LAWR

October 2014 Local Authority Waste & Recycling 25 Getting a head start on MRF Code of Practice The Government has a vision to banish poor quality recyclate and improve transparency with its new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Code of Practice. But what will its impact be on the supply chain? Victoria Hutchin and Dr Adam Read find out. he new requirements to report on MRF mate- rial quality are fast approaching, with the first reporting period commencing this month. Local authori- ties must be mindful of this date, and ensure that their own systems (where facilities are operated in-house), and those of their processing contractors, are both robust in nature and fully operation- al to commence sampling this month. Whilst the responsibility to comply lies solely with the facility, there could be significant consequences for authori- ties who use private facilities for the pro- cessing of their materials, if the facility fails to comply; the worst case scenario being that the site's permit is revoked, and any collected materials have to find a new outlet. Input quality Local authorities should be scrutinising the data provided by their MRF operators to critically assess whether it delivers the required level of information, and assessing how they could best use this data going forward to improve input quality of the materials. These amended regulations undoubt- edly have cost implications associated with them, particularly for those facili- ties not currently testing material qual- ity. The Impact Assessment's (which formed part of the consultation docu- ments issued last year), estimated annual labour costs, plus the annual fee payable to the regulatory bodies (Environment Agency (EA)/Natural Resources Wales), could equate to between £2 and £14 per tonne, depending on the size of the facility. Authorities utilising small MRFs (pro- cessing around 1,000 tonnes per annum), where the costs of complying with the legislation are disproportionately high, may find that the economic benefits of a commingled collection system are for the first time outweighed by the addi- tional costs of material testing. As authorities undertake their TEEP analyses, to ensure compliance with the revised Waste Regulations by January 2015, the future additional costs of pro- cessing commingled material will have to be factored into their evaluations of 'economic practicability'. This could have a significant impact on the preferred collection option in any authority area, one that may come as quite a surprise to some officers and elected members alike! Testing requirements The core purpose of implementing the new MRF testing requirements was to address a market failing, and if the result of these new measures is an improvement in material quality, as hoped, there may be an increase in income for the materials generated. However, if improved material qual- ity occurs across the board, it could be argued that average pricing from the market as a whole may change very lit- tle; with reprocessors no longer needing to pay a premium for high quality, nor pay low prices (or even make charges) for low quality. As a consequence, MRFs who are able to significantly improve their qual- ity may see an increase in their income, sufficient enough to offset the cost of compliance. It appears that the amended regula- tions may have created some unintend- ed consequences for local authorities, insofar as the definition of 'Materials Facilities' encompasses those mixing only two materials; provided that this accounts for 50% of their inputs, they are a permit holder processing at least 1,000 tonnes; and are sorting materials on-site for the purposes of selling them or send- ing them for recycling. This suggests that there may be local authorities with source-separated sys- tems involving the mixing of only two materials at the kerbside, and later sort- ing at their own facilities, who will need to comply. This may be an even bigger shock for some local authority officers and elected members! Despite the fact that the first reporting period for the regulations commences this month, the formal Environment Agency inspection period doesn't com- mence until summer 2015. The EA has stated that it intends to take a 'light touch' approach to enforcing the new requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations, utilising existing resources. Given that these officers will seemingly also be responsible for ensuring compliance with TEEP, in addition to their existing duties, it appears that they have their work cut out. Time will tell whether the current measures are tough enough to correct the perceived market failing. Given the EA's relatively 'hands-off' approach to enforc- ing this, the issue may not be whether the regulations have gone far enough, but whether the EA takes a firm enough approach to policing them. Victoria Hutchin and Dr Adam Read are resource management consultants at Ricardo-AEA Resource Efficiency and Waste Management. T MAPPING THE MRF

• Cover