SIC codes implementation brings mixed reaction

From September 28 2011, there are two new requirements for businesses which they have to action with regard to their waste:

The first is to confirm that the waste management hierarchy has been adopted in the way waste has been handled and state this on the waste transfer note. This can be achieved, for example,through sending some material for recycling and aiming to avoid landfill.

Second, the business must enter its industry activity codefrom the SIC codes which were revised in 2007. The SIC codes, or Standard Industrial Classification Index, were revised in 2007 replacing 2003 codes and so will tell the handler of the waste and the regulator which sector of industry the material comes from, much along the lines of a postcode for location.

Under the rules prior to September 28 which remain in force, a separateList of Wastes codes, derived from the European Waste Catalogue codes, also applies to the Waste Transfer Note. Thisgives the details of the type of waste involved, and remains a requirement for the Note, as do the following:

a description of the waste
any processes the waste has been through
how the waste is contained or packaged
the quantity of the waste
the place, date and time of transfer
the name and address of both parties
details of the permit, licence or exemption of the person receiving the waste

Hazardous waste

But, there is one exception because of conflicting legislation regarding hazardous waste. The Environment Agency has agreed to defer for at least a year the requirement to put the 2007 SIC code on thehazardous waste consignment note (note: not hazardous waste transfer note, updated and correctedOctober 5 2011)because the Hazardous Waste Regulations require the 2003 code.

Earlier this month, the Agency said: We will not pursue breaches of the requirement to include the SIC code on a hazardous waste consignment note. We will also not pursue any corrections of the SIC code if, for example, the 2007 publication of the SIC is provided on a consignment note. We expect all other information required to be provided on consignment note as set out in the HWR.

Reaction

Introduction of the SIC code and waste hierarchy requirements were welcomed by the Environmental Services Association (ESA) which represents UK waste management companies. But, the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) today argued that businesses are already doing a lot in terms of recycling and moving waste up the waste hierarchy but are finding further developments hard because of a lack of waste treatment infrastructure.

For the ESA, Sam Corp, head of regulation, said: The Waste Regulations 2011 contain a number of important new requirements that waste producers are going to have to get grips with. It is vital that producers ensure that they use responsible and authorised waste management companies to manage their wastes, in order to ensure compliance with these regulations. ESAs Members can help with this.

Time

However, Mr Corp pointed out the short space of time given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which only clarified their use on September 12. He said: Disappointingly, Defra did not made it easy for ESA members to comply with the requirement to use SIC codes on waste transfer notes and hazardous waste consignment notes. Despite repeated ESA warnings over many months, it was not until 12 September that the requirements for the use of SIC codes were clarified giving ESAs members just over two weeks to implement the changes required to IT and other systems.

Tough nut to crack

Commenting on the new requirements, EEF head of climate & environment, Gareth Stace, said: Waste has been a tough nut to crack and this new requirement should act as a wake up call for both manufacturers and government. Manufacturers have already taken significant action as they have long recognised that it makes good business sense to cut out waste from their operations. However, recovery and recycling have now reached a mature stage within company operations and industry can only make further progress if government unlocks barriers created by lack of investment in infrastructure. Now is the time for government to make a big leap forward and shake up this stagnant area of policy.

In particular, 23bn of efficiency savings identified by government will largely be forgotten unless a clear understanding of why such a significant figure can still exist and the barriers that need to be removed for manufacturers to readily access these savings. Regulatory burdens need to be eased where possible and government needs to raise the profile of waste as an issue. For example, awareness of the requirements that come in today is low amongst manufacturers, yet government has done little to promote this.”

Mr Stace added: Even fairly straightforward change, such as manufacturers access to local authority waste management facilities would significantly help SME to operate more efficiently by reducing waste going to landfill.”