Waste Code of Practice – ‘one year on’

1. Waste Code of Practice – ‘one year on’ Frank Evans

2. Outline of presentation • Waste Code of Practice: interpretation, lessons learnt, feedback, evolution, next steps • Landowner perspective • Background to Code of Practice (how, why) • Principles and scope of Code • Benefits • Progress • Lessons learnt one year one • Implications for Cluster • Next steps (including Direct Transfer and Fixed Soil Treatment facilities)

3. 1986 1990 1997 1999 2000 2002 2005 Centrica Centrica BG BG Group BG Group British Gas British Gas plc Lattice Power Gen National Grid Transco National Power Nuclear Electric Central Electricity Generating Board National Grid National Grid British Gas Property BG Property Lattice Property SecondSite Property National Grid Property You’ll know us by one name or another!

4. National Grid Perspective - Landowner • Manages environmental risks associated with its gasworks portfolio (both surplus and operational land) and electricity-related sites. • Operates both in UK and US • Historical use of sites • Remediation programme sustained for c.15 years • Sale of surplus property and significant contribution to UK Brownfield regeneration • High % materials re-use in remediation programme • Leading user of remediation technologies

5. What I am talking about

6. CL:AIRE (chair) Environment Agency English Partnerships Industry representative: SAGTA EIC HBF Launched in Sept 2008 England & Wales only Represents the further work cited in 2006 Environment Agency document ‘The Definition of Waste: Developing greenfield and brownfield Sites April 2006’ Field-tested on Cluster pilot project in England Who – When - Where?

7. Why did we need the Code?

8. Hub Site Dundee Gasworks 20,000t 1,000t 15,000t LTTD Treatment Area 6,000t 15,000t Post-treatment validation 1,000t 20,000t 1,000t 5,000t Satellite Site Leven Gasworks First two Cluster sites

9. Scope of CoP: Principle Considerations • Excavated soils – both contaminated and uncontaminated • Risk-based • Does not undermine Waste Framework Directive • Definitive point at which Waste ceases to be waste • Lines of evidence • Suitability • Quantity • Certainty • Materials Management Plan • Review and Declaration by Qualified Person (QP) • Reality recorded via Verification Report on completion • Aligns with CLR11 process

10. Movement as waste Movement as non-waste Existing scope of Code of Practice Re-used on site of origin with out treatment. Site of origin (CLUSTER Donor site) On site Treatment (EP) Re-used on site of origin following treatment CLUSTER Hub site Cluster receiver site

11. Future scope of Code of Practice Re-used on site of origin with out treatment. Site of origin (CLUSTER Donor site) On site Treatment (EP) Re-used on site of origin following treatment CLUSTER Hub site Fixed soil treatment facility Direct transfer and use on another site Cluster receiver site Receiver Site

12. Benefits • Increased re-use of excavated soils with consequential savings on transport miles and natural resources • Waste ceases to be waste before backfilling as opposed after backfilling. • Important when backfilling at another site (e.g. Cluster) • Helps to reduce the ‘blighting’ factor associated with waste licensing • Direct Transfer opportunities have the potential to:- • allow greater flexibility in material reuse • create a step-change in best practice and value-solutions

13. Step Change Step-change in Improvement e.g. Code of Practice Value Continuous improvement e.g. better remediation techniques Quicker analytical methods etc. Time

14. Progress one year on • Training and registration • No. of trained individuals = 220 • No. of registered qualified persons = 70 • Applications • No. of declarations with Environment Agency = 17

15. Reasons for rate of uptake • Lower levels of Construction activity • Exemptions remain as alternative (for the moment) • Waiting for trained individuals to provide services • Others waiting for process to mature before using

16. Lessons learnt one year on • Improvement to format of Materials Management Plan • Number of Frequency Asked Questions (51 no.) • Qualified Person • Cluster • Verification reports • Relevant factors • Aggregates protocol

17. A to B. 4000 m3 for treatment From A. 2000 m3 to landfill B to A. Return 4000 m3 treated for backfill B to A. 2000 m3 of surplus stockpile for backfill C to B. 3000m3 for treatment B. to C. 3000 m3 surplus stockpile for backfill From D. 3000m3 to landfill B to D. 3000 m3 of treated soils (originally from C) What it means for Cluster? Site A Landfill Site B Site D Site C Landfill

18. Constraints to Cluster • Used to be Definition of Waste • Now waste issue largely unlocked • Exchange of materials remains important variation • Direct transfer • Main constraints now • Planning regulations • Perceptions of waste management centres • Inclusion of sites that are not part of a pre-defined Cluster • Multi-landowner contractual arrangements

19. Complexities of Cluster

20. Direct Transfer • Proposals drafted by steering group for consideration by Environment Agency • Similar to re-use at site of origin • Materials meet relevant criteria • Holder of material to be satisfied • Signed declaration from Qualified Person • Either Donor or Receiver site can own process

21. Fixed Soil Treatment Facilities • Could operate as a Cluster site under current CoP but commercially inefficient • Role for operator as holder of the waste • Cease to be waste prior to dispatch • Most efficient if can be producing specification-grade materials • Use Direct Transfer approach in short-term

22. Next steps and concluding thoughts • Direct Transfer and Fixed Soil Treatment Facilities • Use following changes to how exemptions are used • Greater use of Code across sector • Market-development in provision of Qualified Person services • Evolution and integration of material management plans and site waste management plans • Overlaps with other Construction sector activities • Celebrate and build on success • Better regulation. EA engagement. Cross-sector support • Delivering sustainability. Solution not a problem

23. Accessing Code of Practise • CoP is freely available on CL:AIRE website www.claire.co.uk • QP training is offered by CL:AIRE. Contact Kirstie McCulloch cop@claire.co.uk • CL:AIRE maintain register of attendance on QP training. • CL:AIRE is the recognised registration body for QP. • Example of Materials Management Plan to be on www.claire.co.uk • FAQs - EA web site (about code and regulatory position) • FAQs - CL:AIRE web site (generated from training events and steering group re: practical aspects of use of code) Thank you for your attention