Recycling collection rule change not adequate

Proposed revisions to rules covering recycling collections have been labelled by reprocessors and environmental campaigners as not adequate.

The criticism from the two groups is over the revised Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 put out for consultation in February 2012 by Defra and the Welsh Government. The Regulations require councils to introduce separate collection of paper, plastic, metals and glass by 2015 in line with the European revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) (see letsrecycle.com story).

The revision stems from a dispute as to whether the UK had correctly interpreted EU rules over the separate collection of recycling and whether commingled collections using materials recycling facilities were acceptable.

The original Waste (England and Wales) Regulations contained a clause stating that commingled collections could count as a form of separate collection. However, following a legal challenge from a group of material reprocessors (see letsrecycle.com story) this clause was removed.

Defra and the Welsh Government are seen as still giving a choice of commingled or separate collection in the revised legislation and have now put a new clause in covering separate collections. The heart of the change in the amended regulations is that separate collections will be required where technically, environmentally and economically practicable (TEEP) and necessary to meet the appropriate quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors.

Resource Association

Despite the proposed changes, the Resource Association which represents a mix of reprocessors, local authority waste partnerships, major brands and collection companies – has expressed concern that they do not go far enough.

The Association said it appreciated that commingled collection would no longer be treated as a form of separate collection but insisted the wording was still not the wording set out in the revised Waste Framework Directive.

The Association stressed that it was not opposed to commingled collection of materials per se but wanted to promote the collection of quality material for use by reprocessors.
It said: The wording proposed does not adequately transpose the requirements of the rWDF.

Of paramount concern is the proposal in the amended Regulations to switch necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors as specified in Article 11(1) of the rWFD to appropriate quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors as stated in your proposal.

We believe that this significant switch of wording only adds to the uncertainty and confusion in the recycling supply chain, and has the effect of diminishing the critical importance of quality standards… It leaves us in the circumstances in which we feel we are left with no alternative at this stage other than to reject the Defra proposal.

The Association suggested that Defra and the Welsh Government should consider reverting to the exact wording of the rWFD and consider the approach taken by the Scottish Government in terms of regarding commingled collection as a form of derogation and consider that commingled collection would only have a role if material quality remains as would be if items were collected separately by material type.

FoE

Friends of the Earth agreed in its response that the re-wording of draft Regulation 13 was not an adequate transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive.

We urge you to change the words necessary and appropriate in the Regulations back to the order and context in which they appear in Article 11 [of the rWFD], it said.

In our view it does not appear to reflect the (albeit required) requirement in the Directive for separate collection.

But, unlike the Resource Association, the organisation was unabashed in its support for separate collections – claiming there was no need for commingled collections as separate collections were TEEP throughout the UK.

It said: As clear evidence, we point to the fact that around half of the UKs local authorities, covering all demographic types and a wide range of terrains, geographies and socio-economic mixed of population, are already carrying out separate collections, much like those required by 2015.

Association

Despite criticising the Defra and Welsh Government proposals in its consultation response, the Resource Association said that it agreed with the governments wider aim to promote high quality recycling.

With this in mind, it welcomed the commitment by Defra to produce a new Quality Action Plan and its stated intention to look at making the MRF code of practice compulsory.

The Association whose members include Aylesford Newsprint, Smurfit Kappa Recycling, May Gurney, Coca-Cola Enterprises and Novelis Recycling said: We therefore believe the onus is on MRF operators to demonstrate that their technology can produce the quality the UK reprocessors need to maintain a health manufacturing industry.

Local authorities have also called for guidance concerning amendments that will require material to be collected seperately where ‘technically, environmentally and economically practicable’ (see letsrecycle.com story).