tion) of the waste can reduce the harmful-ness of the leachate, but even leachate fromincineration slag may exceed groundwaterquality criteria for up to 100 years (Table3.7.3).

Major gases emitted are methane andcarbon dioxide from degrading organicsubstances in the waste. The greenhouseeffect of methane is estimated to be 56 timesthat of carbon dioxide over a 20-year periodand 21 times over a 100-year period (IPPC,1996). Methane is estimated to be the causeof 20% of the global greenhouse effect(European Commission, 1997b) (see Chap-ter 3.1). From most landfills methane isreleased directly into the atmosphere whereit contributes to the greenhouse effect.Methane from landfills was estimated tomake up 28% of total methane emissionsfrom the EU in 1995 (European Commis-sion, 1998a). Before being released to theatmosphere methane may accumulate inbuildings on or adjacent to landfills andpresent a very real danger of explosion.

The problems of methane emissions can besolved either by avoiding landfilling oforganic matter or by collecting and utilisingthe gas at the landfill. A number of MemberStates have already issued or plan to issuegeneral bans on landfilling of organic waste.The proposed Directive on the Landfillingof Waste (European Union, 1998) willdemand gas collection from all new landfillsreceiving biodegradable waste and sets goalsfor the reduction of municipal organic wasteto be landfilled. The first effects of this

directive will appear seven years after imple-mentation. Even after this date organic wastefrom industry and other activities can belandfilled providing gas collection systemsare installed.

4.2. IncinerationThe total quantity of waste incinerated in theEU is not available from official statisticalsources. Data reported to the OECD indi-cates a total annual incineration of Munici-pal Solid Waste (MSW) of about 26 milliontonnes (OECD, 1997a). This must be takenas the minimum quantity. In several coun-tries reported quantities of incinerated wasteare higher because other waste types areincinerated as well (industrial and commer-cial waste) (ISWA, 1997). Reported incinera-tion capacities are also much higher for anumber of countries (ETC/W, 1998).

It should also be noted that considerablequantities of waste are incinerated in cementkilns, steel ovens and industrial boilers. InGermany alone the following quantities ofwaste are incinerated in cement kilns:170 000 - 200 000 tonnes waste oil, 60 000tonnes hazardous waste (bleaching soil,solvents, paint sludge, contaminated wood)and 250 000 tonnes waste tyres (Johnke,1998). To what extent these amounts areincluded in the OECD statistics is veryunclear. The environmental impact ofincineration outside incineration plants isonly partially described.

Historically the primary aim of incineratingwaste was to reduce the quantity of waste tobe landfilled. In general incineration re-duces municipal waste to about 30% of itsoriginal weight (generation of 300 kg ofbottom ash per tonne of waste input). Theremaining slag is much more stable than

Rate of leachate Hazardous waste Municipal solid Non-hazardous Inorganic wasteproduction landfill waste landfill low organic

waste landfill

Medium: 600 years 300 years 150 years 100 years(200mm/annuum)

High: 300 years 150 years 75 years 50 years(400 mm/annuum)

Table 3.7.3. Pollution from landfills can go on for centuries

Estimate of the time (in years) needed before leachate from different landfills can be released without risk to groundwaterresources. The time needed to wash out the pollutants depends on the amount of rainwater washing through the waste(leachate production); two scenarios are presented. Calculations are based on a landfill with an average height of 12 m. Non-hazardous low organic waste landfills represent landfills receiving a mixture of commercial waste and non-hazardous industrialwaste.

Source: Hjelmar et al., 1994

Waste generation and management 213Waste generation and management

untreated waste and far easier to landfill orrecycle (in road construction etc.). In manyincinerator plants the energy obtained isutilised, and the focus on energy recoveryhas been increasing and is emphasised in theEuropean Community Strategy on Waste.

Despite its positive aspects waste incinerationalso creates new problems through release ofair pollutants and generation of secondarywaste streams (slag and fly ash).

Air pollutionThe main contaminants released in thecombustion process are acid gases, polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), dioxins(PCDD) and furans (PCDF), dust and heavymetals.

For some compounds waste incineration hascontributed significantly to the total pressureon the environment (Figure 3.7.14).

Emissions from incinerators have undoubt-edly been reduced considerably after 1990due to the closing of many small installationsand the introduction of cleaning systems.Estimates covering the EU, Norway andSwitzerland show a marked decrease indioxin emissions from 2 000 g dioxin equiva-lents (I-TEQ) in 1990 (Umweltbundesamt/TNO, 1997) to 1 341 g in 1994 (Landesum-weltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1997). Similardecreases must be expected for heavy metals.In 1994-95 waste incineration’s share of totalemissions in Germany was estimated to be12% of dioxins, 4% of mercury and 0.3% ofcadmium.

Residues from air pollution control systemsDue to both EU and national legislationmost large incineration plants and all plantsestablished after 1990 are now equippedwith advanced cleaning systems. No statisticaldata exists on the quantity of residues fromflue-gas cleaning. As the quantity of wastegenerated depends on the process (Table3.7.4), the composition of the waste inciner-ated and the design of the treatment system,estimates will be very uncertain.

Common to all residues is that they arehighly contaminated and in most casesclassified as hazardous waste. Unless treatedfurther the pollutants are also very solubleand the waste is therefore difficult to store inlandfills.

The problems of incinerator slagBased on available information the totalamount of slag from incinerator plants is

0

Dio

xins

and

fura

ns

Est

imat

ed e

mis

sio

ns o

f sel

ecte

dco

mp

oun

ds

as %

of t

ota

l em

issi

ons

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mer

cury

Cad

miu

m

Chr

om

ium

Compound

Figure 3.7.14Incinerator emissions

The figure shows the relativeshare of emissions fromincineration plantscompared with totalEuropean emissionsincluding natural sources.Based on estimates for atotal of 38 Europeancountries in 1990 (latest fulldata available).

Source: Umweltbundesamt,1997

estimated to be between 6 and 9 milliontonnes per year in EEA countries. In anumber of countries the slag is recycled andused for road construction, embankmentsand noise barriers and for concrete produc-tion. In Denmark and the Netherlandsbetween 85 and 90% of the slag is recycled,while only 50% is recycled in Germany andhardly any slag is recycled in Sweden (DEPA,1998 and International Ash Working Group,1997).

When analyzing the chemical composition ofincinerator slag a major concern is theheavy-metals content which is in many casesconsiderably higher than the concentrationsoccurring naturally in soil (Table 3.7.5).

This means that in many cases the use of slagfor construction purposes may in the longterm lead to contamination of surroundingareas with dust containing heavy metals ifthe surface is not sealed. On the other handuse under asphalt or concrete will reducethis problem.

Cleaning technology applied

Residue Type Dry Semi-dry Wet

Fly ash (10-30) (10-30) 10-30

Dry residue, including fly ash 20-50 15-40

Sludge from wastewater 1-3

The table shows approximate quantities of residue per tonne waste from different flue-gascleaning systems applied in Europe.

Source: International Ash Working Group, 1997

Table 3.7.4.Approximate quantities of residue in kg dry matter

per tonne of waste incinerated using differentmethods of cleaning


Table 3.7.5. Heavy metals in slag and soils in mg/kilo

Range in Range in Dutch valueslag natural for good soil

soils quality

As 0.12 - 189 1 - 50 29

Hg 0.02 - 7.75 0.01 - 0.3 0.3

Cd 0.3 - 70.5 0.01 - 0.70 0.8

Cr 23 - 3.170 1 - 1000 100

Cu 190 - 8.240 2 - 100 36

Ni 5 - 500 7 - 4.280 35

Pb 98 - 13.700 2 - 200 85

Zn 613 - 7.770 10 - 300 140

PAH 13 - 19.000 1

The table comparesconcentrations of heavy

metals and PAH in slag (mg/kilo) with natural variation insoil and Dutch target values

for good soil quality. Thetable illustrates that for

most heavy metals thecontent in incinerator slagmay exceed even extreme

natural conditions and inalmost all cases exceed

recommended standards.

Source: International AshWorking Group, 1997; Lamé

and Leenaers,1998

In relation to contamination of water mostof the heavy metals are present as very stableand insoluble chemical compounds (Table3.7.6). Studies of leaching from slag showthat the main risk of contamination ofdrinking water comes from lead and cad-mium, but high contents of soluble chlorideand sulphate also present a problem. Themain risk when used for harbour construc-tion is copper and lead. Copper is particu-larly toxic for marine organisms (Thygesen etal., 1992).

Due to the potential for environmentalpollution, recycling of slag calls for regula-

tion and strict control of the amounts used,the conditions for use and possibly pre-treatment to reduce the amount of contami-nants in the slag. The identified problemshighlight the need for continuous reductionin the use of heavy metals and improvedsorting of the waste before incineration.

5. Outlooks

Per-capita consumption is expected tosignificantly increase in the EU between1995 and 2010. Based on assumptions thathistorical trends of waste generation willcontinue, this could more than countergains from current policy initiatives toreduce waste generation linked to consump-tion, suggesting that new initiatives will berequired to stem the growth in waste genera-tion.

5.1. Outlook trendsThe limited systematic and consistent datahinders the development of future wastetrends. Nevertheless, if observed trendscontinue under the baseline scenario, mosttypes of waste will most probably increaseover the next decade. Household waste, forexample, is likely to grow by around 20% to2010 for the EU as a whole.

Projections suggest that paper and card-board consumption in the EU could expandby 44-62% by the year 2010 (ETC/W, 1998).Thus, between 92 million and 105 milliontonnes of waste paper and cardboard willprobably be generated by 2010 under theprojected rate of consumption.

Glass consumption could equally expand by24-53% for the period 1995 to 2010 (ETC/W, 1998). This means that by 2010 between16.2 million and 20 million tonnes of glasswaste will probably be generated.

Within municipal waste, the amount of plasticwaste is estimated to increase by 63% from1993 to 2005 (APME, 1995; SOFRES, 1996).

Waste from scrapped vehicles could growdramatically in the coming decades; thenumber of end-of-life vehicles is expected toincrease by 21% between 1995 and 2010 forthe EU (ETC/Waste, 1998). Another esti-mate suggests that the number of scrappedcars could even increase by 17% by 2000 andby almost 35% by 2010 compared with 1995in the EU12 (Figure 3.7.15; excludingformer East Germany) (Kilde and Larsen,1998).

Table 3.7.6.

Compound Drinking water Sea water

Cadmium 128 13

Copper 21 1 586

Mercury 60 12

Lead 420 344

Chloride 160 0

Sulphate 126 0

The table shows how many times leachate from slag exceedsselected water-quality criteria or different compounds basedon leaching tests. The quality criteria have been selectedfrom national and EU criteria in order to represent ‘worstcase’. Chloride and sulphate do not present a problem incoastal areas due to the natural high concentration in seawater, while copper is particularly toxic to marine organismsbut a minor problem in drinking water.Seawater scenario is based on use of slag forharbour construction.

Source: Thygesen et al. 1992

Environmental risk factors from leaching from slag


For total solid waste, no comprehensiveprojections of sectoral share are available for2010, although currently manufacturing andconstruction/demolition each account for25% of the total weight. The expected rapidexpansion of the service and transportationsectors may have obvious implications for theamount of packaging and scrap vehicle wasteduring the outlook period.

To keep paper and cardboard waste disposaland incineration levels constant with thoseof 1996, about 68 millions tonnes wouldhave to be recycled by 2010. Such a develop-ment would demand an increase in recycledamounts of more than 100% (more than 2million tonnes per annum). Similarly, 10 to14 million tonnes of waste glass (an increaseof 35% to the 90% level) would requirerecycling by 2010 just to stabilize the amountof glass landfilled.

In general, landfilling is expected to de-crease and recycling and incineration withenergy recovery to increase during theoutlook period. This will represent someprogress in waste management in Europe,although hazardous waste and emissions oftoxic compounds from incineration plantswill continue to be produced and recyclingplants will also keep generating secondarywaste and emissions. Increasing efforts onwaste avoidance, phasing out of toxic com-pounds in materials when feasible andseparation at source could however mitigatethese problems.

5.2 Policy implicationsThe expected waste trends during theoutlook period suggest that existing policies,although providing some degree of success,will not be sufficient to stabilise waste aris-ings, meet policy objectives, or progresstowards sustainability. Future product policyin EU will be of great importance for thepossibilities to reduce the amounts of waste.The Commission (DG XI) has already takenthe initiative to make a study in this area(Ernst &Young, 1998).

Efficient waste management and recyclingmust be supported by measures to reducewaste generation. This calls for considerationof the total lifecycle of products and services,emphasising preventive measures at sourceand re-use of products and components.Otherwise, the EU target of stabilizingmunicipal waste per capita by 2000, althoughsomehow arbitrarily established by the FifthEnvironmental Action Programme, is un-likely to be achieved.

1995 2000 2005 2010

mill

ion

cars

810121416

Figure 3.7.15Car projection

The graph shows estimated numbers of scrapped cars in EU12 (excluding former EastGermany) from 1995 to 2010. All figures are based on a model using historical data (until1990) and projections of the car fleet combined with detailed information on age distributionof cars in the different Member States. The result should be seen as a trend more than aprojection of exact numbers.

Source: Kilde & Larsen, 1998

Innovative initiatives already exist in severalEU countries. Specific proposals by theEuropean Commission include a directive onthe treatment of scrapped vehicles with theaim of increasing the recycling of materials toreduce the problems associated with shred-ded waste. Important issues which would beaddressed are the quantities of hazardousmaterials in cars and how to provide for moreefficient disassembly and re-use/recycling ofmaterials. Another possible initiative wouldbe standardisation of container glass used forbeverages to ensure re-use, thereby reducingthe generation of glass waste.

5.3. Accession countriesWith strong economic growth anticipated forthe outlook period in the Accession Coun-tries, a substantial increase in the amount ofmunicipal waste is to be expected. If quanti-ties reach the average amount per capita forthe EU, the total amount of municipal wastein the Accession Countries will increase by50% from 34 million tonnes in 1995 to 53million tonnes in 2010 (Figure 3.7.18). Anincrease of this order would cause enormousproblems for waste management and de-mand efficient measures for collection andrecycling.

Recycling plant capacity exists in easternEurope based on the need to conserve dueto the previous lack of imported productsand raw materials. Previously re-use ofcontainers and materials was an economicnecessity and the governments subsidisedrecycling by paying small amount of moneyto small private companies for collecting theused material. The markets for recyclinghave in many cases been privatised and thesubsidies removed, whereby re-use andrecycling have decreased. Some of theplants, now privatized, are looking for


Box 3.7.1. Case study: Sewage sludge – a future waste problem?

Thousands of treatment plants for urban waste waterestablished over the last decades reduce thepollution of our lakes, rivers and coastal waters butare also the source of a rapidly growing wasteproblem: sewage sludge. The annual production ofsewage sludge in the EU was an estimated 7.2million tonnes dry solids in 1992. If the sludge is onlymechanically dewatered the quantity of sludge to bemanaged is between 22 and 30 million tonnes.

Due to more stringent demands for treatment ofurban waste water (Council Directive 91/271/EEC;see Chapter 3.5) many new treatment plants aredue for completion by 2005. The amount of sewagesludge is thus expected to increase by 50% to atleast 11.2 million tonnes dry solids by 2005 (Figure3.7.16) (Hall & Dalimier 1994; updated to EU byETC/IW). For some countries the quantity willincrease by as much as 500%. This expectedincrease is in itself a challenge for wastemanagement and the choices of treatment anddisposal methods will have large economic andenvironmental implications.

Sludge can be a valuable fertilizer in agriculture. Itis a good phosphorus source and also has anitrogen content that can be valuable especially forcrops with a long growing season (ISWA, 1998). Theorganic content of the sludge can help improve thesoil structure and in general sludge stimulatesbeneficial biological activity in the soil (DEPA,1997a). Phosphorus being a limited resource makesrecycling of sludge for agricultural purposes anappealing solution for sustainable management ofsludge.

However, sludge can also be contaminated withheavy metals, bacteria and viruses, and a number oforganic substances, and both EU and nationalregulations set limits for contaminant concen-trations to protect the soil and humans frompollution. Much of the sludge produced is alreadytoo contaminated and has to be incinerated orlandfilled. Landfilling of sludge has hitherto been aninexpensive means of disposal, but both nationalrestrictions and the proposed Landfill Directive willmake landfilling more expensive. Several countrieshave introduced general restrictions on thelandfilling of organic waste (Figure 3.7.17).

Incineration reduces the sludge to ash which can belandfilled. In most cases supplementary fuel isneeded in order to burn the sludge and there isusually no net gain of energy (Johnke, 1998).Depending on the concentration of heavy metalsand the incineration process the residual ash maybe classified as hazardous waste.

The European Commission is considering tougherlimit values for heavy metals and possibly limitsvalues for some organic compounds which mayfurther limit the potential for recycling. SeveralMember States have already established morestringent limit values for heavy metals and anumber of Member States have also introducedlimit values for a number of organic pollutants. ADanish survey indicates that up to 41% of thesludge may be in conflict with new limit valuescoming into force in year 2000 (Ingeniøren, 1998).In contrast availability of agricultural land in thevicinity of the waste water plant,rather than sludgequality, appears to be the primary factordetermining disposal routes in the UK (Gendebienet al, 1999).

.../...

Source: Hall & Dalimier, 1994, expanded to EU+3 by ETC/IW

01984 1992 2000 2005

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Slud

ge

in d

ry s

olid

to

nnes

LandfillIncinerationRecycling inagriculture

Figure 3.7.16 Sludge projection - EU, 1984-2005

Source: European Commission, 1998c ; NRC the Netherlands(for Dutch figures), 1999

100

80

40

60

20

0

% t

reat

men

t an

d d

isp

osa

l of s

ewag

e sl

udg

e

Austria

Belgium

Denmar

k

EU excluding

Sweden & It

aly

United K

ingdomSpain

Portugal

The Neth

erlands

Luxe

mbourg

Irelan

d

Greece

German

y

France

Finland

Recycling

Landfill

Sea disposal

Incineration

Other disposal (incl. storage)

Figure 3.7.17 Sludge treatment: variation in EU, 1995


foreign sources of recyclable materials (Soil& Water Ltd., 1997). This course couldhamper development of more efficientrecycling systems for waste generated in theAccession Countries.

6. Responses – what is being done and is this sufficient to solve the problems?

6.1. Outline of community regulation and strategyEarly phases of Community waste legislationfocused on clearly identified problems,including hazardous waste shipments, PCBdisposal and waste from the titanium-dioxideindustry. The legislation reflected thedeclared aim of the Treaty of approximationof national regulation directly affectingthecommon market.

Later amendments of the Treaty, particularlythe Single European Act (1987) and theMaastricht Treaty (1992) introduced a moregeneral objective of protecting and improv-ing the quality of the environment. Thesechanges allow for a strengthening of theCommunity waste legislation aiming atestablishing an integrated waste manage-ment policy in the Community. However thisnew focus may create new conflicts with thecentral policy of creating an internal market.

In line with the policy framework, a Commu-nity Strategy for Waste Management wasinitially adopted by the European Commis-sion in 1989. The strategy sets out fourstrategic guidelines: Prevention, re-use andrecovery, optimisation of final disposal andregulation of transport, together with anumber of recommended actions.

The main strategic guidelines were main-tained in the 1996 review of the CommunityStrategy, adding that preference should ingeneral be given to the recovery of materialover energy recovery. However, particularfocus is further given to three main problemareas: i) scarcity of quantified and standard-ised information; ii) inadequate implemen-tation of Community legislation at national

In addition, increased consumer awareness has ledlarge supermarket chains in both France and Germanyto reject products from farms using sewage sludge.Composting and other biological treatment optionsmay to some extent solve the problem of pathogensand organic substances of concern but problems ofheavy metals will still be a source of public concern.

The economic consequences of a restrictedagricultural application of sewage sludge are

considerable. Depending on the alternative chosenthe cost may rise from EUR 75 per tonne foragricultural use to EUR 400 for incineration in somecountries (ISWA, 1998). One German source evengives prices up to EUR 600 per tonne for thermaltreatment (Johnke, 1998). Thus a thrust for phasingout the use of the problematic compounds may bean economically sound solution.

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Estonia

Slove

nia

Lithu

ania

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Bulgari

a

Hungary

Czech

Repub

lic

Roman

ia

Poland

1000

tonn

es

IncreaseToday

level; and, iii) delays in adopting moresophisticated environmental measures, suchas economic instruments and voluntaryagreements, to encourage increased respon-sibility among producers and consumers.

The following three pieces of legislation , asa response to the strategy, constitute thebackbone of the Community waste manage-ment policy:

• The Waste Framework Directive whichrequires Member States to take allnecessary steps to prevent waste genera-tion, to encourage re-use and to ensuresafe disposal. A fundamental principle ofthe Directive is the one on self-suffi-ciency and proximity requiring MemberStates to establish in cooperation anintegrated and adequate network ofdisposal installations enabling theCommunity as a whole as well as eacheMember State to become self-sufficientin waste disposal and to dispose of wastein one of the nearest appropriate instal-lations. Member States are required todraw up waste management plans as amajor tool to achieve this policy.

• The Directive on hazardous waste whichsets more stringent requirements to themanagement of hazardous waste.

The figure shows theincrease in the amount ofwaste in the AccessionCountries if economicgrowth leads to just the EU-average amount ofmunicipal waste per capita.Latvia is not included in thetable because data onmunicipal waste for Latvia isprobably not comparablewith that from the othercountries.

Source: EEA, 1998

Figure 3.7.18


• The Regulation on the supervision andcontrol of transfrontier waste shipmentswhich sets out stringent requirements forthe control of waste shipments, takinginto account the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity of waste fordisposal.

Based on the general legal framework, theCommunity policy on waste is supplementedby a number of more specific Directives.These may be divided into two groups:

• Directives on specific waste streamscovering both measures of preventionand common rules for separate collec-tion and treatment (in particular thePackaging Directive and the Directiveson batteries and accumulators, waste oils,sewage sludge and PCBs/PCTs);

• Directives aimed at reducing the impactof treatment and disposal by settingcommon technical standards for opera-tion of treatment facilities (i.e. theDirectives on incineration of MSW andhazardous waste and the proposedLandfill Directive).

In Table 3.7.7 the main elements of thestrategy are described and related to thepresent legal action in force, considered legaland political action to support the Strategy.From the table it is clear that a number of legalactions at present target the main elements ofthe strategy, i.e. the hierarchy of principles:prevention, material recovery, energy recoveryand final disposal. However most of thelegislation in force is directed towards specificproblems (waste types or treatment activities),while few legal actions are directed towards thestrategy in a broader sense (i.e. supporting thehierarchy of principles). In addition, these fewlegal actions are of a very general character,thus complicating monitoring and enforce-ment. This is in particular the case with theFramework Directive, which in Article 3 and 4sets up the core elements of the Strategy, butwithout any concrete measures to be taken byMember States. The provisions are keptflexible due to the very different circumstancesin the Member States, relying instead on wastemanagement plans, which according to Article7 of the Directive are to be drawn up byMember States. Except for the specific Direc-tives, the strategy, at this stage, is thereforealmost solely based on a legal frameworkfocusing on administrative and notificationprocedures.

The Directive on packaging and packagingwaste is the only existing directive addressing

the hierarchy in more concrete terms bysetting up concrete goals for recycling ofmaterial and recovery of energy.

In addition to the present legal framework, anumber of new initiatives are under way,supporting the strategy in more concreteterms. This is in particular the case with theproposed Directive on the Landfilling ofWaste establishing targets for the reductionof biodegradable municipal waste going tolandfills. Also the current proposal for aDirective on end-of-life vehicles will providea support to the strategy, setting up certaintargets for the re-use, recycling and recoveryof end-of-life vehicles. Other initiativesunder way within the Commission focus on,for example, electrical and electronic waste,composting and hazardous municipal waste.

6.2. What progress has been made in implementing the EU waste strategy?Under the EU Waste Strategy (see section6.1 above) the general trend of increasingwaste generation suggests that waste preven-tion initiatives have generally not beensufficient to reduce, or even to stabilise thequantity of waste.

For some countries it is possible to identifyan increase in recycling and a reduction inlandfilling for the period 1985-1995 (Table3.7.8), but for many countries landfilling isstill the most common treatment method(Figure 3.7.19).

For municipal waste it is possible to demon-strate trends in treatment in the EEA membercountries. Even though there has been anincrease in the level of recycling, landfillingremains the most common treatment and isin 1995 on the same level as in 1985-90. In thesame period there has been an increase in theamount of municipal waste landfilled from 86million tonnes to 104 million tonnes. Even ifpart of this increase may be due to betterregistration it is reasonable to conclude thatin absolute figures, the EEA countries land-filled more municipal waste in 1995 than inthe period 1985-90.

A breakdown of treatment routes for con-struction and demolition waste and manufac-turing waste is provided for a number ofcountries. Table 3.7.9 demonstrates a shiftaway from landfilling towards recovery forthese two selected waste streams.

However the overall conclusion regardingthe treatment of waste in the EU is thatlandfilling is still the most common treat-


Table 3.7.7.Main elements of the EU Waste Management Strategy

Considered legal and political action

Possible proposals to set quantitative targets forreducing and recovering waste (COM (96) 399)

In particular cases EU-wide rules to limit or ban thepresence of heavy metals or specific substances inproducts to prevent hazardous waste to generate(COM (96) 399).

Integrate the principle of producer responsibility inall future measures on a case-by-case basis (COM(96) 399).

Improve environmental dimensions of technicalstandards (Council Resolution 97/C76/o1).

Proposed specific requirements for Member Statesto ensure that measures aiming at reducing thenegative impact on the environment from end-of-lifevehicles are implemented (COM (97) 358).

Proposed directive on landfills setting minimumtechnical and administrative standards for landfills(COM(97) 105).

Consider EU quality requirements to define when agiven incineration operation is a recovery or adisposal operation (COM (96) 399).

Proposed specific targets of re-use, recycling andrecovery for end-of-life vehicles, and demands forestablishing systems for the collection of all ELVs.(COM (97) 358).

Development of a recycling industry based onmodern technologies and methods and promoterecyclability of materials and products (COM(98)463).

Proposed requirement for Member States to ensurethat all costs are covered by the price to be chargedby the operator for the disposal of any type of wastein that site and to set up a national strategy forreduction of biodegradable waste going to landfillsensuring certain targets to be met (COM (97) 107).

Encourage Member States to make serious effortsto prevent and to minimise quantities of waste thatgo to landfills, and in the long run to ensure that theprice of disposal is made more transparent(COM(96)399).

Strategy

Prevent waste generationand reduce its hazardouscontent.

Hierarchy of principles:

prevention

material recovery

energy recovery

safe disposal

Prevention of wastegeneration

Prevention of impact onenvironment

Prevent the negative impacton the environment

Recovery

Where generation of wastecannot be avoided, waste shallbe re-used or recovered for itsmaterial or energy. Whereenvironmentally sound, re-useshall be further encouraged inorder to avoid generation.Preference to be given torecovery of materials overenergy recovery operations.

Final disposal

Avoidance of Iincinerationwithout energy recovery andlandfilling.

Incineration with energyrecovery to be promoted forall incineration installations,leaving landfilling in principleas the last solution. In themid-term, only non-recoverable and inert wasteto be accepted in landfills.

Legal action in force

Treaty, Art. 130R

Member States required to:

• encourage firstly, the prevention or reductionof waste, secondly the recovery of waste bymeans of recycling, re-use or the use of wasteas a source of energy (Framework Dir, Art. 3);

• ensure that waste is recovered or disposed ofsafely, and prohibit the dumping or uncontrolleddisposal of waste (Framework Directive, Art. 4);

• draw up waste management plans(Framework Dir., Art. 7).

Community Regulations on eco-audit and eco-labels (Regulation 1836/93 and 880/92).

Member States required to take measures toprevent generation of packaging waste, limit theheavy metal content of packaging, and informconsumers (Directive 94/62, Art. 4, 11 and 13).

Member States required to take measures:

• to reduce the heavy-metal content of batteriesand accumulators, ensure separate collection,inform consumers, and prohibit marketing ofcertain batteries (Directive 91/157);

• to collect and dispose of waste oils safely andprohibit any discharge of waste oils into inlandsurface waters, groundwaters etc.(Directive 75/439, Art. 2 and 4);

• for the use of sewage sludge in agriculture inorder to prevent harmful effects on soil,vegetation, animals and man (Directive 86/278);

• to implement common emission standards andoperation criteria for incinerators for MSW andhazardous waste (Directives 89/369 and 94/67).

Specific requirements for Member States to:

• encourage re-use systems of packaging, totake the necessary measures in order to attaincertain targets of recovery and recycling ofpackaging, and to ensure that systems are setup to provide for the return and/or collectionof packaging waste (Directive 94/62, Art. 5-7);

• to give priority to the processing of waste oilsby regeneration (Directive 75/439, Art. 3);

• Disposal costs must be borne by the producer ofthe waste (Framework Directive, Art. 15)

• Member States required to take appropriatemeasures to:

• establish an integrated and adequate networkof disposal installations (Framwork Dir., Art. 5)

• dispose of batteries and accumulatorscontaining dangerous substances separately(Directive 91/157, Art. 6).;

• ensure safe combustion of waste oils, andwhere neither regeneration nor combustion isfeasible, to ensure safe destruction or control-led storage or tipping (Dir. 75/439, Art. 4);

• prohibit the uncontrolled discharge, dumpingand tipping of PCBs/PCTs, making environmen-tally safe disposal compulsor(Directive 96/59). .../...


ment route for waste and a major change isneeded in order to implement the EUstrategy on waste.

6.3. EU as a whole should treat its own hazardous wasteAbout 1.4 million of the 36 million tonnes ofhazardous waste generated in EEA membercountries (equivalent to 4%) is not treatedin the country of origin but is exported,either to other EU countries, other OECDcountries or to non-OECD countries.

According to the EU strategy, waste fordisposal generated within the Communityshould be disposed in one of the nearestappropriate installations and should not bedisposed outside the Community. For haz-ardous waste the EU has already bannedexport of all such waste for disposal to othercountries except to EFTA countries. Exportof hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries is prohibited from 1998.This initiative follows a 1995 decision takenin the context of the Third Conference ofthe Parties of the Basel Convention onshipment of hazardous waste.

According to reports by the EU countriesand Norway to the Basel Convention and theCommission very little hazardous waste wasexported to non-OECD countries: 5802tonnes out of a total of 1.47 million tonnes,corresponding to 0.4%, in particularly toIndia, New Caledonia and Kazachstan. If thefigures reflect the actual situation, theexport ban of hazardous waste for recoveryto non-OECD countries therefore should berelatively easy for EU Member States tocomply with.

EU exports to other OECD countries corre-sponds to 8% of the total, the destinationmainly being the US, Norway and Switzer-land. The remaining (91%) is exportedamong EU countries. The Community isthus also fulfilling the aim of treatment ofhazardous waste within its borders. Thisconclusion does not however mean thatsufficient treatment capacity for hazardouswaste exists within the EU.

Table 3.7.8.

Country/region Year Land- Incineration Recycling Other treat-filling ment

Denmark 1985 39 26 35 .

Denmark 1994 23 20 56 1

Denmark 1995 17 20 62 1

Denmark 1996 20 19 60 1

Germany 1990 68 3 21 8

Germany 1993 55 4 25 21

Ireland 1995 73 1 14 13

Netherlands 1985 42 7 51 .





Sweden 1990 75 13 10 .

Catalonia 1994 56 10 34 .

Catalonia 1995 56 10 34 .

The table shows that progress has been made in some countries in increasing recycling andreducing landfilling

Source: NRCs , EEA 1998b; Junta de Residdus

Total waste generation by disposal and treatmentmethod in selected EU countries and regions (%)

The figure shows thatdespite increased recyclingno progress has been made

in reducing landfilling.

Source: EEA, 1998b; NRCs

6%6%

64%

5%

19%

1%10%

67%

5%17%

Treatment of municipalwaste in EU, 1985-90

Treatment of municipalwaste in EU, 1995

Composting

Recycling

Incineration

Other

Landfilling

Figure 3.7.19 Development in EU from 1985-90 to 1995 intreatment of municipal waste

Strategy Legal action in force Considered legal and political action

Shipment of waste: theprinciple of self-sufficiencyaims at avoiding shipmentsfor disposal between MemberStates, while shipments forrecovery are mainly submittedto the principles of theinternal market.

Requirements on notifications procedures(Regulation 259/93).

Increase approximations ofl standards in order toestablish common environmental standards forrecovery operations (COM (96) 399).

Concern of large-scale movements within theCommunity of waste for incineration with or withoutenergy recovery (Council Resolution 97/C76/01).


Table 3.7.9.Development of disposal and treatment of waste from

construction/demolition and manufacturing activities (%)

Country/ Year Constructution & demolition ManufacturingRegion

Land- Incine- Recycling Other Land- Incine- Recycling Otherfilling ration filling ration

and otherdisponal

Denmark 1985 82 6 12 0 35 26 39 0

Denmark 1996 10 1 89 0 31 14 53 2

Germany 1990 32 10 58 38 8 49 4

Germany 1993 32 12 57 28 9 60 3

Ireland 1995 57 0 35 8 73 27 0

Luxembourg 1994 93 0 7 0

Luxembourg 1997 93 0 7 0

Netherlands 1985 50 1 49 0 34 2 64 0

Netherlands 1996 8 1 91 0 14 5 81 0

Sweden 1996 17 32 41 9

Catalonia 1995 37 1 52 10

Catalonia 1996 33 1 53 13

Source: NRCs; Junta de Residus

About 1 665 500 tonnes of hazardous wastewas imported to EU Member States andNorway in 1995. Of this, 85% arose in otherEU Member States, 8% came from otherOECD countries, in particular Switzerland,US, Norway, Hungary and the Czech Repub-lic, and 6% has unknown sources.

Many non-OECD countries do not haveadequate facilities to treat their hazardouswaste in a safe way. Until these countries areproperly equipped, the EU could help byimporting and treating this hazardous waste.However only 16 000 tonnes (1%) of importsto EU Member States and Norway washazardous waste from non-OECD countries,in particular from South Africa, Brazil,Macedonia, and Slovenia.

Treatment of exported wasteAbout 75% of exported hazardous wastefrom the EU and Norway is exported forrecovery and about 20% for disposal. Portu-gal, Spain, Luxembourg and the Nether-lands export a large part for disposal. Figure3.7.20 (according to the EU FrameworkDirective) shows which kind of treatmentexported hazardous waste from the EUcountries and Norway has received.

Other recovery9%

Regeneration of acids/bases,oil refining, reuses of oil

(R6 - R9) 3%

Fuel/other meansof generating energy

(R1) 16%

Recycling/reclamationof metals(R4) 37%

Reclamation/regeneration/recycling of solvents and

organic substancesincluding composting

(R2 + R3) 6%

Land treatment resultingin benefit to agriculture

(R10) 7%

Recycling/reclamation ofother inorganic materials

(R5) 14%

Storage of waste etc.(R11-R13) 8%

total 1.1 million tonnes

The table does not include figures from Greece and Ireland. The figures for Sweden andFrance are 1994 figures.

Source: European Commission, 1998b; Norsas.

Figure 3.7.20Treatment of exported hazardous waste accordingto the EU Framework Directive


6.4. The importance of capacity, treatment prices and waste managementWaste management throughout Europe andabove all the management of disposal andrecovery is partly governed by the rules ofmarket economy but is also strongly influ-enced by numerous EU and national regula-tions. Thus the success of the CommunityStrategy on Waste depends on a complexsystem governed by different national andregional regulations, the capacity of treat-ment facilities and the price structure be-tween treatment forms and between nations.

Accordingly, knowledge of demand andsupply of capacities for recovery, thermaltreatment and landfilling and price relationsis necessary to assess waste managementcomprehensively. Hardly any information isavailable on the capacity for re-use andrecycling of different products and materialsand an assessment is further complicated bythe fact that many recyclable materials aretraded on the world market. The followingdiscussion will thus focus on capacities andprices for incineration and landfilling.

Incineration capacity in the EEA countriesIncineration plants for municipal non-hazardous waste are in operation in mostEEA member countries, except Ireland,Portugal and Liechtenstein. In 14 countriesa total of 533 incineration plants are re-ported in operation (nearly 280 of them inFrance). There is a very high degree ofvariation in the size of the plants. In additionto these, 239 incineration plants for hazard-ous waste are reported in operation.

By combining information on capacity whereaccessible with supplementary informationon amounts of waste incinerated, the totalincineration capacity for non-hazardouswaste within the EEA is estimated to aboutbe 33 million tonnes (NRCs, 1998b; OECD,1997a). Incineration capacity is only avail-able for about 17% of the total amount ofmunicipal waste arising.

There is a very high degree of variation inavailable capacity for incineration (Figure3.7.21). These differences may reflect boththe level of development of waste manage-ment but also differences in strategies,climate, structure of energy supply systemsand public acceptance of or opposition toincineration.

In some countries more than 90% of thecapacity is reported to come from plants withenergy recovery (NRCs, 1998b). While most

countries have started to utilise the energyfrom waste there is a great deal of variationin the overall efficiency of energy utilisation(Figure 3.7.22). The variation may reflectdifferences in the composition of wasteincinerated, but the main explanation isprobably to which extent the incineratorsoperate only with electricity production, withheat production or a combination of thetwo. Optimal efficiency is obtained bycombined systems where the heat is used indistrict heating systems.

Landfill capacitiesAvailable data on landfill capacities is notcomplete and some confusion on the termi-nology for different types of landfills makesinterpretation difficult. The followingconclusions should therefore be taken onlyas a rough estimate.

Landfill capacity for non-hazardous waste(excluding sites used solely for inert waste)in the EU is estimated for 1996 to be about1.2 billion tonnes in more than 8 700 li-censed landfills. In addition to the licensedlandfills about 3 450 unlicensed landfillshave been reported from Germany, Greece,Portugal and Spain, of which 3 430 are inGreece (NRCs, 1998b; OECD, 1997b).Earlier data indicates a further 10 000unlicensed sites in other Member States(Italy, France, Spain) (Hjelmar, 1994).

For the countries where data on both capac-ity and total amount landfilled in 1996 isavailable it is possible to calculate the re-maining capacity expressed in years – i.e.how many years will it take to fill up theexisting landfills at the present rate ofdisposal (see Figure 3.7.23).

Not all licensed landfills are equipped withthe membranes and leachate collectionsystems needed to protect the environmentproperly. A survey made for the EuropeanCommission (DG XI) in 1994 and datacollected by ETC/W indicates the followingrates of application of liners and leachatecollection systems in landfills licensed formunicipal waste: Ireland <40%; UnitedKingdom, the Netherlands, Germany andFrance 40-70%, Denmark and Finland 70-90%; Austria, Belgium, Portugal and Sweden>90% (NRCs, 1998b; Hjelmar, 1994).

Considering the time needed for findingsuitable locations, getting public acceptanceand constructing the landfill there is there-fore an urgent need for either a dramaticreduction in the amounts of waste landfilled


The Neth

erlands

0

Austria

100

200

300

400

500

Denmar

k

United K

ingdom

France

German

y

Portugal

Italy

Irelan

dSpain

SwedenInci

nera

tion

cap

acity

kg

/yea

r/ca

pita

Belgium

Luxe

mbourg

Finland

Greece

The figure illustrates alarge variation inavailable incinerationcapacity per capita withinthe EU. The figure coversmunicipal solid wasteincineration plants withand without energyrecovery and is based oninformation on capacitywhere available or actualincinerated quantity in1996 or the latestreported year before.

Sources: NRCs 1998b;ISWA, 1997; OECD 1997a

or rapid construction of new controlledlandfills or alternative treatment facilities.Furthermore, as reflected below the avail-able capacity differs very much from onecountry to another.

The effect of treatment prices on disposal patternsIn nearly all EEA member countries theaverage treatment prices for landfilling non-hazardous waste are far below those forincineration. This means that unless a newregulation is in place the market mechanismwill direct waste to landfills instead of incin-eration with energy recovery. In other wordsthe market mechanisms act in direct opposi-tion to the official Community strategy. Ofeven greater concern is that landfills whichhave inadequate pollution control and makeup about 67% of the landfills probably haveprices below the average. Price mechanismsmay thus also counteract the aim of reducingthe impact of disposal (Figure 3.7.24).

The different treatment prices in EEAmember countries are strongly influenced bynational rules and regulations. A number ofcountries have issued detailed landfillregulations or guidelines which define thetechnical standard and the management ofthese waste management facilities. In par-ticular, demands relating to the installationof liners, treatment of leachate and analysisof surrounding groundwater or surfacewater will increase the price of landfilling.

The difference in prices between membercountries is in some cases due to very differ-ent environmental protection measures andreflects in this respect a conflict with thegeneral community aim of environmentallysafe disposal. Therefore, it is important forthe Community to determine an obligatorystate of the art for all kinds of waste manage-ment activities including rules for theimplementation of post-treatment measures.This will lead to a gradual internalisation ofexternal costs. This will however not changethe fact that landfills are cheaper to con-struct and operate than incinerators.

Prices of incineration may vary according tothe age of the installation, different interestrates, the income from the sale of energy orthe cost of cooling towers, etc. The causes ofcurrent differences in treatment pricesbetween incineration and landfilling have tobe counteracted either by regulatory meas-ures to harmonise environmental standardsor other waste management measuressupporting the general Waste Strategy orusing economic instruments like waste taxes.

Figure 3.7.21

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

TJ/1

000

tonn

es w

aste

Austri

a

Denm

ark

United

Kingdom

Fran

ce

Germ

any

The N

ethe

rland

sIta

ly

Norway

Spain

Swed

en

The figure shows a largevariation among the EEAcountries in total energyrecovery (heat+electricity)/thousand tonne waste and isbased on data obtaineddirectly from the plants.

Source: ISWA, 1997; RIVMhomepage

Figure 3.7.22

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Finlan

d

Denm

ark

Irelan

d

The N

ethe

rland

s

Germ

any

Belgium

Luxe

mbour

gM

ean

Cap

acity

in y

ears

The figure shows a very highdegree of variation in theavailable landfill capacityexpressed in years.While the countries coveredby the data as a total havesufficient capacity for 10years, some only havecapacity for a few years.

Source: NRCs, 1998b

Figure 3.7.23

Incineration capacity in the EU

Energy recovery from incineration, selected countries

Available landfill capacity, selected countries


0

Eur

o/t

onn

es

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

EEA countries

Incineration

Landfill

Aus

tria

No

rway

The

Net

herla

nds

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Liec

hten

stei

n

Luxe

mb

our

g

Irela

nd

Bel

giu

m

Swed

en

Den

mar

k

Uni

ted

Kin

gd

om

Finl

and

Gre

ece

Spai

n

Average treatment prices for landfilling and incineration of non-hazardous waste in selectedEEA member countries (excl. waste tax and VAT). It should be noted that all prices areaverages of observed prices and cover large variations between plants.

Source: NRCs, 1998b

Figure 3.7.24

Large differences in treatment prices betweencountries in an open market counteract theaim of treatment of the waste close to thesource (the proximity principle). Largeprofits or savings can be obtained by finding alow-cost disposal solution. This may alsodirectly influence the competitiveness ofrecycling industries where the cost of dispos-ing of the residual waste can be considerable.

Waste taxes can be used to correct the price relationAs a consequence of the negative impact ofthe price relation a number of countries(Austria, Belgium, France, Denmark, theNetherlands and the UK) have introducedspecial landfill or general waste taxes whichare levied in addition to the actual treatmentprice. Some German Länder also haveimposed waste taxes but according to theFederal Court, they are in conflict withnational legislation and have to be abolished.

The rate of taxation varies among countriesdepending on the kind of waste (the UK,France, Austria), the kind of treatment andenergy recovery (Denmark) and the techni-cal standard of the landfill (Austria). Thecurrent rates per tonne are in Denmarkbetween EUR 28 and 45, in AT between EUR14 and 71 and in the UK between EUR 2.5and 8.5. Despite differences in structure thegeneral purpose of the taxes is to reducelandfilling and support a state-of-the-arttreatment recovery and recycling of waste.

The Danish waste tax has been in operationlong enough to assess the actual effect. Table3.7.10 illustrates the effect of the waste tax onthe relation between landfilling and incinera-tion. A study of treatment patterns from 1987to 1996 concludes that a 32% reduction ofthe waste landfilled or incinerated can to alarge extent be explained by the effect of thewaste tax. In the same period substantialincreases in the recycling of building mate-rial, glass and paper have been obtained. Theeffect of the tax has been strongest in sectorswith a high tonnage (i.e. building and con-struction) (Skou Andersen, 1998).

6.5. Integration into other policy areasTo support waste minimisation there is aneed to integrate it into a number of relatedpolicy areas.

In relation to waste from industrial produc-tion the first steps have been taken with theDirective on Integrated Pollution Preventionand Control (IPPC) where waste is seen asan emission from production to be dealtwith in the licensing process. In order tomake this operational it is important tointegrate the waste aspect into guidelines forbest available technology.

The need for a closer focus on waste in a life-cycle perspective of products may be sup-ported by special attention to waste genera-tion when criteria for eco-labels are devel-oped. Along the same line further focus onwaste minimisation could be integrated instrategies for public procurement givingpreference to products with minimised life-cycle generation of waste.

In some cases technical standards created byinternational standardisation organisationsmay present barriers to an increased directre-use of components recycled material.Such barriers should only by accepted by theEU if crucial technical properties require it.

Finally it is evident that much waste genera-tion can be seen as a product of an unfavour-

Avarage treatment prices for landfilling andincineration of non-hazardous waste

Landfilling Incineration

Disposal fee before tax 20-34 14-40

Waste tax 45 28/35

Total 65-79 42-75

Table 3.7.10. Treatment prices in Denmark, 1997 (EUR)

The table shows treatmentprices in EUR in Denmark in1997 with and without wastetax. The tax is acruallydifferentiated forincineration with only heatrecovery and incinerationwith the more efficientcombined heat/powerproduction.

Source: DEPA, 1997b


able relation between the prices of rawmaterials, production and maintenance costs(capital investment and labour) and the costof disposal. A gradual substitution of taxeson labour with taxation on energy and rawmaterials is probably the most efficient wayof obtaining sound resource management ina free-market economy. However this canonly be done to a limited extent by indi-vidual Member States because their nationalindustries will have higher costs than theirinternational competitors, unless it is com-pensated by a reduction in labour costs.

References:Allsopp M.W., 1992. Vianello G Poly (Vinyl Chlorid).Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Vo.A21. 1992 VCH Publishers, Inc.

APME, 1995. Plastics recovery in perspective. Plasticsconsumption and recovery in Western Europe 1995.

APME, 1996. Plastics. A material choice for the 21st

century. Plastics consumption and recovery in WesternEurope 1996.

CEPI, 1997. Information from CEPI (Confederation ofEuropean Paper Industry) to the European TopicCentre on Waste, 1997.

Danish Steel Works Ltd. Green Accounts 1997,Frederiksværk, 1998.

DEPA, 1996. Danish Environmental Protection Agency.Environmental Aspects of PVC. Environmental ProjectNo. 313, 1996.

DEPA, 1997a. Danish Environmental Protection Agency.Ecotoxicological Assessment of Sewage Sludge inAgricultural Soil, Arbejdsrapport no 69, 1997.

DEPA, 1997b. Danish Environmental ProtectionAgency. The Danish Waste Charge. Information notefrom DEPA, July 1997.

DEPA, 1998. Danish Environmental Protection Agency.Waste Statistics 1996, Environmental Review no 4, 1998.

DETR, 1998. Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions. Less waste more value.Consultation paper on the waste strategy for Englandand Wales, UK, 1998.

EEA, 1998a. Europe’s Environment: The SecondAssessment, European Environment Agency,Copenhagen. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.

EEA, 1998b. Statistical compendium for the SecondAssessment. European Environment Agency,Copenhagen. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.

Erhvervsbladet, 2 June 1997, Denmark.

Ernst & Young, 1998. ‘Integrated Product Policy’, Astudy for DGXI, 1998.

ETC/W. Data collected for the SoER98 DataWarehouse. European Topic Centre for Waste.

ETC/W, 1998. European Topic Centre on Waste.Methodology Report. Baseline projections of selectedwaste streams, June 1998.

European Commission, 1997a. ‘Draft proposal for aCouncil Directive on end of life Vehicles’, DGXI,01.07.1997.

European Commission, 1997b. Strategy paper forreducing methane emissions, 1997.

European Commission, 1998a. ‘Secondcommunication from the European Community underthe UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’,DGXI Draft, May 1998.

European Commission, 1998b. Copy to theCommission, DGXI of the Member States reportingfor 1995 to the Secretary of the Basle Convention.

European Commission, 1998c. Rapport de laCommission. Mis en oeuvre de la directive 91/271/CEE du Conseil du 21 mai 1991 relative au traitementdes eaux urbaines résiduaires, modifiée par ladirective 98/15/CE de la Commission du 27 février1998.

European Union, 1998. Council of Ministers: Proposalfor a council directive on the landfilling of waste –common position, March 1998.

Eurostat, 1999. New Cronos-database, January 1999.

FEVE, 1997. FEVE (Fédération Européene de Verred’Emballage) Glass Gazette, Issue 21(1995) Issue 22(1996) and Issue 23 (1997) and information to theEuropean Topic Centre on Waste, 1997.

Gendebien, A., Carlton-Smith, C., Izzo, M., Hall, J.E.,1999. UK Sewage sludge survey - Nationalpresentation. Environment Agency (England andWales), R & D Technical report P 165, pp 71.

Hall & Dalimier, 1994. Waste management – Sewagesludge, 1994, DGXI Study Contract B4-3040/014156/92.

Hjelmar, O. et al., 1994. Management andcomposition of leachate from landfills, 1994 (DGXIcontract no. B4-3040/013665/92).

Hoffmann, M., 1997. Recovery of zinc and lead fromelectric arc furnace steel dust, in Vol. 5 of R’97Recovery Recycling Re-integration. Collected papersof the R’97 International Congress, Geneva,Switzerland, 4-7 February 1997.

Ingeniøren, 1998. Journal of the Danish Association ofEngineers, Ingeniøren Vol. 16, 17 April 1998.

International Ash Working Group, 1997. Municipalsolid waste incinerator residues, 1997.

IPPC, 1996. Climate Change 1995: ‘The Science ofClimate Change’, Contribution of Working Group I tothe Second Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996.

IPPE, 1996. Institut pour une Politique Européenne del’Environment. Final report to the EuropeanCommission on End-of-Life Vehicles, 1996.

ISWA, 1997. Energy from waste State-of-the-Art-Report, 1997.

ISWA, 1998. Management approaches andexperiences of sludge treatment and disposal, EEAEnvironmental Issues Series no 7, 1998.

Johnke, B., 1998. Situation and aspects of wasteincineration in Germany, UTA International, Vol.2,1998.

Junta de Residus (EPA-Catalonia): Information to theEuropean Topic Centre on Waste.


Kilde and Larsen, 1998. ‘Scrapping of passengercars. Calculations based on the CASPER model.’Unpublished report for ETC/W, 1998.

Lamé, F. and Leenaers, H., 1998. Target values andbackground levels in the Netherlands: How to definegood soil quality. In Contaminated Soil ’98.Proceedings of the sixth FZK/TNO Conference oncontaminated soil, 17-21 May 1998, Edinburgh, UK.

Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1997.Identification of Relevant Industrial Sources of Dioxinsand Furans in Europe, Essen.

Meadows, D. et al., 1991. Beyond the limits,Earthscan Publisher, London.

Miljøstyrelsen (Danish EPA): Moderne, miljørigtigbehandling af shredderaffald, Arbejdsrapport nr. 90,1997.

Naturvårdsverket, 1996. Kontorspapper –Materialflöden i samhället, Naturvårdsverket (EPA-Sweden) Rapport 4678, Sweden.

Norsas. Information from Norsas, Norway, to theEuropean Topic Centre on Waste.

NRCs, 1998a. Responses from National ReferenceCentres to questionnaires from European TopicCentre on Waste, 1998.

NRCs, 1998b. Comments to the EuropeanEnvironment Agency from National Reference Centreson Waste to draft figures for the waste chapter , July-October 1998.

OECD, 1997a. Environmental data compendium.Paris.

OECD, 1997b. National Accounts, Vol. II, 1997.

Ripert, C., 1997. La logistique et le transport desdéchets ménagers, agricoles et industriels. ADEME,Agence de l’environnement et de la Maîtrise del’Energie; Ministère de l’Equipement des Transportset du Logement.

RIVM homepage:www.milieubalans.rivm.nl\doelgroepen\afvalverwijderingsbedrijven\energie uitafvalverbrandingsinstallat, 1999.

Skou Andersen, M., 1998. Assessing the effectivenessof Denmark’s waste tax, Environment, Vol. 4, no 4,May 1998.

SOFRES, 1996. Counsel for the Commission DGXI:Elements for a cost-effective plastic wastemanagement in the European Union, March 1996.

Soil & Water Ltd., 1997. Impacts of implementinglegislation which approximates EU environmentallegislation. Inception report for PHARE/DISAE, 1997.

Steurer, A., 1996. Material Flow Accounting andAnalysis, Statistics Sweden, May 1996, Stockholm,Sweden.

Thygesen et al., 1992. Risikoscreening vednyttiggørelse og deponering af slagger, Miljøprojektno 203, Danish EPA.

Umweltbundesamt/TNO, 1997. The AtmosphericEmission Inventory of Heavy Metals and PersistentOrganic Pollutants for 1990, Berlin.

UNECE, 1998. ‘Electric Furnace Steel Plant’. Draftchapter of Emission Inventory Guidebook,www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/TFFI/unece.html,August 1998.

3.7. Waste generation and management · 2016. 4. 20. · Waste generation and management 203 3.7....

Documents

Transcript of 3.7. Waste generation and management · 2016. 4. 20. · Waste generation and management 203 3.7....