Briefing Document: Review of IMPEL Waste Incineration BAT Conclusions Application and Site Visit

Date: October 26, 2024

Subject: Review of findings from the IMPEL Waste Incineration BATc Survey Report and site visits to Veolia's South-East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP) municipal Waste Incinerator and Day Group’s Greenwich Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) treatment plant.

Purpose: This briefing document summarizes the key themes, important ideas, and facts extracted from the provided sources, focusing on the implementation of Best Available Techniques (BAT) Conclusions for Waste Incineration (WI) within IMPEL member countries.

Key Findings & Themes:

The sources highlight the challenges and diverse approaches to implementing the 2019 Waste Incineration BAT Conclusions within IMPEL member countries. A central theme is the transition from existing permits to aligning with the new, more stringent BAT-Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs) by the 2024 deadline. The practical application of BATs for emission control, energy efficiency, and circular economy principles, particularly regarding bottom ash, are also prominent topics.

1. Implementation of Waste Incineration BAT Conclusions (Based on Survey Report):

• IMPEL's Role: IMPEL, the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law, is an international non-profit association of environmental authorities. Funded by the European Commission, its objective is to ensure more effective application of environmental legislation. The survey is part of the Waste Incineration subgroup's work to develop practical tools for inspectors and permit writers.
• Survey Scope and Methodology: The survey aimed to capture the practical implementation of WI BAT Conclusions based on the experience and knowledge of experts, permit writers, and inspectors within the IMPEL network. Respondents were asked to provide information on Waste Incineration plants they are involved with, covering various aspects from general information to specific BATs.
• Permit Renewal Status: A significant number of responses indicated that permit renewal processes to incorporate the new BATCs were "Ongoing" or "Still to start" at the time of the survey circulation. This underscores the ongoing challenge of meeting the 2024 deadline.
• Emission Limit Value (ELV) Setting: The survey revealed a tendency to set ELVs towards the upper limit of the BAT-AEL range.
• According to the report, "To the question about ELVs setting, most responses have been 'At the upper limit'."
• Reasons for this approach included the applicability of BAT for existing plants (considering lack of space, cost-benefit analysis) and that ELVs set in IED (Industrial Emissions Directive) permits are often higher than BAT-AELs.
• Conversely, a smaller percentage of responses indicated setting ELVs "In the middle" or "At the lower limit."
• Other Than Normal Operating Conditions (OTNOC): The management of OTNOCs is a critical issue. The survey explored what is considered an OTNOC and whether ELVs are set during these periods.
• Commonly cited OTNOCs include "Plant failure" and "Failure of the air fans or induced draft fans."
• A significant percentage of respondents (53%) indicated that "ELVs are NOT set" during OTNOC, while others (29%) set ELVs for all pollutants and a smaller group (18%) for some.
• The report notes that "BAT 5 points attention to the OTNOC monitoring to carry out by direct emission measurements (e.g. for the pollutants that are monitored continuously) or by monitoring of surrogate parameters if this proves to be of equivalent or better scientific quality than direct emission measurements."
• The format of OTNOC management plans was not widely available at the time of the survey.
• NOx Abatement: SNCR (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction) and SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) were the most common NOx abatement techniques reported.
• The report states, "The most adopted NOx abatement technique has shown that most plants have installed SNCR; none has combination SNCR and SCR."
• A notable finding is that "For many plants reaching BAT AEL for NOX will be a challenge" and that "SNCR can’t reach the middle level of BAT‐AEL range." This suggests potential future upgrades may be necessary to meet stricter limits.
• Acid Gases Abatement: Dry sorbent injection was the most frequently adopted technique. The report mentions its advantages (no water consumption, less wastewater) but also notes that "it can be not optimal to reach the lowest limits." The potential shift towards wet scrubbers for more stringent limits (like mercury) is also highlighted.
• Continuous Monitoring (Dioxins and Mercury): The survey revealed variations in the implementation of continuous monitoring for dioxins (PCDD/F) and mercury.
• For dioxins, the percentage of plants with continuous monitoring "Already in place" (37%) was equal to those "Not in place neither prescribed within 2023."
• For mercury, a higher percentage were "To be prescribed within 2023" (47%) compared to those "Already in place" (37%).
• The rationale for not installing long-term sampling often centered on "proven low and stable content."
• The report notes that the application of BAT 30 (Dioxins) and BAT 31 (Mercury) represents an "on-going challenge" for most cases, with a significant percentage reporting "not installed neither prescribed" continuous systems.
• Energy Efficiency (BAT AEEL): Energy efficiency is identified as a "real challenge" for waste incineration. While a high percentage of respondents considered BAT AEEL mandatory (63%), a notable portion did not (37%).
• The report observes that the approach to BAT AEEL "is based on the difference between BAT AEEL (which IED provisions consider explicitly as mandatory) and Associated Energy Efficiency Levels, which can be seen as a target to reach."
• The application of BAT 19 (heat recovery boiler) and BAT 20 (increasing energy efficiency) were explored.
• Derogations: A small percentage of responses indicated that derogations had been allowed, primarily for emissions to air. Specific details regarding the pollutants and allowed ELVs were provided in some cases.
• Circularity: Circular economy principles are addressed through measures to reduce water usage/wastewater generation and to treat/recycle slags and bottom ashes.
• The widespread use of dry abatement systems contributes to reduced wastewater generation.
• Treatment and recycling of slags and bottom ashes are predominantly carried out off-site. Common practices include metal recovery, producing secondary aggregates, valorization in cement kilns, or landfilling.

2. Site Visit Findings (Based on Site Visit Report):

• Veolia SELCHP (Municipal WI):Waste Acceptance: Visual inspection, weighing of deliveries were standard. Radioactivity detection was noted as not being practiced, justified by the UK's regulatory system for radioactive sources.
• Operations: Dealing with nitrous oxide cylinders in waste was highlighted as a challenge causing damage to the furnace. Waste blending and mixing prior to incineration were noted.
• Energy Recovery: Significant electricity generation and heat export to a district heating network were observed. Plans to expand the district heating network further illustrate the focus on energy efficiency.
• Dust Emissions: IBA is quenched in water and stored inside a building, minimizing dust risk.
• Wastewater Treatment: Notably, there is "no waste water treatment plant at the incinerator because all of the water from the process is reused in the IBA quenching process."
• Bottom Ash Management: Ash is sampled for TOC (Total Organic Carbon). After quenching, ferrous metals are recovered on-site, and the ash is sent off-site for further metal recovery and production of aggregate for construction.
• Flue Gas Cleaning: Bag Filter, Semi-wet absorber, and SNCR were the abatement systems in place.
• Monitoring: Real-time emission levels are displayed in the control room.
• Continuous Monitoring (UK Approach): The UK adopts a flexible approach, allowing operators to "not have to carry out continuous monitoring if they can demonstrate that their emissions of dioxins are always below the periodic monitoring limit, and their mercury emissions are below 10 µg/m3." This contrasts with mandatory continuous monitoring in many other EU countries.
• Public Perception: WI remains controversial in the UK and Europe, though considered a better option for climate change than landfill.
• Permit Compliance: The incinerator permit was described as comprehensive and detailed, incorporating BAT.
• Day Group IBA Treatment Plant:IBA Source: Processes bottom ash from the SELCHP plant.
• Dust Control: Good dust control systems were observed, including covered conveyors and water sprays, and ensuring sufficient moisture content in the ash.
• Metal Recovery: The plant utilizes screening, sieving, crushing, aeraulic separation, magnetic separation (ferrous), and eddy current separation (non-ferrous). Recent investment in additional eddy-current separation has proven economically beneficial.
• Ageing and Washing: Ageing processes (carbonation, draining, oxidation) are used, often with wetting to optimize moisture and prevent dust. Washing is used to reduce leachability of soluble substances.
• End-of-Waste Status: The possibility of the treated aggregate achieving end-of-waste status in the UK was discussed.
• Circular Economy: The plant contributes to the circular economy by recovering metals and producing recycled aggregates from IBA.

3. Challenges and Suggestions:

Both sources highlight critical points and suggestions for future work:

• Critical Points in BATC Implementation:Clarity and implementation of OTNOC management plans.
• Verifying the reliability of energy efficiency data provided by operators.
• Developing tools to evaluate "proven low and stable Hg content."
• Finding effective solutions for bottom ashes and slags.
• Addressing inconsistencies/differences between IED and BAT.
• Suggested Practical Tools:Templates for OTNOC management plans.
• Self-monitoring plans.
• Checklists for inspectors.
• Reports on uniform BAT adoption and interpretation in permits.

Overall Conclusions:

The implementation of the 2019 Waste Incineration BAT Conclusions presents a complex landscape across IMPEL member countries. While progress is being made, particularly in areas like energy recovery and circularity, challenges remain in fully aligning existing plants with the new BAT-AELs by the 2024 deadline. Variations in permit setting approaches and the implementation of continuous monitoring for dioxins and mercury highlight areas for further harmonization and guidance development.

The site visits provided valuable practical insights into the application of BATs in real-world settings, showcasing both successful implementations (e.g., wastewater reuse at SELCHP, effective metal recovery at Day Group) and ongoing challenges (e.g., NOx reduction at older plants, dealing with problematic waste). The UK's approach to continuous monitoring, based on demonstrated low emissions, represents a different perspective compared to mandatory requirements elsewhere.

The identified critical points and suggested practical tools underscore the need for continued collaboration and knowledge exchange within the IMPEL network to support inspectors and permit writers in achieving effective and consistent implementation of the WI BAT Conclusions. The project's focus on self-monitoring requirements and developing practical tools is crucial for addressing these challenges.

Next Steps:

• Further analysis of the survey data to identify specific areas requiring guidance.
• Development of practical tools based on the suggestions from the survey respondents.
• Facilitating workshops and knowledge exchange events to share best practices and address implementation challenges.
• Considering the insights from the site visits to inform guidance development, particularly regarding OTNOC management, continuous monitoring approaches, and circular economy aspects of IBA.

Briefing Document: Review of IMPEL's Risk-Based Waste Inspection Plan (2022-2024)

This briefing document summarizes the key themes, important ideas, and significant facts presented in the provided excerpt from the IMPEL report "2022-24iiiwg9-wmce-risk-based-inspection-plan-waste (1).pdf".

Title: Minimum Content Risk Based Waste Inspection Plan

Date of Report: 31/12/2024

Project Manager/Authors: Romano Ruggeri, Horst Buether, Manuel Salgado, Andoni Martinez, Marta Rovira, Ramon Corretger, Renata Miletic.

Adopted: By written procedure on 20/03/2025

Main Themes and Important Ideas:

1. Strategic and Risk-Based Approach to Waste Inspections: The central theme of the report is the necessity of a strategic, planned, and risk-based approach to environmental inspections at waste treatment facilities. This is driven by the requirements of EU legislation, particularly Recommendation 331/2001/EC and Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework Directive - WFD) as amended by Directive 2018/851. The report states that "an effective and efficient inspection system can derive exclusively from strategic planning. It defines the reference context, the priorities, the objectives and available resources." The report defines a "minimum content Inspection Plan" that can serve as a blueprint for inspection bodies.
2. Compliance with EU Legislation: The report directly addresses the obligations set forth in EU environmental law.

• Recommendation 331/2001/EC: This recommendation establishes minimum criteria for environmental inspections, emphasizing the need for publicly accessible inspection plans and periodic inspections. The report explicitly states that the plan is prepared "in accordance with the requirements defined in the Recommendation... which establishes minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States".
• Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD): Article 34 mandates "appropriate periodic inspections by the competent authorities" for establishments carrying out waste treatment operations. The report highlights that its plan "declines the objective of the above mentioned Article 34 of the WFD delegated to the Inspection Body."
• Directive 2018/851 (amending WFD): Recital 17 emphasizes ensuring that waste that has ceased to be waste (End-of-Waste - EoW) complies with Union law and prioritizes inspection of waste streams posing higher risk, innovative recovery processes, and waste recovered for use in other Member States. The report incorporates these priorities into its risk assessment methodology.

1. Integration of Inspection Activities with Planning and Prevention: The report advocates for a new approach based on the "integration between planning of inspection activities, prevention activities and from the awareness that an effective and efficient inspection system can derive exclusively from strategic planning." This implies a shift from reactive responses to a proactive strategy aimed at preventing environmental violations.
2. The Planning Cycle of Environmental Inspections: The report outlines a four-stage planning cycle:

• Planning: Drafting the inspection plan, defining objectives and priorities, and gathering information. Risk assessment is crucial at this stage to determine inspection frequency.
• Execution of inspections: Implementing routine and non-routine inspections using established tools and procedures.
• Reporting: Preparing reports on inspection results and storing them in an accessible database.
• Evaluation: Verifying the achievement of objectives using indicators and making necessary adjustments to the plan.

1. Risk Assessment as a Prioritization Tool: A core element of the plan is the systematic environmental risk assessment to prioritize inspection activities. The report states, "One of the main issues of the inspection planning is risk assessment." The primary goal of risk assessment is "to set the frequency of site visits at waste treatment facilities by the Inspection Body." This ensures that limited resources are directed to facilities with the highest potential environmental risks.
2. The Integrated Risk Assessment Method (IRAM): The report adopts and adapts the IRAM methodology, developed within the IMPEL network, for risk assessment at waste recycling installations. IRAM defines risk as a function of the severity of the consequence (effect) and the probability.

• Impact Criteria: These measure the potential impact of the source (facility) on the receptor (environment/human health). Examples include facility type, evidence of incidents, quantity of waste input (Hazardous and Non-Hazardous), transfrontier shipment of waste, sensitivity of the surrounding environment, social perception, and emissions to the environment. The report notes that these criteria are based on the priorities defined in Recital 17 of Directive 2018/851.
• Performance (or probability) Criteria: These measure the likelihood that an impact may occur and consider factors like compliance with permit requirements, presence of an Environmental Management System (EMS), and the attitude of the operator.
• Methodology Principles: Inspection frequency is determined by the highest score achieved in impact criteria, adjusted based on operator performance.

1. Defining Inspection Frequencies Based on Risk: The risk assessment results are used to assign facilities to different risk classes (high, medium, low) and determine the frequency of routine inspections. The report provides a proposed definition of frequencies, suggesting different approaches for each risk class (e.g., on-site inspections every 1-3 years for high-risk, every 4-5 years for medium-risk, and primarily non-routine for low-risk facilities, potentially relying on self-assessment questionnaires).
2. Strategy for Promoting Compliance: The report suggests a multi-faceted strategy beyond just on-site inspections, including:

• Analyzing questionnaires from operators.
• Periodically analyzing self-monitoring data and reports.
• On-site inspections.
• Technical meetings with operators.
• Sending self-assessment questionnaires to operators.

1. Key Environmental Issues (KEIs): The report recognizes that not all environmental issues at a waste facility have the same relevance. Identifying KEIs can help simplify inspections and improve efficiency by focusing on the most relevant aspects. Examples of KEIs mentioned include fire risk from storing certain waste types, odours and biological contamination from organic waste, atmospheric pollution from incineration, and soil/water contamination and leachate from landfills.
2. Accountability by Operators: The report emphasizes the importance of operator accountability and proposes building upon good self-monitoring and reporting practices. Operators should be required to collaborate by sending regular Self-Assessment Questionnaires and compliance reports, preferably through on-line applications. This data can be used to update IRAM calculations, evaluate environmental performance, and focus inspection efforts. The report also suggests classifying operator behavior and considering aggravating circumstances when non-compliance is detected.
3. Objectives and Targets: The report sets out both short/medium-term internal objectives for the inspection body (e.g., ensuring routine and non-routine inspections, performing sampling, improving inspector skills) and general medium/long-term objectives (e.g., decreasing waste sent for disposal, increasing compliance, decreasing accidents). These objectives are intended to be measurable through indicators and targets.
4. Performance Monitoring and Plan Review: The report highlights the importance of systematically monitoring input, output, and outcome indicators annually to assess the achievement of goals and identify areas for improvement. The plan is to be reviewed annually.
5. Information Management: A robust information management system is deemed necessary to store inspection data, facilitate communication with other bodies and the public, and track follow-up actions.
6. Training Needs: The report recognizes the need for continuous training for environmental inspectors to ensure homogeneity and development of knowledge and skills in areas such as reporting violations, enforcement, sampling, waste categories, End-of-Waste, and safety protocols.

Key Facts and Data:

• The report provides a framework for a Waste Inspection Plan covering a specific geographical area and time period (e.g., a region for xxxx years, from 1/1/20yy to 31/12/20zz).
• The plan covers "all waste treatment facilities/specific facilities" in the territory, requiring an official list and mapping of these facilities (Annex I).
• Human resources available for inspection activities need to be quantified (days/months/% of time).
• The report lists various instrumental resources needed for inspections, including laboratories, IT applications, sampling equipment, drones, vehicles, and PPE.
• The IRAM methodology utilizes scoring for both impact and performance criteria (ranging from 0 to 5 for impact and -1 to 1 for performance). Examples of evaluation grids are provided in Annex III.
• Annex II details the results of the risk assessment, showing the distribution of facilities into high, medium, and low-risk categories and the resulting inspection frequency (in months). The total number of facilities in each risk category is to be quantified.
• The proposed inspection frequencies vary by risk class (high: every 1-3 years, medium: every 4-5 years, low: only non-routine, potentially with self-assessment every three years). Annual self-reporting is suggested for low-risk facilities.
• The report suggests annual targets for various input, output, and outcome indicators, emphasizing a declining trend for non-compliances, actions taken due to non-compliances, accidents, and exposures, and an increasing trend for facilities in full compliance with BAT and waste recovery percentages.

In conclusion, this IMPEL report provides a comprehensive framework for developing a risk-based inspection plan for waste treatment facilities in Europe. It emphasizes the legal basis for inspections, the importance of strategic planning and risk assessment using the IRAM methodology, and the need for clear objectives, targets, performance monitoring, and continuous improvement. The report aims to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental enforcement in the waste sector and promote compliance with EU environmental legislation.

Briefing Document: IMPEL By-Product Final Report

Date: October 26, 2023

Subject: Review of IMPEL report on By-Products and Industrial Symbiosis

Purpose: This briefing document summarizes the key themes, ideas, and facts presented in the provided excerpts of the IMPEL report on by-products, focusing on the assessment of by-product status, cross-border shipments, and the role of industrial symbiosis within the EU environmental regulatory framework.

Key Findings and Themes:

The report, a result of an IMPEL network project, provides guidance and insights into the practical application of the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) regarding the definition and treatment of by-products. It highlights the importance of correctly classifying materials as either waste or by-products, the challenges faced by Member States in this assessment, and the potential for industrial symbiosis to facilitate the use of by-products.

1. IMPEL's Role and Context:

• IMPEL (International Network for Environmental Law) is an international non-profit association of European environmental authorities.
• Established in 1992 as an informal network, IMPEL plays a significant role in the implementation and enforcement of environmental law, being referenced in key EU policy documents like the 8th Environment Action Programme and the Zero Pollution Action Plan.
• The network's expertise in technical and regulatory aspects of EU environmental legislation makes it uniquely qualified to address the complexities of by-product classification and use.

2. Assessing By-Product Status (Article 5 WFD):

• The core of the report revolves around the assessment of production residues to determine if they qualify as by-products under Article 5(1) of the WFD. This is crucial because materials classified as by-products are not considered waste and are therefore exempt from waste legislation.
• A production residue is defined as a substance or object resulting from a production process whose primary aim is not the production of that substance or object. Examples of excluded materials include asphalt from road renewal and residues from green area maintenance, as these are not considered results of a "production process" in this context.
• To be considered a by-product, all four cumulative conditions outlined in Article 5(1) must be met:
• (a) Further use of the substance or object is certain: This condition emphasizes that the use must be guaranteed, not just a possibility. Indefinite storage awaiting potential future use indicates the material is likely waste. Evidence for certainty of use includes existence of acceptance contracts, a solid market, purchase agreements, and financial gain for the producer. As the report states, "the usage of the material has to be guaranteed and should not be a mere possibility but a certainty." The possibility of only a portion of the produced material being used, with the rest disposed of, can indicate the material could be regarded as waste, though some countries allow for this (e.g., Portugal and Italy).
• (b) The substance or object can be used directly without any further processing other than normal industrial practice: This condition allows for minor pre-treatment that is part of "normal industrial practice," which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Examples of acceptable practices include crushing of blast furnace slag for road construction and certain treatments of excavated soil and stone. Activities like drying, sorting, screening, and grinding that do not alter the material's identity or quality are generally considered normal industrial practice. Waste treatment activities, such as anaerobic digestion of waste, are not considered "normal industrial practice" in this context.
• (c) The substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production process: This condition emphasizes that the production of the by-product must be linked to the main production process, not a separate waste treatment operation. Factors to consider include how integrated the preparation tasks are within the main process and whether these tasks are part of "normal industrial practice." The example of raw glycerine from biodiesel production is provided as a substance that accrues as a residual product of a side process, potentially qualifying as a by-product.
• (d) Further use is lawful and will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts: This condition is identified as posing the most problems in practice. It requires compliance with all relevant legislation, product standards, and quality standards for the specific use. Additionally, it mandates that the use will not cause overall adverse environmental or human health impacts that may not be explicitly regulated. The report suggests comparing the impact of using the by-product to using primary raw materials.
• Member States have adopted various procedures for assessing by-product status, including operator self-assessment with competent authority verification (45% of respondents), prior permit/authorisation procedures (31%), and other procedures (17%). A small percentage (6%) relies solely on self-assessment.
• Despite the need for clear criteria, relatively few national or regional guidelines or criteria for by-products exist. Countries with guidelines on assessing/verifying by-product status include England, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden, and Wales. Even fewer countries have specific criteria for certain materials in legislation or guidance documents.
• The report provides a "Practical Tool on Providing Information to Demonstrate By-Product Status" in Annex I, which acts as a checklist for inspectors or permit writers to assess compliance with the WFD conditions. This tool outlines specific information to be checked and documents to be presented by the producer/owner of the material.

3. Cross-Border Shipments of By-Products:

• The classification of a material as waste or by-product has significant implications for cross-border shipments within and outside the EU, which are governed by the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR).
• If a material is considered waste, its shipment is subject to the WSR, involving notification and consent procedures, particularly for shipments to non-EU countries, where rules are more stringent and align with the Basel Convention.
• If a material is classified as a by-product, it is not subject to the WSR. However, differences in interpretation and classification between Member States can lead to market distortions, where the same material may be treated differently when shipped across borders.
• Challenges arise when shipping by-products to countries outside the EU, as the concept of by-products may not be well-defined or accepted in the destination country. IMPEL members report the need to confirm the destination authority's acceptance of the material as a by-product before shipment.
• Examples are provided of situations where materials considered by-products in one Member State are classified as waste in another, leading to complications under the WSR. Issues can also arise with shipments of materials claimed to be by-products but which contain high levels of contaminants, leading to administrative and legal issues.

4. The Use of By-Products and Industrial Symbiosis:

• The report highlights the link between the use of by-products and the concept of industrial symbiosis, where by-products from one industry serve as resources in another. As Recital 16 of the WFD states, "In order to promote sustainable use of resources and industrial symbiosis, Member States should take appropriate measures to facilitate the recognition as a by-product of a substance or an object resulting from a production process the primary aim of which is not the production of that substance or object if the harmonised conditions established at Union level are respected."
• Industrial symbiosis contributes to resource efficiency and the circular economy by facilitating the use of materials that might otherwise be considered waste.
• Examples of successful industrial symbiosis initiatives are showcased, including the Resource Park at the Reykjanes geothermal plant in Iceland, where various companies utilize the plant's resources and by-products.
• While there is no specific EU policy on Industrial Symbiosis, the concept is promoted through initiatives like the EU4Environment Action and at Member State and regional levels. The Port of Amsterdam is highlighted for its active role in guiding and promoting the circular economy through strategic land allocation and management.
• Regulatory challenges for industrial symbiosis include dealing with multiple operators and legal entities involved in a symbiosis, and assigning responsibility for non-compliance. The concept of a "dome" permit or umbrella permit is mentioned as a potential solution.
• Recommendations are made for promoting the by-product status and industrial symbiosis, including the development of European or national criteria for specific materials and the inclusion of provisions for by-products in integrated permits.

5. Challenges and Future Needs:

• Regulators face challenges in assessing the "certainty of use" condition, particularly when materials are stored temporarily or sent to intermediaries.
• Condition (d) regarding lawfulness and environmental/human health impacts is identified as the most problematic in practice, requiring careful assessment of potential risks beyond existing regulations.
• The lack of uniform application of by-product criteria across Member States creates inconsistencies and potential market distortions.
• There is a clear need for further guidance on assessing by-product status, confirming earlier expressed needs within the IMPEL network.

Significant Quotes:

• "The expertise and experience of the participants within IMPEL make the network uniquely qualified to work on both technical and regulatory aspects of EU environmental legislation."
• "In order to promote sustainable use of resources and industrial symbiosis, Member States should take appropriate measures to facilitate the recognition as a by-product of a substance or an object resulting from a production process the primary aim of which is not the production of that substance or object if the harmonised conditions established at Union level are respected." (Recital 16, WFD)
• "It is the responsibility of the producer/owner to check prior to the actual use whether the production residue concerned meets all the conditions of article 5 WFD."
• "If a residue meets the conditions for by-product status... it is exempted and has never been a waste."
• "Condition d has two elements: further use is lawful and further use will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts."
• "the usage of the material has to be guaranteed and should not be a mere possibility but a certainty."
• "Depending on the opinion of the competent authorities of dispatch and reception, the same material might be shipped with or without the administrative burdens of a notification... or with or without a contract and an identification form..."
• "The concept of by-products does not seem to be well defined outside the EU."
• "From the answers it was clear that condition d poses most of the problems."

Conclusion:

The IMPEL report provides a valuable overview of the complexities surrounding the assessment and use of by-products within the EU regulatory framework. It highlights the importance of consistently applying the WFD conditions and the challenges posed by varying interpretations and procedures across Member States. The report underscores the potential of industrial symbiosis as a key driver for the circular economy and emphasizes the need for further guidance and potentially harmonized criteria to facilitate the recognition and utilization of by-products. The practical tool provided in the annex offers a concrete step towards improving the consistency and rigor of by-product assessments by competent authorities.

Briefing Document: IMPEL Practical Tools for Waste Incineration IED Implementation

Date of Report: 31.12.2024

Purpose: This briefing document provides a summary of the key themes, ideas, and facts presented in the IMPEL report on practical tools for implementing the Best Available Techniques (BAT) Conclusions for Waste Incineration (WI) under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). It highlights the challenges faced by regulators and the tools developed to address them.

Key Themes:

• Need for Practical Guidance: The report emphasizes the widespread need for practical guidance for permit writers and inspectors to effectively implement BAT Conclusions for waste incineration. The application of these conclusions in IED permits presents a significant challenge for regulators.
• Development of Practical Tools: The IMPEL Waste Incineration subgroup has developed two key practical tools: a Self-Monitoring Plan (with an associated Report template) and a Checklist for Inspectors. These tools aim to assist regulators in setting monitoring provisions and preparing for inspections focused on BAT implementation.
• Standardization and Data Collection: The report promotes standardization in monitoring and reporting by providing detailed templates and referencing relevant EN and ISO standards. The Self-Monitoring Report aims to synthesize operator data for easy comparison across different WI plants.
• Importance of Environmental Management Systems (EMS): The report highlights that a robust EMS is a preliminary condition for operators to comply with monitoring plan requirements. This EMS should include programs for monitoring, emission management, waste stream management, residue management, and evaluation of non-compliances.
• BAT Implementation Focus: The developed tools and the inspector checklist are directly based on the WI BAT Conclusions, covering various aspects of environmental performance, including monitoring, general performance, energy efficiency, emissions to air and water, material efficiency, and noise.

Most Important Ideas and Facts:

• IMPEL's Role: IMPEL (European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law) is an international non-profit association that facilitates cooperation and exchange among environmental authorities to ensure effective application of environmental legislation. IMPEL's expertise is crucial in developing practical tools for implementing complex legislation like the IED and its BAT Conclusions. The report notes that IMPEL "is an international non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the European Union (EU) Member States, and of other European authorities... The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in the European Community to make progress on ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation."
• Target Audience: The practical tools are specifically designed for "inspectors and permit writers" to aid them in "setting monitoring provisions according to BATc and in the preparation phase of an inspection focussed on BAT proper implementation."
• Structure of the Tools:Self-Monitoring Plan: This document provides guidelines for operators, outlining "what the operator must do" based on WI BAT or permit provisions for various parameters like plant information, incoming waste, energy, raw materials, water usage, emissions to air and water, waste management, and noise.
• Self-Monitoring Report: This serves as a template "synthesizing all data gathered by the operator during the ‘reference year’ in compliance with BATc and permit requirements." It uses a datasheet format with tables corresponding to the monitoring plan elements, facilitating data submission and comparison.
• Checklist for Inspectors: This document provides guidelines for inspectors, listing the specific BAT Conclusions to be verified for each item. It includes a customizable on-site inspection template.
• Preliminary Conditions for Operators: Operators must implement an EMS that includes key elements such as:
• A monitoring and measurement program.
• A Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) Management Manual.
• Waste stream management.
• A residues management plan.

• Evaluation and correction of non-compliances. The EMS is an "internal document describing operations" for data collection, monitoring campaigns, and sample handling/analysis.
• Operator Responsibility: The plant operator is ultimately responsible for implementing the Monitoring Plan provisions, even if external parties perform monitoring activities.
• Inspector's Preliminary Activities: Before an on-site inspection, inspectors should perform crucial preliminary activities:
• Analyze the permit, especially "tailored permits."
• Review the operator's EMS, including waste stream management, CEMS Manual, and corrective actions.
• Identify critical points in the plant. These steps "enhance inspection effectiveness and focus."
• Detailed Monitoring Parameters: The report provides detailed tables outlining parameters to be monitored for air emissions, water emissions, and residues, along with suggested frequencies and standards. For example, Table 8 lists parameters for air emissions including CO, CO2, NH3, TOC, NOX, N2O, SOX, HCl, HF, Dust, Metals (Sb, As, Tl, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Co, Se, Sn, Zn, V, Mn), Dioxins/Furans (PCDD/F), PAHs, PCBs, and Mercury (Hg). Table 13 does the same for water emissions.
• BAT Implementation Checklist Sections: The inspector checklist is structured around the BAT Conclusions, covering key areas: Environmental management systems (BAT 1), Monitoring (BATs 2-8), General environmental and combustion performance (BATs 9-18), Energy efficiency (BATs 19-20), Emissions to air (BATs 21- 31), Emissions to water (BATs 32-34), Material efficiency (BATs 35-36), and Noise (BAT 37).
• Non-Compliance Reporting: The report explicitly states that "Non compliances and other communications related to non-compliance fall outside the scope of this document. Operators must notify authorities separately when such issues arise." However, the Self-Monitoring Report template includes sections to record the "Number or % of breaches" for continuous air emissions and water emissions, and a "Table of breaches" to document details like date, measured concentration, and actions taken.

Conclusion:

The IMPEL report "BATc on Waste Incineration: practical tools" highlights the challenges in implementing the IED's BAT Conclusions for waste incineration. The report addresses this by providing concrete, practical tools – a Self-Monitoring Plan/Report and an Inspector Checklist – to assist regulators and operators. These tools emphasize standardized monitoring, comprehensive data collection, and a strong focus on verifying the implementation of specific BATs across various environmental aspects of waste incineration plants. The report underscores the importance of an effective EMS as a foundation for successful monitoring and compliance.

Briefing Document: Integrating Circular Economy Principles within IED Permits

Date of Report: 31/12/2024

Purpose of this Briefing: This document provides a summary and analysis of the key themes, ideas, and facts presented in the provided excerpts of the IMPEL guidance report on integrating circular economy principles within Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permits.

1. Overview and Objectives of the Guidance:

The core purpose of this guidance document is to assist environmental regulators in the European Union (EU) and associated countries in aligning the requirements of IED permits with circular economy principles and effectively measuring performance. The document is intended for a broad audience including regulators, permit writers, installation inspectors, and local policymakers.

• Key Statement of Purpose: The guide aims to "help regulators incorporate provisions for self-monitoring plans and reports in the 'new IED circular permits.'" These reports should contain information to monitor circularity using tools like a circularity index. The document serves as a basis for decision-making, setting conditions, and enabling operators to achieve circularity targets.
• Target Audience: The guidance is explicitly aimed at "regulators, permit writers, installation inspections. Local policy makers will gain from reviewing this document as it provides a step-by-step review of the implementation questions that regulators and industry need to consider."

2. Regulatory Background and Drivers:

The integration of circular economy principles into IED permits is driven by a comprehensive set of EU environmental strategies and legislation. The guidance highlights the interconnectedness of these policies, emphasizing that improving industrial material use is a top priority for Europe.

• European Green Deal: Approved in 2020, this overarching strategy aims to make the EU climate neutral by 2050. It explicitly "advocates for the implementation of a circular economy, where resources are used more efficiently, and waste is reduced."
• Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP): A "fundamental part of the European Green Deal," the CEAP's main objective is to "transform how the European Union's economy handles resources by promoting sustainability and efficiency." This involves reducing waste and encouraging recycling and reuse across key sectors.
• Zero Pollution Action Plan: This plan contributes to the broader goal of reducing environmental impact and promoting sustainability.
• New Industrial Strategy: This strategy supports the transition to a circular economy by fostering innovation and competitiveness in sustainable industrial practices.
• Relevant EU Legislation: The guidance references several key directives and regulations that provide the legal framework and further impetus for circular economy integration, including the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Directive on Packaging Waste, Ecodesign Directive, and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The CSRD, effective January 5, 2023, is significant for expanding sustainability reporting requirements for a wider range of companies. The Critical Raw Material Act (CRMA) is also highlighted for its role in securing access to essential materials for clean technologies.

3. Integrating Circular Economy Principles within IED Permits:

The guidance explores both the existing "hooks" within the current IED framework for integrating circular economy principles and identifies areas where further integration is needed.

• Direct Measures in IED: The revised IED is aligning with broader EU strategies (Green Deal, CEAP, Zero Pollution). It recognizes the strategic importance of the extractive industry, particularly metals, for the green and digital transitions. Key direct measures include the requirement for operators to establish and implement Environmental Management Systems (EMS) that focus on improving environmental performance, preventing waste, optimizing resource and water use, and managing hazardous substances. Permits should also include monitoring requirements for resource consumption and reuse.
• Indirect Measures and Contextual Integration: The guidance suggests incorporating circular economy considerations into various aspects of the permitting process, including application review, permit writing, and the role of EMS.
• The Circular Plan: A crucial element proposed is the inclusion of a "Circular plan as part of the IED application." This plan should outline the operator's approach to circularity across various aspects of their operations and products. Annex I provides a detailed structure for the content of such a plan, covering activities, regulatory background, EMS, and specific circular economy elements related to production process, product end of life, waste production, and decommissioning.
• Key Content of Circular Plan: The plan should include "a detailed description of the activities carried out within the installation including process flow diagrams," and outline material and energy inputs and outputs. It should also detail the "Environmental Management System in place... clearly demonstrate how the EMS in-place considers circularity." Specific elements to address include raw materials (with a focus on secondary raw materials and minimizing substances of very high concern), product design (emphasizing durability, repairability, and recyclability), industrial symbiosis opportunities, product end-of-life strategies (including take-back services and minimizing packaging waste), waste minimization and management according to the waste hierarchy, and decommissioning plans that prioritize reuse and repurposing of materials and equipment.

4. The Role of the Environmental Management System (EMS):

The guidance emphasizes the critical role of the EMS in achieving circular economy goals within IED installations. While ISO 14001 is presented as a standard consistent with this, the guidance outlines specific items to be considered within an EMS to address circularity.

• EMS Requirements: An EMS should include "a chemicals inventory of the hazardous substances present in or emitted from the installation, as well as measures to prevent the generation of waste and optimise resource and energy use and water reuse."
• Achieving Circular Economy Goals through EMS: The guidance lists specific themes for the EMS to consider, such as limiting primary raw material use, increasing the use of sustainable primary and secondary materials, designing products for circularity, implementing resource and waste management plans, and inventorying resource consumption.

5. Assessing Circular Economy Performance: A Circular Index:

A significant contribution of the guidance is the development of a "Circularity Index" for IED installations. This index provides a methodology for quantifying and evaluating the circular performance of individual installations.

• Purpose of the Index: The index aims to make circularity performance "transparent and quantifiable," enabling shared improvement pathways and benchmarking.
• Methodology: Inspired by standards like UNI/TS 11820, the index uses a rating system, typically on a scale of 0-100, to evaluate circularity. It adopts a holistic approach, considering the entire product life cycle. The methodology involves defining Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), collecting evidence, normalizing data, assigning weights, calculating the index, and interpreting the results.
• Key Performance Indicator Categories: The guidance proposes seven categories of KPIs: Environmental Management, Energy and Resource Consumption, Emissions, Waste and By-products, Product Design, Supply Chain and Logistics, and Policy and Social Impact.
• Applications of the CE Index:For Permit Writers: The index can be used to "assess whether proposed installations or process modifications align with CE principles," "identify specific circular economy targets for inclusion as permit conditions," and "require operators to track and report CE metrics." It can also help in customizing requirements by sector and supporting the transition to circularity by mandating progressive improvements.
• For IED Inspectors: The index facilitates "Monitoring and Verification" of permit conditions and helps in "Identifying Non-Compliance" by providing clear criteria for deviations from circular economy requirements.
• Advantages of Using the CE Index: These include providing data-driven decisions, allowing for progress tracking over time, and aligning with IED goals of resource efficiency and waste minimization.
• Limitations: The guidance notes that the Circularity Index is "not suitable for direct comparison across different types of installations" due to variations in processes and resource requirements. It is most effective for comparisons within the same category of installations or for tracking an installation's performance over time.

6. IED Implementation: The Role of Inspectors:

Environmental inspectors are crucial in implementing circular economy principles within the IED framework.

• Key Responsibilities: Inspectors are tasked with assessing raw materials, evaluating transformation plans, verifying adherence to circular economy principles (including checking design plans for recyclability, waste minimization efforts, and review of feedback loops), and leveraging EMS data.

7. Recommendations for Policymakers, Regulatory Authorities, and Industrial Stakeholders:

The guidance offers recommendations for various stakeholders to promote circular economy practices within IED compliance.

• Importance of Government and Regulatory Involvement: Governments and regulatory authorities play a vital role in promoting circular economy practices through policy, regulation, and collaboration.
• Strategies for Collaboration: Fostering collaboration between industrial operators, regulatory authorities, and other stakeholders (knowledge institutes, financial organizations, trade unions, NGOs) is essential. Examples of strategies include establishing multi-stakeholder platforms, providing incentives for partnerships, and promoting industrial symbiosis.
• Policy and Regulatory Recommendations: Specific recommendations for policy and regulation include requiring inventories of resource use in permits, analysing sustainability reports for their focus on circularity, and integrating circular economy policies with waste emission reductions. Stimulation measures include debating resource availability and costs with businesses to encourage circular practices, especially concerning critical raw materials.

8. Case Studies and Best Practices:

The guidance includes several case studies to illustrate successful implementations of circular economy principles in industrial settings. These examples highlight practical applications such as:

• Reuse of concrete in steel and cement production.
• Forbo Flooring's extensive recycling program for linoleum cutting residues and a "Take Back Service."
• Roof2Road's process for recycling roofing bitumen into secondary raw material for roofing and asphalt.
• Cargill Multiseed's utilization of cocoa husks as a renewable fuel source and the potential for remaining ashes to be used as fertilizer.
• The Port of Amsterdam's strategic land allocation and investment in shared infrastructure to facilitate industrial symbiosis and connect companies for resource and energy exchange.

Conclusion:

The IMPEL guidance provides a comprehensive framework and practical tools for integrating circular economy principles into the permitting and enforcement of the Industrial Emissions Directive. It emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach, leveraging existing regulatory frameworks, promoting collaboration among stakeholders, and utilizing tools like the Circular Plan and the Circularity Index to drive measurable progress towards a more circular and sustainable industrial sector in Europe. The inclusion of case studies offers valuable insights into successful implementation strategies.

Briefing Document: REACH Regulation and Circular Economy

Purpose: This briefing document provides a summary and analysis of the key themes, important ideas, and facts presented in the IMPEL Waste management and Circular Economy Group's report on the intersection of the REACH Regulation and Circular Economy principles.

Executive Summary:

The report from the IMPEL Waste management and Circular Economy Group examines the complex relationship between the EU's REACH Regulation concerning chemicals and the principles of the Circular Economy, particularly focusing on waste-based materials like by-products and materials that have achieved End-of-Waste status. A central theme is that while materials considered "waste" are generally outside the scope of REACH, once they transition to by-products or End-of-Waste materials, they become subject to REACH and other relevant chemicals and product legislation. The report details the basic requirements of REACH (registration, authorisation, and restrictions), how they apply to these waste-based materials, and relevant exemptions (by-product, recovery, SR&D, and PPORD). It also briefly touches upon other relevant chemical legislation (CLP, POPs, RoHS) and highlights the critical role of enforcement and the availability of information through databases like SCIP. The report emphasizes the responsibility of companies to assess and ensure compliance with both waste and chemical legislation.

Key Themes and Important Ideas:

1. Interface between Waste Legislation (WFD) and Chemical Legislation (REACH):

• Materials considered "waste" under the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) are generally not within the scope of REACH.
• However, once materials cease to be waste and are classified as by-products (Article 5 WFD) or achieve End-of-Waste status (Article 6 WFD), they become subject to REACH and other applicable product and chemical legislation if placed on the market.
• The WFD explicitly states that "the natural or legal person who a) uses, for the first time, a material that has ceased to be waste and that has not been placed on the market; or b) places a material on the market for the first time after it has ceased to be waste, shall ensure that the material meets relevant requirements under the applicable chemical and product related legislation." (Article 6(5) WFD, as amended by (EU) 2018/851).
• The processes for assessing by-product/End-of-Waste status under the WFD and fulfilling REACH obligations run in parallel. Recovery operators are potential registrants under REACH.

2. Applicability of REACH Basic Obligations to Waste-Based Materials:

• Registration: By-products and End-of-Waste materials can be defined as substances, mixtures, or articles under REACH. As manufacturers (recovery operations are considered manufacturing processes), operators placing these materials on the market in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year must register the substances with ECHA, unless an exemption applies.
• Authorisation: Waste-based materials may contain Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) listed in Annex XIV, requiring authorization for specific uses.
• Restrictions: Annex XVII of REACH lists restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market, or use of certain substances. These restrictions can apply to substances in recovered materials, although there may be different limits for waste-based materials in some cases (e.g., cadmium in recycled plastic).

3. REACH Exemptions Relevant to Circular Economy:

• By-product Exemption (Article 2(7)(b) and Annex V): By-products are exempted from registration unless they are imported or placed on the market themselves. This exemption is generally limited to by-products used internally or delivered to another production process without being marketed.
• Recovery Exemption (Article 2(7)(d)): Substances recovered in the EU/EEA are exempt from registration if:
• The recovered substance is the same as a substance that has already been registered.
• Information required by Articles 31 or 32 (e.g., Safety Data Sheets, exposure scenarios) relating to the registered substance is available to the recovery operator.
• The "sameness" assessment is the responsibility of the recovery operator and is based on the identity of the main constituents.
• This exemption is not tied to the volume or original uses of the registered substance, but recovery operators must provide information for safe use.
• SR&D Exemption (Article 3(23)): Substances manufactured for scientific research and development in quantities less than 1 tonne per year are exempt from registration, authorisation, and restrictions.
• PPORD Exemption (Article 9): Substances manufactured or imported in quantities >1 tonne/year for product and process orientated research and development are exempt from registration for 5 years, with a notification to ECHA. This exemption does not automatically exempt from authorisation or restriction schemes.

4. Importance of Substance Identification:

• Accurate identification of the substances present in by-products and End-of-Waste materials is crucial for determining the applicability of REACH and other chemical legislation.
• Substances can be well-defined or Substances of Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products or Biological Materials (UVCBs). Recovery operations often produce mixtures and UVCB substances.
• For UVCBs, identification relies on chemical composition, source material, and processing steps.

5. Other Relevant Chemicals Legislation:

• CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008: Applies to by-products and End-of-Waste materials, requiring classification, labelling, and packaging of hazardous chemicals.
• POP Regulation (EU) 2019/1021: Bans or restricts POPs in chemical products and articles, including in recycled materials. End-of-Waste materials must comply with concentration limits for POPs in products (Annex I). Wastes exceeding Annex IV limits require specific disposal/recovery methods.
• RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU: Limits hazardous substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE). This impacts the use of recycled materials in EEE production and highlights the need to know the chemical content of waste streams.

6. Information and Enforcement:

• The SCIP database (Substances of Concern In articles as such or in complex objects (Products)) requires suppliers of articles containing SVHCs above 0.1% w/w to notify ECHA. This database improves information availability throughout the lifecycle, including at the waste stage.
• Enforcement is challenging, particularly in identifying waste operators placing End-of-Waste materials on the market. Cooperation between waste and REACH inspectors and the use of national End-of-Waste databases are recommended.
• Case studies (Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Estonia, Slovenia, Germany) illustrate practical challenges and interpretations of REACH and its exemptions for waste-based materials.

Important Facts and Quotes:

• "Materials that are considered waste under the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC4, WFD) are not considered substance, mixtures or articles according to Article 2(2) of REACH Regulation and are not considered in the scope of REACH." (p. 7)
• "By-products are not considered waste if they meet the criteria set with the WFD and will fall under the full scope of REACH if placed on the market themselves." (p. 7)
• "All forms of recovery, including mechanical processing, are considered as a manufacturing process under REACH whenever they result in the generation of one or several substances as such or in a mixture or in an article that have ceased to be waste." (p. 7-8)
• "Before the material is placed on the market basic requirements of REACH have to be fulfilled." (p. 11)
• "As by-products and End-of-Waste materials are not considered waste, they can be defined as substances, mixtures or articles according to REACH Regulation. Following that the rules of registration, authorisation and restrictions may be applied to them." (p. 11)
• "The fact that a substance is registered under REACH does not automatically mean that it has ceased to be waste." (p. 12)
• "By-products, unless they are imported or placed on the market themselves." (Annex V, Point 5, quoted on p. 26)
• "According to Article 2(7)(d) (the so-called recovery-exemption), no registration is required for substances recovered in the EU-EEA, if the substance that results from the recovery process is the same as a substance that has already been registered and the information required by articles 31 or 32 relating to the substance that has been registered in accordance with Title II is available to the establishment undertaking the recovery." (p. 27)
• "If, for some reason, the same substance has not been registered at the manufacturing or import stage, the recovered substance must be registered." (Quoting ECHA Guidance on registration, p. 28)
• "The assessment of the 'sameness' is in the hands of the recovery operator and the sameness is not confirmed or verified by the ECHA." (p. 28)
• "New products produced from recycled materials, such as recycled plastics that have reached End-of-Waste status, must fulfil the UTC concentration requirements for POP substances in products set in Annex I of the POP Regulation." (p. 17)
• "Companies supplying articles containing SVHCs in a concentration above 0.1% (w/w) have to submit information to ECHA." (p. 24, summarized from Article 9(1)(i) WFD)
• "For recovered polymers, the monomers and other substances in the polymer must have been registered in order for it to be possible to make use of the exemption in REACH." (Quoting Swedish KEMI Report, p. 33)

Conclusion:

The report effectively outlines the regulatory landscape for waste-based materials in the context of REACH and the Circular Economy. It underscores that achieving by-product or End-of-Waste status under the WFD triggers the applicability of REACH and other chemical legislation. Recovery operators and businesses utilizing these materials must be diligent in understanding and fulfilling their obligations, particularly regarding substance identification, registration (or demonstrating applicable exemptions), authorization, and restrictions. The report highlights the need for clear guidance, information sharing, and effective enforcement to ensure both environmental and human health protection while promoting the transition to a circular economy.

Briefing Document: Facilitating Circular Innovation Through Regulatory and Policy Frameworks

Subject: Review of key themes and challenges in enabling circular innovation within existing regulatory and policy frameworks, with a focus on the role of regulators and policy-makers and the specific case of plastics.

Executive Summary:

This document provides a review of the provided excerpts, highlighting the crucial roles of regulators and policy-makers in facilitating the transition to a circular economy. A key challenge identified is the need for clear, fit-for-purpose legislation, particularly regarding "end-of-waste" status, which currently relies heavily on fragmented case-by-case decisions across Member States (MS). Plastics are presented as a significant waste stream requiring specific action through a multi-pronged approach encompassing reduction, reuse, litter prevention, recycling, and addressing harmful substances. The document also details various practical tools and approaches employed by MS for assessing end-of-waste status and conducting inspections to ensure compliance with circular economy objectives.

Key Themes and Important Ideas:

1. The Crucial Role of Regulators:

Regulators, defined as "Authorities competent for permitting and inspection who are in charge of facilitating, assessing and authorising circular innovations," are at the forefront of enabling circular economy practices. Their responsibilities include:

• Cooperation with other regulators: This is essential to ensure a coherent approach across different administrative levels and sectors.
• Developing circular strategies: Incorporating circular economy principles into regulatory planning and decision-making.
• Developing circular permitting and inspections: Adapting permitting and inspection processes to accommodate circular innovations.
• Proactive working with business: Engaging with businesses to understand their needs and challenges in implementing circular models.
• Information and risk management: Sharing information and managing the inherent uncertainties and risks associated with novel circular processes.

The document acknowledges that "regulators may make different choices, as they differ throughout Europe," varying in mandate, tasks, capacity, and budgets.

2. The Importance of Policy-Makers:

Policy-makers play a vital role in creating an enabling environment for the circular economy by:

• Ensuring the legislative framework is fit for purpose: This is a significant challenge, particularly regarding clarifying concepts like "end-of-waste" and "by-products."
• Supporting regulators: Providing guidance, legal advice, resources, and mechanisms for knowledge sharing (e.g., Environmental Implementation Review Peer2Peer, IMPEL Review Initiative). Policy-makers also "determine budgets and decisions on money may influence the priorities of regulators."
• Creating a favourable policy environment: This includes setting targets, using economic instruments, and encouraging dialogue between different stakeholders. "Policy-makers can also support wider dialogue, bringing together different actors including businesses and regulators. The Green Deals in The Netherlands, for example, do this, not only providing a forum for communication between business and regulators, but providing clear messages on how best to frame the legislative and policy environment to support circular innovations."

3. Challenges and Approaches to "End-of-Waste" Status:

A central theme is the determination of when a material ceases to be waste and becomes a product. The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 2018 provides general conditions, but "Unless for certain types of waste end-of-waste detailed criteria have been established at EU or MS level, the regulator or courts may have to decide on the end-of-waste status of each individual material which is recovered from a waste on the basis of the general conditions mentioned above and taking into account applicable case law (case-by-case decision)."

Different approaches exist across MS for determining end-of-waste status where no EU criteria exist:

• Using only national end-of-waste criteria.
• Using only case-by-case decisions.
• A mix of national criteria and case-by-case decisions.

Case-by-case decisions can be made through:

• Prior authorisation (legally binding decisions or opinions).
• Operator self-assessment with voluntary, non-binding opinions from authorities.
• Verification by the regulator responsible for compliance assurance.

The document highlights the lack of clarity and potential for disagreement between MS regarding end-of-waste and by-product status, which hinders the development of an internal market for secondary raw materials. "Authorities of different MS (country of dispatch versus receiving country) might disagree on the waste character of a shipment."

Practical Tool 1 provides a detailed guide for regulators and producers on assessing end-of-waste status on a case-by-case basis, outlining the information needed and different MS approaches. It emphasizes demonstrating:

• Certainty of use: "The substance or object is to be used for specific purposes."
• Market or demand: "A market or demand exists for such a substance or object."
• Compliance with legislation and standards: "Further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all relevant product, environmental and health protection requirements for the specific use." This includes considering REACH requirements (as further detailed in Annex D).
• No overall adverse environmental or human health impacts: "The use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts."

4. Plastics as a Priority Area for Circular Action:

Plastics are identified as a significant problem requiring specific attention. The document outlines five complementary "areas of actions aimed at a more sustainable use of plastics":

• Less use of plastics.
• More re-use of plastics.
• Less littering (progressive actions) / take-up of spillage from nature (damage control measure).
• Recycling.
• Addressing the presence of SVHCs and other potentially harmful substances.

These areas are interconnected, and a range of interventions, from regulatory to educational, are needed. The presence of "legacy substances" (SVHCs) in recycled materials poses a particular challenge for regulators, highlighting the need for guidance and tools like decision trees (e.g., the Dutch SVHC decision tree).

Examples of innovative plastic circular initiatives are provided, including:

• Swedish Stockings using recycled ghost nets and textile remnants.
• Aquafil transforming fishing nets and other Nylon waste into ECONYL® regenerated nylon.
• Ioniqa's chemical PET recycling process.
• Reconcil's deposit system for takeaway containers to encourage reuse.
• Houdini's rental service for sportswear.

5. Regulatory Tools and Processes:

The document discusses several regulatory tools and processes relevant to circular innovation:

• Industrial Emissions Directive (IED): Sets out categories of industrial activities requiring permits, including waste management. Challenges exist in applying IED to innovative recovery processes and determining Best Available Techniques (BAT). "For certain innovative recovery processes it may be unclear what IED category applies."
• Waste Framework Directive (WFD): Regulates waste prevention and management. Article 13 mandates waste management without endangering human health or harming the environment. Article 29 requires MS to establish waste prevention programmes.
• Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR): Regulates the transboundary movement of waste. Disagreements between MS on waste status of shipments (e.g., used goods vs. waste) create critical points. "The development of an internal market for secondary materials could be facilitated more by improving the understanding of different MS approaches and by MS aligning interpretations on a voluntary basis." Article 50 (2a) requires MS to establish inspection plans based on risk assessment for waste shipments.
• REACH Regulation: Concerns the registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemicals. The document notes the need to consider REACH requirements when assessing end-of-waste status and that innovative processes might require REACH registration or authorisation exemptions (like the PPORD exemption).
• Permitting: Environmental permits are a key tool for authorizing circular innovations. The example of South-Holland exploring incorporating circular economy within permits is provided. Permits can also be used to allow for temporary derogations for trials of innovative techniques.
• Inspections: Inspections are crucial for ensuring compliance with waste, environmental, and product legislation throughout the circular chain (from production to final use of end-of-waste materials). "The inspection system aims at assessing the respect of the four conditions set in the WFD (Article 6)." Different authorities may be involved in inspections (environmental, police, customs, product inspectors), requiring coordination.
• Databases for End-of-Waste Assessments: Some MS (Italy - Veneto Region, UK - England, Netherlands) have databases or lists of end-of-waste assessments, although public accessibility and level of detail vary. A proposal for a database collecting case-by-case assessments is presented in Practical Tool 1, Part B.

6. Business Perspectives and Opportunities:

Businesses need "fit-for-purpose legislation" to confidently invest in circular innovations. The context in which innovative businesses operate is influenced by spatial planning and the potential for industrial symbiosis. Regulators can work with planning authorities to "identify opportunities to enhance circular economy opportunities at the local level." Opportunities for "smarter implementation" of regulations exist.

Important Facts and Examples:

• Examples of case-by-case end-of-waste assessments in MS are provided for red mud, bottom ash, and used tyres.
• Different methods for case-by-case end-of-waste decisions in MS include prior authorisation, self-assessment with non-binding opinions, and verification by the regulator.
• Examples of practical guidance developed in MS to support end-of-waste assessments are mentioned for the UK-England, the Netherlands, and France.
• The Dutch national waste management plan sets minimum standards for waste treatment, guiding permitting decisions (e.g., requiring recycling for separately collected plastic).
• The Dutch national waste programme includes an SVHC decision tree to guide regulators in assessing risks posed by hazardous substances in waste streams for recycling.
• Examples of innovative circular projects are highlighted, including regenerated refrigerants (Finland), shipment of used mobile phones (Estonia), and a recovery plant for diapers (Italy).
• The concept of a "Regulatory Position Statement (RPS)" in the UK (England) for trials of innovative waste recovery techniques is presented.
• A list of methodologies or guidances concerning end-of-waste assessment in various MS (EU Commission, Belgium - Flanders, UK - England, France, Italy - Veneto Region, Netherlands, Spain) is provided in Table 1.
• The benchmarks for assessing non-waste status based on WFD Articles 4, 5(1), and 6(1) are summarized in Figure 16.
• Examples of how MS have demonstrated certainty of use and market existence for end-of-waste materials are given (e.g., submitting invoices, letters of intent, written agreements).
• Figure 19 illustrates the involvement of different inspection regimes in the end-of-waste recovery chain (WFD, IED, REACH, WSR, Police, Product).
• Table 8 provides a checklist for inspecting waste transfer stations (R12/R13 recovery operations).
• Table 13 provides a checklist for inspecting the final user of end-of-waste materials.

Conclusion:

The provided excerpts underscore the complexity of integrating circular economy principles into existing regulatory and policy frameworks, particularly within the European context. The lack of harmonized "end-of-waste" criteria across MS creates uncertainty and administrative burdens for businesses involved in circular activities. Addressing the specific challenges of waste streams like plastics, including the presence of harmful substances, is critical. Effective collaboration between regulators and policy-makers, alongside clear, supportive legislation and robust enforcement mechanisms, are essential to facilitate circular innovation and achieve a more sustainable use of resources. The practical tools and examples from various MS offer valuable insights into potential approaches for overcoming these challenges.