LAWR

February 2015 Local Authority Waste & Recycling 11 WASTE COLLECTION Establishments and undertakings understandably always seek to provide best value, particularly in these austere times −but providing an affordable solu- tion may not always be TEEP compliant. Under the Waste Framework Directive the UK and other EC Member States must meet a target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. In addition to this, EU policy aims to increase this to 70% by 2030. There are currently no statutory requirements for recycling rates for local authorities in England. However, the Welsh Government has already exceeded the 2020 goal in 2013/14 with a 54% recycling rate. This has been achieved through the collection of food waste, source separated collec- tion and the education of the public. In contrast England is behind this with a 44.2% recycling rate in 2013/14. In England, the majority of high recycling local authorities collect com- mingled waste. The public find it easy and convenient to commingle waste in wheeled bins and for it then to be sorted at a materials recovery facility (MRF). The top recycling authority in England in 2013/14 was South Oxfordshire District Council which achieved a 66% recycling rate from commingled col- lections which includes glass bottles in wheeled bins. This is not far off the EU 70% proposed rate for 2030. However, as identified by Lord de Mauley in his October 2013 letter to local authorities, the issue for high qual- ity materials from MRFs is keeping glass shards out of the paper steam. In contrast, for source-separated collections the key issue is the cost of produc- ing high quality recyclable materials in comparison with commingled collec- tions. Local authorities in England who have lower rates from their source separat- ed approach to recycling have higher treatment and disposal cost. The whole waste management cost should be con- sidered across two-tier authorities, and not just the cost of waste collection and recycling, or treatment and disposal. The way ahead Commingled waste collection is likely to be compliant with the Regulations if the establishments and undertak- ing has documentary evidence that the recyclable materials meet the Resource Association materials recovery facil- ity (MRF) quality specification, sample specification and contamination value requirements. The contamination limits in the qual- ity specification are considered high, ranging from 0% for steel cans and dis- posal nappies, to 6% for plastic bottles. A MRF with only an average 3% con- tamination rate is operating pretty well and is producing high quality recyclable materials as required by the Regulations. While achieving an average 3% con- tamination rate at a MRF is achievable in more affluent areas, such as South Oxfordshire, where the public who have time and space to consider the quality and quantity of their recycling, it's much more difficult to achieve in deprived inner city areas where contamination rates can be significantly greater than 3%, even with source separated col- lection. SLR has examples of this but understandably these local authorities do not wish to be highlighted for this. This all suggests that TEEP issues for commingled collection will run for a while − at least until precedent is made by the EA and/or the courts. While moving towards a circular economy will help deliver high quality, high rate recycling there is no doubt there is a significant economic cost. The dilemma for councils will be finding the equilibrium between producing high quality materials at a high recycling rate and affordability. Nevertheless, it should still be cheaper to produce TEEP compliant materials than treat them and dispose to landfill. Bob Couth is technical director at SLR Consulting. TEEP issues for commingled collection will run for a while − at least until precedent is made by the EA and/or the courts, according to SLR's Bob Couth.

• Cover