International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

836
29/09/09
a. Where the residues are landfilled at a ‘standard landfill’, with assumed
50% gas capture, then the Biodrying facilities perform better than
stabilisation facilities.;
b. Where the residues are landfilled at dedicated cells, with assumed 0%
gas capture, but 90% oxidation, then the Biodrying facilities perform
worse than Stabilisation facilities. The switch in ordering relates to the
landfill’s performance and to the mass of material destined for the
landfill. The significance of this is explored below;
c. Where the stabilisation facility sends material to a dedicated cell, which
is designed to maximise passive oxidation of residual methane, the
externalities using high unit damage costs are very close to the
maximum levy rate proposed for landfilling stabilised biowaste in the
RIA of the proposed levy. 1046
This analysis suggests that the levy rates are broadly justifiable, and would appear to
have the potential to improve the management of waste in a positive direction, in line
with what is efficient from the economic perspective. However, some adjustment to
the currently proposed levy would appear to be desirable to improve the efficiency of
its design.
The analysis above highlights the fact that the externalities from incineration are
significantly affected by the performance in terms of the air emissions other than
greenhouse gases. The difference is €6 per tonne where low unit damage costs are
used in the analysis, or €21 per tonne where high unit damage costs are used. The
magnitude of this difference is sufficient to warrant consideration as to how the levy
could be designed to incentivise a reduction in these externalities.
The design of the Norwegian incinerator tax provides a useful pointer (see 52.2.4).
There, the tax focuses on emissions of each pollutant. These have to be monitored
anyway by the facility. Hence, it ought to be possible to tax the source of the
externality, the first best solution in this case. We propose, therefore, that the
incineration levy might be adapted in its structure. A more efficient levy would be:
� a per tonne levy for waste treatment, reflecting the climate change damages
from carbon dioxide releases (there is rather limited potential to abate these
emissions); and
� a levy based upon emissions of key pollutants.
Structured in this way, the levy affords the operators to abate emissions to an
efficient level.
1046 This is, perhaps, where the EPA might usefully focus its determination of BAT for landfills receiving
residues from MBT facilities which meet the pre-treatment stability threshold. The operation of the
landfill appears to have a more important effect on the environmental performance of the overall
treatment and disposal cycle than the additional retention of the waste to achieve a small additional
reduction in the tendency to produce biogas once landfilled.