WEEE compliance money ‘could go to councils’

Speaking at last week’s letsrecycle.com conference on the Recycling of WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment), John Redmayne, general manager of compliance scheme ERP, said the option to give councils the money raised by the fee was being looked at.

The fee is imposed on schemes which have been unable to collect enough evidence for the recycling of a particular type of WEEE product, which can range from small electrical items through to cookers and washing machines.

Unlike Landfill Tax money which goes to the Treasury, the compliance fee receipts are kept away from government and for the 2014 compliance period the system is being run by accountancy firm Mazars.

The fee was introduced under what has become known as the “mark 2” approach to WEEE recycling introduced last year, after concerns that the old system was both more costly and advantageous to some sectors of the system.

No indication of the amount which will be raised by the fee for 2014 has yet emerged and the rate at which it has been set for some items has already caused an element of controversy.

It was revealed at the conference that the fee for large domestic appliances (LDA), which includes washing machines but not fridges, has been set at £0 (zero) for 2014. This means that any compliance schemes which had insufficient evidence of LDA recycling, according to their obligation, faced no financial penalty.

Discussion of the fee setting for 2014 at the event came after senior BIS official Steve Andrews had said that the Department would be looking at the fee which had been set for 2014 and its impact. (For more of Mr Andrews’ presentation and the WEEE conference, see letsrecycle.com story).

Safety valve

Dr Philip Morton, chief executive of the Repic compliance scheme, told delegates that the compliance fee is a “safety valve in the system and is a legitimate way of calculating that system”.

He also praised the new WEEE system for “saving £20 million. That has got to be a good thing and will ultimately feed through to consumers.”
And, Dr Morton added: “Contrary to what Steve [Andrews] suggested this morning I would suggest the fee was a good one.”

The Repic chief also argued that under the new system, all WEEE made available is collected and treated and that local authorities could ask a scheme to collect WEEE if they don’t have a producer compliance scheme.

John Redmayne, general manager of producer compliance scheme ERP, commented on the organisation’s work with local authorities. And, he emphasised that to meet the increasing targets for future years, “we will need to keep shaking the tree with households, getting them to put WEEE into the system and into the right place at civic amenity sites or kerbside collections.”

Mr Redmayne said there would be changes this year in the local authority sector and remarked that his team was very busy because the local authority tendering process “is very much back on”.

The ERP general manager said that most of the local authority tenders are in line with the code of practice and most were taking “an active interest in what compliance scheme demand for WEEE is and there is very little appetite for self-management of WEEE.”

The existence of the compliance fee hasn’t changed the fundamental dymanics of the system, added Mr Redmayne.

Security

Simon Potter, business director of DHL Envirosolutions, explained to delegates how resource security and environment protection are having a significant impact for customers.

“Our customers,” said Mr Potter, “are interested in the operation of the reverse supply chain, how they can be more waste compliant, and they want to move to zero to landfill with more recycling.”

He added that DHL’s customers are also very clear they don’t want any exposure in terms of their own brand and that there is “pressure to take back product after end of 1st life”.

Market

Giving a view from an AATF, Sean Feeney, chief executive of Environcom, said that the compliance scheme trading changes have had a minimal impact on AATFs. He highlighted Sims’ resturcturing within its WEEE division, saying that it showed the difficulties in the market and claimed that “the WEEE recycling industry had begun a slide to a fight to the bottom.”

[testimonial id = “242” align=”right”]

Mr Feeney showed delegates pictures of the CRT glass left at a site after a business had folded, “which could hold almost 10% of the UK’s, 3,500 tonnes at least”. He asked whether schemes who had sent glass there would help fund the clean-up, with the landlord having to send the glass back to North West England for processing.”
He added: “We all have a responsibility to do the right thing. The evidence issued stands, that evidence has been used.”

Traceability

Responding, Justin Greenaway of WEEE reprocessor SWEEEEP, said he would like to see full traceability downstream of materials in the system.  For ERP, John Redmayne, said that the scheme audited sites handling materials; while Phil Morton of Repic said the problems had arisen under the old WEEE system in the past – “when buying evidence, we had no idea of the processes behind that.”

The event also heard from Bruce Reekie, waste services and community greenspace manager at Perth and Kinross council. He highlighted the advantages of running a WEEE scheme using a local treatment facility.

He praised the compliance scheme Electrolink for its support. And, this involvement has helped the council, for example, carry out education programmes with local students covering design of products and the importance of resources, such as a rare earth minerals.