(Continued from page 1)

Producers have to show that they have contracts with enough ATFs to provide the treatment capacity to handle all of their ELVs arising in 2006. While no clear predictions can be made on the exact number of vehicles that will come back to the contracted ATFs in the first few years of the regulations, the DTI will seek assurances from the manufacturers and importers that they will have sufficient capacity to deal with all their ELVs, should the need arise.

the DTI will seek assurances from the manufacturers and importers that they will have sufficient capacity to deal with all their ELVs Even if some vehicles of their brand do not come back to the contracted network - and are ultimately taken by last owners to uncontracted ATFs - in 2006, the producers must establish a contracted network with the capacity to handle all vehicles of their brand.

As well as the capacity, the producer networks must demonstrate convenience for the last owner. Producers' networks will have to fulfil the following requirements:

• 75% of the last owners of a brand must have a journey of less than 10 miles to a contracted ATF or collection point offering free take back.
• No last owner should have to travel more than 30 miles to a contracted ATF or collection point.

The reason this requirement remained outside the regulations was so that the regulations were as similar to the terms of the ELV Directive as possible - the network density requirement does not appear in the Directive.

For the most part, producers are likely to use network service providers, which will offer a group of ATFs to service a producer's need. These third party organisations will work to ensure their clients have sufficient ATF capacity and coverage, but unlike in the packaging recoveyr system, they will not take on the legal responsibilities of the producers. The ELV Regulations see no statutory recognition of compliance schemes or service providers.

Another difference with the packaging waste producer responsibility is that producers will not be able to merely take "reasonable steps" to comply. They either comply or fail, and accept the consequences.

Alternative arrangements
In the guidance notes, producers will be offered the chance to make alternative arrangements for last owners in particularly isolated areas where it would be economically unfeasible to site an ATF. Alternative collection arrangements can be made provided they are at least as convenient for the last owner as the 10-mile average/30-mile maximum for the ATF networks.

The ELV regulations do leave open the door for ATFs to remain outside of the contracted networks and still take in ELVs. An alternative arrangement, for example, could see producers setting up a free phone number for last owners to call to arrange a household collection service.

Uncontracted ATFs
There has been some criticism of the Own Marque system of producer responsibility throughout its development because of the levels of investment required from dismantlers if they wish to upgrade to become ATFs.

The fact that dismantlers have to invest to meet the environmental protection standards in the ELV Regulations 2003 without financial assistance from vehicle producers - or any guarantee of future contracts with the producers - has led to accusations that the producer responsibility component of the Directive has been watered down.

The 2005 ELV regulations leave open the door for ATFs to remain outside of the contracted networks and still take in ELVs - if the material value of those ELVs is sufficient to make dismantling and recycling worthwhile. And if they remain outside the contracted networks, those ATFs are allowed to charge a fee for take back if metal values drop.

Continued on page 3 >>

Pages:
1   2   3