Timberpak Pearce, Grundon, Levenseat, N&P, Sherbourne and Yorwaste have jointly written to Defra Secretary of State Angela Eagle, asking for a “whole-system review” of its potential impact on existing recycling services.
Collectively, the operators run seven facilities, process more than 900,000 tonnes of kerbside-collected recycling each year and serve communities with a combined population of more than 8.4 million.
The letter said that while the group supports the objectives of increasing recycling, improving material quality and reducing litter, DRS should not proceed until its interaction with extended producer responsibility for packaging (pEPR), Simpler Recycling, TEEP assessments and changing collection systems has been properly evaluated.
The operators are asking the Government to pause the current implementation programme and commission a “time-limited, transparent whole-system review” before confirming a revised timetable.
The MRF operators pointed to recent Government decisions to postpone mandatory plastic film collections and delay the extension of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to waste incineration.
They argued that these decisions demonstrated a principle that major environmental reforms should not proceed until policy design is settled, financial and operational consequences are understood, and affected organisations have sufficient time to prepare.
The letter added: “We believe DRS should be assessed against the same standard.”
Impact on MRFs
The letter warns that DRS could create a parallel collection system, removing PET bottles and aluminium beverage cans from established kerbside services while leaving councils and MRF operators responsible for the containers that continue to enter the recycling stream.
It said these materials are relatively small by weight but “disproportionately important to commodity income” and the economics of processing wider dry mixed recycling streams.
The operators also pointed to the cumulative effect of DRS alongside separate fibre collections and other changes to recycling services.
They argued that removing material from co-mingled streams could increase unit processing costs, weaken investment confidence and reduce the resilience of domestic recycling infrastructure.
The letter stated: “We have not seen a published assessment that adequately quantifies these cumulative effects.”
Containers remaining in kerbside
The letter also cited international examples suggesting that around 20% of in-scope containers could continue to enter kerbside collections, asking whether producers would fund the collection, sorting and recycling of those materials, or whether the costs would instead fall on councils, operators and ultimately residents.
The operators also raise concerns about the effect of removing beverage cans on the remaining aluminium stream.
They argued that the removal of cans could increase the relative concentration of aerosols and other pressurised or potentially hazardous items, with implications for fire risk, waste classification, storage, handling and marketability.
Reprocessing capacity
The operators further questioned whether there will be sufficient UK reprocessing capacity and end markets for the material collected through DRS.
They acknowledged that the scheme could increase the quantity and quality of separately collected PET, but say this does not guarantee that the material will be reprocessed domestically.
“Current domestic food-grade PET capacity appears insufficient to process the volumes expected from DRS,” the letter states, warning that this could result in significant quantities being exported.
The six operators have asked Defra to publish an updated cumulative impact assessment covering DRS, pEPR, Simpler Recycling, TEEP-driven changes and separate fibre collections.
They also want a review group established involving independent MRF operators, local authorities, reprocessors, producers, retailers and regulators.
The group is additionally calling for clarity on the funding of in-scope containers that remain in kerbside collections, as well as the regulatory position for residual aluminium streams.
Register for free to comment