The judgment of Nelson J was given on Friday 13 January. It has major implications for the regulation of waste water treatment works.
This was a test case brought by the Environment Agency to answer the following questions:
- Do the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000 ("PPC Regulations") apply to waste water treatment activities?
- Is sewage sludge "waste" under the Waste Framework Directive and, if so, is it excluded by Article 2(b) (iv) of the Directive? Article 2 (b) (iv) expressly excludes "waste waters, with the exception of waste in liquid form."
- Is the treatment of sludge covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive ("IPPC Directive") and the PPC Regulations?
- In a specific example where beer effluent and milk effluent is pre-treated at a site 700 or 800 metres from the brewery and the milk processing plant from which it originates, before being piped on for treatment at a public waste water treatment works, is this pre-treatment covered by the PPC Regulations where the brewery and the milk processing plant fall within the Regulations?
These questions were illustrated by four real life examples where the applicable law depended on these questions.
Nelson J determined these questions as follows:
- Waste waters, with the exception of waste in liquid form, are included in the Waste Framework Directive, unless already covered by other legislation. The IPPC Directive includes waste management as one of the categories of industrial activities referred to in Article 1 of the Directive. The PPC Regulations therefore apply to waste water treatment activities.
- Sewage sludge is "waste" under the Waste Framework Directive unless excluded by Article 2(b) (iv). The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive treats sludge as separate and distinct from waste water. When extracted from waste water, sludge is "waste in liquid form". The exclusion under Article 2 (b) (iv) therefore does not apply and sludge remains waste within the Waste Framework Directive.
- Certain parts of sludge treatment carried on at sludge processing plants were agreed by the parties to be either biological treatment or physico-chemical treatment as described in the Waste Framework Directive. The question was therefore whether the treatment results in final compounds or mixtures which are discarded by operations such as incineration on land, permanent storage, blending or mixing, repackaging or storage on land pending other operations. Any intermediate treatment, such as digestion, before the sludge reaches the dewatering facility will be covered by the IPPC Directive and the PPC Regulations, unless the end product is sent for recovery. Recovery operations are not subject to the PPC Regulations.
- Effluent treatment remote from the industrial activities within the PPC Regulations will also be controlled by the Regulations if they are a directly associated activity, have a technical connection to the industrial activity, can be regarded as part of the installation and are on the same site. Answers to these questions will depend on the facts of each individual case. Here, the effluent treatment was carried out 700 metres and 800 metres away from the industrial activity, so this cannot be regarded as an activity on the same site.
Recognising that the judgment raised difficult issues, Nelson J indicated that the parties might consider proceeding to the Court of Appeal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
