Councils told to challenge contractors on income

But, local authorities might be missing out on the extra money if they fail to discuss this with their contractors, Ray Georgeson, chief executive of the Resource Association, suggested yesterday (March 12).

He was speaking at the ‘2014 Collection Conference’ held in Birmingham which also heard from two senior waste management industry representatives.

Mr Georgeson told delegates that his members had to pay an average of 15-16 to clean up material from the domestic waste stream before they could recycle it.

He said: The direct relationship between local authorities and the reprocessor has gone. The situation is not helped, there is a problem from both sides of having less understanding of each other. The reprocessors I am working with are very clear that the improvements in quality are reflected in the price.

Control

He also explained how the burden of cleaning up material had fallen to reprocessors in the UK and explained that they had lost control. Control has shifted over the past decades, now it is that UK reprocessors will take it [material from the domestic stream] because it is that or nothing.

In terms of the potential for legal action against local authorities or the Environment Agency as regulator of the TEEP system from next year, Mr Georgeson hoped that there would not be a court case.

The costs and a great big muddle have been left to us and the courts, the mess that Defra have left with us. Let us hope it isnt the courts.

He added that he hoped matters could be sorted out before getting to our learned friends.

And, he signalled that reprocessors will now take a further step forward in the quality and TEEP discussions by publishing their own quality specifications table and end user raw material contamination chart, due for publication in May. He noted: This is meant to be a constructive contribution to the thorny issue you are facing. However, he criticised the MRF regulations as being insufficiently robust for you to say that the production of council collection materials passed through a well-run MRF will meet the requirements under TEEP.

Viridor

Mr Georgesons presentation was followed by Herman Van Der Meij, director at Viridor Resource Management, who argued that MRFs are capable of producing a high quality recyclate from commingled material; he stated that Viridors MRFs recycle as much as 97% of the material that they receive.

And, although he said he was not trying to preach on behalf of commingling he questioned why some parties view commingling as a threat, adding that for many local authorities the switch to this system is largely driven by cost, as it is often the most cost effective system to run.

He also added that the waste sector had taken a leading role in the debate over quality, with the MRF Code of Practice having been developed out of an initiative originally started by the Environmental Services Association.

He said: Quality is a key driver for us, we invite councils to our MRFs and show them what we do with the material there. They need confidence that what we process, we recycle.

Anything that goes into our MRFs, around 97% is recycled, you will always have a little bit that cant be I dont know any facility in the world that gets 100% in and 100% out.

FCC Environment

Paul Dumpleton, head of regional development at waste management firm FCC, also highlighted the role of the MRF Code of Practice and that contractors would work with a variety of collection schemes. He said he recognised that collecting glass could be a particular challenge and that he would like to see the greater utilisation of bring banks for glass which would be a factor in helping to improve the quality of material collected in the UK.

Mr Dumpleton explained: The collection system needs to be fit for purpose, it doesnt matter whether it is box or bags. My personal view is that glass should be kept out of commingling, Britain lags a long way behind the rest of Europe on banks.