by Peter Jones
5 minute read
It’s hard to predict the exact outcome of the Campaign for Real Recycling’s (CRR) current judicial review of Defra’s latest attempt to transpose the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) into UK law. The indications are that Defra is at last looking for a resolution to the great debate over whether commingled waste collection amounts to “separate collection” of the key recycling streams as required by the Directive, and perhaps this central point will be conceded.
The question of what Defra might do, given the pressures they are under, has already been examined by Phillip Ward in a couple of articles on Isonomia. But I’m interested in what victory for CRR would really mean for the practice of waste collection.
Clearly, commingled collection wouldn’t disappear from the UK over night – it is too ingrained, too much dictated by the contracts and vehicles and infrastructure that waste collectors have bought into. But will we see a hasty, disorderly and expensive rush to kerbside sorted collections in order to meet the 2015 deadline for implementing separate collections for paper, metal, plastic and glass? Or might things work out rather differently?
The genuine article
Article 11 of the rWFD requires that Member States shall “take measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, shall set up separate collections of waste where technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors.” If the UK is unable to maintain the line that commingled collection is in itself equivalent to separate collection, this allows plenty of avenues for further debate.
After all, the rWFD guidance does explicitly allow commingled collection “if the aim of high-quality recycling can be achieved just as well” as through separate streams. While the document doesn’t have legal standing, it would certainly influence any court’s interpretation of the directive. Elsewhere the guidance states that commingled collection would be in line with Article 11 “if subsequent separation can achieve high-quality recycling similar to that achieved with separate collection”. It goes on to explain that this “usually excludes co-mingled collection of bio-waste and other ‘wet‘ waste fractions with dry fractions such as e.g. paper.”
The difference between “similar to” and “just as well” in the two quotes above is irritating, since the former seems to allow more leeway than the latter. However, I suspect that in practice the key test might be whether the resulting separated material met the requirements of reprocessors and was easily saleable. This might well exclude any mixing of glass with other materials – whether paper, recyclables or organics – where this degrades the quality of recyclates, and means the glass can only be used for aggregate. But if a really good standard of separation can be achieved, as with metals and plastics, the guidance appears to allow commingled collection, regardless of any other considerations.
Nevertheless, any local authority that relied wholly on the rWFD guidance when making a multi-million pound decision about how to collect waste for years ahead would perhaps feel a bit vulnerable – so is there any comfort to be found in the Directive itself? The main place to look, and the likely source of major arguments in the future, is the question of when separate collection is or is not “technically, environmentally and economically practicable” (TEEP). We might ask, where is the “TEEPing point” at which separate collection becomes practicable?
TEEP learning curve
Critical considerations that would determine this haven’t yet been properly explored. For example, who does the collection system have to be TEEP for, and against what criteria? Focusing on household waste – commercial waste raises still other considerations – the only approach I think is workable is to consider the actual circumstances of the authority. How much would separate collection cost them, what resources do they have available and how might extra costs impact on their other services?
Separate collection will almost always be environmentally and technically possible for authorities letting new household contracts, at least if they are able to spend what is needed to resolve any issues (e.g. addressing limited space for containers by using stacking boxes). Economic practicability is likely to be the main point of controversy.
If council wants to procure a commingled collection (which some argue is more popular with voters) it will need to show that that the question of TEEP has been closely examined and solid evidence used to decide that separate collection just isn’t financially practicable. This might involve making sure the tender asks bidders to put forward both a kerbside sort and a commingled option, so that a clear financial comparison can be made.
If the commingled collection option was found to be a lot cheaper, a risky but possible strategy is to argue that this makes it the only economically practicable option for a cash strapped authority. However, a Eunomia report for the Welsh Government found commingled collection actually to be more expensive – around 4.3% at current recycling rates, rising to 22% as performance improves. An economic case for commingling is unlikely to be straightforward.
What about authorities that aren’t yet looking to tender their service? Must they change collection method mid contract? It seems to me that the substantial unbudgeted costs of a new fleet and containment, and the potential impact of diverting funds from other services, would be an interesting starting point for an argument about the economically practicability of switching collection models.
While the eventual transposition of the rWFD may embody a further move towards the CRR’s position, I suspect this will move the argument on rather than killing it off. Authorities, collectors and processors have a great deal invested in commingled collection, and a plethora of arguments remain to be had about what exactly is “practicable”. The courts should expect to see a fair bit more action before the dust settles.
Both the article and Paul’s comment are very interesting.
Having listened to Colin Church (Defra Director) at the APSRG meeting on Quality on 23 October. It is clear that it is clear that Defra has an explicit objective of preserving the co-mingled collection option as a main stream choice for local authorities and waste companies. They accept that if they are going to do that they will have to demonstrate comparable quality through their quality action plan.
A key part of this will be new environmental permitting regulations which will require MRF’s to sample input and output materials and to publish results – but will not set quality targets. When I asked him about this, Colin argued that setting targets for lots of different materials and keeping them up to date would be bureaucratically clumsy and could easily lag behind what the market needed.
There may be something in this (although it could be overcome if there was the will) but it does not explain why there is no move to at least set minimum standards which would have the effect of reforming or closing those MRFs which are doing an unacceptable job. The answer may lay in the opposition of the ESA which is implacably opposed to setting standards. This is odd since it is at their instigation that the Code of MRF practice is being made mandatory in the first place to prevent free riders. Maybe that was as far as they could get in achieving consensus and this is another example of the lowest common denominator advice which inevitable comes from Trade Associations.
So it seems the intended mechanism is that as a result of transparency the poor performers will be pressured to up their game by local authorities and others who send waste to be sorted. I find total scepticism about this among reprocessors – not least because the requirements for the measurement of performance are expected to be very slack.
My own feeling is that if the JR fails and we won’t know that until next year. Local authorities will still have a major problem. I think they will have to at least show that they have properly considered separate collections – and that must include having it as an option in tenders. They will have to take much more notice of what happens to their material after collection because they will be responsible for demonstrating that it has been sorted to the same level as a separate collection would achieve – the absence of a quality standard will stop them relying on the MRF’s permit. And let’s not forget their separate and existing duty under the waste hierarchy to show that their material is handled in accordance with it unless justified by life cycle thinking. Something else on which guidance from Defra is still awaited.
Good article Peter
Even if the CRR don’t win, in terms of meeting the high quality material test, the end of waste criteria are looking like making fully commingled collections impossible. It’s already apparent that previous commingling evangelical enthusiasts are now proposing separate glass in tenders, and it’s clear single stream is definitely out. This already raises a few questions around the impact of the supposed simplicity of commingled collection as you are already asking residents to sort into two containers. Most fully kerbside sort schemes rarely ask for separation into more than 3 containers.
Then there’s the H&S issues of large volumes of separate glass. If it’s fortnightly you will have heavy boxes. Ironically the increase in frequency and material range in kerbside sort schemes means that box weight has come down a hugely for the fortnightly paper and glass dominated early schemes. In addition noise for collecting separate glass in a twin pack rcv or pod vehicle will be likely to exceed the safe working levels.
If its broadly accepted that glass will have to be collected separately, then I think the fibre/container split is probably the minimum that domestic collections will be able to get away with, mixed paper and card and mixed plastic and cans. This three stream system is then getting pretty close to a full kerbside sort.
The “what happens next?” question is an interesting one. As you point out, all things being equal a kerbside sort system will generally be cheaper than a commingled collection. The gap rises as food waste is added and as you say higher diversion is needed. I think both things are clearly the direction of travel, even in England. So the question then becomes about making the jump and the costs of doing this quickly to meet the 2015 targets. My view is that there would be a fair argument for a council that is two years into a commingled contract to say that TEEP test came into play at further down the line, maybe after the vehicles have been written off. A pragmatic approach might be for government to require councils to change as soon as financially sensibly in its capital replacement period, but no later than say 2018.
That said, Chester City introduced a blue wheeled bin commingled system, but retendered its service and found it substantially cheaper to implement a full kerbside sort service, even with the cost of writing off a MRF and lots of blue bins. The blue bins were removed last month and initial reports are of a significant increase in recycling rates.
I suppose the biggest issue is for a council that has agreed to implement a commingled household service whilst the JR process has been ongoing. I’m not sure that’s a place I’d like to even consider.