Concerns over CA site closure impact on WEEE rates

Moves by local authorities to close civic amenity sites as a cost-cutting measure could hinder efforts to increase waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) collection rates, according to leading figures in the sector.

WEEE reprocessors and producer compliance schemes told letsrecycle.com that the pressure on councils to cut costs and maximise revenues was being felt throughout the WEEE system in a number of ways.

These range from the proposed or actual closure of CA sites – traditionally the main avenue for household WEEE to be collected for recycling – to councils increasingly teaming up to procure a compliance scheme to clear WEEE from their CA sites.

They also highlighted the increasing involvement of waste management companies, and third parties appointed by them, in dealing with WEEE from CA sites on councils' behalf – which they claimed could lead to higher prices for recycling evidence, a cost being passed onto producers.

And, one industry source suggested that, as those companies look to reprocess the material as cheaply as possible to maximise their profits from dealing with it, the possibility of it being illegally exported could increase – something that could damage the reputation of the brands involved.

CA sites

The potential for CA sites to be closed to reduce costs has already seen the Somerset Waste Partnership announce plans to close four of its 18 recycling centres (see letsrecycle.com story), while operations at sites in Hertfordshire and Thurrock in Essex are also set to cease as local authorities react to a 26% cut in their funding from central government.

The potential impact of this on the WEEE sector was highlighted by Justin Greenaway, contracts manager for Kent-based WEEE reprocessor SWEEEP/Kuusakoski.

He told letsrecycle.com: “Councils cutting costs has a risk to designated collection facility infrastructure with HWRCs closing, because its about making it as easy as possible for people to recycle their WEEE.”

Mr Greenaway referred to the closure of an HWRC in Southend which SWEEEP previously sourced material from a “sign of the times”.

The potential impact on collection routes was also noted by Duncan Simpson, director of sales and marketing for compliance scheme Valpak, who said: “It would be a concern but we also understand that local authorities are under a lot of financial pressure and we would tackle each instance case-by-case.”

Scott Butler, UK manager for the ERP compliance scheme, added: “It will have an impact. The pressure on finances is felt by all and it is obviously a factor that has more focus at the moment, for producers, recyclers and councils. We're always mindful of that.”

Site clearance

Industry figures also raised concerns over a trend towards councils sub-contracting waste companies to handle the WEEE at their CA sites, which was, in some cases, increasing how much it costs schemes to secure the material needed to meet their producer members' recycling obligations – an increase that could be passed onto producers.

Mr Greenaway explained: “Waste management companies are under increasing pressure to run the HWRC as cost effectively as possible which is understandable considering the economic climate. One of the ways they seem to be doing this is to manage the WEEE material and take a margin.

“This then must have a knock effect of increasing costs to other parties but also risks compliance schemes losing control of who does the recycling,” he added. “Whoever controls that waste is key; waste management companies will employ a contractor to manage the WEEE for them who understands the value of the evidence.”

This move was also alluded to by Mr Butler, who said: “I think it could become an increasing issue. The WEEE Directive makes producers responsible and it's very important that everything is done to allow those who are responsible for it to have access to it.”

Mr Simpson explained that, in some cases, “the waste management company would appear to be looking for who would pay them the absolute highest amount of money; it's not clear whether you're just paying for the clearance of WEEE or the clearance of WEEE with extras.

This was echoed by Mr Butler, who said: “The evidence note system has some positives but there are also dangers to it in that evidence note value may not always reflect the cost of services provided.”

But, Mr Simpson noted “we have found our procurement team has managed to work well, we'd refuse to be held to ransom” and said there were many instances of the arrangement working in a positive way.

Evidence price

Schemes and reprocessors did, however, report that this sort of approach was impacting on the price schemes were having to pay for recycling evidence, with Edward Cooke, director of the WeeeLink compliance scheme commenting: “They're making evidence generally very expensive if you deal with a third party”.

Despite this, schemes reported few changes in the prices being paid for evidence in general, with schemes now expected to trade evidence under longer-term agreements, rather than the last-minute trading that characterised the early days of the WEEE system.

Evidence prices are understood to range from in the region of £5-15 a tonne for large domestic appliances such as fridges – the largest tonnage of household WEEE generally collected from CA sites, while evidence for recycling display screens is fetching in the region of £220-250 a tonne.

Some mixed WEEE evidence is reportedly being touted at £180 a tonne, although one industry source told letsrecycle.com the price actually being paid was more more in the region of £100.

Contracts

In terms of contracts with councils, Mr Simpson revealed that Valpak was currently up for three or four deals to clear WEEE from CA sites, noting that councils were on a range of contract cycles – with many three-year deals but also others with extensions.

In particular, he noted a move towards joint-procurement of WEEE services, and said Valpak was in the process of implementing a contract it had secured with the North East Purchasing Organisation, covering all the councils in the North East of England.

He explained this offered a “central process” for councils to go through, while allowing Valpak, which to take a strategic approach to the whole area.