Plans to drive up recycling quality via a mandatory MRF Code of Practice have been welcomed by the waste industry but have drawn immediate criticism from reprocessors over proposals for sampling and inspections.
The contrasting views have been aired in response to the consultation launched last Friday (February 1) over a package of measures to improve recycling quality. The measures include the introduction of the Code of Practice, which would require all materials recycling facilities (MRFs) over a certain size to carry out regular sampling of their inputs and outputs (see letsrecycle.com story).
The results of the sampling would then be made available to those supplying material to and buying material from the facility and could also be made publicly available, partly depending on the consultation outcome.
ESA
The code was developed by Defra drawing on MRF standards work carried out by the Environmental Services Association (ESA).
The association, which is the trade body for the waste management sector and whose members operate some 50% of MRFs in the UK, was among the first to welcome the plans.
Matthew Farrow, director of policy at the ESA, said: I am delighted that ministers have listened to the ESA and are proposing a system of mandatory sampling and auditing of material coming into, and being produced by MRFs. It is also good news that the proposed Code of Practice has been modelled on the original version produced by the ESA.
Mr Farrow added that the ESA had been lobbying for the MRF code to be made mandatory to ensure that those facilities which were not up to scratch delivered improvements and produced material which met the needs of their customers.
“I am delighted that ministers have listened to the ESA and are proposing a system of mandatory sampling”
Matthew Farrow, ESA
The code and mandatory approach was also welcomed by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM), the professional body for waste and recycling professionals.
CIWM chief executive Steve Lee said the code was a good starting point to drive up standards.
Mr Lee commented: The proposed CoP and Action Plan include sampling, analysis and reporting requirements but do not go so far as to include a set of definitive quality standards that some may have been expecting. However, the Code and Plan supply a good starting point to drive standards through an industry that has the ability to achieve tremendous environmental benefits.
Resource Association
However, the Resource Association which represents material reprocessors and recyclers was more questioning in its response. While the Resource Association said it welcomed the launch of the long-awaited consultation and focus on improving material quality via statutory means it said that the proposals did not go far enough.
In particular, it questioned whether the lack of unannounced inspections would undermine the credibility of the whole code.
Under the governments proposals, MRFs must be inspected at least once per year by an independent inspector, but the inspections do not have to be unannounced.
Resource Association chief executive Ray Georgeson said: We remain unconvinced that the proposals for material sampling, auditing and inspection are sufficiently intense and robust to deliver the Governments stated aim of ensuring that commingled collection of dry recyclates followed by sorting at a MRF can deliver the requirements of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive to promote high quality recycling.
“We remain unconvinced that the proposals for material sampling, auditing and inspection are sufficiently intense and robust”
Ray Georgeson, Resource Association
He continued:We believed the proposed regime will be easily circumvented by rogue operators and the lack of unannounced inspection leaves the regime open to abuse. This fundamentally affects the credibility of the proposals … and we call on Defra and the ESA to consider again how to strengthen the regime without placing disproportionate burden on business.
Mr Georgeson said that a disproportionate cost burden was currently being carried by reprocessors due to poor material quality, which he said cost them at least 51 million.
And, he added that he hoped MRF operators would consider alternative proposals during the consultation.
Resource Association members include Aylesford Newsprint, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Bryson Recycling, UPM, Eco Plastics, Novelis, UPM, Smurfit Kappa Recycling and also local authorities in Kent through the Kent Waste Partnership.
Closed Loop
The Associations fears were echoed by plastic bottle recycling company, Closed Loop Recycling.
Like the Association, it welcomed the mandatory aspect of the MRF Code of Practice claiming that it is absurd to believe that the illegal exporters would join the scheme if voluntary.
However, it also called for unannounced audits, this time involving physical sampling.
Closed Loops chief executive Chris Dow said: We also believe that independent audits should be unannounced and should include physical sampling by the independent auditor. Without this check, illegal exporters would be able to create false but seemingly compliant sampling documentation. The audit might also include a holistic view of ISO systems documentation and customer feedback regarding quality.
Register for free to comment