Wayne Priestly, APSE’s principal advisor for environmental services looks at its recent survey results on waste collection and recycling, how its respondents had responded to TEEP and just what that means…
At the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE), we recently carried out a survey with our members on issues affecting refuse collection and recycling across the UK. One of the key pieces of information which came out of the survey was the reaction of local authorities to the demands of the “Technically, Environmentally and Economically Practicable” (TEEP) regulations.
The TEEP regulations aim to improve the quantity and, more importantly, the quality of materials sent to material reclamation facilities (MRFs). They seek to ensure that reprocessors and manufacturers will be more assured that the materials they will eventually receive will be usable in their reprocessing activities.
The future challenge now facing local authorities is not only one of increasing the tonnages of the materials collected, but also ensuring that the quality of those materials is as high as possible at a time when resources are shrinking.
Initially, there was concern that the collecting of recyclables via a commingled collection system would not meet the quality standards demanded by TEEP, and that the only alternative would be to introduce the separate collection of materials, most likely through a kerbside box or bin system.
The main concern was that such large scale changes would cost local authorities to adapt or change systems that they may already have in place. However, European guidance states that “the aim of separate collection is high-quality recycling, the introduction of a separate collection system is not necessary if the aim of high-quality recycling can be achieved just as well with a form of co-mingled collection.”
This clear statement has meant that many local authorities have argued that their system of collection can deliver quality recyclables without the need for separate collections. APSE’s survey backs this view up by showing that, of the local authorities answering the survey, over 82% operate co-mingled collections, and of the remaining, many operate a mixture of both source- separated and co-mingled, for example paper and card separate, whilst cans, plastics and glass are co-mingled.
Within all of this, of course, we are seeing differences emerge within the UK, with respective Government administrations adopting a more vigorous approach to recycling. In Wales, this takes the form of incentivisation, whilst in Scotland it has been by regulation. The devolved administrations recycling rates continue to increase, whilst in England it appears to have stalled.
From a tonnage point of view, 2.6m out of a total 3.9m tonnes collected at the kerbside in the UK comes from commingled collections (Environment Agency 2016). This ability to be assured of quality materials is very much down to the improvements in the material separating technology used in many of the UK’s MRFs.
Also, by collecting commingled materials, the authority reduces the number of collection vehicles required. Therefore, fewer journeys are needed, reducing the environmental and economic impact. On the other hand, it could be argued that higher quality recycling and waste reduction would ultimately produce even better environmental outcomes.
EA Wants A Move Towards Separate Collections
At a recent APSE National Advisory Group, a representative of the Environment Agency, which has responsibility to ensure local authorities comply with TEEP, said that they were happy with many of the arrangements being carried out by local authorities. However, they would hope that whenever possible (for example, when a new contract is being discussed or new vehicles procured), local authorities would move towards collecting materials separately.
In their view, the quality improvement would result in higher prices being paid, which would benefit the authority, particularly at a time when local authority budgets are being squeezed. Yet, at the same meeting, a local authority waste manager raised a note of caution, stating that many residents did not like separate waste collections, as they were confused about what materials were being collected and on which day.
It seems that re-introducing separate collections could see a reduction in recycling rates, which is what local authorities are measured against rather than the quality of materials collected.
It seems that re-introducing separate collections could see a reduction in recycling rates, which is what local authorities are measured against rather than the quality of materials collected.
Bearing in mind the importance of the quality of materials collected, it was suggested that perhaps levels of contamination rates should also be included in the compliance regulations, where levels of contamination above a certain percentage would signify that a collection authority was non-compliant. This would have the effect of forcing local authorities to address those areas where contamination levels were the highest. Of course, MRFs already refuse to accept materials contaminated over a certain percentage, which then need to be disposed of using a costlier approach.
Overall, it does appear that the quality of materials being collected via co-mingled collection is currently producing materials of an acceptable quality, and the Environment Agency accepts that kerbside co-mingled collections are likely to remain the favoured collection method for some years to come, primarily due to existing arrangements and contracts. Any future moves towards source-segregated collections will clearly lead to demands for additional resources, and funding to make that switch viable.
However, the most recent EU discussion on recycling rates suggest that targets for recycling should be increased to 70% by 2030, and that the TEEP regulations should be removed as they may be preventing the establishment of separate waste collections. Yet it appears that the real focus is on reducing contamination as much and possible. As such, consideration is being given by the EU to separate collections as a mandatory requirement.
Ultimately, whichever route is taken will require significant behavioural change and awareness-raising campaigns. APSE explored ways of doing this in parks and public realms in a research publication called ‘Park Life, Street Life’, which can be downloaded from the APSE website. Though not specifically directed at refuse services, the techniques used to change the behaviours of communities could be of significant use the local authorities seeking to raise the quality of the materials they collect. Perhaps the funding for such schemes could be gained from the increased levels of income brought about by the collection of increasingly better quality recyclable materials.
The future challenge now facing local authorities is not only one of increasing the tonnages of the materials collected, but also ensuring that the quality of those materials is as high as possible at a time when resources are shrinking.
