SEPA details export contamination stance

The regulator reiterated its stance on contamination in waste for export in a detailed post on its website yesterday (July 1), in which it underlined its commitment not to stipulate a maximum limit for an acceptable level of contamination in a load.

“Neither the UK nor the EC regulations specify a contamination limit and a Scottish limit may differ from the position taken by receiving countries,” the regulator stated.

In the statement, SEPA goes on to claim that there are likely to be practical difficulties in enforcing a limit without a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to contamination in the form of non-dry recyclable material. This would become impractical and onerous for both industry and the regulator to measure, the regulator claims.

It adds: “We are willing to work with materials recycling facilities (MRFs) and waste brokers to provide specific guidance on whether the bales of waste they produce for export are suitable. This would involve our officers arranging to sample representative waste produced by a specific MRF to provide a view as to its suitability for export.”

Concerns

SEPA official Colin Murrow heard concerns from the recycling industry over what some in the sector see as a lack of a prescribed and consistent limit for contamination, at a seminar hosted by the Recycling Association last month (see letsrecycle.com story). Exporters also voiced frustration over a perceived ‘zero tolerance approach from SEPA to contamination in waste paper bales.

In yesterday’s web post, SEPA acknowledged that it had increased and focussed enforcement action on green list waste exports, but denied that it is taking a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to contamination. It added that of 100 containers inspected in 2014, 75 were allowed to leave the country despite visible signs of contamination.

The SEPA statement continued: “SEPA has never taken a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to green list waste shipments. We aim to target higher risk loads and assess each based on the quantity and nature of the contamination. We then take a considered view as to the most proportionate course of action which can range from the provision of advice, through to warnings, statutory notices and, in the worst cases, referral to the procurator fiscal.

“Our formal enforcement action is not focussed on a few aluminium cans in a load of waste cardboard; in the worst cases we have uncovered evidence of gross contamination with food waste, hazardous waste, electrical waste and dirty nappies mixed with green list waste.”