LAWR

MRF Code of Practice under the microscope Defra's MRF Code of Practice was recently unveiled after a long wait. Resource Association chief executive Ray Georgeson gives his reaction to it. he MRF Regulations finally arrived after much discussion and consultation. They are intended by Government to contribute to the delivery of high quality recycling which should benefit reprocessors and also drive legal compliance with export regulations. At their heart, they build on the voluntary MRF Code of Practice which was initi- ated by ESA which by general acknowl- edgement had only had limited take up by MRF operators by virtue of being voluntary. The new Regulations place onto a stat- utory footing the requirement by MRF operators to collect and publish data on the profile of materials coming into a MRF, and also going out in terms of key materials (paper, glass, plastics and met- als). This is intended by Government to assist in establishing that the products of MRFs that derive from commingled collections enable compliance with the separate collection requirements of the revised Waste Framework Directive by in theory showing that separate collection equivalence has been achieved. It is the case that some UK MRFs can efficiently sort commingled materials and produce high quality recyclate. This is by no means the case for all MRFs, and reprocessors would argue that a majority do not deliver this. Because so much of the material flow from councils to repro- cessors now passes through a MRF, this is a real problem for many UK reproces- sors who have to carry the burden of the further clean-up costs of contaminated materials from many MRFs – estimated by us in 2012 at a conservative low of £15.67/tonne for our reprocessor mem- bers representing over half of UK capacity for the main materials. The original voluntary MRF Code of Practice itself was recognition by the industry that there was a problem to address. The picking up of the baton by Defra and the delivery of new regula- tion formalises recognition that there is a problem with MRF material quality that the market alone seems incapable of solving. I acknowledge that Defra have done well to deliver new regulation at all in what everyone recognises is a Government hostile to new regulations and which actively pursues a deregula- tory political agenda. That said, it is a disappointment to us that arguments made for tighter regulation in terms of the sampling regime needed at MRFs being necessary and in the interests of all parties in boosting recyclate quality and sifting out the rogue operators and poor practice were not successful. Credit though to Defra for ensuring that the new regime will have full transparency and all parties will be able for the first time to evaluate different MRFs performance and we will also have a far better handle on the reality of MRF reject rates. This is wholeheartedly applauded. In my view though, it is a real pity that the opportunity was lost to strengthen the sampling regime. Our considered and sincere view is that the regime enshrined in the legislation is too weak. It runs the risk of being easily circumvented by rogue operators and at the same time easily achieved by the mainstream opera- tors, some of whom have stated pub- licly they already sample at higher lev- els. Why therefore the mainstream MRF operators thought that our proposals for more intense levels of sampling were unworkable or too expensive remains a mystery. I do not believe their cost bur- den argument to be a strong one; once a sampling system is set up it is a marginal additional cost to conduct more samples. The danger for the mainstream MRF operators, Government and local authori- ties that use these services is that the data output from the new regime may not be sufficient to fully demonstrate compli- ance with Defra's regulations on separate collection requirements (that transposed the rWFD with amendment). It may also fail to achieve the reprocessor confidence in the MRF system and the real market transparency that Government stated were key objectives for the Regulations. Of course, the MRF is not the only point in the recycling supply chain where more action is needed to improve quality. For example, more needs to be done to improve household communications on collection schemes and dialogue between all stakeholders needs to improve. But even with all these actions, the key pinch point remains the MRF operation, which is why the principle behind the Regulations makes sense. Let's hope the practice behind the principle also proves to make sense. 20 Local Authority Waste & Recycling April 2014 T MAPPING THE MRF Retaining Wall Solutions Alfabloc Shuttabloc L-Bloc Concrete panels Betaloc XL POUNDFIELD PRODUCTS Manufacturers of pre-cast concrete products www.poundfield.com The Grove, Creeting St. Peter, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 8QG Tel: 01449 723150 Taper Bloc Poundfield LAWR ad 12/3/14 11:21 am Page 1

• Cover