(CGN 11) PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

This CGN is one of the most important guidance notes in the series so far because it deals with a difficult truth that much of the recycling and reuse world is still struggling to fully accept. For years, we were encouraged to repair, reuse, recycle and keep materials circulating for as long as possible.

In principle, that remains absolutely correct; however, some legacy materials now present a serious legal and environmental challenge due to the presence of Persistent Organic Pollutants - better known as POPs. These chemicals, commonly found in older upholstered seating, electrical plastics, cables and insulation materials, were originally introduced to improve fire safety and product performance.

The problem is that many of them do not easily break down, they accumulate in the environment and are now tightly controlled under UK and international law which itself creates a major compliance issue for organisations attempting to recycle or refurbish older furniture and WEEE items.

A sofa may look recyclable. A foam cushion may appear reusable. An old cable may seem harmless. Yet if those materials contain POPs above legal thresholds, they cannot legally be recycled back into new products and may instead require destruction through specialist high-temperature incineration routes.

The purpose of this guidance note is not to criticise repair, reuse or recycling organisations, many are acting with genuinely good environmental intentions. Rather, it is to explain where modern waste legislation places limits on the circular economy and why ‘doing the green thing’ still must remain legally compliant.

Basically, if foam or plastic contains POPs, it is not a recycling product; it is a destruction waste.

This CGN summarises the current UK guidance surrounding:

• upholstered domestic seating containing POPs
• WEEE plastics and cables
• legal disposal obligations
• the growing operational impact these rules are having across universities, businesses, charities and the wider waste industry

Relevant guidance referenced within this CGN includes: Manage waste containing Persistent Organic Pollutants – link - Manage waste upholstered domestic seating containing POPs⁠ - link - Classify some waste electrical devices, components and wastes from their treatment⁠ - link - CGN 10 - link - more like this (POPs) - link

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(MOT) ROUNDUP - GOING STRONG IN CALIFORNIA

An artist's rendition. But some locals fear spraying Roundup in the Lassen National Forest and vicinity threatens their “little slice of heaven.” Billie Carter-Rankin; George Rose/Getty

In remote Northeast California, about 10 miles outside the lumber mill town of Chester and a half-hour’s drive from the old hunting cabin I bought and fixed up about a decade ago, I steer my old Toyota Tacoma down a bumpy dirt road to where the Lassen National Forest gives way to private timberland. Lilly rides shotgun.

We’d come to this exact spot seven years ago. Lilly, my sharp-eyed border collie, had jumped out of the truck and chased a rabbit through a meadow of knee-high grass, returning covered in mud and burrs. The landscape was straight out of an L.L.Bean catalog: a flower-dotted meadow buzzing with life. Douglas firs, incense cedars, and some of the tallest sugar pines on the planet sheltered protected species ranging from gray wolves to Pacific fishers and northern goshawks. The Sierra Nevada red fox, one of California’s rarest mammals, was known to live nearby, amid the vast patchwork of private and public lands. The Lassen area is where I come to reset, forage for wild mushrooms, and let stress evaporate.

But today, I’m looking out over a barren, sun-bleached expanse that stretches across the former meadow and up the sides of denuded mountains as far as the eye can see. No birds. No animals. No insects. No big trees. Just some waist-high piles of volcanic rock, a nod to the still-active Lassen Peak nearby. It is eerily quiet—desolate. The Dixie Fire roared through here in July 2021, burning nearly 1 million acres. The Park Fire three years later took out another 430,000 acres nearby. But the fires aren’t directly responsible for what I’m seeing today. People did this.

Just a few minutes down the road, nature has crept back to life. There, I saw vibrant green mountain whitethorn bushes, rabbitbrush, and purple-tinged bull thistles, with energetic bees bopping from flower to flower. The towering trees were gone, but new saplings abounded—cedars, pines, firs, and more—scattered randomly amid the greenery, already a foot or two high. No such verdant revival is visible on the private timberland before me. No bees, no flowers—it’s a virtual dead zone where the only life consists of row upon row of manually planted, tightly packed conifer saplings, all less than a foot tall.

This is because, unbeknownst to most people, logging companies and the US Forest Service have been spraying massive amounts of herbicide in clear-cut and fire-ravaged forests of California—and throughout the nation. And not just any herbicide, but glyphosate, a potent and problematic weed killer best known by the brand name Roundup. More of this article (Mother Jones) - link - Melissa Lewis - link - more like this (glyphosate) - link - more like this (California) - link

(CGN 10) EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

CGN 10 takes on one of the biggest changes currently reshaping the waste and packaging sector - Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

For years, packaging producers could place almost anything onto the market with very little financial connection to what happened afterwards. If it was difficult to recycle, contaminated the recycling stream, or simply ended up being burned or buried, the costs usually landed elsewhere - councils, taxpayers, waste contractors and ultimately the environment itself. EPR is supposed to change that.

In this Circular Guidance Note, we explore:

• why EPR matters
• how the RAM (Recyclability Assessment Methodology) could become one of the UK’s most important waste policy tools
• why procurement decisions now carry long-term financial consequences
• how “cheap packaging” may become expensive packaging
• why some producers may simply pass additional costs straight back to customers instead of redesigning poor packaging

We also touch on the increasingly controversial debate surrounding glass packaging, along with comparisons between the UK’s approach and the far more ambitious direction being taken under the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) and Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR).

Importantly, this CGN is not anti-EPR. In fact, parts of the framework, particularly RAM may finally begin linking packaging design to real-world recyclability and real-world financial consequences which, being honest, the industry has needed for a very long time.

More than ever, with the introduction of pEPR, good recycling starts in procurement. CGN 09 - link - more like this - (pEPR) - link - more like this (CEAP) - link

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(CGN 09) LITTERING

Littering is often dismissed as a minor nuisance; a dropped can, a cigarette end, a takeaway wrapper left on a wall but in reality, littering sits at the very front line of waste management, public behaviour and environmental responsibility.

Every piece of litter has a cost: someone has to clean it up, someone has to pay for it and somewhere downstream, it impacts communities, wildlife, drainage systems and public perception.

CGN 09 explores the legal and operational framework surrounding littering and fly-tipping in England and Wales, including the legislation commonly used by councils and enforcement officers, the difference between littering and fly-tipping, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), enforcement powers and the wider practical implications for businesses, local authorities and the public.

Importantly, this guidance note is intended to inform rather than instruct. As with all CGNs, I have aimed to keep the document grounded in publicly available legislation, guidance and operational practice while remaining accessible to everyday readers. Report littering - link - CGN 08 - link - (still in writing) - CGN 07 - link - more like this (littering) - link - more like this (FPN) - link

TCGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves, and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(CGN 08) FOOD WASTE

For years, most organisations treated food waste as little more than “wet general waste” - something scraped into a black bag and forgotten about but under the UK’s new Simpler Recycling reforms, that approach is rapidly disappearing.

Businesses with more than ten full-time employees at a single location are now required to separately collect food waste, with household collections expanding across England in the years ahead. In other words, food waste is no longer simply a sustainability choice, it's becoming standard operational compliance.
But unlike many environmental obligations, this one actually makes genuine environmental sense.

When separated correctly and sent to Anaerobic Digestion (AD), food waste becomes a renewable energy source capable of generating electricity, biogas and agricultural digestate while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill or residual disposal.

This latest Circular Guidance Note (CGN 08) explores:

• the legal requirements behind food waste collections,
• the environmental benefits of Anaerobic Digestion,
• the difference between AD and In-Vessel Composting (IVC),
• the growing industry frustration around so-called “compostable” packaging.

One of the biggest myths in modern waste management is that “compostable” automatically means environmentally beneficial which isn't always the case. 

As always, the aim of the CGN series is not greenwashing, jargon or virtue signalling — but practical circular thinking grounded in real-world waste operations and compliance. CGN 07 - link - more like this (Anaerobic Digestion) - link - more like this (food waste) - link - please note - website address is incorrect. 

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(CGN 07) CREAM CHARGERS

CGN 07 focuses on a growing problem quietly making its way through the waste industry: nitrous oxide cream chargers.

Used widely by coffee shops, bakeries, catering outlets and commercial kitchens, these large gas canisters are increasingly being discarded into general waste and recycling streams despite still containing residual pressure and oxidising gas hazards.

The problem is simple: They look empty. They are often not.

Once inside compactors, balers, MRFs or incinerators, these cylinders can cause fires, explosions, equipment damage and significant operational disruption.

This Circular Guidance Note explains:

• why cream chargers remain hazardous after use
• their correct technical classification
• why they should never enter routine waste streams
• and the correct route for compliant treatment

Like all CGNs, the aim is not greenwash or jargon — just practical circular thinking based on real operational realities within the waste industry.

Because pressure vessels belong in specialist treatment - not general waste. RPS 289 - link - More like this (aerosols) - link - more like this (CGN 06) - link

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(CGN 06) COMING SOON - THE CARBON SLEDGEHAMMER

 More like this (CGN 05) - link

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(CGN 05) EPR - THE FULL SET

Over the next few years, a series of new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes will fundamentally change who pays for waste management, how materials are designed, collected and recycled, and ultimately what businesses are allowed to place on the market.

For decades, the true cost of dealing with difficult, non-recyclable and waste heavy products has largely fallen on local authorities, businesses and taxpayers. The new EPR framework aims to reverse that model by shifting the financial and operational responsibility back onto the producers placing materials onto the market in the first place.

Packaging is only the beginning.

The UK is now moving towards wider producer responsibility schemes covering sectors such as batteries, electrical equipment, textiles, tyres, furniture and other hard to recycle waste streams; many of which have historically escaped meaningful end of life accountability.

Alongside Simpler Recycling, Digital Waste Tracking, the Deposit Return Scheme and future carbon legislation, EPR will become one of the defining drivers shaping procurement, packaging design, recycling systems and disposal costs throughout the late 2020s and beyond.

In simple terms:

The era of “someone else will deal with it at the end” is slowly coming to an end.

This document provides an overview of the proposed and emerging UK EPR schemes, what they are intended to achieve and what organisations should now be preparing for. more like this (EPR) - link - more like this (tyres) - link - more like this (CGN 04) - link

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(XIN) DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEME - CHINESE STYLE

People work at Huge Recycle, a company handling household waste recovery and recycling, in Hangzhou, east China's Zhejiang Province, Jan. 14, 2026. (Xinhua/Jiang Han)

Scanning a code, opening a hatch, and tossing in bottles, Yuan Meirong completes the recycling process in less than 10 seconds. With a ding, 0.8 yuan (11.6 U.S. cents) is credited to her account.

"It's so convenient," said the resident from Hangzhou, capital of east China's Zhejiang Province, gesturing at a smart recycling bin. "Now I can easily recycle delivery boxes and bottles for a little reward. It's fun."

Operated by the internet recycling firm Lovere, the smart bin is one of 870 units deployed across nearly 400 residential communities in Hangzhou's Xihu District since its July 2024 pilot launch.

Residents can enter a phone number or scan a QR code to recycle items such as plastic bottles, cardboard, old clothes, and takeout containers. The bin automatically weighs the items and pays about 0.6 yuan per kg directly to the user's account.

More than a mere convenience, the bins demonstrate how technology is monetizing waste streams across Chinese cities, transforming passive disposal into people's active participation in the circular economy. Since deploying the smart bins, recyclable-sorting accuracy has reached 98.5 percent, with monthly recycling volume averaging 1,000 tonnes, said Zhang Yixiang, Lovere's Hangzhou chief.

The company has placed over 50,000 bins in 38 cities and has recycled 2 million tonnes for 30 million users. In Xihu District alone, residents have used the bins 2.58 million times, receiving 4.2 million yuan in total. The top user recycled 9 tonnes, earning 5,400 yuan, according to the company. Zhang Kang, Lovere's Hangzhou operations head, said the sensors trigger pickups only when bins are full, and an automated sorting center categorizes materials into more than 80 types for sale.

"With scale, the business is expected to become profitable," he said. The Communist Party of China Central Committee's recommendations for formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) for the country's economic and social development propose promoting a circular economy.

At Xianyu, a leading second-hand trading platform of China's internet giant Alibaba, 7 million used items were listed on average every day in 2025, with daily trading volume up 30 percent year on year. "Every transaction is users' participation in a green lifestyle," said Ding Jian, the platform's CEO.

From April 2024 to March 2025, Xianyu users reduced carbon emissions by 11.8 million tonnes through trading and recycling -- equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 7.4 million households, Ding said. According to the China Association of Circular Economy, the circular economy accounted for about 30 percent of the country's carbon reduction from 2021 to 2025, and this share is expected to rise to 35 percent by 2030.

In Hangzhou's Yuhang District, resident Chai Yuyong praised "Huge," a door-to-door recycling service, which collected his old sofa and table for free in 20 minutes. Residents place orders via an app, and a worker arrives within an hour to collect, weigh and pay for items such as old appliances. "Living on a high floor, I found it a hassle to dispose of the bulky old furniture by myself. Now, with just a tap on my phone, they come to collect and carry them for free. It's a real relief," Chai said.

Hu Shaoping, vice president of the company Huge Recycle, said that over the past 10 years, the company has built an end-to-end chain from household collection to sorting, dismantling and resource reuse. The service offers transparent pricing for used appliances of different sizes. Residents are paid in "green coins," which can be redeemed for cash or spent at Huge's online mall, further driving green consumption.

To date, the company has issued nearly 500 million yuan in green coins. Xu Lin, a professor at Zhejiang University, noted that smart technology has made recycling and green consumption as simple as a phone scan. These small actions, he said, show how the public has moved from being told what to do to taking the lead in the circular economy. More of this article (XINHUANET) link - more like this (DRS) - link - more like this (China) - link

(BBC) COUNCIL REJECTS ELECTRIC

Wakefield Council has been trialling using an electric rubbish collection truck

A council has announced plans to replace its "ageing" bin lorries with a new fleet of diesel vehicles after attempts to go electric were unsuccessful.

Wakefield Council began trialling an electric rubbish collection vehicle four years ago as part of efforts to become a carbon neutral authority.

But Lou Redpath, the council's service director for environmental services, told a meeting that manufacturers had been unable to find "anything sustainable enough" to allow the council to switch to an electric fleet long-term.

Members of the council's environment scrutiny committee described the move as "disappointing", especially during the ongoing global fuel shortage. The council declared a climate emergency in May 2019 and pledged to be fully carbon neutral by 2030. In 2022, senior councillors agreed to spend £4.9m to introduce zero-emission battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and an additional £1m on charging infrastructure.

At the time, a report said about 12% of the authority's greenhouse gas emissions were produced by its fleet of 1,100 cars, vans and other equipment.

The document also said bin wagons and gritters would continue to use diesel due to "uncertainties with technology and performance" of larger vehicles, but pledged to keep trialling an electric refuse vehicle. More of this article (BBC) - link - more like this (Council waste EVs) - link - more like this (electric waste vehicles) - link - more like this (Carbon Neutral) - link

(CGN 04) THE WASTE FILES

THE WASTE FILES – THE MANIFESTO - By Guff House

What is this going to be?

Wastipedia (or whatever I end up calling it) is/will be a free, open and evolving library of practical waste management knowledge built from over forty years of real-world experience existing for one simple reason: to make waste management clearer, more accurate and more honest.

• No subscriptions.
• No gatekeeping.
• No pretending theory works when it doesn’t.

Why it's needed

Too much of this industry runs on outdated guidance, misinterpreted legislation (That’s how we’ve always done it”) and the occasional confident guess dressed up as fact. Somewhere between legislation, operations and procurement, things get muddled. Wastipedia (or whatever) will exist to un-muddle them.

What you’ll find here

Documents that answer real questions, such as:

• What is this waste actually classified as?
• Can this really be recycled — or is that wishful thinking?
• What should I be buying if I want to avoid disposal problems later?
• What does the legislation say… and what actually happens on site?

Each document is/will be designed to be practical, clear, usable under pressure and grounded in reality, not theory.

The Principle: Reality Over Rhetoric

Every piece of content will follow one rule - if it doesn’t work in the real world, it doesn’t belong here. Where there’s a gap between guidance and practice, we will say so. Clearly, honestly and without dressing it up.

Open to Correction – Not Open to Chaos

Wastipedia (whatever) will never be static. If something is wrong, outdated, incomplete or could be improved, you are invited to challenge it; and as long as you can back it up (guidance, regs or real operational experience), keeping it practical, constructive, every document will be versioned, reviewed and updated where necessary. Contributors who improve content can be credited (if they wish) because accuracy matters and so does accountability.

What this is not going to be

Wastipedia will not be:

• A marketing exercise
• A compliance box-ticking tool
• A place for vague sustainability claims

Who it’s going to be for

Anyone who has ever stood in front of a bin thinking: “Right… what actually happens to this?”

My aim

To build something people can rely on. Not because it looks good but because it’s right.

Built from experience - Improved by those still doing the job - Open to challenge - closed to nonsense.

If you know something - add to it.
If you see something wrong - fix it.
If you’ve ever questioned how this industry works -  you’re in the right place.

More like this (The Waste Files) - link - more like this (legislation) - link - more like this (knowledge) - link - download 'Bin It Right - Buy It Better' - here

CGN Disclaimer & Community Review

As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.

I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.

(NAT) WORLD'S LARGEST REDOX FLOW

Energy firm FlexBase is building a giant battery in this pit in northern Switzerland

In northern Switzerland, a construction team is hard at work excavating a hole in the ground that will end up being over 88 ft (27 m) deep, and spanning the length of two soccer pitches. This pit will be home to Switzerland's first redox flow battery for storing clean energy – and it'll be the most powerful of its kind in the world.

The idea is to utilize a storage technology that's nearly 150 years old to prevent blackouts, and help stabilize Swiss and European power grids in times of fluctuating demand. It's being built by Swiss energy company FlexBase, and the project is set to cost over a billion dollars.

"We will be able to inject or absorb up to 1.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in a few milliseconds," FlexBase co-founder Marcel Aumer told Swiss public broadcaster RTS earlier this month. That's equivalent to the output of the Leibstadt nuclear power plant located in the same region, near the German border. The giant battery will be fed with excess energy generated by windmills.

The tech theoretically dates back to 1879, and was modernized through NASA research between the 1950s and 70s. While lithium-ion batteries are more common and have improved and become more affordable, they're mostly suitable for short-term energy storage. Redox flow batteries are a better choice for long-term, grid-scale storage – and FlexBase says the various components needed for them, like tanks, membranes, cell stacks and pumps, have become cheaper as the industry has matured in recent years.

A redox flow battery works by storing energy in liquid electrolytes. Two chemical components that are high in water content are stored in large tanks, and pumped through a cell with a membrane separating them. When the battery is charging, ions transfer through the membrane from the positive to the negative side – changing the oxidation state and storing energy indefinitely. The opposite reaction occurs when it's discharging, and these charge cycles are inert. More of this article from the brilliant (New Atlas) - link - more like this (Redox flow) - link - more like this (Switzerland) - link

(REF) LIFE AFTER THE MANHATTAN PROJECT

The Hanford D and DR Reactors circa 1955, next to the Columbia River

A nuclear production facility in Washington state, called the Hanford site, once forged the plutonium that reshaped the world. Now it’s forging glass; a quiet act of undoing at one of Earth’s most contaminated sites.

Eighty years ago, at the height of World War II, the Hanford site forged the plutonium that would help end the war and usher in a new atomic era. Now the site is forging glass, each glowing canister a quiet reversal of that legacy. After years of anticipation, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has finally begun vitrifying Hanford’s nuclear waste, sealing it forever inside glass logs that mark the first real progress in cleaning one of Earth’s most contaminated nuclear sites.

During World War II and throughout the Cold War, the Hanford reactors along the Columbia River near Richland, Washington produced most of the plutonium in the US arsenal of bombs and missiles, leaving behind 56 million gallons of radioactive sludge stored in 177 aging underground tanks. For decades the waste lingered beneath desert soil, threatening to leach into the river that defines the region.
Now, the new vitrification facility, a US$10-billion engineering project built to immobilize that high-level waste in glass, has turned its first 5,500 liters into inert, permanent canisters.

Growing Up Beside a Closed World

As someone who grew up in the region, the weight of this story lands a little different. The Hanford site was always part of the landscape, even if it rarely came up in conversation. A place marked by long roads, distant fences, and the kind of silence that makes you wonder what has soaked into the ground. For decades, the story of Hanford – its scale, its secrecy, its consequences – was something I felt around the edges without ever fully understanding.

The Manhattan Project, that secret wartime race to develop the first atomic weapon, built Hanford with a speed that only a wartime effort can summon. Its reactors rose from the desert with unprecedented urgency, producing the plutonium that fueled both the Trinity test and the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Plutonium production continued throughout the Cold War into the 1980s, long after World War II ended, leaving behind a legacy far larger and more complex than anyone working behind those fences could have imagined. It was a project defined by speed and secrecy; its waste was never intended for long-term storage. More of this article (refractor) - link - Chelsea Haney (author) - link - more like this (nuclear) - link - More like this (Washington State) - link

(ICN) CORAL REEFS UNDER ATTACK FROM SEWAGE

Researchers survey bleached corals around Koh Tao island in the southern Thai province of Surat Thani on June 14, 2024. Credit: Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP via Getty Images

Marine protected areas are designed to conserve coral reefs and other ocean ecosystems by restricting human activity within their boundaries. But most don’t account for one of the most severe and widespread threats to marine life that originates on land: sewage.

A new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the University of Queensland in Australia found that more than 70 percent of marine protected areas worldwide are contaminated by untreated, or poorly treated, wastewater.

In places with extensive coral reefs, like the Coral Triangle—a 2 million square mile marine area spanning six countries in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea—contamination is even more widespread.

According to the study, published this month in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management, more than 90 percent of coastal protected areas in the Coral Triangle are affected by high levels of sewage pollution—up to 10 times highter than in nearby unprotected waters.

“What we found was striking,” said David E. Carrasco Rivera, the study’s lead author and a doctoral candidate at the University of Queensland. “In region after region, the areas set aside for conservation were actually receiving more pollution than the areas with no protection at all.”

Many marine protected areas are established near coastlines to help fragile and overburdened ecosystems that people depend on for food, tourism and livelihoods recover, rebuild and thrive. But their nearshore locations make them particularly vulnerable to contamination that can undermine their purpose, said Amelia Wenger, co-author of the study and global water pollution lead at the Wildlife Conservation Society, a global nonprofit dedicated to protecting wildlife, based at the Bronx Zoo in New York.

“Even a perfectly managed marine protected area will fail to achieve benefits for conservation and for people if wastewater keeps flowing in from upstream,” she said. More of this article (Inside Climate News) - link - more like this (reefs) - link - more like this (sewage) - link - more like this (Queensland) - link

(GUF) CIRCULAR GUIDANCE NOTES

Introducing the Circular Guidance Note (CGN) Series

Waste guidance often arrives as dense policy, technical jargon or worthy slogans that tell people what they should do, but rarely explain why it matters in practice.

The Circular Guidance Note (CGN) Series is my attempt to do something simpler. Each CGN takes one practical issue — from reusable pallets, to purchasing decisions, to soft plastics — and strips it back to common sense.

• Not theory
• Not greenwash
• Just practical circular thinking

The idea behind the series is straightforward: Waste does not begin at the bin.

It often begins much earlier; in design, procurement, packaging choices and behaviours that quietly create costs and environmental impacts downstream. The first three Circular Guidance Notes reflect that progression:

CGN 01 – Wooden Pallets Are Reusable Packaging, Not Someone Else’s Waste

A reminder that reusable assets abandoned on site are not “free waste disposal,” but a cost shifted elsewhere in the supply chain - test - link - draft copy for trial only.

CGN 02 – If You Bring It In – We Have To Deal With It 

A challenge to think about waste before it exists, and recognise that purchasing choices shape disposal costs - test - link - draft copy for trial only

CGN 03 – Soft Plastics: The Next Wave

A look ahead at one of the most problematic and important materials in the circular economy transition.

Together they share one simple principle: The bin does not make something recyclable. Buying choices do. These notes are designed to be practical, visual and shareable — for workplaces, campuses, laboratories, public estates or anywhere waste and procurement collide. More like this (biomass) - link - more like this (recycling) - link - more like this (soft plastics) - link

More will follow.

• Less wishcycling.
• More thinking.
• Welcome to the Circular Guidance Note Series.

Coming Soon — Free CGN Downloads

Guff House is building a free download library of Circular Guidance Notes (CGNs) — practical, printable guidance sheets designed to turn circular economy theory into common sense.

From pallets and plastic films to procurement, recycling and greenwash-busting, each CGN is designed to be used, shared and adapted.

• No consultancy jargon.
• No mystical sustainability waffle.
• Just guidance that works.

Free PDF library launching soon.