final report - JRC IPTS - Sustainable Production and Consumption ...

1.2 Task 1.5.a – Regulations and standards on Input materials for
composting
In most countries where compost regulations are available the waste materials allowed for the
production and use of compost are defined
In general we find rather a more or less extensive POSITIVE LIST than a list with material exclusions.
The most prominent waste groups excluded from compost production are
• Municipal Sewage sludge: BE/Fl, DE, FR, LU, NL, SE, UK5 • Mixed (not source separated) MSW: BE/Flanders, DE, FI, LU, NL, UK5 FR has two different standards for waste compost and sewage sludge respectively. LU would allow the
use of sewage sludge only if it is not mixed with source separated organic household waste (biowaste).
In other cases where the result of aerobic rotting of the organic fraction of residual waste would be
allowed for the production of waste compost (MWC) its application is restricted to surface reclamation
of landfill sites, biofilters or similar technical applications (e.g. AT, CZ, IT).
An overview with the principle systematic of how input materials for compost production are ruled in
national standards and regulations is shown in Table 4.
1.2.1 The rationale of a positive list
The main rationale for establishing standards for input materials by the means of a positive list is quite
obvious: in trusting the basic quality of e.g. source separated organic materials it can be expected that
the compost derived thereof may achieve the desired quality at a constant high level in terms of
potential contaminants. Therefore the predictability of the production over time deserves a higher level
of confidence by all addressees, the compost producer, the responsible authorities and the public in
their responsibility for environment and health protection and the potential compost customers.
Further, a positive list follows an important principle of recycling: searching for the best treatment and
recycling option for each individual waste stream. The logic behind could be phrased as follows:
“What would be metabolised into humus if exposed to an incidental transformation process in nature
should be directed towards ‘HUMIFICATION’ if it occurs as specified waste material.”
Excluding negative lists by trying to define what cannot be used might bear the risk of creating
loopholes. On the other hand, if rolled out in ordinances or regulations, any of those lists tend to be
rather inflexible following the common procedures of amending legislation. Even if a further suitable
waste type has been identified it could take months or years of additional negotiations for a new
version of an ordinance. (Example from Germany: during the preparation of the biowaste ordinance,
the lawmakers neglected to include biodegradable plastics in the positive list which already at an early
stage was used as collection tool for kitchen waste).
An alternative and more flexible solution might be to lay down a statutory list of suitable waste groups
and to establish a standing committee (e.g. within the standards organisation) which checks specific
raw materials on their suitability for the production of high quality composts.
Another scheme can be reasonable in BE/Flanders: here some materials are in principle allowed but
need individual approval on a case by case level.
An important aspect is that – independent of the general list of allowed source materials and wastes –
the authorities (municipalities, waste management associations) who are responsible for the set-up of
the collection scheme may decide on what is collected with the collection services (bio bin / brown
bin) and what not. As a result for instance in Austria and Germany in some regions meat is excluded
and in other areas not.
5 Only if the compost producer applies for PAS 100 (BSI, 2005) and/or Compost Quality Protocol Scheme
(Environment Agency, 2007)
38
COMPOST PRODUCTION AND USE IN THE EU