This was the message from the Environmental Services Association (ESA) in defence of MRF operators after criticism that costs for local authorities are increasing due to an industry crackdown on quality of recyclables coming into sorting facilities.
Regulations came into effect in 2014 which require operators of facilities processing more than 1,000 tonnes of dry recyclables per year to measure and report the quality of the input, output and residual waste streams every three months.
The regulations have been introduced to boost the quality of materials produced at MRFs, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) claiming they will also help in “promoting higher income from sale of quality recyclates”.
However, much of the impact of the regulations has fallen onto local authorities – with many across the country experiencing an increase in contamination claims by the contractors. Consequently higher fees or penalties are being levied on councils by operators with councils at the same time facing budget cuts and pressure to meet the UK’s 50% recycling target by 2020.
NLWA
Among a number of authorities to have reported an increase in reject rates is the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) which represents the seven boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham. The Authority has reported that reject rates at MRFs had risen as a result of increased levels of inspection by its two contractors – Biffa and Bywaters.
A waste prevention update presented by the NLWA in December stated: “As a result of the increased level of inspection and analysis at the MRFs more incoming loads have been rejected, and reported contamination rates have increased. The overall quality of materials being delivered as not yet measurably improved, nor has the number of loads rejected since September decreased.”
The Authority also noted that much of the value it derived from the sale of recyclates through a profit sharing agreement with its contractors had fallen, as the value of commodities has dipped over the last 12 months.
Derby
Derby city council, which witnessed the largest decrease in recycling of any English authority in 2014/15, dropping from 42% to 32%, has also blamed the decrease in part on the MRF Regulations.
The local authority claimed that it has seen an increase in the amount of material rejected by its contractor Biffa, as well as an increase in costs. When contacted by letsrecycle.com, Biffa was unable to comment on the Derby position.
A spokesperson for Derby council said: “We have had a small increase in fees to support the new code of practice. The new regulations are aimed at improving the quality of the recycled material and this has in turn increased the quantity of rejected material.”
One local authority recycling officer based in Scotland told letsrecycle.com that complying with reprocessor requirements is like handing contractors a “blank cheque”. He questioned whether the Regulations were being used to ‘subsidise’ costs elsewhere in the supply chain.
The officer, who preferred not to be named, said: “The MRF code of practice has had one unintended consequence as the audit process wasn’t fully thought through. I give the material to the MRF, they sample it and tell me what was rejected.
“It is essentially like giving them a blank cheque and saying ‘fill in the number that you want’.”
ESA
Commenting on the reported increase in reject rates from MRFs in the wake of the Regulations, Jakob Rindegren, recycling policy advisor at ESA, argued that “a central aspect of the Circular Economy is ensuring that collected recyclable materials meet the quality specifications of the manufacturing industry”.
“Improving quality was also a clearly stated aim of the MRF Regulations, which were part of Defra’s Quality Action Plan”
Jakob Rindegren
ESA recycling policy advisor
He added: “Improving quality was also a clearly stated aim of the MRF Regulations, which were part of Defra’s Quality Action Plan, and the most important element of this is ensuring that only materials of acceptable quality can enter the sorting facility.
“This is often helped by agreed input quality thresholds. ESA’s members are all working closely with their local authority partners on quality issues, which are generally well understood, but ESA welcomes further dialogue with the local authority organisations to address any concerns.”
Chris Jonas, director for strategic development at Viridor, added the company supports local authorities and customers who provide input material to its facilities via a ‘robust’ quality assurance programme.
He added: “We have welcomed the MRF Code of Practice regulations which formalise the programme and inspection process Viridor has had in place for a number of years.”
Register for free to comment