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

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No.850/2004 requires:
863
3. Member States shall, when considering proposals to construct new
facilities or significantly to modify existing facilities using processes that
release chemicals listed in Annex III, without prejudice to Council Directive
1996/61/EC (1), give priority consideration to alternative processes,
techniques or practices that have similar usefulness but which avoid the
formation and release of substances listed in Annex III. (Our emphasis)
The substances listed in Annex III are:
• Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF)
• Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) (CAS No: 118-74-1)
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
The incineration of waste clearly results in releases of all these substances -
especially within residues, but also in emissions to atmosphere. 1089 It follows directly
from this that the EPA, in considering any proposals for incinerators is required to:
“give priority consideration to alternative processes, techniques or practices
that have similar usefulness” but which avoid the formation and release of
PCDD/PCDF, HCB, PCB and PAHs.
The same applies to other processes which are net emitters of these compounds.
A document produced by the Stockholm Convention, Guidelines On Best Available
Techniques And Provisional Guidance On Best Environmental Practices, provides an
outline of the approach that is envisaged to be necessary to satisfy the
requirement. 1090 The guidelines suggest, for example, that this assessment may be
undertaken which includes, for example:
“a comparison of the proposed process, the available alternatives and the
applicable legislation using what might be termed a “checklist approach”,
keeping in mind the overall sustainable development context and taking fully
into account environmental, health, safety and socio-economic factors.”
The meaning of “priority consideration” in the context of the development of
incineration capacity, or of the capacity for other waste treatment facilities, within
Ireland is not entirely clear. How such consideration should be given is perhaps a
moot point. On the one hand, the provisional low POPs threshold under the Stockholm
Convention is not an especially low threshold by EU standards. On the other hand, the
spirit of the Convention would appear to imply something rather more stringent, and it
1089 See, for example, European Commission (2006) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration, 2006.
1090 Stockholm Convention (2007) Guidelines On Best Available Techniques And Provisional Guidance
On Best Environmental Practices Relevant To Article 5 And Annex C Of The Stockholm Convention On
Persistent Organic Pollutants - Adopted at COP 3, May 2007. 2007: Geneva, Switzerland.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes