Have we reached a tipping point?
Some observers hold the view that we are now reaching, or have already reached, a “tipping point” in awareness about plastic waste, and its long-term impact on the environment and public health. In many ways, broader awareness is catching up with policy. In making purchasing decisions as to “plastic bottle versus can or glass bottle”, more aware purchasers are increasingly able to take the decision based on the possible ultimate destination of the plastic bottle, or the can or glass bottle, once its contents have been consumed. This level of awareness helps support sustainable environmental and public health outcomes.
In this article, we consider: (i) a range of waste projects that take waste (including plastics), and sort, process and treat that waste; (ii) the necessary policy settings to allow those waste projects to be developed; and (iii) the key risks that need to be addressed – either through government policy or contractual mechanisms – to make waste projects economically viable and sustainable.
Material recovery facilities (MRFs) are the most numerous category of waste projects around the world, with recyclables being delivered to them, whether by governments or municipalities or by those who have collected recyclables.As a general statement, MBTs and MTFs (mechanical and biological treatment facilities) are able to accept a broad range of waste, and to sort recyclables using mechanical technology,producing products (typically compost, but also fuel from waste (FfW)) using biological and mechanical technology. ORFs (organic recovery facilities) and FOGOs (food organics and garden organics facilities) are able to accept organic waste,and use mechanical technology and biological processes to produce compost and mulch.
As is illustrated by the Waste Management Hierarchy in Figure 1, the waste projects detailed in this article are considered to facilitate more favorable Waste Management Hierarchy outcomes than landfill and waste-to-energy projects.
Diagram 1: The Waste Management Hierarchy
Policy, Policy, Policy – Separation, Collection & Delivery and Payment
As was noted in our most recent article, policy levers are critical to the regulation of landfill and for diverting waste from landfill. It is no exaggeration to say that policy is to waste projects what location is to real estate.
For waste to be diverted from landfill in an effective manner, it helps greatly if governments and municipalities:
- facilitate or require source separation or source segregation of waste (separation at source);
- collect separated/segregated waste (source separated waste) for delivery to the appropriate waste project; and
- pay the appropriate waste project (MRF, MTF, MBT, ORF or FOGO) to sort, process and treat that waste in order to derive recyclables or produce products, or both.
We now consider each of these elements in turn.
Separation at source
In jurisdictions with more developed waste collections systems, waste is collected from households and businesses using a bin or bins provided by the government or the municipality. The number of bins used and the fraction of the waste stream for which each is used will reflect the policy (and funding) of the government or municipality providing them.
The use of a single bin will allow waste collected to be delivered to landfill, an MBT or MTF (depending on the technology used at the facility) or to a waste-to-energy facility.
The use of a dual bin system, with one bin for mixed waste (non-separated, red-top bins2), the other bin for recyclables3 (yellow-top bins4) allows waste to be separated5 at source and to be collected separately so that it is capable of being delivered to landfill, an MBT or MTF (or to a waste-to-energy facility) and, in the case of yellow-top bins, a MRF.
The use of a three bin system, with the third bin being for garden organics or food and garden organics (green top bin), allows waste collected separately to be delivered to landfill, an MBT or MTF (or to a waste-to-energy facility), a MRF, an ORF or a FOGO.6 If the third bin is for garden organics only, the waste in that bin may be collected and sent directly to an ORF (as well as to an MBT or MTF), with the cost to the government or municipality likely to be lower than if sent to an ORF rather than to a FOGO.
We note that apartment blocks with shoot systems have long allowed for separation at source and, in our increasingly urbanised world with higher density populations, the percentage of the waste stream separated at source in this way is likely to increase.
Table 1: Waste treatment options for different bin systems
| Waste Project | MTF | MBT | MRF | ORF | FOGO | WtE | Landfill |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bin System | |||||||
| One Bin | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dual / Three Bins | ✓ | ✓ |
✓ (yellow top) |
✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Three Bins | ✓ | ✓ |
✓ (yellow top) |
✓ (green top) |
✓ (green top) |
✓ | ✓ |
A key risk for waste projects is a change in the bin system structure, including removing, or adding, a bin (or bins), and changing the size of a bin (or bins). As will be apparent from Table 1 below, and as a general statement, MRFs, ORFs and FOGOs are dependent on separation at source. If separation at source ceases, or the mass of waste separated at source reduces, the result is that the mass delivered to the MRF, ORF or FOGO reduces. MBTs and MTFs (and waste-to-energy facilities) will be concerned about changes in bin system structures that lead to greater source separation of waste. Bin system structures affect the mass of waste sourced and available for delivery and, as such, the revenue that a waste project is able to earn, both from the gate fee7 paid for each tonne of waste delivered, and from the sale of recyclables derived from waste and products produced from waste. (Although we considered waste to energy projects in an earlier article in this series, it is worth noting that changes in the bin system structure may affect dramatically the calorific value of waste delivered to a waste-to-energy project, affecting both the economics and the efficiency of the project.) Depending on the waste project, the sponsors may be concerned about any intermediate “sorting” or consolidation of waste before the waste is delivered to the project, including any sorting or consolidation at a transfer station.8 This is likely to be the case for MBTs and MTFs more than for other waste projects.
It is not appropriate for the sponsor of a waste project to seek to restrict what the government or municipality may do in terms of changing the structure of the bin system or undertaking any form of intermediate sorting or consolidation. Instead, the waste project should seek to address the consequence on the project of any of these changes through the charging regime or a modification regime established under the waste supply agreement (WSA) between the waste project and the government or municipality.
While it is possible for WSAs to contemplate changes that may have an adverse impact on the economics of a waste project, it is unlikely that the waste project will be compensated for any change unless the government or the municipality is responsible for it. Likewise, if a government or municipality makes any policy change that is of general application, it is unlikely that the waste project will be compensated under the WSA for that change.9
As a general statement, this has proved to be the case for waste projects in jurisdictions in which container deposit schemes (CDSs) have been introduced.10 CDSs result in high return rates for the recyclables to which they relate, because they incentivise the collection and delivery of those recyclables to delivery points in return for a monetary payment to the person delivering the recyclables. The impact of CDSs on MBTs and MTFs is to reduce the mass of recyclables delivered to those waste projects. The impact on MRFs depends on the structure of the CDS regime: if waste collected and consolidated is delivered to existing MRFs, the effect of the CDS regime is to increase the mass of recyclables delivered, and to change the mix and profile of such recyclables; if, however, waste collected and consolidated is delivered to new facilities, the effect of the CDS regime is to decrease the mass of recyclables delivered to existing MRFs. If the mass of recyclables delivered to existing MRFs decreases, it is reasonable to expect that the material delivered to existing MRFs will have higher levels of contamination.
In addition, waste streams can vary in quantity and composition on a seasonal basis which, in turn, may have an impact on collection programmes. In each case, the sponsor of the waste project will want to ascertain that sufficient waste within the modelled composition will be delivered to the waste project.
It is essential for any waste project to understand the likely quantity and composition of the waste to be delivered, to consider how the waste project might respond to changes that could affect the quantity and composition of the waste delivered, and to test (in the financial model for the project, and operationally) the impact of increased costs and reduced revenues.
|
A Tipping Point for Recyclables? Changes introduced in the People’s Republic of China (PRC)at the end of 201711 have caused knock-on effects on waste projects (and the waste industry more broadly) around the world. The changes introduced did not go so far as to ban the import of recyclables; instead they prescribe maximum permitted levels of contamination for certain imported recyclables. Globally, many waste projects were not designed to achieve these prescribed lower levels of contamination, or their economic models had not contemplated achieving those levels, or both. The changes introduced in the PRC have therefore reduced significantly the import of recyclables into the PRC, which has had an impact on waste projects around the world, and a material impact on waste projects in many jurisdictions, including Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, The Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. At the most fundamental level, these waste projects have been materially impacted, because the key consequence of the change introduced in the PRC has been to reset (at a materially lower level) the pricing for mixed plastic and paper derived from waste projects. Until the end of 2017, the PRC had been the world’s key export market for recyclables from many jurisdictions. This has now changed, and has forced many jurisdictions to review their policy settings. With increased awareness of environmental issues, we are reaching, or have reached, a tipping point at which policy makers may be required to make decisions reflective of the cost of sorting, processing and treating waste which had previously been exported to the PRC. With this change to the world’s key market has come the stark realisation that, if recyclables (plastics in particular) are not recycled, they will be disposed of to landfill, or that their ultimate destination may be the world’s waterways and oceans. In some jurisdictions with more established waste collection systems, decisions have been made to send recyclables to landfill. While this may be regarded as a short term response, it is unlikely to be considered as a sustainable solution, particularly in jurisdictions with scarce landfill facilities. |
Collection and Delivery – Collection of source separated material and disposal of rejected material and residual material
Collection and delivery to contracted waste projects
Equally as important as the policy allowing (or requiring) separation at source of waste is the collection of waste by a government or municipality (or by its contractor) and its delivery to the appropriate waste project. The collection services provided by governments and municipalities need to be sufficiently frequent to respond to the requirements of households and businesses while, at the same time, allowing efficient collection frequency and providing value for money for those upon whom the cost of collection is levied. It is important to understand that the simple dynamics of the size of bins, changes in the size of bins and collection frequency are material factors for waste projects.
A key risk for waste projects is a change in the collection and delivery programmes of governments and municipalities. This is a lower order risk than a change in the bin system structure, but it is nonetheless a risk that needs to be considered and addressed in the contract between the government or municipality and the sponsors of the waste project. While waste projects may differ, the ways of addressing this risk are similar.
Collection and delivery to uncontracted waste projects
Not all waste is collected by a government or municipality and delivered to waste projects. In some jurisdictions with developed waste collection systems it is possible to have waste projects without there being a contract in place with a government or municipality for the delivery of all or, indeed, any waste. In addition, in some jurisdictions with less developed waste collection systems, governments and municipalities do not collect waste at all. In both of these circumstances, waste projects are described as “merchant” waste projects (either in whole or in part).
Disposal of Rejected Material and Residual Material
As is noted in more detail below, some of the waste collected and delivered to waste projects will not be compatible with the waste project and will need to be rejected (Rejected Material). In addition, depending on the waste project, residual material may remain after the waste has been sorted, processed and treated (Residual Material). The sponsors of the waste project will not want to have to pay for the cost of disposing of Rejected Material or Residual Material (i.e. the transportation costs and disposal cost, possibly to landfill or to another waste project). (Note that as waste projects become more sophisticated, Residual Material may be defined further (or refined) as “inorganic” or “non-recyclable” for the purposes of defining that which may be processed further to produce products (including fuel from waste), rather than being sent to landfill).
If the waste project is a contracted waste project it will seek to address these issues either by imposing an obligation on the government or municipality to collect and dispose of the Rejected Material and/or Residual Material at its own cost and expense, or by use of a pass-through charging regime that passes on the cost of disposing of the Rejected Material and Residual Material to the government or municipality.
However, the government or municipality will not want to be exposed on an open-ended basis to the sorting, processing and treatment performance risk of the waste project. To address this risk, the government or municipality will tend to agree to collect and dispose of (or to pay for the cost of disposal of) a stated percentage of the mass of the waste delivered (adjusted as necessary). The stated percentage will invariably reflect the level of diversion from landfill “advertised” as achievable by the waste project to the government or municipality. This will be stated in the WSA (and is known as the Diversion Rate/Target or Landfill Diversion Rate/Target).
The way in which Rejected Material and Residual Material is treated under the WSA is critical, including addressing any change in policy that may result in an increase in the cost of disposal. This is critical if the Diversion Rate is achieved or bettered. It is even more critical if the Diversion Rate is not achieved because the financial model for the waste project is unlikely to allow a contingency for this and, as such, it is likely to be an equity investor issue that will need to be resolved by unbudgeted modifications to the waste project to ensure that it achieves the Diversion Rate. In addition, depending on the approach taken by the government or municipality under the WSA, non-achievement of the Diversion Rate for a prolonged period of time may give rise to a default scenario, ultimately resulting in a right for the government or municipality to terminate the WSA.
If the waste project is a merchant waste project, these are risks that the project sponsors will have to manage themselves.
Delivery to waste project
As a general statement, waste projects do not earn revenue unless waste is being delivered to them. Therefore, in a contracted waste project the contract between the government or municipality and the waste project must address the delivery of waste. The contractual arrangements between governments or municipalities and waste projects will differ, depending on the nature of the waste project (see Table 2: Forms of WSAs for Contracted Waste Projects).
Whatever form the WSA may take, it is critical that it addresses the nature of the obligation on the government or municipality to deliver waste to the waste project. Over time governments and municipalities have become sophisticated in dealing with delivery and, by and large, most WSAs now take the form of so-called “throughput contracts”, under which waste projects are paid for the waste delivered, sorted, processed and treated.
If the WSA is a “quantity” contract (i.e. the government or municipality agrees to deliver a stated quantity of waste) the contract will be straightforward in terms of dealing with the delivery of waste and the consequences of under-delivery of the agreed quantity.
If the WSA is a “waste arising” contract this means that the government or municipality agrees to deliver all waste of a particular kind arising (or possibly collected) within the area of the government or municipality. The waste arising risk is increasingly dealt with through variable gate fees, with the gate fee increasing per tonne if the mass of waste delivered is less than a stated quantity, and vice versa.
If the waste project is a merchant waste project, these are risks that the project sponsors will have to manage themselves.
Table 2: Forms of WSA for Contracted Waste ProjectsAs a general statement: MRF contracts tend to be shorter-term contracts, taking the form of service contracts, recognising that governments and municipalities tend to view contracts with MRFs in the same way that they view contracts with collection contractors. Also, governments and municipalities sometimes develop MRFs themselves, and may contract with a private sector contractor to provide operation and maintenance services. MBT and MTF WSAs tend to be long-term contracts (20 to 30 years) taking the form of term concession contracts or public private partnership (PPP) contracts, reflecting the higher capital cost of MTFs and MBTs and the fact that they are likely to be project financed ORF WSAs tend to be shorter-term (and shorter-form) contracts, taking the form of service contracts, although some are concession contracts and PPP "lite" contracts, reflecting the concerns of the particular government or municipality FOGO WSAs tend to be longer-term contracts (circa 10 years) taking a number of forms, from service contracts form, to concessions and PPP contracts. It is fair to say that the contractual arrangements tend to be longer in form (and more complex in substance) if the facility is to be located on land leased to the waste project by the government or municipality, and if a landfill is adjacent to the project, or if the project is co-located with a landfill site owned or operated by the government or municipality. In addition, governments and municipalities may make a capital contribution to the waste project or may have rights to acquire it at the end of the term. If this is the case, it tends to increase the length and complexity of the WSA. |
Key policy setting for waste projects
The key policy setting for waste projects are detailed in the table below:
| Environmental levers | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental prohibitions prohibiting ocean dumping, open dumping and landfilling certain waste streams | Environmental standards for landfill to address contamination, leaching into the water table and methane emissions | Environmental standards on emissions to limit emissions, contamination and residue disposal for waste projects | |
| Co-ordinated approval and licensing processes to allow timely and effective development and operation | Licensing for expansion of projects over time to take advantage of increased waste arisings in specific areas | Classification of waste to regulate how and where waste may be treated or disposed of and to license receipt of waste | |
| CONSISTENCY OF REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT: Unless regulations are consistent, and enforced across a jurisdiction, market forces will find a way to dispose of waste at the least cost and greatest profit, even in jurisdictions with developed waste collection systems. | |||
| MUNICIPALITY POWERS AND LEVERS, AND ENFORCEMENT | ||
|---|---|---|
| Duty or power to collect waste, which may be an existing legislative outcome or require legislation if waste policy is less developed | Power to recover payment for the cost of collecting waste generally and for specific waste streams | Power to contract with the private sector to develop waste projects, including power to contract for longer term projects |
| LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD | ||
|---|---|---|
| Waste and landfill levies to incentivise more environmentally beneficial waste projects on a consistent basis across jurisdictions | Gap funding, including government grants and subsidies to achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes using waste projects | Revenue from MSW processing and treatment, including gate fees because municipalities chose waste projects over landfill |
| CHANGE IN LAW: The law is needed to “level the playing field” to allow for the development of and to regulate waste projects. Therefore, the risk of change in law is important to the private sector: it informs thinking as to how change in law risks need to be addressed contractually. Project sponsors and financiers will want economics that are sustainable on a long-term basis, assuming consistent regulation and enforcement and where underlying costs and revenue remain relatively predictable. Every contract will need to address changes in law affecting the relative costs and revenue of the waste project. | ||
Key waste streams
Waste is characterised in a variety of ways, with industry and regulators using common descriptions and terms. These are Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),12
Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&IW),13 Construction and Demolition Waste (C&DW),14 Events Waste,15 Green Waste,16 Organic Waste17 (including bagasse18 and biomass19), Food Waste20, Garden Waste21, Hazardous Waste22, E-Waste23, Medical Waste (including Nuclear Medicine)24, Bio-solid and Slurry Waste25.
Figure 2: Waste types and how they may be treated
Compatibility, Contamination, Composition and Capacity
In the context of waste projects, the four Cs – Compatibility, Contamination, Composition and Capacity – need to be considered and addressed. In a contracted waste project these will be addressed in the WSA.
Compatibility: On a contracted waste project, the sponsors of the waste project will want to ensure that they cannot be required to accept, process or treat waste that is not consistent with the design of the waste project or the terms of the approvals and licences for the project. This is invariably accepted in principle by governments and municipalities, but it can take time to reflect “in principle agreement” in the terms of the WSA. Waste that is not compatible with the waste project is termed Incompatible Waste or Unprocessable Waste. A related concern for the waste project will be whether it is paid the gate fee or, indeed, any fee for Incompatible/Unprocessable Waste. If the waste project is a merchant waste project, these are risks that it will have to manage itself.
Contamination: On a contracted waste project, the sponsors of the waste project will want to ensure that they cannot be required to accept, process or treat contaminated waste if this might then result in a contamination issue which it is unable to manage:26 contaminated material may cause further contamination of products produced by the waste project (i.e. a revenue consequence because the product cannot be sold ) and may give rise to increased operating expenditure (i.e. a cost consequence, for example, increased cost of disposing of product that cannot be sold or used for the intended purpose). The waste project will be prepared to accept a certain level of contamination, and will cost the removal of the contamination (and its disposal) into its gate fee, but it will not accept contamination risk on an open ended basis. This is invariably agreed and there are a number of ways of addressing this risk.
While the government or municipality will expect the waste project to identify contamination and to address it, the cost of doing so is likely to be reflected in an increased gate fee where the level of contamination is above a stated threshold. A related concern for the sponsors of the waste project is whether or not they are paid the gate fee for waste that is not accepted on account of being contaminated. Again, this is a risk that can be addressed through an increased gate fee.
Finally, the waste project may want to address the fact that contamination can affect the quality of the products produced by the waste project. It is likely that the government or municipality will resist any gate fee adjustment but they are likely to agree that the sponsors of the waste project should not be liable for producing a product that is not of the right quality.
If the waste project is a merchant waste project, these are risks that the project sponsors will have to manage themselves.
Composition: The sponsors of the waste project will be concerned to understand the composition of the waste that will be delivered to the facility, and for these purposes are likely to undertake a waste composition study. On most waste projects, the operation of the project allows the sponsors to undertake an “ongoing waste composition study” for the term of the WSA. The sponsors of the waste project will be aware of the consequences of changes in the composition of the waste delivered, and are likely to have to accept the risk that, over time, the composition of the waste may change.
On a contracted waste project, the project sponsors are less likely to accept the composition risk if it arises from a decision by the government or municipality and gives rise to reduced revenue or increased costs. This can be a difficult issue to negotiate, with the position of the government/municipality typically being that the waste project should be able to manage changes in composition risk.
Finally, as was the case in relation to contamination, it is important for the change in composition to be recognised as a factor that may affect the quality of the products produced by the waste project. If the waste project is a merchant waste project, these are risks that the project sponsors will have to manage themselves.
Capacity: On a contracted waste project it is likely that the government or municipality will want, under the terms of the WSA, to be able to deliver less waste to the project in the earlier years, and more in the later years. The charging regime under the WSA will need to address this. Depending on the charging regime adopted, it may be necessary for the WSA to reserve capacity or to circumscribe capacity that, if not being used by the government or municipality, may be used by other suppliers of waste .
Conclusion
For the waste projects described in this article, and the waste-to-energy projects described in article 2 (“Waste-to-wealth initiatives: waste-to-energy projects”), the maturity of the industry participants who are developing these projects, and the highly developed (and now well-accepted) bases for contracting waste projects, provide governments and municipalities with a range of economically viable and sustainable solutions to the ever-changing, and increasingly global, waste landscape. The changes introduced in the PRC in 2017 (in our view, a tipping point) have forced all participants in the waste industry to look for more sustainable (and possibly higher value) revenue streams from recyclables derived from, and products produced from, waste: as has been demonstrated, it is not sustainable to rely on one export market to avoid the development of, or to delay the implementation of, policy and funding decisions. As a result, we are seeing (generally, and with governments and municipalities) a greater recognition of the necessity for self-determination in how to avoid, and how to manage, waste.
Previously published in Infraread, Issue 12: October 2018
1. Sometimes referred to as “red-lidded bins”, being bins used for domestic comingled mixed waste, or municipal solid waste.
2. As a general statement, recyclables are: aluminium, glass, high density polyethylene (HDPE), liquid paper board (LBP), mixed plastics, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and steel.
3. Sometimes referred to as “yellow-lidded bins”, being bins used for domestic comingled recyclable waste.
4. In some circumstances, recyclables are separated further, with paper separated from other recyclables.
5. We have described a three bin system on the basis that it is a system that is used, or is increasingly being used, across a number of jurisdictions. Note, however, that some jurisdictions have less sophisticated, and some more sophisticated, bin systems.
6. We use the term gate fee to describe the amount payable by the government or municipality for the waste to be delivered to the waste facility and sorted, processed and treated at the facility. Many different terms are used (including “waste processing fee”).
7. A transfer station is a facility at which waste is consolidated from a number of sources and transported to an ultimate destination or to ultimate destinations. In addition, waste may be subject to some form of sorting or compaction at a transfer station.
8. Although this approach to change in law and change in policy has become more usual than not, there is a policy argument that government and municipalities should allow the full effect/impact of a change in law or change in policy to be passed on to the households and businesses within its area, rather than being absorbed by the waste industry or subsidised by the government or municipality, or both. This will then send pricing signals, including as to waste avoidance.
9. CDSs aim to achieve the avoidance, reuse and recycling of waste: i.e. the outcomes at the pinnacle of the Waste Management Hierarchy – see Figure 1. CDSs incentivise the separation/segregation of recyclables, including aluminium, clear PET, coloured PET, glass, HDPE, LBP and steel, and the delivery of it to intermediate collection points by payment for recyclables delivered.
10. The PRC has established a “Blue Sky Program” under which it is implementing policies, introduced in 2017, prohibiting the import into the PRC of 24 categories of solid waste by reference to levels of contamination, including plastics and unsorted waste paper with contamination levels in excess of 0.5 per cent (initially 0.3 per cent)by mass.
11. Municipal Solid Waste is waste arising from human activities in urban environments (other than sewage and waste water).
12. Commercial and Industrial Waste is waste arising from commercial and industrial premises.
13. Construction and Demolition Waste is waste arising from construction and demolition work.
14. Events Waste is waste arising from entertainment and public events within municipalities, including music concerts and festivals, parades and sports events.
15. Green Waste is organic material from domestic “green” bins and the activities of municipalities (typically, parks and gardens, and lopping and topping of trees).
16. Organic Waste is a generic term for any waste that arises from the human management of flora, including agricultural, forestry and husbandry.
17. Bagasse is organic material arising from sugar cane or sorghum production.
18. Biomass is organic material arising from agricultural, forestry and husbandry activities.
19. Food Waste is organic material arising from commercial or domestic food preparation, which is increasingly being separated at source by households and commercial food outlets.
20. Garden Waste is organic material arising from domestic gardening activities.
21. Hazardous Waste is waste that is potentially harmful to human health, animals, plants or the environment. Characteristics may include that the waste is explosive, flammable, poisonous, toxic, exotoxic or infectious, including hydrocarbon/water mixtures and wastes containing certain compounds such as zinc, lead and asbestos.
22. E-Waste is electronic waste including mobile phones, computers and other electronic appliances. Given the high rate of technological advancement and consumption of electronic goods, E-Waste is an ever-growing fraction of the waste stream.
23. Medical Waste is a generic term for waste arising from medical and pharmaceutical activities.
24. Bio-solid and Slurry Waste is human and animal waste matter derived from waste water processing or agricultural collection.
25. In the early days of certain MBTs, issues arose with the contamination of organic products from the contamination of the organic stream, including as a result of car batteries being delivered which, having broken, contaminated the waste stream then processed.
Contents
NSW Government effects major asset privatisation: WestConnex sale tips Asset Recycling Model into overdrive
Emerging trends in Asia: New models for financing infrastructure investment in south and southeast asia
Chocks away!: Privatisation of Aéroports de Paris gets ready for take-off
Investing in Saudi Arabia: Key areas of Saudi law and dispute resolution
New options for German infrastructure funding
Waste-to-wealth initiatives: Have we reached a tipping point?
Waste not, want not: Energy-from-Waste refinancings – the opportunities and challenges
The global infrastructure industry: Following Darwin or the ostrich?
Key Contacts
We bring together lawyers of the highest calibre with the technical knowledge, industry experience and regional know-how to provide the incisive advice our clients need.
Keep up to date
Sign up to receive the latest legal developments, insights and news from Ashurst. By signing up, you agree to receive commercial messages from us. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Sign upThe information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.
